|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
10 Jun 2019, 16:08 (Ref:3909135) | #126 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
Quote:
if you allow for a more nuanced approach, then arent you just pushing it all on down the line and putting the next steward in some off in the future race in an even more difficult position to make the 'right call'? arguably we are in this mess because history has already given driver/teams too much freedom in pleading their cases. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
10 Jun 2019, 16:12 (Ref:3909138) | #127 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,505
|
Quote:
I also feel though, that the stewards were correct in awarding the punishment under the current regulations. I appreciate it is impossible to write a set of regulations to cover any eventuality. But I also feel that, as is the case with precedents in legal circles, that once an issue with a situation has been identified that the regulations do not adequately cover then they should be reviewed. In this case, Vettel unfortunately is the individual to whom the regulations are written has lost out. The same happens with technical matters. Teams introduce something that is within the letter of the regulation, but maybe against the spirit. The regulation is amended to handle the situation, and the teams adapt. They don't go back though and amend previous results. In this case, Vettel received a penalty that could be argued is against the spirit of that regulation. The regulation could be amended, and then drivers in a similar situation in future would not be penalised. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
10 Jun 2019, 16:21 (Ref:3909142) | #128 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,087
|
As predicted, the conversation has gotten very silly.
|
|
|
10 Jun 2019, 16:22 (Ref:3909144) | #129 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,442
|
Quote:
To repeat: you can have consistent application of the rules or you can have judgement calls. You cannot have both. I also repeat: this was Vettel's fault, no-one else's. He made the mistake under pressure, he went off the track, he paid the price. The result was fair. Vettel is also being given too much of a free pass for hist post-race behaviour. Can you even begin to imagine the tsunami of outrage and abuse which would fall on Hamilton should he strop like that? |
|||
__________________
I like taking pictures of cars going round tracks, through forests and up hills. |
10 Jun 2019, 18:35 (Ref:3909180) | #130 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,909
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Jun 2019, 18:47 (Ref:3909181) | #131 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,124
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Good rules are hard to write. The best rules include some level of "catch all" verbiage PLUS the ability for someone to make judgement calls as to where and when to call "foul". I would say that the "spirit of the rules" is a very close cousin to my "invisible boundary". Basically both define the same thing. Quote:
Quote:
My argument is that having to make those calls happens all the time in the sport. So I don't think its anything new or unusual. I would say it would be odd for it to not be happening. That is exactly why the Race Stewards exist. In the end... mistakes will be made when an individual or group of people are expected to make a judgement call. As I mention above, there tends to be an invisible boundary on these things. I think where the inconsistencies come from are... 1. Lack of understanding where those lines are. Both internally (within the Stewards) and external (communicated to the drivers) 2. Irregular application I expect #1 is the larger issue while we as fans maybe think it is #2. I think what will be interesting is what will come of this past weekend. Either it is accepted as is, or there might be some clarifications as to how to handle this in the future. Regardless, whatever happens, the location of that boundary will be clarified for this scenario. I tend to think that the powers that be do NOT think this was F1 at it's best from an application of the rules. It's a moot point as it's likely we may never know. Any clarification on how this should be done in the future will likely happen behind closed doors and with a desire to keep it away from the media. If the location of the invisible boundary is well known (Stewards, Drivers and even fans), then its much less likely for bad calls to be made and for everyone to be shocked by outcomes. If they ARE well known and then there is a bad call... Then that is more at situation #2 in which the are inconsistently applied. I am pretty much talked out on this. I have read some of the more recent articles about "why" this penalty was applied. Vettel turning to the right, looking in his mirrors, allowing the car to drift right, etc. I would say much of this reads like the prosecution building a story. Maybe the Stewards felt that they had to act like prosecutors (someone has to be guilty of something!) and less as arbitrators. Richard |
||||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
10 Jun 2019, 18:48 (Ref:3909183) | #132 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
That's a bit much. An actual collision would be penalized, to think otherwise is absurd. Anyway, a collision would likely result in a double DNF, which would render any possible in-race penalty moot.
And notice, Hamilton talked about the wall being there, rather than Vettel being in the way. You can write the subtext easily enough of "If I were in his place, I'd do what he did, and I'd do it again if the situation were repeated". At the end of the day, I don't think Hamilton himself finds what Vettel did to be truly in the wrong in racing terms. And I take issue with a lot of the comments that just trivialize or make arbitrary the idea of track limits. This includes Hamilton's comment about there being a wall there, but also the sentiment that the earlier move between the Racing Point and Haas at Turn 1 was "okay", because the Haas could just take to the run-off. If we're going to be strict about this, then run-off shouldn't matter in such a situation. If youcan't make the pass without running your opponent off the designated racing surface, you should have to give the place back. Incidentally, if there was a penalty to give in the Vettel/Hamilton thing, this one seems the most apt. And if my sentiment brings calls of "Well then they won't be able to pass because of x, y, z", well, then address the bloody elephant in the room, which would involve a proper clampdown on blocking, weaving, and overt defensive driving of various kinds. Then again, with racing drivers, such as their mentalities are, I'm not sure that anything short of an increased concern for possible bodily injury will lead to an honest change in behavior. And that would leave the remaining option, which even I don't really "like", as draconian enforcement of various driving standards rules. And clearly, the rule needs further clarification in writing. The intent had to do with drivers fully under control of their cars pulling back onto the circuit from the designated run-off. Brundle and co. brought up a scenario at the hairpin, giving a clear example of when the penalty would be warranted. If you need a concrete example of a situation where full enforcement would be absolutely correct, watch Paul Tracy try to re-enter the track at San Jose in 2006, and the resulting crash with Tagliani. Shoot, I'm glad this set of stewards wasn't overseeing the 1991 IMSA GTP race at New Orleans. Speaking of which, I don't want to see an F1 wet weather race until this has been better sorted. Last edited by Purist; 10 Jun 2019 at 18:59. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
10 Jun 2019, 19:45 (Ref:3909205) | #133 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,909
|
By far the most sensible conclusion I’ve seen so far. Taking all emotion out of it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803 One final thought, if it was the other way around, Hamilton went off and acted like Vettel did afterwards...how many of you would be defending him right now? |
||
|
10 Jun 2019, 20:00 (Ref:3909211) | #134 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,087
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Jun 2019, 20:12 (Ref:3909213) | #135 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,442
|
But presumably not those posters who called Hamilton a "thief" and a "whiny b!tch" who deserved a "smack in the mouth" for a single calm radio message, but who had nothing to say about Vettel's latest emotional meltdown and embarrassing public strop.
|
||
__________________
I like taking pictures of cars going round tracks, through forests and up hills. |
10 Jun 2019, 20:18 (Ref:3909218) | #136 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,941
|
Not fair perhaps, but possibly accurate....
|
||
__________________
280 days...... |
10 Jun 2019, 20:26 (Ref:3909221) | #137 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 854
|
Maybe the truth is, everyone is so desperate for any small semblance of racing that in the case (A FIGHT FOR THE LEAD!!!!) we are willing to overlook the regulations in their strictest interpretation?
Sad really. |
|
|
10 Jun 2019, 20:29 (Ref:3909222) | #138 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,087
|
I'd like to think that the majority of us just skip those posts without much thought.
|
|
|
10 Jun 2019, 20:51 (Ref:3909225) | #139 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,124
|
Quote:
I personally see a few groups who are fired up over this... 1. Hamilton fans who think he can do no wrong, and are upset other are upset at him or say he "got away with something" 2. Vettel fans who think can do no wrong, and are upset because he got shafted (regardless of who was wrong) 3. Fans who are upset the race was decided on a bogus ruling regardless of who got the win taken away. 4. Those that have a strong desire to see rules followed to the letter and without exception. (I am a "rules is rules" guy in general, but sorry, I say these people live in a fantasy world) There may be other camps. I am firmly in #3. Bad calls happen, bad calls that determine the race outcome (including the car that takes the checker being demoted) happen less frequently. Hence the outrage. Richard PS: I understand the Stewards can justify "why" they did what they did. I still think it was bogus however. Given a few hours, etc. anyone can justify actions like this. I am sure everyone in charge just wants this swept under the rug at this point. |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
10 Jun 2019, 21:13 (Ref:3909231) | #140 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,442
|
There is another group. Those who think that the decision was correct according to the rules and that the abuse and accusations being dished out to Hamilton and the stewards is both wildly inappropriate and distracts from the fact that it was Vettel's mistake - and Vettel's mistake alone - which cost him the win.
I am certainly not, as you patronisingly imply, a Hamilton fan who thinks he can do no wrong. I'm not a personal fan of any driver, I'm not a teenager with posters of my idols on my wall. I like Vettel, who comes across as a very pleasant, intelligent and funny person. I admire Hamilton, who I think is one of the very greatest F1 drivers of all time. I'd have been very happy for Vettel to win in Canada because he was the fastest all weekend and his win would have made the title race more interesting. But he lost because he yet again cracked under pressure, not because Hamilton complained on the radio or Emanuele Pirro doesn't know how to do his job. |
||
__________________
I like taking pictures of cars going round tracks, through forests and up hills. |
10 Jun 2019, 21:21 (Ref:3909232) | #141 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,114
|
When Vettel rejoins, one thing that is a fact is that there is a movement of the steering wheel to the right. What is questionable is whether that was to correct the car or to put the car on the racing line and defend the position.
Knowing what it is like to be a racing driver, I could well imagine it was purely instinct to steer right and position his car there. It may not have premeditated, nor might he have even been aware of it at the time. I wonder whether the stewards have looked at telemetry and determined that it was not a car-controlling correction but was an attempt to hold the line and therefore in lead to the following: 'Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision'. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...hGG6oYkZs.html |
|
|
10 Jun 2019, 21:56 (Ref:3909237) | #142 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,909
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Jun 2019, 22:20 (Ref:3909239) | #143 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,124
|
Quote:
You do include a group I missed, which are those who think the penalty was correct regardless who made the error. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
10 Jun 2019, 22:59 (Ref:3909240) | #144 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,033
|
I see we've got into the part where we are dismissing other's opinions based on who they might be a fan of. Is that hard to accept you just disagree with someone?
Last edited by Adam43; 11 Jun 2019 at 00:27. Reason: Grammar |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
10 Jun 2019, 23:38 (Ref:3909244) | #145 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,931
|
|||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
11 Jun 2019, 00:01 (Ref:3909245) | #146 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,909
|
Quote:
I’m simply saying that if Hamilton would have acted the way that Vettel did, he would have been crucified for it. |
|||
|
11 Jun 2019, 00:31 (Ref:3909248) | #147 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,124
|
Quote:
I could clarify my comments above if needed, but I don't want to stir the pot more than I have. People here have become offended and that wasn't my intent. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
11 Jun 2019, 00:47 (Ref:3909250) | #148 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,909
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
11 Jun 2019, 00:50 (Ref:3909251) | #149 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,033
|
No one specifically.
Quote:
All I am saying is that, just as it is not fair to be blindly biased, it is not fair to dismiss all other’s opinions by suggesting that they have come from who they support. Obviously that does happen. But here it is clear that for a lot of posters that is not the case. A minor point of discussion. Consider and move on. |
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
11 Jun 2019, 02:50 (Ref:3909268) | #150 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,033
|
So, anyway.
Are Ferrari appealing? https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...vettel-penalty I didn’t think that these kind of penalties could be appealed? |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Official] Spanish Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread | Born Racer | Formula One | 73 | 15 May 2019 13:59 |
[Official] Azerbaijan Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 4 of 21 | Born Racer | Formula One | 108 | 3 May 2019 14:37 |
[Official] Chinese Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 3 of 21 | Born Racer | Formula One | 114 | 26 Apr 2019 18:15 |
[Official] Bahrain Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 2 of 21 | Born Racer | Formula One | 158 | 5 Apr 2019 18:56 |
[Official] Australian Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 1 of 21 | Born Racer | Formula One | 182 | 22 Mar 2019 15:30 |