[Rules] The FIA - what's occurring there?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Maybe, but a penalty should be a penalty. We don’t need the nonsense like Silverstone 21 where one driver knocks another out of the way and still wins, whoever it is.

But that would mean penalties are not consistent, and based only on how well the driver performed in the race.

Hypothetical:

Verstappen and Norris both line up forward of their grid position.
If you apply a 5s penalty in the race, either driver can still have the opportunity to make that time up.
But what if you wait to the end of the race to determine the penalty, Verstappen might finish 45s in the lead, and Norris less than 5s ahead of 2 other cars with 10 cars covered by 25s.
What should the penalty be to make sure it is a 'penalty' but also consistent?

Context has to be removed as much as possible when applying penalties. The only two questions should be:
Which regulation was breached?
What is the penalty for breaching that regulation?

Everything else should be irrelevant.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Exactly, why should a driver not be able to win just because he got a penalty?

I agree with that in theory.However in that particular case it showed the punishment didn’t fit the crime.It was pretty obvious from the time it was given that it was a non penalty that was going to have zero effect on the result.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Alan52

I agree with that in theory.However in that particular case it showed the punishment didn’t fit the crime.It was pretty obvious from the time it was given that it was a non penalty that was going to have zero effect on the result.

So what should the penalty have been, and when should it have been applied?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Alan52

I agree with that in theory.However in that particular case it showed the punishment didn’t fit the crime.It was pretty obvious from the time it was given that it was a non penalty that was going to have zero effect on the result.

Then the only way to penalise Max (and previously, Lewis) is to give them much higher penalties than you would other drivers.

That doesn't seem correct.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But that would mean penalties are not consistent, and based only on how well the driver performed in the race.

Hypothetical:

Verstappen and Norris both line up forward of their grid position.
If you apply a 5s penalty in the race, either driver can still have the opportunity to make that time up.
But what if you wait to the end of the race to determine the penalty, Verstappen might finish 45s in the lead, and Norris less than 5s ahead of 2 other cars with 10 cars covered by 25s.
What should the penalty be to make sure it is a 'penalty' but also consistent?

Context has to be removed as much as possible when applying penalties. The only two questions should be:
Which regulation was breached?
What is the penalty for breaching that regulation?

Everything else should be irrelevant.

On that basis though, you're suggesting that the penalty should take into account performance. I see nothing wrong with your Norris/Verstappen scenario. Verstappen overcame his penalty, Norris didn't. That's life....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

On that basis though, you're suggesting that the penalty should take into account performance. I see nothing wrong with your Norris/Verstappen scenario. Verstappen overcame his penalty, Norris didn't. That's life....

I'm suggesting that the penalty should not take into account performance. Both drivers should be penalised by the same amount.

[Aysedasi]

They were.... If the penalty is imposed 'out of the blue', i.e. unexpected, I'd agree as the driver would have had no opportunity to make up the time. But if the penalty is identified during the race and added afterwards, the opportunity is there.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

They were....

I think we're putting the same point across.
My hypothetical was in response to a post suggesting that Hamilton didn't receive a 'penalty' at Silverstone 21, and was intended to highlight the issue with applying a penalty based on performance.

I think that the penalty should be consistent based on offence, not outcome.
In the hypothetical both drivers should receive the same penalty (IMO), either during or after the race.

The post I was responding to implies that Hamilton should have received a non-consistent penalty based on his ability to overcome the penalty received.

[Aysedasi]

OK, my bad - yes, I completely agree.

[peebee2]

I agree ideally penalties should be consistent but applying them during the race can make them inconsistent, be it the non-penalty I referred to or other cases where the penalty ended up more draconian than it should be.

There’s no perfect version though. One of the F2 drivers I work with recently had a five second penalty - all was good until a late race SC that the race finished under that and a one-place penalty turned into a non-points finish. That’s hardly consistent either, as the sane offence before a pit stop would have been almost totally negated.

[Aysedasi]

I think there is basic disagreement over your 'non-penalty'. A penalty that is overcome isn't a non-penalty. It may be perceived to be a lenient penalty of course.....

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I think there is basic disagreement over your 'non-penalty'. A penalty that is overcome isn't a non-penalty. It may be perceived to be a lenient penalty of course.....

It’s one example of many. That one was blatant but there are plenty of others, of drivers maintaining a five second cushion after gaining positions only though the offending act.

[Aysedasi]

I'm sure that's true (and I don't want to resurrect the Silverstone debate - for obvious reasons!).

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

It’s one example of many. That one was blatant but there are plenty of others, of drivers maintaining a five second cushion after gaining positions only though the offending act.

So what would be the solution?

In the hypothetical I presented, or the examples you refer to, how and when should the penalty be determined and applied?

In nearly all other sports, any penalty is able to be overcome with sufficient performance. Why should F1 be different?

For example, in football a player knows that if they commit a foul when a player is through on goal, they are sent off. The advantage has been gained by preventing a goal scoring opportunity, and the team can overcome the penalty by outperforming their opponent.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by peebee2

It’s one example of many. That one was blatant but there are plenty of others, of drivers maintaining a five second cushion after gaining positions only though the offending act.

So your complaint is NOT whether it was a penalty or not, but rather whether the COST of the applied penalty was enough to deter. If you want to keep debating people at least learn what you mean to argue.


It appears there are a LOT of Finnish speeding penalty appliers here. Are we gonna base time penalties based on points earned that season now? More points means more time waiting so the field can catch up?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by peebee2

I agree ideally penalties should be consistent but applying them during the race can make them inconsistent, be it the non-penalty I referred to or other cases where the penalty ended up more draconian than it should be.

There’s no perfect version though. One of the F2 drivers I work with recently had a five second penalty - all was good until a late race SC that the race finished under that and a one-place penalty turned into a non-points finish. That’s hardly consistent either, as the sane offence before a pit stop would have been almost totally negated.

That is unfortunate, but there is one way to make sure it doesn’t happen again and it is in the hands of the competitors. Don’t commit the offense and you won’t get a penalty.

If you get a penalty then you’ve opened yourself up to suffering a consequence. That this consequence can vary is just part of the race. Like everything else in the race.

You could qualify 4th and that means you get caught up in 3rd place’s spin at the first corner. Or you could qualify 5th and you don’t. In this reasoning that’s hardly fair.

The race is a competitive environment with variables that can lead to differing results. You can’t, and shouldn’t, legislate for the variables, but you can give the same penalty.

The penalty should be appropriate for the offense and that is debatable. Once established give consistent penalties and preferably keep it in the same race. Then as a fans we watch with interest how it unfolds.

[peebee2]

True, good points.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Alonso should've been penalised during the race. Not randomly told an hour later that he's being penalised for something nobody bothered mentioning.

did it all play out after the race tho?

the Merc pitwall notified George late in the race that there was still an ongoing issue with how Alonso served the original penalty. they indicated that it could be another 5s penalty but the commenters quickly pointed out (not to the team of course) that based on Ocon's infraction last race, Alonso could be looking at a 10s penalty applied post race.

i suspect AM new this as well and was busy figuring out their counter arguments which they ultimately proved successful with.

so while i dont know the exact timeline, it does seem like there was some sort of dealings goin on in the back ground during the race?

of course that doesnt change how one feels about post race penalties in general and the debates that go with that.

but should teams not be allowed to make their case for or against even if it means these things can drag on well past the broadcast ending or late into the night?

as a side thought, i am curious how much of a push back Merc presented post race against AM's defence? as their supplier perhaps they didnt make as much out of it as they could have and let cooler heads in a post race background work out an equitable conclusion to Alonso's 100th podium?

[peebee2]

.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

of course that doesnt change how one feels about post race penalties in general and the debates that go with that.

but should teams not be allowed to make their case for or against even if it means these things can drag on well past the broadcast ending or late into the night?

I think it is right that teams can present additional evidence if it affects the decision. The main aim is that the right decision is reached in the end.
Ideally this would be during the race though, and post-race matters kept to a minimum.

I think the FIA have this somewhere near right with a specific timeframe in which appeals can be made. Possibly look at other sports' review systems to see if something can be learnt in terms of capping the appeals?
The challenge is that F1 doesn't (normally) have breaks in play.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think it is right that teams can present additional evidence if it affects the decision. The main aim is that the right decision is reached in the end.
Ideally this would be during the race though, and post-race matters kept to a minimum.

I think the FIA have this somewhere near right with a specific timeframe in which appeals can be made. Possibly look at other sports' review systems to see if something can be learnt in terms of capping the appeals?
The challenge is that F1 doesn't (normally) have breaks in play.

Good points
In basic natural law the accused has a right to face their accuser to defend themselves.
In F1 the driver is not always the accused (the jack issue), it is the team being penalized but the driver suffers in terms of his effort, because he has already served the 5 second penalty.

So there should always be a right of reply and a defense is the commonsense allowance.
how do you cap an appeal?
If the prosecution changes the boundaries or adds additional information during the first appeal, then there should be a right of rebuttal and appeal again.
Similarly, if the penalty is served and the adjudicators accept it has been served and notify the team that it has been served, should they then be allowed the change their minds later, especially if it alters the driver's ability to defend it on track and alters the racing result?

I don't think they should.
If we expect drivers to give account for errors, then officials decisions, once made and notified should not be changeable during the event.
One a decision is made and notified (posted on the official's board, real or virtual), then that's it.
Certainly, no other team or competitor should be able to add information to substantially change or alter the official's decision during the meeting because that constitutes interference.
If that happened at Jeddah, it was out of place.

[Tourer]

Grid boxes widened for Oz GP - also trialling a centre line.

Good move after the penalties in the last couple of races - hopefully that's the end of it.

[Aysedasi]

Sensible.

[S griffin]

Rules are rules, but seems a bit silly how drivers can be harshly penalised for so little. So no harm to widen the boxes a little

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Sensible.

Yes, but more importantly:

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-issues-...nd-prix-review

Consistent with the transparent approach adopted by the FIA, a thorough analysis has been undertaken and conclusions drawn that will help improve the sport.

Phew!