Was order to unlap legally within the regulations?

[Nitrodaze]

I just registered recently, so hello everybody. I have a couple points to add now to this interested thread.
1) One of Red Bulls arguments supporting Masi's decision (and let's not hold this against Red Bull) but they suggested that the use of the word 'any' doesn't neccesarily mean 'all' cars can be unlapped. But what this argument fails to acknowledge, is that in the second paragraph, the rule goes on to explain which cars the rule applies to. Therefore, it would not be accurate use of the English language to have used the word 'ALL' in the first paragraph. The rule actually makes perfect sense, this argument by Red Bull (upheld by the stewards) is false.
2) At the end of the Eifel GP in 2020 Masi when interviewed by the media about use of the safety car in that race, he actually states... and I quote "There's a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past..." It is therefore evident to me that he contrived a new interpretation just for the situation at the end of the Abu Dhabi race because for whatever reason the reality of the race was not playing out to the script that he required and therefore hamilton was bang on the money when he said "this race has been manipulated man".
3) We must now consider the argument that Masi also made after the race that the regs for unlapping cars is to allow the leaders to race. Ok, fair enough with that principle. However, do we honestly believe that the rule was meant to be applied in a way that advantages some back markers, but not others? For example, If you plan to let 5 cars unlap themselves and three cars to not unlap themselves, you are basically saying 'to hell with the race fortunes of the first guy that we don't permit to unlap himself.' Basically unless you let all cars unlap, or none at all, you have to show massive favouritism to the last guy you allowed to unlap, and massive prejudice to the first guy that you say is not permitted to unlap himself. You are not creating a fair environment free of favouritism. Now honestly, do you think all teams believe the race director gets to pick and choose which cars can unlap and which cannot? In the word of Russell "UNACCEPTABLE".

So... summary of all of this? Arguments in favour of Masi's interpretation of the rules are frankly illogical and simply incorrect, or not in the regulations.

The drivers drove well, the teams made strategy calls based on the rules and prior precidents, but the race director invented something new which stuffed up Mercedes strategy, and fortunately for Red Bull, Max was able to take full advantage of the Race directors stupidity and incompetence. - Bravo Red Bull, fair game on your part. Unlucky Mercedes, I feel for you. And as for Masi? I think you need to step away from this role. Maybe there is a more suitable position for you elsewhere - and one more thing, you try to be less sarcastic and arrogant and a little more gracious when a team manager calls you out on your blatant incompetence.

A very good analysis you give there. And welcome to the forum. As you pointed out, 48.12 of the regulation required Race Control to notify all teams that LAPPED CARS CAN UNLAP THEMSELVES. And then goes on to say any car that has been lapped by the leader cars must overtake the leader cars and the safety car to unlap themselves and must proceed quickly to rejoin the end of the tail. The safety car cannot be withdrawn until the unlapping cars have all rejoined or have travelled at least half the circuit from the safety car before the safety car can be withdrawn.
Section 48.13, then elaborate on what should transpire when the safety car has entered the pitlane.

The fact that ALL TEAMS are to be notified of impending UNLAPPING, implies that cars of any team that received that message must unlap themselves. Therefore, ANY in this section equates to ALL.
This section has been designed to protect the competition of all the cars on the grid. Not just the lead cars. It is there for the fight in the midfield as well where racing is just as important as at the front. The restart is an opportunity for every car to have the chance to gain a position or two before the chequered flag.

THIS IS WHERE MASI's PERSPECTIVE IS VERY FLAWED. It was discriminatory to the midfield as it was unfair to Mercedes who relied on the normal process laid out in the regulations. What really surprised me is his disregard for Mercedes' expectations and opinion. He was bullish to them and quite condescending to Toto actually.

[squibby]

Thanks for the welcome. Indeed, I agree. Without sounding like a consipracy theorist, I’ve also read in the media why Perez was retired. Red Bull sensing issues with the car were so worried of a safety car or potential yellow flags that they retired the car prematurely to minimise that risk. So my theory is that the crash and subsequent safety car via Mercedes-engined Latifi was thoroughly against the script for Red Bull at this point in the race. We also note that when Horner gets on the radio to Masi to challenge why back markers are being asked to unlap, Masi sounds flustered like a teenage schoolboy who’s just been asked a trigonometry question because the ‘script’ is not panning out the way somebody wants it to. Then the next thing we know is he’s invented his new interpretation of the rules and previous precedents in an effort to balance the tables.

Anyway I jest over this sequence of events, I don’t think there is anything sinister in latifi’s crash, or the masi/Horner radio messages. it would make for a great conspiracy thriller movie I was serious in my first post though. The rules were broken, too much pressure for somebody who is supposed to be able to cope. Maybe not fit fit the job? I think I heard Charlie whiting spinning in his grave when the call went out to unlap only some of the field…

[Nitrodaze]

Thanks for the welcome. Indeed, I agree. Without sounding like a consipracy theorist, I’ve also read in the media why Perez was retired. Red Bull sensing issues with the car were so worried of a safety car or potential yellow flags that they retired the car prematurely to minimise that risk. So my theory is that the crash and subsequent safety car via Mercedes-engined Latifi was thoroughly against the script for Red Bull at this point in the race. We also note that when Horner gets on the radio to Masi to challenge why back markers are being asked to unlap, Masi sounds flustered like a teenage schoolboy who’s just been asked a trigonometry question because the ‘script’ is not panning out the way somebody wants it to. Then the next thing we know is he’s invented his new interpretation of the rules and previous precedents in an effort to balance the tables.

Anyway I jest over this sequence of events, I don’t think there is anything sinister in latifi’s crash, or the masi/Horner radio messages. it would make for a great conspiracy thriller movie I was serious in my first post though. The rules were broken, too much pressure for somebody who is supposed to be able to cope. Maybe not fit fit the job? I think I heard Charlie whiting spinning in his grave when the call went out to unlap only some of the field…

The radio exchanges between Masi and the two contending team bosses are being analysed at length currently. One of the very clear observations were the radio exchange between Horner and Masi relative to the status quo for drivers on the track was very telling. if we look at the sequence of events around that radio exchange between Horner and Masi, they are as follows:-

1. Safety car is deployed
2. Safety Car picks up the lead car [Hamilton - Petrona Mercedes]
3. Verstappen pits for fresh new soft tyres and rejoins in 7th
4. Race Control informs all teams the unlapped cars would not be required to unlap themselves
5. Horner calls Masi enquiring why cars are not allowed to unlap themselves
6. Massi responds saying give me a moment my mate is still clearing up the incident on track
7. Horner responds "We only need one lap"
8. Moments later, Masi instructs Race Control to unlap only the cars between Hamilton and Verstappen
9. Toto protest saying "Mikie this is not right!"
10. Masi responds "we are going racing"
11. The five cars between Hamilton and Verstappen overtakes that safety car
12. The safety car is called in and Hamilton leads the car with Verstappen directly behind him on fresher tyres over the safety car line where proper racing commenced.

The rest you know.

What is interesting about this exchange is, there was no consultation to seek mutual agreement from both teams in contention of what was the agreeable way to start the race for both teams and deciding on the fairest way to go about it. It appears Masi only heard what Horner wanted and completely disregarded Mercedes. Hence, set about providing the one lap that Horner suggested.

There have been arguments that Masi acted in good faith to provide an interesting end to a fascinating race. You would hear this point of view from some media outlet's that are heavily invested in F1. There are a number of reasons why this is so contrived. Firstly, if that was his intention, he would have red flagged the race with the aim of producing a more spectacular mini sprint race with grid start to the finish. This would have been a media sensation and a fantastic end to the race.

What he did was the very opposite. With unfolding events and knowing that following any of the procedures dictated by the regulations would lead to a safety car finish as the cars on track were moving closer to the final lap, he feigned a contest by creating a situation that would not have manifested under the normal implementation of the regulation for the 2021 season. And he did so without seeking the agreement of both of the teams in contention for the driver's title. If he had got their agreement to deviate from the regulations to create a show, there would be no unfairness claim by any team.

I agree, Masi is not fit for the job. Kravitz used an interesting phrase with regards to Masi; he said "after all he is learning on the job". But that is the problem, he has been at if for three season's now and things just seem to be getting much worst. Failing to implement the regulations which is the singular most important requirement for his role, suggest he is out of his depth and an alternative would not do any worst, whoever they may be.

[The Black Knight]

An Abu Dhabi GP lawyer said that Mercedes have a good legal basis for appearl over Abu Dhabi GP. I personally think f*ck the sports reputation, its reputation is in tatters anyway after the weekend. Take it all the way to the International Court of Appeal Mercedes and teach these amateurs a lesson. It's about time that F1 sorted it's rules out once and for all. This is the only way to do it.

https://www.racefans.net/2021/12/14/...abi-gp-lawyer/

Mercedes would have a compelling case if they submit an appeal over the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy, an expert in sports law has told RaceFans.

The team is considering whether to appeal after the stewards rejected its protest over the restart of the race on Sunday. Mercedes claimed the sport’s regulations were not followed correctly when the race was restarted at short notice, and after only five of the eight lapped cars had been allowed to un-lap themselves.
The controversy in Abu Dhabi has left the outcome of the title-deciding race of the 2021 season in doubt for two days. Lewis Hamilton lost the world championship to Max Verstappen when he was overtaken by his rival on the final lap after the restart.

Under the FIA’s rules, Mercedes have a 96-hour window to commit to submitting an appeal, around half of which has passed. Following a controversial season the team arrived in Abu Dhabi prepared for a legal wrangle, having enlisted the services of Paul Harris QC. He previously represented the team in 2013 when they appeared before an FIA tribunal over a Pirelli tyre test, and in July last year successfully represented Manchester City in a hearing of the Court of Arbitration for Sport over alleged breaches of UEFA’s club licensing and financial fair play regulations.

Safety Car, Yas Marina, 2021
Analysis: The four minutes that changed the destiny of the 2021 world championship
Nicholas Bamber, an associate in regulatory and commercial dispute resolution at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, believes Mercedes have good grounds to challenge the decision to reject their protest.
“Race director Michael Masi and the stewards’ interpretation of the FIA’s 2021 Sporting Regulations has been called into question by racing drivers, pundits and legal commentators alike,” he told RaceFans.

“In response to Mercedes’ protest, they concluded that article 15.3 gives the race director carte blanche to control the use of the safety car and overrides the procedure for the safety car stipulated at Article 48.12.

“This interpretation seems – on its face – to be inconsistent with a plain language view of the regulations. It also directly contradicts Michael Masi’s approach in similar circumstances at the 2020 Eifel Grand Prix where he stated ‘There is a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past’ [emphasis added] before the safety car returns to the pit lane and the race recommences ‘therefore the safety car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally wanted’ – i.e. the race director cannot overrule the appropriate application of the regulations, including the full application of article 48.12.”


This could be considered a breach of the International Sporting Code, said Bamber. “Article 1.1.1 of the 2021 FIA International Sporting Code makes clear that the regulations are to be enforced ‘based on the fundamental principles of safety and sporting fairness’ [emphasis added]. Part of sporting fairness revolves around consistency of application of the rules of the sport. As such, there appears to be a good legal basis upon which Mercedes could seek to appeal.”

If the matter was to go to an International Court of Appeal hearing, Bamber believes this apparent inconsistency could prove challenging to justify.
“In addition to repeating the reasoning set out in the stewards’ decision, the FIA would likely argue that any ambiguity in the regulations should be resolved in favour of Masi’s decision-making made in real-time, under the pressure of ensuring the race was completed safely and competitively – relying upon the sports law doctrine of respective ‘field of play’ decisions,” he said.

“Again, given the inconsistency in the application of the decision-making during the race itself, and against the same circumstances in prior races, this seems an unconvincing argument.”

As the field circulated behind the safety car at the end of the race Masi had a narrowing window of opportunity within which to organise a restart. He was also receiving communications from the two teams contesting the championship – Mercedes and Red Bull – the latter urging him to resume the race in order to give Verstappen a chance to pass Hamilton.

Bamber pointed out communication of this kind is highly unusual in professional sport. “Whilst a relatively recent move to make the FIA radio communications between teams and race director has proven popular with the F1 audience from an entertainment perspective, it has also highlighted the volume and questionable nature of communications sent mid-race by the teams,” he said.

“It is extremely unusual, if not unique, in a sporting context for team representatives to have a direct line to the officials in the middle of a contest. In sport it is extremely important for officials not to be inappropriately influenced, and this raises questions about the regulation of those communications going forward.

“In rugby we have seen a lengthy ban handed out to South Africa’s director of rugby for ‘egregious’ offences during the British and Irish Lions’ tour of South Africa, including his role in releasing a video criticising match officials’ performance. World Rugby’s independent committee found that his conduct had a ‘corrosive effect on the game more widely, as well as the viewing public and press’.”

Take it all the way, Mercedes. Take it all the way.

[Nitrodaze]

An Abu Dhabi GP lawyer said that Mercedes have a good legal basis for appearl over Abu Dhabi GP. I personally think f*ck the sports reputation, its reputation is in tatters anyway after the weekend. Take it all the way to the International Court of Appeal Mercedes and teach these amateurs a lesson. It's about time that F1 sorted it's rules out once and for all. This is the only way to do it.

https://www.racefans.net/2021/12/14/...abi-gp-lawyer/



Take it all the way, Mercedes. Take it all the way.

It would be the definition of cowardice if they do not challenge this. They would be endorsing this sort of act and promoting future repeat of this dubious conduct. They have no choice but to contest this. The opposite would be damaging to the brand.

[squibby]

I'm back again, I've been pondering this scenario even more. It's just so irritating. I've realized there is probably some other issues that might make a pompous Race Director act like he has in the aftermath, and also receive the support he has received thus far from other officials. We already know he's probably pretty arrogant from the sarcastic responses to Toto's messages, so let's assume the Race Director is a pretty nice chap, but under the pressure of such a race was suffering a bit of a 'God' complex at the time:

So rule '15) - Officials' of the regs specifically section 15.3 when read in context is explaining the hierarchy between two individuals - the 'Clerk of the Course' and the 'Race Director'. Section 15.3 when read in context, gives the Race Director the overriding authority on various matters prefixed with a) b) c) d) and of course the now infamous e) the use of the safety car. So clearly the Race Director outranks the Clerk of the Course on certain topics. The Stewards are saying this gives the Race Director authority to do whatever he wants with a Safety car, but as we know, this isn't accurate because to suggest the Race Director can break the rules at whim is simply illogical, and also because rule 15 is being quoted out of context when it's purpose is to explain who's the Boss on certain matters - Race Director vs Clerk of the Course.

Now if you go read rule 39 and various parts, you find it describing the 'Clerk of the course' (not the race director) issuing the signals to lapped drivers to overtake, calling the safety car back in etc etc. So the Clerk of the course actions things affecting the operation of the course during a race like issuing the signals to Safety car and drivers, but the Race Director has 'overriding authority' of the race giving instructions to the Clerk and considering his opinions regarding the course.

During the last minutes of the Abu Dhabi race, The 'Clerk of the Course' would have been competently implementing rule 39 as per the regs and all previous precedents. Then the Race Director told the Clerk of the course to do something unprecedented, and not described in the regulation 39, to un-lap only 5 cars, and then to bring the safety car in a lap early. Now being a technical professional himself, being very familiar with all of the regulations, and no doubt a stickler for rules, if the Clerk's superior tells him to do something wrong, he will challenge it. So there is no doubt in my mind that the Clerk would have challenged the Race Director under this high pressure situation. He would have at least said - ' sorry, you want me to issue WHAT?!? instructions with the unlapped cars and safety car?!?' It may even have happened twice, once with the irregular message to only 5 cars, and again with the irregular withdrawal of the safety car a lap early. these kind of challenges may have irritated an arrogant Race Director and caused a couple of heated exchanges and some bad blood. Exactly how heated this exchange became? - who knows, Most professionals get pretty stubborn when they know their job and it's rules really well, and then their client, or their superior tells them to do something 'cowboy' and pulls rank on them to make them do it...

When faced with a challenge from the Clerk of the course over a safety car issue, I can imaging that a pompous or arrogant Race Director may proudly stick to his guns and remind the Clerk that under article 15, the Race director has overriding authority (over the Clerk of the Course) regarding the use of the Safety car. The Clerk would probably say something like, 'fine, I'll do it, but this is wrong, doesn't conform to the regs and you are going to cop the heat for this after the race, not me'. These words now ringing in the Race Directors ears, A minute later he has Toto calling into his ear that this is 'so not right', and a championship is decided over it, he would get that sinking feeling that he's stuffed this up, and the Race Director is going to be sweating bullets and mentally preparing his defence already. In the immediate radio response to Toto, a sarcastic comment was the only wit he had in the moment. Also the Clerk of the course may now be like 'I told you so'... Mercedes challenge the decision and there is going to be a strong element of willy waving between Race Direcor and the Clerk of the Course after the race over who was right and who was wrong. I'd like to hear from the Clerk of the Course, but I guess he won't want to annoy a lucrative F1 customer and will keep out of the media. FIA now have to back up the Director and article 15, or they have to back up article 39, and we know which one they picked since they can't permit a Clerk of the Course or anyone except the F1 officials from making the big decisions in decisive moments, even decisions that break their own rules.

[Nitrodaze]

I'm back again, I've been pondering this scenario even more. It's just so irritating. I've realized there is probably some other issues that might make a pompous Race Director act like he has in the aftermath, and also receive the support he has received thus far from other officials. We already know he's probably pretty arrogant from the sarcastic responses to Toto's messages, so let's assume the Race Director is a pretty nice chap, but under the pressure of such a race was suffering a bit of a 'God' complex at the time:

So rule '15) - Officials' of the regs specifically section 15.3 when read in context is explaining the hierarchy between two individuals - the 'Clerk of the Course' and the 'Race Director'. Section 15.3 when read in context, gives the Race Director the overriding authority on various matters prefixed with a) b) c) d) and of course the now infamous e) the use of the safety car. So clearly the Race Director outranks the Clerk of the Course on certain topics. The Stewards are saying this gives the Race Director authority to do whatever he wants with a Safety car, but as we know, this isn't accurate because to suggest the Race Director can break the rules at whim is simply illogical, and also because rule 15 is being quoted out of context when it's purpose is to explain who's the Boss on certain matters - Race Director vs Clerk of the Course.

Now if you go read rule 39 and various parts, you find it describing the 'Clerk of the course' (not the race director) issuing the signals to lapped drivers to overtake, calling the safety car back in etc etc. So the Clerk of the course actions things affecting the operation of the course during a race like issuing the signals to Safety car and drivers, but the Race Director has 'overriding authority' of the race giving instructions to the Clerk and considering his opinions regarding the course.

During the last minutes of the Abu Dhabi race, The 'Clerk of the Course' would have been competently implementing rule 39 as per the regs and all previous precedents. Then the Race Director told the Clerk of the course to do something unprecedented, and not described in the regulation 39, to un-lap only 5 cars, and then to bring the safety car in a lap early. Now being a technical professional himself, being very familiar with all of the regulations, and no doubt a stickler for rules, if the Clerk's superior tells him to do something wrong, he will challenge it. So there is no doubt in my mind that the Clerk would have challenged the Race Director under this high pressure situation. He would have at least said - ' sorry, you want me to issue WHAT?!? instructions with the unlapped cars and safety car?!?' It may even have happened twice, once with the irregular message to only 5 cars, and again with the irregular withdrawal of the safety car a lap early. these kind of challenges may have irritated an arrogant Race Director and caused a couple of heated exchanges and some bad blood. Exactly how heated this exchange became? - who knows, Most professionals get pretty stubborn when they know their job and it's rules really well, and then their client, or their superior tells them to do something 'cowboy' and pulls rank on them to make them do it...

When faced with a challenge from the Clerk of the course over a safety car issue, I can imaging that a pompous or arrogant Race Director may proudly stick to his guns and remind the Clerk that under article 15, the Race director has overriding authority (over the Clerk of the Course) regarding the use of the Safety car. The Clerk would probably say something like, 'fine, I'll do it, but this is wrong, doesn't conform to the regs and you are going to cop the heat for this after the race, not me'. These words now ringing in the Race Directors ears, A minute later he has Toto calling into his ear that this is 'so not right', and a championship is decided over it, he would get that sinking feeling that he's stuffed this up, and the Race Director is going to be sweating bullets and mentally preparing his defence already. In the immediate radio response to Toto, a sarcastic comment was the only wit he had in the moment. Also the Clerk of the course may now be like 'I told you so'... Mercedes challenge the decision and there is going to be a strong element of willy waving between Race Direcor and the Clerk of the Course after the race over who was right and who was wrong. I'd like to hear from the Clerk of the Course, but I guess he won't want to annoy a lucrative F1 customer and will keep out of the media. FIA now have to back up the Director and article 15, or they have to back up article 39, and we know which one they picked since they can't permit a Clerk of the Course or anyone except the F1 officials from making the big decisions in decisive moments, even decisions that break their own rules.

All of this is happening with a backdrop of the current president on his way out and new president joining in the near future to pick this mess. Nicely poised for one to pass the buck to the other in a way that leaves this issue in the cracks of F1 history.

Unfortunately, this will not go away easily as everytime the safety car is deployed during future races, there would be references to this shoddy incident "The Masi Shuffle"

[Nitrodaze]

I have tried to explain on this thread why the decision of the stewards was untenable if brought before a judicial court. I like to refer to an article by a lawyer explaining the situation in finer detail here

[The Black Knight]

Mercedes have withdrawn their appeal. I find this really frustrating and this will be bad for the sport in the long run overall. My understanding that the main reason they dropped the appeal is Lewis told them he did not want to win his 8th WDC in court.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...tter-formula-1

"Together with Lewis, we have deliberated carefully over how to respond to the events at the Formula 1 season finale. We have always been guided by our love of this sport and we believe that every competition should be won on merit. In the race on Sunday many felt, us included, that the way things unfolded was not right.


"The reason we protested the race result on Sunday was because the Safety Car regulations were applied in a new way that affected the race result, after Lewis had been in a commanding lead and on course to win the World Championship.

"We appealed in the interest of sporting fairness, and we have since been in a constructive dialogue with the FIA and Formula 1 to create clarity for the future, so that all competitors know the rules under which they are racing, and how they will be enforced. Thus, we welcome the decision by the FIA to install a commission to thoroughly analyse what happened in Abu Dhabi and to improve the robustness of rules, governance and decision making in Formula 1. We also welcome that they have invited the teams and drivers to take part.

"The Mercedes-AMG Petronas team will actively work with this commission to build a better Formula 1 - for every team and every fan who loves this sport as much as we do. We will hold the FIA accountable for this process and we hereby withdraw our appeal.

"To Max Verstappen and Red Bull Racing: we would like to express our sincere respect for your achievements this season. You made this Formula 1 Championship title fight truly epic. Max, we congratulate you and your entire team. We look forward to taking the fight to you on the track next season.

[denkimi]

They dropped the appeal because they were never going to win it. Not because they have no case, but because it makes no sense to appeal to the fia for some decision made by that same fia.