Yeah, Kimi pitting after doing about 21 laps on the mediums was curious to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
Printable View
Yeah, Kimi pitting after doing about 21 laps on the mediums was curious to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
Post-race, after Vettel was instructed to make his way quickly to the podium presentation, the stewards decided they would dish out a ten second penalty to Vettel for collision with Ricciado, after all ceremonies have concluded. Weird ????
If you are thinking the stewards are clowns, you would not be alone. The situation is highly comical to say the least. Ricciado aggressively stuck his nose in, Vettel simply closed the door. The way Ricciado went about it, left Vettel with little option but to do what he did. I think this is a covert way of punishing him for his colorful language on the radio. Whichever way you look at it, it is very abnormal and confusing from a spectator's perspective that the stewards would make one decision which resulted in Verstapenn being unceremoniously ejected from the podium and then later change their mind to eject the replacement of Verstapenn on the podium.
The confusion would suggest that Ricciado is gifted an undeserved podium. How nonsensical, this is the worst showing of an F1 stewardship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
http://www.foxsports.com.au/motorspo...dcddd73b8370b3
ONE WEEK AGO
The key to Sebastian Vettel’s post-race penalty came one week ago, just ahead of the US Grand Prix at Austin. FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting issued an amendment to the rules of engagement for defensive driving.
The amended rule is reproduced in full below.
16) Defensive manoeuvres
16.1 Article 27.5 of the Sporting Regulations states that “ … no car may be driven … in a manner which could be potentially dangerous to other drivers…”, furthermore, Article 27.8 prohibits any manoeuvre “ … liable to hinder other drivers, such as … any abnormal change of direction”.
With this in mind, and with the exception of any move permitted by Article 27.6, any change of direction under braking which results in another driver having to take evasive action will be considered abnormal and hence potentially dangerous to other drivers. Any such move will be reported to the stewards.
The rule essentially outlawed any driver from changing their line under braking in order to fend off a passing move. It was nicknamed the “Verstappen rule” in the wake of criticism of the Red Bull teenager’s defensive techniques against Kimi Raikkonen in Hungary and Lewis Hamilton in Japan.
This rule change would be the key to what unfolded after the chequered flag at Hermanos Rodriguez.
His hissy fits are quite charming. Lovable character. And the other spoilt brat is quite charming as well. Verstappen should have been penalized for running Rosberg off the track as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
Ah, Vettel got a penalty. Oh, never mind. It must be the new "Verstappen rule" - for the smallest of offences. I have seen defence like that for decades and nothing happened.
But action was great, nothing can take that away. TBH, I needed to cool down a bit as well. :D
Delighted that overrated pissy little German got a penalty for what happened with Ricciardo. He was one of the most vocal drivers about Verstappen moving under braking and it is only fitting he falls foul of the Verstappen rule before Max himself.
Now he should also get a ban for his behaviour over team radio. If he doesn't, it sets a precedent that any driver can verbally abuse the stewards and get away with it. This is not acceptable sporting behaviour in any sport.
Team radio is team radio. People are different and everyone has different tolerance in high stress moments. If you want 100% politically correct team radio, then you might as well have AI race instead. If you want to blame anyone, then whoever the people are selecting the radio messages for TV broadcast should be your target.
And I wouldn't compare Vettel's move with Verstappen's one against Räikkonen in Hungary as it was not as dangerous. Ricciardo has plenty of room when he did the move and in the turn it would had been a question who has the biggest balls anyway.
This is what Ricciardo had to say, agree 100%
"“I didn't understand the start, how you can be leading the race, defend, lock your wheels and go off-track and still stay in the lead. I think Lewis deserved a penalty, I think anyone in that position deserves a penalty.
Read more at http://www.crash.net/f1/news/234908/...IIZ3WEjQsGB.99
But it is also due to track. Hope they put sandtrap or something there for next year that will really punish that kind of move
Just to be clear, I think most people are complaining specifically about Vettel directly insulting Charlie Whiting, not his general potty-mouthing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
I don't buy this argument that disrespecting the officials is just an uncontrollable reaction to stress.
If you want the proof, you can see it in what happened in the English Premier (football) League at the start of this season.
For many years, it's been common for players to confront, crowd around or yell at referees when decisions went against them. This behaviour was routinely excused by people saying that that the passion of the players is so intense, the stakes are so high, they can't help themselves, etc.
This year the FA announced a new zero-tolerance policy towards this; that players would be sent off for such dissent. Pundits predicted chaos on the first day with the season, with dozens of red cards being shown to players who just couldn't help expressing their feelings.
And what happened? No dissent, no red cards. Turns out that behaviour was completely under the players' control all along. They did it not because they couldn't help it, but because they could get away with it.
You have a point there. Just like the driver coaching messages, when the FIA went down that crazy blind alley of increasingly complex radio rules. It turned out the right answer to fans not wanting to hear drivers being coached, was to simply not broadcast it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
But that situation was a bit more complicated than just Verstappen vs Vettel. If there would had not been a very fast Ricciardo closing in on Vettel, then I'd say it was extreme overreacting. When you've got a driver in front of you who should let you pass because of getting an advantage and he does not let you pass, then you get a bit angry. But the feeling multiplies when you've got even faster guy catching you in an alarming speed.
Football players ...
First Ferrai screwed Kimi with the second ptistop, used mediums, what!!! He didn´t need to pit in the first Place.
Second, Max, after disobeying all rules and the team he backs Seb into Daniel and laughs all the way to the checkerflag. A deserved race ban that is. It´s in the cards.
The situation was not complicated. Vettel verbally abused an official over the radio. Contributing factors have nothing to do with it. What you're saying is just smoke and mirrors. Contributing circumstance don't matter. We can all make excuses for what we do, it's something is human beings are great at doing but in the end it boils down to one thing, his verbal abuse of an official. What caused this behaviour is irrelevant. You would have never heard Schumacher abuse an official like that and, might I add, I doubt you'd have heard Hamilton, Alonso, Button, Rosberg, Ricciardio or Max do it either.
Alonso might get chirpy over the radio but hurl abuse at the Stewards he would never do. I'm not a fan of Charlie, I think someone else could do a much better job, but he still deserves respect as it's still a very difficult job he must do.
It seemed unclear if there was any directive from race control to have Max give back the position .
There was mention , also , during the broadcast , that , if Max would have been required to give back the position , he would have had 3 laps in which to do it .
So , backing Seb into Daniel was just a racing tactic .
I've seen split-screen of the 2 offs for Lewis and Max , and they are almost identical , which makes it hard to understand why one was and one wasn't penalized .
Other than keeping the title fight alive , it doesn't look like there's another upside to it .
Max was lucky as well to not cop another penalty for pushing Nico off .
Sebastian whined his way onto the podium with a blue rant directly at the race director , only to have it taken away from him after further investigation , and thus , deserves to apologize for his childish antics to all and sundry .
At this point , the little boy needs a swear jar , where each foul word gets him a five-place demotion .
And , he does need some sanction for his words at Charlie . You should not be allowed to do that , ever .
I agree 100% with everything you said except that as with other sports would be I think a race ban should be in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Unfortunately there is lack of consistency in the rules. Lewis didn't get penalised at the start and neither did Nico. If Max received one, Lewis should have also. They were very similar incidents.
The Stewards tend to take a more lenient view of the starts than the rest of the race however and this appears to be the only difference between the two incidents that I can see.
Hypothetical as none of us have heard all their team radio sessions. Who I'd blame here are literally the guys behind the selection of team radio. In media there is a term "gatekeepers" and this time the production team filter just failed. How Vettel behaved is purely his own mess to sort out.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
It's time for Charlie to retire.
I'll rest my case
Those in a place to decide what to broadcast do a pretty good job as far as I see it .Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
It is their place to supply the most tense of moments in the competition with the conversations that are relevant , to give us a look in to the emotions involved .
All the drivers and teams know this to be the case , and thus , should behave accordingly .
I feel we would have lost context completely if we were not to have had the moment shared at the time and , instead , long after the fact , had the news that Vettel had been swearing at Charlie , so was perhaps to be sanctioned as a result .
It's the passion from inside the car it presents , alongside the commentary , that I enjoy .
I think they do a great job .
Now , Charlie has a little explaining to do of his own .
He let Vettel onto the podium due to a move that had Max on the same trajectory as Lewis while there was still investigation going on over the issue with Ricciardo , who should have been on the podium in the end .
Technically , Max should have been on the podium , I think , and facing questions about it , and things would normally be sorted later .
But , somehow , swearing loudly and often gets you action , and a podium to stand on , even if only briefly .
And so ends another race in the Formula 1 Whiner's - uh, Driver's World Championship.
It was clear actually, there was an announcement from race control that the incident would be investigated after the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Wasn't Max ordered to give the place back by his engineer?
video of vettle can be seen at this link http://www.formula1.com/en/latest/he...ve-podium.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
warring link contains abusive language
The broadcasters are entitled to broadcast whatever they want. It's not like the drivers aren't aware they may be broadcast so blaming them broadcasters is a mute point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
No, he was told he might have to give it back. He never received confirmation so was correct to retain the position. I still think he should have got 3rd spot. Does anyone not remember Rosberg in Canada two years ago doing the same thing when Lewis was about to over take him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koz
One of the big problems remain here, and that is that there is no consistency. Personally, I think they should be free to race like they were 20 years ago, bump wheels do whatever they want. The problem is that the sport has been introducing these rules at random without any real thorough foresight. They have been reactive rather than proactive about everything that happens.
If you are going to have a set of rules defined for a sport then fine, define them well and stick to them throughout the year 100% but if you're not then don't bother with them and just leave the guys race. It's the same old nonsense as track limits. There was none of that rubbish 20 years ago and the racing was great.
Anyway, word on the wire is that the FIA have launched a probe into Vettel's abuse of Charlie and it's looking likely he'll get a race ban or two for it. Fingers crossed that he does. This sort of behavior can't be tolerated or allowed to creep into the sport.
If a news outlet would publish an extremely graphic photo, you'd blame the photographer?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
If F1 wants to be a "family TV sport show" then the production team are the ones who are the censors/gatekeepers.
And those censors bleeped the appropriate words in the outburst , giving all those families watching , the perfect teaching moment for the kids .Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
To have him penalized for his abusive and foul language is perfectly placed to complete the idea that the act was unacceptable and that self-control is paramount .
These guys are heroes , and will suffer if they don't act the part .
According to JA , there was , indeed , a directive from race control for Max to give the place back .Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
It was only unclear to us , as I suggested , Andy .
BAH!
They only looked at this fully ,(except sainz pushing off Alonso, though they said it was at turn one. On the 2nd straight lads!)
Hamilton cut across for no reason, should have gave it back,
everything else was BS.
and Vettel, CALM THE HAM DOWN!
The thing about rules is someone has to interpret them for each situation that arise. The problem with this particular rule is that it is too vague hence may be subject to varying interpretations. The essential act of racing is to drive as fast as you can and to do your utmost to keep other drivers behind you. Even at the best of times, keeping other driver behind is effectively hindering those drivers trying to pass. And such defensive action may on occasions cause other drivers to stray of the track.Quote:
Originally Posted by CNR
What l am getting at is, if we were to take this new rule literally, there would be no racing but an orderly fast procession. The rule was introduced to prevent last minute defensive change of direction which causes a following driver to take evasive action to prevent a collision. When a decision which is not in this particular vein is derived from the new rule, it clearly shows a lazy interpretation of the rules.
Ricciado's attempt to lever an overtake on Vettel was prospective and would have only worked if the driver in front assisted the overtake. Vettel is not Bottas, a hard nose racer like him would not tolerate that sort of move. Deep down, Ricciado knew that overtake was not really on. Not at that corner anyway.
The main problem with the decision was it looked fickle and lacking of thorough deliberation [rushed]. It was simply the worst showing of stewardship in recent years.
The commentary from Vettel on Sunday was beeped out for the onlooking audience. In football, players have gotten banned this year for abusing the referee. Not all of these incidents have or need to be on TV for them to get punished. Whether they are broadcast or not, they still deserve punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
And the broadcasts on Sunday were beeped out anyway to lessen the impact on the viewing audience. The viewers are entitled to know what is going on but, likewise, they are also entitled to watch a motor race without listening to expletives from frustrated drivers.
"This website understands that Red Bull was told by the FIA stewards that Verstappen should give the place to Vettel – a message which Ferrari heard and relayed to its driver. This message to Vettel was heard by TV audiences but was thought to refer to an informal message to Verstappen from his race engineer soon after the incident."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
That's at odds with the official race control announcement that was put on screen saying the incident would be investigated after the race, which was a very clear statement. And is also the usual practice for incidents in the last 5 laps. I wonder who has told that website that the stewards made such a decision during the race.
Having reviewed the stewards' decisions (http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formul...information-19) and the sporting regulations, I think Alex Kalinauckas writing on the James Allen site either understood wrongly, or at least did not accurately describe the situation.
There is no stewards' decision requiring Max to give the place back, only a decision to impose a 5 second time penalty, which is in line with the announcement that the incident would be investigated after the race.
Which is not surprising, because there is no provision in the rules for the stewards to instruct a driver to give a place back. Only this:Quote:
Fact: Car 33 left the track in turn 1, gaining a lasting advantage.
Offence: Breach of Article 27.4 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Decision: 5 Second Time Penalty imposed after the race in accordance with Article 38.3 (5 seconds added to elapsed race time)
(1 penalty points awarded, 4 points total for the 12 month period)
So it may be that Charlie gave Red Bull the option to give the place back, in order to avoid a penalty; or advised them that they would receive a penalty after the race if they did not do so. But it's not something that can be ordered or imposed by the stewards. If Ferrari told Vettel that Verstappen had to give the place back on track, they were wrong.Quote:
At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track.
I don't think there is any lack of clarity, except perhaps emerging from PR desks at Maranello and Milton Keynes.
Will Power was fined 30,000USD for showing fingers to the officials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScDjyS7SYZU
It's pretty muddled , in my view .
Brundle is saying there was never a directive from race control regarding giving the place back , whilst JA says the opposite .
We did hear the team tell him he should .
It isn't clear whether Charlie was involved from what we heard , but , given the reds were so adamant he was , I think it's likely we just didn't hear the transmission .
As you point out , though , it would have been a directive about an "opportunity" to give the place back to avoid sanction , if it was anything at all .
In a way , it's a "get out of jail free" card for the perp , being faced with a charge , knowing they don't charge you if they don't think you're guilty .
It's a "give it back , or else..." scenario , really .
If I were Max , I would understand wanting to take his chance in the steward's room , because he saw what had happened earlier at the start , and had taken pretty much the same line .
Something that occurs to me now , is that Max , who , in a normally investigated incidents would have been interviewed before being sanctioned for one , clearly wasn't , before being unceremoniously removed from the podium ante-room by Herbie Blash on Sunday .
Certainly , Seb was interviewed before his podium was stripped .
Well said that man :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
I think the real beef was the brewing dislike for Verstapenn by some drivers on the grid for his defensive antics. The stewards have failed to deal with it. And the new rule brought in to curb Max's reluctance to change has also created further problems for drivers. The interesting development is the clear antagonism between Redbull and Ferrari that has surfaced because of all this. Redbull's former favorite driver versus Redbull current new discovery.
I am sure it would boil down to a storm in a tea cup. Probably the only real action of interest this season.
The question was, "Did Verstapenn gained an unfair advantage by cutting the corner via the grass". The answer is simply Yes he did. With the team clearly acknowledging that an unfair advantage has been attained and instructing their driver to give the place back, but the driver in question refusing to follow the instruction of the team; created the problem that arose.
The incident has exposed a few disturbing facts:-
1. Redbull are clearly having compliance difficulty with their new recruit. A rookie refusing to comply with a team instruction is a clear indication that the team have a control problem.
2. The stewards and probably race control were abit slow to clarify their position with respect to how they would like to deal with the issue. Either a notification that it would be looked at after the race or a suggestion that the place should be given back. Whatever the case, the lack of notification created uncertainty and frustration. Certainly enough to annoy Vettel.
3. The rules do not have a provision for the stewards or race control to demand a reversion of position to address the infringement of the rules. But it clearly empowers the stewards to impose a punishment during or after the race. Thus it is at the discretion of the team to resolve the infringement of the rules before the stewards impose a punishment. This is where the team in question had failed to prevent the fiasco that ensued from happening.
4. However, once the stewards have deliberated and issued a penalty and rewarded whomever they thought was the aggrieved party, that rewarded driver was formally, in open ceremony acknowledged to be the rightful person to receive the awarded trophy. That should have been it. Any further issue or complaints should have been referred to commitees that deal with complaints. [if one exist]
5. The screening process of improper language over the radio seem nonexistent. Improper language should be properly screened from getting in the public domain.
6. Drivers seem to be quite wayward nowadays. It has become very common to hear and see drivers clearly disregard the instructions of the teams during races. There is a surprising increase of lack of respect between the pitwall and the drivers recently.
These are my observations. I wonder what you chaps have noticed?
I understand why Hamilton didn't get a penalty and why Verstappen did and it's fairly straight forward the reasoning for it.
What I don't understand is how Verstappen's move was any different to Nico Rosberg in Canada (last year I think it was) when Hamilton was overtaking him down the back straight only for him to out-brake himself and keep the position. The position was Hamilton's were it not for that and yet the Stewards did nothing. It's another case of inconsistency.
For a start, it was two cars of the same team and there was no team complaint if l remember correctly. But it was certainly inconsistent from a driver's perspective. I thought they got the Rosberg instance wrong. The Verstappen instance involved two competing teams. The associated politics alone necessitates some sort of action to be taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
I think in this instance Lewis retired the following lap - his having outbraked himself was a result of MGUK recovery failure and the brakes overheating and failing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Knight
Actually both Mercs did cut the corner on the first lap. If any punishment were to be levied, it would have been for both Hamilton and Rosberg. Now that would have made the last few races more interesting, don't you think. Besides the stewards seemed clueless this weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by COD