[Official] Austrian Grand Prix: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 9 of 21

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I wonder if the same thoughts are held about Leclerc after this race?

That Leclerc is a phony? I don't think he is. A little inexperienced? Yes.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There is too much inconsistency.

How does FI appoint the race stewards? Are they chosen from a pool, or is it more random than that?

If not a pool, a murky pond, perhaps......

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I agree...but nothing has changed between those 2 races. The rules are the same. No statement was made saying "Ok look, maybe we messed up". So why is the result different?

Because they are both borderline cases, applying rules to different sets of facts. One was a leading driver benefiting from going off-track. The other was an attacking driver benefiting from an aggressive move. They are different facts.

The black-and-white certainty you are asking for is impossible. It's no different in other sports. Why was that tackle in rugby a red card and the other one only a penalty? Why was that handball a penalty but that one wasn't? Often the answer is that the decision could perfectly well have gone the other way. That doesn't mean that when it goes the other way next time, either or both decisions are wrong.

For what it's worth both stewards decisions go into some detail about why they decided the way they did. It seems that a lot of the commentary on both (on this forum or others) comes from people who have made up their own mind about whether it was or was not the right outcome without trying to understand why the decision was made the way it was.

[gert]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I agree...but nothing has changed between those 2 races. The rules are the same. No statement was made saying "Ok look, maybe we messed up". So why is the result different?

Exactly that.
Things would be different if in between the FIA would have cameup with a definitive "this is allowed, this is not allowed" but that did not happen.


As for the move where the overtaking driver pushes his opponent off the track, I absolutely hate that. And by pushing I both mean the physical contact and forcing him off track by leaving nowhere to go.
I don't care if it is called "the karting move" or "the F3 move" (both were mentioned yesterday) as far as I'm concerned it should be forbidden. Just like the moving under breaking that was practiced a few years ago and banned as well.

I like clean racing where drivers give eachother room.

Verstappen can do that, see all his other overtakes in Austria. See also his previous attempt on Leclerc.
By leaving space, Leclerc could come back at him. That is what I want to see, not gaining an advantage by pushing your opponent wide
[advantage gained as in: make sure your opponent can not fight back, not as in: gaining a position - the position was already taken]


I am all for a zero tolerance on that kind of move. Not only in F1, but also in F2, F3, ...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That Leclerc is a phony? I don't think he is. A little inexperienced? Yes.

Does that mean complaining about another driver's actions over the radio is excusable if you are inexperienced - but not acceptable from more experienced drivers?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Canada 2019:
Strict interpretation of the rules on a borderline case of unsafe re-joining. Forum commentary decries rigid application of rules and calls for some discretion and common sense to be allowed in the interests of racing. Stewards are insulted for being heavy-handed.

Austria 2019:
Stewards use discretion to allow a borderline pass to stand. Forum commentary decries inconsistent application of rules and calls for clarity and certainty. Stewards are insulted for doing exactly what it was argued they should have done in Canada.

I broadly agree, but I would say this is from one perspective (one I happen to agree with) in that Canada was wrong and Austria was right. I am sure some see it the opposite.

As to the consistency and "rules is rules" aspect... Two points...

1. The stewards (per the rules) have wide latitude to make judgement calls (rules is rules... and the rules allow this)

2. If everyone wants there to be less penalties... Something has to change. That means a change in the "consistency". A "before and after" moment. However... the question is... is "now" the moment and what will calls be like in the future. Stewards will continue to both get it right and wrong on occasion. Lets hope the trend is one in which it fits with the goal of allow drivers more leeway.

Richard

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by gert

Exactly that.
Things would be different if in between the FIA would have cameup with a definitive "this is allowed, this is not allowed" but that did not happen.

It wouldn't be different because there would be debate about whether what actually happened clearly did or did not fit the description in the rules of what is or is not allowed.

What you are asking for here is even more details, even more prescriptive rules allowing for even less interpretation. Since the number of possible scenarios is essentially infinite, there are two choices:

(1) List as many possible scenarios as possible and proscribe the outcome for each. This is exactly the sort of over-regulation and interference which the "let them race" proponents were decrying in Canada.

(2) Describe some broad principles based on outcome ("lasting advantage" etc) and let experienced stewards judge each set of facts against those principles. This sort of discretion is then decried for the apparent resulting inconsistency.

[steve nielsen]

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L42H4vkbHYc

[Kempi]

What is mostworrying as a Ferrari fan: was Leclerc naive to think he could play fair with Verstappen? Verstappen has a very onedimensional mindset: fair is what I can use to my advantage. Leclerc should have expected that. Leclerc should never have left the door as wide open as he did.

Is it just inexperience or is it missing ruthlessnes?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Does that mean complaining about another driver's actions over the radio is excusable if you are inexperienced - but not acceptable from more experienced drivers?

He can complain if he wants but I never made any comparison between Hamilton and Leclerc, or the incident in Canada with the one yesterday and I didn't come up with this either:

Quote
How is it not completely apparent that Hamilton is a huge phony at this point? I've pointed stuff out before, but here it is again. [...] he immediately cried on the radio for the stewards to look at it. Says all the time he relishes a fight on the track between him and Vettel. Yet.... Took the fight right out of it by crying to the officials. Nkt the first time he has shown himself to be a phony, won't be the last.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L42H4vkbHYc

What a great find!
(Looks like yesterday was payback time then? Max certainly holds a grudge for a long time!)

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

What a great find!
(Looks like yesterday was payback time then? Max certainly holds a grudge for a long time!)

Agreed.

[steve nielsen]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

What a great find!
(Looks like yesterday was payback time then? Max certainly holds a grudge for a long time!)

Also very funny Charles said it was just a racing incident

[Peter Mallett]

Didn't he say the same yesterday after the race?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L42H4vkbHYc

Brilliant.

Just brilliant.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L42H4vkbHYc

Karma.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Because they are both borderline cases, applying rules to different sets of facts. One was a leading driver benefiting from going off-track. The other was an attacking driver benefiting from an aggressive move. They are different facts.

The black-and-white certainty you are asking for is impossible. It's no different in other sports. Why was that tackle in rugby a red card and the other one only a penalty? Why was that handball a penalty but that one wasn't? Often the answer is that the decision could perfectly well have gone the other way. That doesn't mean that when it goes the other way next time, either or both decisions are wrong.

For what it's worth both stewards decisions go into some detail about why they decided the way they did. It seems that a lot of the commentary on both (on this forum or others) comes from people who have made up their own mind about whether it was or was not the right outcome without trying to understand why the decision was made the way it was.

Again I agree, but if we're looking at them individually then it seems the driver who made a legitimate error was penalised, and the driver who took a deliberate action was not. This seems...odd.

Not saying it should be a penalty, but I think the majority of us expected the Montreal decision to come back and bite the stewards. I just don't think anyone expected it to come back this quickly.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

He can complain if he wants but I never made any comparison between Hamilton and Leclerc, or the incident in Canada with the one yesterday and I didn't come up with this either:

Quote
How is it not completely apparent that Hamilton is a huge phony at this point? I've pointed stuff out before, but here it is again. [...] he immediately cried on the radio for the stewards to look at it. Says all the time he relishes a fight on the track between him and Vettel. Yet.... Took the fight right out of it by crying to the officials. Nkt the first time he has shown himself to be a phony, won't be the last.

I don't think anyone suggested you made any comparison between Hamilton and Leclerc?

I brought in the quote from another thread [and deliberately removed the poster] merely to highlight how no one has criticised Leclerc for 'complaining about another driver', but Hamilton (and other more experienced drivers) are generally criticised for doing the same.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I don't think anyone suggested you made any comparison between Hamilton and Leclerc?

I brought in the quote from another thread [and deliberately removed the poster] merely to highlight how no one has criticised Leclerc for 'complaining about another driver', but Hamilton (and other more experienced drivers) are generally criticised for doing the same.

I found it confusing.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Again I agree, but if we're looking at them individually then it seems the driver who made a legitimate error was penalised, and the driver who took a deliberate action was not. This seems...odd.

Describing the same facts in a different way, the Canada decision prevented a driver benefiting from an error while the Austria decision rewarded the driver who made the bold move.

These two decisions are a lovely example of how it is possible to draw two completely different conclusions from the same facts...and for both conclusions for to be entirely legitimate.

My subjective view is that both decisions were morally correct for the reason described above - Vettel deserved to lose because he cracked under pressure while Verstappen deserved to win because we want to encourage aggressive racing. But the reverse conclusion, that Vettel was punished for a genuine error while Verstappen got away with pushing a rival off the track, is also entirely consistent with the facts. Into this grey area must step the stewards, trying to be both consistent and right and inevitably occasionally unable to be both.

[Akrapovic]

I don't feel that what anyone "deserves" comes into it. That's not how sport has ever worked and using that argument we can justify anything.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't feel that what anyone "deserves" comes into it. That's not how sport has ever worked and using that argument we can justify anything.

Perhaps that's too emotive a word, I agree.

However, when formulating and applying rules the sport can differentiate between situations such as (1) defending driver get advantage from a mistake and (2) attacking driver gets advantage from an aggressive move. The former is something not to be encouraged; the latter is (up to a point, of course).

This is analagous to directives in (for example) rugby, where referees are instructed to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacking team. That means that a similar action (short of foul play) will be viewed differently depending on the specific situation.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Kempi

What is mostworrying as a Ferrari fan: was Leclerc naive to think he could play fair with Verstappen? Verstappen has a very onedimensional mindset: fair is what I can use to my advantage. Leclerc should have expected that. Leclerc should never have left the door as wide open as he did.

Is it just inexperience or is it missing ruthlessnes?

My impression is that both were braking VERY deep into the corner. Deeper than the prior lap. I am speculating here, but I wonder if both drivers knew they were on the limit of grip and that trying to turn would result in locked tires. So for the incident in question, when they both turned in, they were both deeper and farther away from the natural apex. This pushed them both toward the outside on exit of the corner and this resulted in Leclerc running out of road. I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder if given the turn in point that Max could have taken a significantly tighter line? I just don't know. Video shows steering generally hard to the right. I also wonder if Max planned to go that keep and keep Charles on the outside on exit or if it just worked out that way given his track position on turn in.

More speculation (and who knows what might have been going through Leclerc's head). He has limited defense options given how strong Max was at that point. Trying to cover the inside may have allowed Max to over/under on exit. Maybe once Max picked the inside (he was coming in fast), Leclerc couldn't change line, so maybe he left the door open so as to do his own over/under and ideally get on the gas faster than Max? But maybe he outbraked himself a bit and went deeper than he wanted to make the over/under work?

In the end, for whatever reasons (tires, etc.) at that moment in the race, Max+Red Bull+Honda was working better than Charles+Ferrari. I don't fault Leclerc. I doubt he would have been able to survive three more laps of hard attempts from Max without it ending in tears and a non-finish for one or both cars. I don't know if giving Max that much room was smart, dumb or an accident.

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L42H4vkbHYc

I think on the Sky based broadcast for the US they were talking about this exact video during post race stuff.

In the end... no matter who you are... you can't be happy losing a race that way (getting pushed off, or running out of track... however you want to put it). But I would bet most drivers if on the winning side would be totally happy with what they did and the result.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Perhaps that's too emotive a word, I agree.

However, when formulating and applying rules the sport can differentiate between situations such as (1) defending driver get advantage from a mistake and (2) attacking driver gets advantage from an aggressive move. The former is something not to be encouraged; the latter is (up to a point, of course).

This is analagous to directives in (for example) rugby, where referees are instructed to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacking team. That means that a similar action (short of foul play) will be viewed differently depending on the specific situation.

I think you make interesting points, and I'm not saying I disagree, but I feel a lot of credit is being given to the stewards here for a decision that seemed to struggle with. Had they made this decision within a few minutes then I can see the merit for praising them. But as it stands, they clearly struggled with it, and I find it very hard to argue or believe the right thing was done given that it could so easily have went the other way.

I believe on any other day the decision could have gone the other way. And I believe that had Montreal not been so fresh in their minds, then we would have not waited over double the race time before a decision was finally made. Under those circumstances it appears that the FIA managed to come to a good decision through blind luck. Broken clock, twice a day, etc.

Next Paragraph contains IMSA Spoilers. Avoid if you want to watch it.

For anyone who wants to see how other series deal with this, we had an identical pass for the lead in the IMSA Watkins Glen 6 Hours. I'll avoid saying teams/drivers here for spoiler reasons. Leader sent it down the inside, second place car went off the road, first place car pretty much did too. Not even a hint of a problem - that's racing. The second place driver did not get on the radio and start making demands, there was no protest etc. It was racing. So again, given what happened over there, I struggle to give credit to some people who managed to bumble into the right call.

[Compromised]

If the inside car can "lead" the outside car off track, what's the point in two cars ever racing through the same corner?

Some of the best racing I've seen is two cars battling with each other side by side through a series of corners. To just negate that with "lol inside wins corner" seems shortsighted.