Max vs Lewis - Handbags at dawn

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Kempi

If you want consistency in decisions, the position in the race, the position in the championship or the outcome of the race cannot play a role in decision making.

The incident always needs to be isolated from that. Otherwise you will not only have discussions whether the isolated incident was handled correctly but also whether the surrounding factors have been correctly weighted

I'm saying it should consider the c'ship and/race positions. Because the context they race in. 16th/17th for cars that are normally back there is different to 1st/2nd going for a c'ship and win.

Originally Posted by Kempi

Where would you stop? Only position in WDC or also in WCC which is much more important money wise. Would a crashed car of a rich team be of less factor than a crashed car of a poor team? Would we need to take into account driver contracts and there bonuses for good results? You would have so many things that someone would find necessary to factor in, it would be impossible to handle.

It; all about understanding the context of the collision and consequence. It's best for it to be about the punishment being equal, and that's different when it's the c'ship contenders compared to the guys at the back.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But an incident between 16th/17th absolutely should be treated the same way. If the rules are written in a way that a lower placed competitor is treated differently to a competitor above them, the same rule should apply to all.

I don't think it's appropriate now that this season has just passed.

As I was inferring to Kempi, the context in which drivers race is different to from c'ship contenders at the front to the guys at the back.

The guys running 16th/17h are racing as hard as they can to get the best position they can. For Verstappen/Hamilton at Silverstone, they weren't even racing for the winning of the race, they're racing to win the championship. What they value is different, so the punishment should be different.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If there has to be a "correction", then you will get endless debate about results being adjusted after a race has finished.

As I see it, the only way to apply the type of outcome you are asking for regarding the Silverstone incident is to make the penalty for any incident (in which another driver loses places) a DSQ....

You can come up with any punishment or correction you like. It will be a huge impact on some and less so on others. The idea is to impact equally.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

I've read Teretonga's post , but will comment later.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Define the trailing car then, because in Silverstone,

There's no stage Hamilton was in front. The attempt to pass was fair enough. Verstappen even moved to the left prior to the corner to give space and took a wider line to accommodate Hamilton. It's also unreasonable imo that anyone has to be so accommodating to the trailing driver at a place like Copse, and the trailing car should consider that.

Accounting for damage to the car and that Verstappen got hurt, it's not that big a deal except that Hamilton was the one that tagged Verstappen off, denying the opportunity to get points, and then won the race. Jackpot!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIKel6jVD3Q

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Monza,

Yeah, Verstappen should've been stung for that. But as I've had been trying to say before, it's hard to punish Verstappen for that when Hamilton got 25pts out of Silverstone, which was then compounded by getting bowled over because of Bottas.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Brazil,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhrAgoHCoyo&t=31s

This reminds me of Hamilton and Rosberg in Austria? Hamilton is ahead, he's attempting to make the turn and I agree that Verstappen should follow. You can make a case for Verstappen to get pinged. I didn't watch the race but saw that Hamilton won and Verstappen was 2nd, which is what would've happened had Verstappen kept a tight line out of t4. SO for me, it's like nothing happened.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Saudi,

I didn't see the race. There seemed to be a number of factors involved, so I'm not going to say anything for now.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Abu dahbi Max has been the trailing car on corner entry but just brakes so late that he either misses the apex and runs the other car wide or doesn’t allow room on the inside for the other car.

Technically max is ahead at the apex for all these corners but it doesn’t mean he’s done it correctly.

This is the predicament that Max’s driving gives race control I guess

I;ve thought about this and. Abu Dhabi on the first lap is different. This is one you can go to the stewards you know about at race tracks.

Verstappen can go for the big move like he did, and you can see Hamilton was initially impeded. But that doesn't mean he can just straighten the wheel and go flat and cut the corner. He has to follow the line of the corner to say without a doubt he'd been impeded.

Verstappen could slow down and offer space inside the right hander to allow Hamilton room. That is a weird situation where you could say Verstappen got an unfair advantage to Hamilton getting an unfair advantage.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Just to query - what sort of "correction" should occur.

In hindsight, I think the best option would be to have a gentleman's agreement for MB to manufacturer a non points result for Hamilton at Spa.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

There are many comments that the last lap at Abu Dhabi was the correction that people were asking for - but:

Any correction would be argues as being unsatisfying. But we saw exactly what was being asked for - a correction....

Come off it, mate. It's one thing to ask for clarification and prolong the discussion, but it's another when you don't get the point.

Masi's response to Woolf was indignant and tactless.

Yes, the correction did occur. But the way it occurred was a sham. I've looked up an online dictionary and the word "incongruous" seems the most appropriate word to describe it.

But that doesn't mean the ending of the race wasn't ludicrous.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I'm saying it should consider the c'ship and/race positions. Because the context they race in. 16th/17th for cars that are normally back there is different to 1st/2nd going for a c'ship and win.

At what stage of the season is this madcap scheme implemented?

It sounds like an absolute minefield.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

At what stage of the season is this madcap scheme implemented?

It sounds like an absolute minefield.

I'd also add that the to the people racing for 16th/17th position, where they finish is just as important to them as for those at the front.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

..........

Verstappen could slow down and offer space inside the right hander to allow Hamilton room. ...........

Could, but wouldn't - because Verstappen would rather have contact / hit another car / crash out than give way and continue to race.

[Skam85]

Incidents should not, and never will be judged on championship position.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

At what stage of the season is this madcap scheme implemented?

Only once we have hindsight, and after the event so that we can claim we knew all along it was the right thing to do.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Idk who crmalcolm is referring to, but it mustn't be me, as I said the following on Aug 1.

https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...1&postcount=80

Then on Aug 10.

https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=110

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Idk who crmalcolm is referring to, but it mustn't be me

I took the reference to be to not always knowing in advance what the long-term consequences of an incident are. For instance, if the Silverstone crash had been between the drivers in 4th and 16th place in the standings, but with the latter then going on a late-season surge so they came to the last event even on points in third. Thus the significance of their crash 15 races earlier becomes apparent only much later.

Or the reverse - they are level at the top but one then romps away with the title while the other becomes embroiled in a close battle with a driver who was well behind at the time of the crash. The consequences there are not what they appeared to be at the time.

[bathurst77]

I read fai are going to have a full investigation and make wholesales changes for 22

I think Max will keep his wdc and masi will be sacrificed (rightly or wrongly) as an offering to merc

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Idk who crmalcolm is referring to, but it mustn't be me, as I said the following on Aug 1.

https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...1&postcount=80

Then on Aug 10.

https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=110

Well not specifically you, but anyone who was commenting after the event that they knew how it should have been handled differently to prevent the subsequent events.

hindsight - understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed
Silverstone GP - Sun, 18 Jul 21
'said the following on Aug 1. Then on Aug 10.'

Last time I checked, August was after July....

[Anyopenroad]

Not sure which of the active threads to post this in!

Hamilton and Wolff are giving the end-of-season gala a miss.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Not sure which of the active threads to post this in!

Hamilton and Wolff are giving the end-of-season gala a miss.

Macron has closed the doors to UK based travellers entering France Bet Toto and Lewis are spewing.....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Macron has closed the doors to UK based travellers entering France Bet Toto and Lewis are spewing.....

Not really relevant. The Gala is tonight, the border closes on Sunday.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Not sure which of the active threads to post this in!

Hamilton and Wolff are giving the end-of-season gala a miss.

I find this a little disconcerting - especially as James Allisson is going on their behalf. Surely, it would make a bigger point if Mercedes didn't send anyone at all. I know they would likely receive some sort of fine for this but it doesn't look good for Wolff's/Hamilton's future in the sport.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Not really relevant. The Gala is tonight, the border closes on Sunday.

Thank you for the correction
.......

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Beau2

I find this a little disconcerting - especially as James Allisson is going on their behalf. Surely, it would make a bigger point if Mercedes didn't send anyone at all. I know they would likely receive some sort of fine for this but it doesn't look good for Wolff's/Hamilton's future in the sport.

I think the opposite personally.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Not really relevant. The Gala is tonight, the border closes on Sunday.

"From Saturday, most travellers who are not French residents or citizens must give a "compelling reason"

so actually midnight on Friday However I was only being lighthearted - which off course has no place on here - which makes it even more fun

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

OK

Max made no attempt to leave racing room on the inside.

He did, you can see from the video I linked to ascarracinguk.

There came a point where Verstappen is defending his position on the straight, to then turning into copse.

I'm saying that the lead car has to be protected when turning onto a corner. To not do so makes things difficult for stewards and directors down the track.

My point previously is that even if it's not a cynical or ignorant attempt, it's 100% Hamilton's responsibility. There comes a point where the lead car has to begin to turn in, and the trailing car has to account for this when making a passing attempt.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

You have said that the penalty was not severe enough because it materially changed the status of balance in the championship. But this is at point half way through a championship and there is another dozen or so races to go so what happens in competition is what happens.

You cannot allow that attitude. It's kicking the can down the road.

If you don't hand a sufficient punishment, you then leave the "victim" open to taking recourse in their own hands, which is what subsequently happened.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

He did, you can see from the video I linked to ascarracinguk.

There came a point where Verstappen is defending his position on the straight, to then turning into copse.

I'm saying that the lead car has to be protected when turning onto a corner. To not do so makes things difficult for stewards and directors down the track.

My point previously is that even if it's not a cynical or ignorant attempt, it's 100% Hamilton's responsibility. There comes a point where the lead car has to begin to turn in, and the trailing car has to account for this when making a passing attempt.

You cannot allow that attitude. It's kicking the can down the road.

If you don't hand a sufficient punishment, you then leave the "victim" open to taking recourse in their own hands, which is what subsequently happened.

I'm not kicking the can down the road. Incidents are judged as incidents, on the day and in the specific circumstances.
I might have a different view from you regarding Max's driving at Silverstone but that is the human element in EVERY decision.
There is no mechanism for evaluating the pro's and cons of an incident after the meeting and reassessing penalties except the appeal system (and in most cases nothing happens, even if it should.....)

That is fine if that's your opinion, but we all have differing opinions on incidents and the FIA may not always get it right but that is what it is.

That is why the championship is around a points system and some years they even split the season in two and made it you had to drop scores in each group because only five out of six or six out of eight counted.
That was so no one could win it on consistency and not be the best /fastest/most deserving driver.

Should Max have been crowned champion four days after the event before all the balances were done for the season and the FIA could work out if it was fair? Any system that wanted balancing up before all parties involved are heard and evaluated could have prolonged it forever.

You are arguing in Max's favour that a more exacting penalty should have been invoked for Silverstone.
You want more justice in the system.
But how are you going to do that without messing about with the spirit of competition in what is essentially supposed to be a sporting event or a series of them?
You will need to create a mechanism that works and shows no favour.
Ill be interested to see your proposition.

What has come out of Abu Dhabi is that the FIA is happy to allow an incident to take place and alter the result of an event and just kick it down the road.
Whatever comes out of the commission there is NO will or desire to amend the result of find justice for Hamilton even if they do determine what happened was wrong and that an injustice was done.
And many of this sites keyboard warriors feel that its what it is so leave it.

Is it perfect? No
But would justice and fairness in terms of competition be achieved by another system?
Possibly but probably not. You may create more injustice and it would have to be a basis that NEVER allowed interference in the exercise of process.
And as we have seen in the FIA that is a forlorn hope.

I have seen both sides of this in the conduct at international events and been involved in the overturning of results and reversals in national and regional events and the subsequent fallout.
Believe me.
Your desire for justice is admirable but justice has to be based on truth, not an opinion and you could be opening up a can of worms that never stop reproducing.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Do you actually want answers to some of those questions?

[crmalcolm]

In campaigning for an incident to be judged on the consequences, not the incident in isolation, then the entire system of motorsport regulations needs to be rewritten.

We currently operate in a system where egalitarian principles apply ahead of an event, and retributive justice is applied to the awarding of penalties.
Restorative justice does not come into it.

IMO, that is how sport should be regulated, at all levels.

Lance Stroll (for example) should go into an event knowing that his actions will be judged in the same way as Lewis Hamilton's. To not have that means we have an imbalance in the playing field.

So, if we are still raking over Silverstone. If the driver trying to pass Max was Ricciardo (for example), and he did the exact same as Lewis, then the penalty should be exactly the same.

As soon as you start to say penalties will be different based on the champoionship positions of drivers involved, you create a position where consistency can never be achieved, and competitors are not treated equally.

[S griffin]

Yes, we need more consistency. Decisions should never be based upon whether the drivers involved are in the championship or not. Unless of course it's something like what happened in Jerez 97. And making an example out of a championship contender shouldn't really happen either

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Consistency is not achieved. The drivers, and the positions they're in, are not the same. The context they're racing in is different. A clear 1st & 2nd in the c'ship is a lot different to even 3rd & 4th.

If the guys at the back have a collision the same as Verstappen and Hamilton, it's probable that they're going to be denied something like a 13th place at best. A non-points paying position.

In the case of 1st & 2nd, it could cost them the c'ship. There's far more at stake. 1st 2nd in the c'ship are not even racing for the win of the race, they're there for the for what's best in the c'ship. That's different to what the mid/backfield is doing.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Consistency is not achieved. The drivers, and the positions they're in, are not the same. The context they're racing in is different. A clear 1st & 2nd in the c'ship is a lot different to even 3rd & 4th.

If the guys at the back have a collision the same as Verstappen and Hamilton, it's probable that they're going to be denied something like a 13th place at best. A non-points paying position.

In the case of 1st & 2nd, it could cost them the c'ship. There's far more at stake. 1st 2nd in the c'ship are not even racing for the win of the race, they're there for the for what's best in the c'ship. That's different to what the mid/backfield is doing.

That's where many disagree with that point - a battle for 13th place should be exactly the same as a battle for 1st.

Saying that a mid team is in a different championship - or should compete under different regulations - is effectively creating classes within the formula.

I'd love to hear the reaction from Jost Capito after Hungary if you asked whether their race didn't mean as much as the race did for Mercedes or Red Bull. That race also highlights why the regulations should be applied equally to all.

Should Vettel not have been disqualified because the result meant less to Williams?
How do you factor in that Hamilton 'gained' 3 points following the DSQ, but Verstappen only gained 1 point?
So should Vettel not have been DSQ'd because it impacted the WDC in Hamilton's favour?
Then you are impacting the contest between Williams and Alfa-Romeo. At that point Alfa had 2 points, and Williams had zero going into the race.

That is why you have to remove championship consequences from the decision, unless you are saying that the only position in the championship that matters is first.