Charlie Whiting...

I just watched the coverage released of the drivers briefing from the Japanese Grand Prix.

Looking at that coverage, it could not be more obvious to me that Charlie Whiting is not up to the task he is charged with. He picks and choses what rules should be obeyed based upon the circumstances at hand. He admits in the briefing that Vettel broke a rule in Malaysia by taking the steering wheel with him but didn't deem it worth reporting to the stewards because it wasn't needed in that circumstance by the Marshals to remove the vehicle, which is the main reason the rule is in place to begin with. So Vettel broke the rule but didn't break the need behind the rule, therefore, it's okay.

Perhaps all the rules should be accompanied by the reasoning for a rule. That way drivers can very easily chose which rules they do and do not break and it'll all be okay.

This sort of fuckwitterry and bending of the rules to ones own interpretation is why F1 officiating has been so rubbish for many years. It introduces endless grey areas which drivers and fans must frustratingly try to continually decipher. Rules are rules and should be obeyed regardless of the situation or circumstances at hand.

So basically, the way F1 works is you can break any rule you like but as long as Charlie is okay with it, you're fine. It's like me getting caught driving dangerously swerving on the road and then arguing in court that any punishment didn't apply because the road was clear so I wasn't endangering myself or other drivers which is the main reason the rule is in place; thus, leave me go home please. I can't imagine that working with any judge.

Charlie Whiting is an embarrassment and we need someone with a pair of balls in there whom will apply the rules 100% all the time.

I get your point there , Blackie(can I call you that ?) , but I also understand why that little bit of leniency was handed out here .
That Ferrari wheel , being detachable , was unlikely to make it back to the garage unless Vettel took it there , with all the fans about to stream in , so , though risky because of potential penalty , it was likely the smart thing to do with such an expensive piece of kit .
As pushing the car off the track was quite impossible without a jack and dolly , being it was riding on only three corners , the wheel wasn't necessary , and though the rule states it must be replaced , having it there would serve only to put it at risk of loss , not to make the car's removal easier or faster as is the intent of the rule during the race .

I get your frustration with the "letter of the law" , but , in this case , I think the leniency was a good thing .
You might be right that he needs to go , but not for this , in my opinion .

Track limits bug me way more than this little teapot tempest .

TBK, I think you're wrong on this one. Enforcement of rules for the rule's sake and not for the reason behind the rule is one of the dumbest things anyone can do. Does it leave grey areas? Sure it does. That's why judges have discretion to hand out lessor or no penalty based on the facts of the case at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Perhaps all the rules should be accompanied by the reasoning for a rule. That way drivers can very easily chose which rules they do and do not break and it'll all be okay.

---

It may be different in Common Law, but certainly in the continental European law systems, looking at the reasoning behind a law is pretty standard procedure when interpreting a law.

I have to agree the law should be interpreted in context with the situation, it’s not black and white.

Compare him to Eduardo Freitas (WEC Race Director) - and the conclusion is he simply needs to be pensioned off.

Guys, Charlie's job is to determine whether a rule has been broken. It's the Stewards job to judge the penalty, if any. If a rule has been broken then Charlie's job is to report it to the Stewards for investigation. The man is a total clown and he has needed to be replaced for many years now.

@Bagwan completely agree on track limits as well. My opinion on track limits is either enforce them evenly at every corner rigidly or don't enforce them at all. If the drivers take advantage of an extra bit if tarmac then, well so be it.

Who here remembers first corner in Austria back in the day? Every driver basically ignored the kerb and no one gained any real advantage from it because they all did it. That, imo, is the only real way to deal with it barring putting grass or sand on the ither side of the kerb.

I agree Charlie is past it, but not for the entire reasons you say.

I think we need someone with enough Balls to apply less rules. Get them racing on wet days. Not throw a SC any time a car spins on rain.

Just my opinion. Toughen these drivers up a bit

To be frank, I have never understood Charlie Whiting...he just keeps changing the rules every whenever he feels like!

According to this auto sport article Charlie actuallt believes decisions are consistent- the man is more deluded than Vettel on his most ignorant day.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13...rom-verstappen

Surely anyone with a brain in the FIA must now realise this is not the man for the job.

All four stewards agreed on Max's penalty .
Charlie had nothing to do with any of the decisions during the race .

Maybe this will bring more discussion over track boundaries .
I hope it does .

Baggie, Charlie reports the incident to be investigated to the stewards, so yeah he does have something to do with it.

The most concerning thing here is that Charlie actually believes there is consistency from the Stewards when there is anything but. I can't understand how the man has kept his job for so long. Changes his mind every race and even during races. He is awful for the sport - and that's not to mention his not wanting the drivers to race in the rain.

I really don't know how to fix this as I always believe these decisions are political in some way; although we thought that had ended when Alan Donnelly was finally canned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Baggie, Charlie reports the incident to be investigated to the stewards, so yeah he does have something to do with it.

The most concerning thing here is that Charlie actually believes there is consistency from the Stewards when there is anything but. I can't understand how the man has kept his job for so long. Changes his mind every race and even during races. He is awful for the sport - and that's not to mention his not wanting the drivers to race in the rain.

---

Charlie reports that there has been a protest by one of the teams , doesn't he ?
Thus , not really his decision , or am I wrong about this ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Charlie reports that there has been a protest by one of the teams , doesn't he ?
Thus , not really his decision , or am I wrong about this ?

---

Actually, I don't know now. Christian Horner was asked this to question on Sky today about the stewards and he didn't know what process was followed i.e did Charlie report it to the Stewards or stewards pick it up themselves - and if he doesn't know it just emphasises how shambolic the whole system is really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Actually, I don't know now. Christian Horner was asked this to question on Sky today about the stewards and he didn't know what process was followed i.e did Charlie report it to the Stewards or stewards pick it up themselves - and if he doesn't know it just emphasises how shambolic the whole system is really.

---

I would think that Ferrari would have protested right away to Charlie , who would then have sent it to the stewards , if they were not already looking at it .
Christian is a little biased in this situation , remember , and casting doubt on the process suits his agenda .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I would think that Ferrari would have protested right away to Charlie , who would then have sent it to the stewards , if they were not already looking at it .
Christian is a little biased in this situation , remember , and casting doubt on the process suits his agenda .

---

To be fair, I agree with Christian in this situation. He agrees that oer the rule book it's a penalty that was deserved but that there is no consistency. And he is right.