planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:37 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Should Verstappen get a penalty for his overtake?
Yes, it was against the rules and I agree 36%  36%  [ 36 ]
Yes, he should get a penalty according to the rules, but I don't agree 12%  12%  [ 12 ]
No, he shouldn't get a penalty, acceptable overtake 52%  52%  [ 51 ]
No, he shouldn't get a penalty, but LeClerc should get one for hitting Max 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 99
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1912
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
If you think his win has been kept because it suits a narrative then I'll refer you to Max's post-race penalty at the 2017 US GP. A storming recovery drive, cheered on by the majority, he crossed the track limits when passing Kimi and copped a 5 second penalty, keeping him off the podium. The penalty was widely condemned, especially after the show he had just put on, but the stewards stuck to their guns. Rules were rules and they didn't bow to pressure from anyone


No, this just shows that when Max is on a great comeback drive, he is willing to try absolutely anything to make things happen and improve the comeback drive even more with late race questionable driving.

They had to hold firm in 2017 because he literally cut a corner to overtake someone and that always get punished.

Here in 2019 they let him off because this type of move doesn't get punished that often, (even though of course it should). It's strange that they took 3 hours over deciding, clearly they felt that by the letter of the law this is unfair and incorrect racing or they wouldn't have been deliberating over this, (particularly with the lap 68 vs lap 69 comparison available to them). However they decided in the end not to punish him as there were too many orange shirted fans out there and they didn't want to decide the outcome of a race win for the second time in three races.

Here's why:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/masi ... s/4486338/

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:06 pm
Posts: 950
MistaVega23 wrote:
Charles kept his foot in when he'd already lost the position. Being forced off-track was a direct result of a.) leaving Max too much space on the inside and b.) not yielding when Max was alongside. If he'd backed off and done the switchback on Max then he'd have had the inside line for turn 4.

If the incident had happened at the Bus Stop in Spa, for instance, then a penalty would be the logical outcome as the following left-hander would've given Charles the inside line and Max would've directly forced him off-track (or collided).

This was purely a racing incident, and proper racing it was.


agree on all your points except if Leclerc backed off. By backing off, Max would've gone ahead and I pretty much assume will be smart enough to cover the inside for turn 4.

see 2.00. Norris on Kimi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3L7WzpAsjY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16309
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.


Surely in a sporting competition you have to treat all indiscretions of the same nature the same way? If something never gets penalised then you can't suddenly start penalising it. Not if you want your competition to have any integrity at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 709
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.


Surely in a sporting competition you have to treat all indiscretions of the same nature the same way? If something never gets penalised then you can't suddenly start penalising it. Not if you want your competition to have any integrity at all.


What if you finally want to start stamping it out, and also it's mentioned in the rules, (crowding another driver off the track).

Lap 68 vs lap 69 in this grand prix will forever show you all you need to know about the detriment to racing that this, (crowding and nerfing other drivers off the track that are on your outside), really is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16309
F1 Racer wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.


Surely in a sporting competition you have to treat all indiscretions of the same nature the same way? If something never gets penalised then you can't suddenly start penalising it. Not if you want your competition to have any integrity at all.


What if you finally want to start stamping it out, and also it's mentioned in the rules, (crowding another driver off the track).

Lap 68 vs lap 69 in this grand prix will forever show you all you need to know about the detriment to racing that this, (crowding and nerfing other drivers off the track that are on your outside), really is.


Then you at least tell the competitors you will be judging things differently. You can't just decide to do it adhoc when it suits you and maintain integrity.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd love to see it stamped out. I've been moaning about it for ages.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10285
Location: Ireland
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.

Precedence is what did Vettel in Canada isn't it?

Everyone bangs on about the stewards applying consistency. And they can only be consistent when drawing from previous incidents. And because F1 has become such a penalty-happy series they have oodles of precedent incidents to draw from

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1912
trento wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
Charles kept his foot in when he'd already lost the position. Being forced off-track was a direct result of a.) leaving Max too much space on the inside and b.) not yielding when Max was alongside. If he'd backed off and done the switchback on Max then he'd have had the inside line for turn 4.

If the incident had happened at the Bus Stop in Spa, for instance, then a penalty would be the logical outcome as the following left-hander would've given Charles the inside line and Max would've directly forced him off-track (or collided).

This was purely a racing incident, and proper racing it was.


agree on all your points except if Leclerc backed off. By backing off, Max would've gone ahead and I pretty much assume will be smart enough to cover the inside for turn 4.

see 2.00. Norris on Kimi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3L7WzpAsjY

Kimi's 19 seasons' experience showing through there 8)

My point is Charles could have covered the inside for turn 3 because of what happened the lap before. Whether he thought he was far enough ahead of Max or assumed he could repeat his defence from the previous lap I don't know. But he's as much to blame for the contact as Max was.

What he should have done is braked earlier for the corner so he would have had DRS for turn 4 even if the switchback on Max didn't work. Max did the same thing when he was lapping a backmarker a few laps previously. Very smart.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:35 pm
Posts: 349
Location: Perth, Western Australia
So touch another driver or push a driver off track and instant drive through penalty in every single case including first laps?....That would stamp it out....but would also create some pretty dull racing IMO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10285
Location: Ireland
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:
If you think his win has been kept because it suits a narrative then I'll refer you to Max's post-race penalty at the 2017 US GP. A storming recovery drive, cheered on by the majority, he crossed the track limits when passing Kimi and copped a 5 second penalty, keeping him off the podium. The penalty was widely condemned, especially after the show he had just put on, but the stewards stuck to their guns. Rules were rules and they didn't bow to pressure from anyone


No, this just shows that when Max is on a great comeback drive, he is willing to try absolutely anything to make things happen and improve the comeback drive even more with late race questionable driving.

They had to hold firm in 2017 because he literally cut a corner to overtake someone and that always get punished.

Here in 2019 they let him off because this type of move doesn't get punished that often, (even though of course it should).

Here, I'll just fade out the incorrect bit and your statement is spot on

F1 Racer wrote:
It's strange that they took 3 hours over deciding, clearly they felt that by the letter of the law this is unfair and incorrect racing or they wouldn't have been deliberating over this, (particularly with the lap 68 vs lap 69 comparison available to them). However they decided in the end not to punish him as there were too many orange shirted fans out there and they didn't want to decide the outcome of a race win for the second time in three races.

That's just your own conspiracy. I'm providing you with concrete examples of where the stewards have acted the opposite of what you're claiming

I do believe that in the past the stewards have made incorrect decisions "for the good of the sport" or because a particular driver/team was impacted (there were a lot of dodgy calls around 2008 for example). I don't believe that this was one of those occasions

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.


Surely in a sporting competition you have to treat all indiscretions of the same nature the same way? If something never gets penalised then you can't suddenly start penalising it. Not if you want your competition to have any integrity at all.


What if you finally want to start stamping it out, and also it's mentioned in the rules, (crowding another driver off the track).

Lap 68 vs lap 69 in this grand prix will forever show you all you need to know about the detriment to racing that this, (crowding and nerfing other drivers off the track that are on your outside), really is.


Then you at least tell the competitors you will be judging things differently. You can't just decide to do it adhoc when it suits you and maintain integrity.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd love to see it stamped out. I've been moaning about it for ages.


You have a good point mikey. I think it was obvious, the last few years they have been tightening the rules, redefining them and punishing drivers on things that before would maybe go unpunished. But my main point still stands. Should we allow wrong decisions in order not to upset the drivers?

I was perhaps too harsh before, consistency and precedent are important, but doing the right thing should be above all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 709
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.


Surely in a sporting competition you have to treat all indiscretions of the same nature the same way? If something never gets penalised then you can't suddenly start penalising it. Not if you want your competition to have any integrity at all.


What if you finally want to start stamping it out, and also it's mentioned in the rules, (crowding another driver off the track).

Lap 68 vs lap 69 in this grand prix will forever show you all you need to know about the detriment to racing that this, (crowding and nerfing other drivers off the track that are on your outside), really is.


Then you at least tell the competitors you will be judging things differently. You can't just decide to do it adhoc when it suits you and maintain integrity.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd love to see it stamped out. I've been moaning about it for ages.


Another lesser example of drivers giving each other space would be Bottas vs Hamilton at the start in Baku 2019, where Hamilton almost got ahead of Bottas but by a desire to give his teammate space and not put him in the wall, it meant they were able to race cleanly through the next couple of corners and Bottas was able to hang onto the place in a fair way. This contrasts with many of the lap 1 battles of Hamilton vs Rosberg in 2015, (USA and Japan) where crowding off was commonplace. Was it because of the walls being there that made Hamilton more gentlemanly in 2019? Perhaps, but it also made the racing better by them respecting each other's physical space like this.

Usually the guy on the inside wants to 'finish' the move at the current corner and not allow their rival a chance to fight back into the next straight and corner, they often wish to do this because their move into the current corner wasn't a completely clean move that has got them fully ahead of their opponent yet, so they unfairly prevent their rival's chance to reply by squeezing them out and/or punting them off if the rival doesn't yield. This is why it hurts the racing, we get prevented from seeing a clean move and we don't get to see continued battling and jostling for the next few corners.

In relation to Austria 2019 I don't believe Max would have held the lead against Leclerc on lap 69 if he'd given him space and my reasoning for this is that Leclerc was actually further back on the outside on lap 68 but still managed to get a better run out of turn three, (because he was given space) to retake the lead. So we likely would have gone into lap 70 with Leclerc still ahead of Max and it would have been interesting to see if Max could get a clean move to stick in either of the final two laps and won the race 100% fair and square. Because of the lap 69 crowding off the track decision by Max we have been robbed and will now never know what would have happened. What a shame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.

Precedence is what did Vettel in Canada isn't it?

Everyone bangs on about the stewards applying consistency. And they can only be consistent when drawing from previous incidents. And because F1 has become such a penalty-happy series they have oodles of precedent incidents to draw from

It is not easy, I agree. When they have been doing something wrong for years it is difficult to change it. Should they be stuck in a loophole because of precedent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:40 pm
Posts: 171
All i see here is people complaining and using examples that are very different to push their own personal opinion (including their inherent bias)

vettel missed a corner drove off the track and rejoined causing another driver to have to take avoiding action (whether on purpose or not)?

senna was decades ago and with different rules ?

max has lost podiums after races in the past (so he doesn't "always get away with it")?

Great racing and a proper decision based on the actual situation, and the stewards correctly using their flexibility of response. Sad that le clerc didn't use that frustration at being overtaken to fight back, no one deserves the win, you have to take it. He will have many more chances and he and Ferrari need to focus on that rather than arguing off the track.

I would say most disagreeing are either bias or have little or no idea of what racing is :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16309
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.


Surely in a sporting competition you have to treat all indiscretions of the same nature the same way? If something never gets penalised then you can't suddenly start penalising it. Not if you want your competition to have any integrity at all.


What if you finally want to start stamping it out, and also it's mentioned in the rules, (crowding another driver off the track).

Lap 68 vs lap 69 in this grand prix will forever show you all you need to know about the detriment to racing that this, (crowding and nerfing other drivers off the track that are on your outside), really is.


Then you at least tell the competitors you will be judging things differently. You can't just decide to do it adhoc when it suits you and maintain integrity.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd love to see it stamped out. I've been moaning about it for ages.


You have a good point mikey. I think it was obvious, the last few years they have been tightening the rules, redefining them and punishing drivers on things that before would maybe go unpunished. But my main point still stands. Should we allow wrong decisions in order not to upset the drivers?

I was perhaps too harsh before, consistency and precedent are important, but doing the right thing should be above all.


It's not about not upsetting the drivers. You just have maintain a degree of even handedness. I would like to see behaviour like this punished. However you can't just decide to go against all previous judgements in the middle of the race on a whim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 709
mcdo wrote:

I do believe that in the past the stewards have made incorrect decisions "for the good of the sport" or because a particular driver/team was impacted (there were a lot of dodgy calls around 2008 for example). I don't believe that this was one of those occasions


This was one of those occasions, because in an objective, rational sense, this type of move from Max, (punting his opponent off the course in order to take the lead), is wrong. Yet the stewards ruled it as right. Lap 68 showed how they should be racing, lap 69 showed how they shouldn't be racing, and Max was at fault for the difference between the two laps. Objectively the stewards got this wrong, I don't think anyone wants to see drivers overtaking others by making contact with them and pushing them off the track, but that was literally what happened here, and yet it went unpunished.

I don't care about precedent, I don't care that drivers have gotten away with this kind of thing in the past, objectively this is not proper or fair racing. Leclerc gave Max space, Max did not give Leclerc space, it is not fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1912
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:

I do believe that in the past the stewards have made incorrect decisions "for the good of the sport" or because a particular driver/team was impacted (there were a lot of dodgy calls around 2008 for example). I don't believe that this was one of those occasions


This was one of those occasions, because in an objective, rational sense, this type of move from Max, (punting his opponent off the course in order to take the lead), is wrong. Yet the stewards ruled it as right. Lap 68 showed how they should be racing, lap 69 showed how they shouldn't be racing, and Max was at fault for the difference between the two laps. Objectively the stewards got this wrong, I don't think anyone wants to see drivers overtaking others by making contact with them and pushing them off the track, but that was literally what happened here, and yet it went unpunished.

I don't care about precedent, I don't care that drivers have gotten away with this kind of thing in the past, objectively this is not proper or fair racing. Leclerc gave Max space, Max did not give Leclerc space, it is not fair.

But Max was on the inside. He gave Leclerc the choice of backing off or going around the outside. Charles chose the latter and put his car in a dangerous position.

Using words like 'punting' is not fitting to what actually happened.

Laps 68 AND 69 were pure racing IMO.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Surely in a sporting competition you have to treat all indiscretions of the same nature the same way? If something never gets penalised then you can't suddenly start penalising it. Not if you want your competition to have any integrity at all.


What if you finally want to start stamping it out, and also it's mentioned in the rules, (crowding another driver off the track).

Lap 68 vs lap 69 in this grand prix will forever show you all you need to know about the detriment to racing that this, (crowding and nerfing other drivers off the track that are on your outside), really is.


Then you at least tell the competitors you will be judging things differently. You can't just decide to do it adhoc when it suits you and maintain integrity.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd love to see it stamped out. I've been moaning about it for ages.


You have a good point mikey. I think it was obvious, the last few years they have been tightening the rules, redefining them and punishing drivers on things that before would maybe go unpunished. But my main point still stands. Should we allow wrong decisions in order not to upset the drivers?

I was perhaps too harsh before, consistency and precedent are important, but doing the right thing should be above all.


It's not about not upsetting the drivers. You just have maintain a degree of even handedness. I would like to see behaviour like this punished. However you can't just decide to go against all previous judgements in the middle of the race on a whim.

I don't think it is on a whim nor middle of the race, it was 3 hours after the race. Sometimes it takes a certain incident to bring out the rule book and have another look, or even tweak it. Remember how they looked at (ironically) the crowding thing again and defined what constitutes "being alongside" on another car? It was after an incident, not sure which one, though I think it was the dodgy defence moves Schumacher put on Hamilton in 2011 or so. Same for the one defensive move and weaving, they looked at them again after some incidents and firmed up the rules. Or more recently the overtaking outside the track in turn one in the beginning of the race.

I do not find it unthinkable to do this. If people abuse a rule, then you have to take action. I am not sure what you mean by handedness, but to me not punishing something because of the past is like trying to save face and it gives really the wrong impression; because it appears to be ok to overtake someone and hang him out to dry, banging wheels and all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16309
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

What if you finally want to start stamping it out, and also it's mentioned in the rules, (crowding another driver off the track).

Lap 68 vs lap 69 in this grand prix will forever show you all you need to know about the detriment to racing that this, (crowding and nerfing other drivers off the track that are on your outside), really is.


Then you at least tell the competitors you will be judging things differently. You can't just decide to do it adhoc when it suits you and maintain integrity.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd love to see it stamped out. I've been moaning about it for ages.


You have a good point mikey. I think it was obvious, the last few years they have been tightening the rules, redefining them and punishing drivers on things that before would maybe go unpunished. But my main point still stands. Should we allow wrong decisions in order not to upset the drivers?

I was perhaps too harsh before, consistency and precedent are important, but doing the right thing should be above all.


It's not about not upsetting the drivers. You just have maintain a degree of even handedness. I would like to see behaviour like this punished. However you can't just decide to go against all previous judgements in the middle of the race on a whim.

I don't think it is on a whim nor middle of the race, it was 3 hours after the race. Sometimes it takes a certain incident to bring out the rule book and have another look, or even tweak it. Remember how they looked at (ironically) the crowding thing again and defined what constitutes "being alongside" on another car? It was after an incident, not sure which one, though I think it was the dodgy defence moves Schumacher put on Hamilton in 2011 or so. Same for the one defensive move and weaving, they looked at them again after some incidents and firmed up the rules. Or more recently the overtaking outside the track in turn one in the beginning of the race.

I do not find it unthinkable to do this. If people abuse a rule, then you have to take action. I am not sure what you mean by handedness, but to me not punishing something because of the past is like trying to save face and it gives really the wrong impression; because it appears to be ok to overtake someone and hang him out to dry, banging wheels and all


But this isn't just something we have seen once, or even occasionally. This is something we see all the time. It would look ludicrous to have punished Max after letting so much go in the past.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:

I do believe that in the past the stewards have made incorrect decisions "for the good of the sport" or because a particular driver/team was impacted (there were a lot of dodgy calls around 2008 for example). I don't believe that this was one of those occasions


This was one of those occasions, because in an objective, rational sense, this type of move from Max, (punting his opponent off the course in order to take the lead), is wrong. Yet the stewards ruled it as right. Lap 68 showed how they should be racing, lap 69 showed how they shouldn't be racing, and Max was at fault for the difference between the two laps. Objectively the stewards got this wrong, I don't think anyone wants to see drivers overtaking others by making contact with them and pushing them off the track, but that was literally what happened here, and yet it went unpunished.

I don't care about precedent, I don't care that drivers have gotten away with this kind of thing in the past, objectively this is not proper or fair racing. Leclerc gave Max space, Max did not give Leclerc space, it is not fair.

But Max was on the inside. He gave Leclerc the choice of backing off or going around the outside. Charles chose the latter and put his car in a dangerous position.

Using words like 'punting' is not fitting to what actually happened.

Laps 68 AND 69 were pure racing IMO.

I can't believe this comment from you Mmista, normally your comments are spot on.

It does not matter who is on the inside, two cars can go around the bend together just fine. What you describing is basically anyone going for a divebomb and then claiming that "I was on the inside, the other guy had the chance to back off"...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1298
I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been. Its as if Leclerc is trying to drive through Max's car.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.


Last edited by Johnson on Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Then you at least tell the competitors you will be judging things differently. You can't just decide to do it adhoc when it suits you and maintain integrity.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd love to see it stamped out. I've been moaning about it for ages.


You have a good point mikey. I think it was obvious, the last few years they have been tightening the rules, redefining them and punishing drivers on things that before would maybe go unpunished. But my main point still stands. Should we allow wrong decisions in order not to upset the drivers?

I was perhaps too harsh before, consistency and precedent are important, but doing the right thing should be above all.


It's not about not upsetting the drivers. You just have maintain a degree of even handedness. I would like to see behaviour like this punished. However you can't just decide to go against all previous judgements in the middle of the race on a whim.

I don't think it is on a whim nor middle of the race, it was 3 hours after the race. Sometimes it takes a certain incident to bring out the rule book and have another look, or even tweak it. Remember how they looked at (ironically) the crowding thing again and defined what constitutes "being alongside" on another car? It was after an incident, not sure which one, though I think it was the dodgy defence moves Schumacher put on Hamilton in 2011 or so. Same for the one defensive move and weaving, they looked at them again after some incidents and firmed up the rules. Or more recently the overtaking outside the track in turn one in the beginning of the race.

I do not find it unthinkable to do this. If people abuse a rule, then you have to take action. I am not sure what you mean by handedness, but to me not punishing something because of the past is like trying to save face and it gives really the wrong impression; because it appears to be ok to overtake someone and hang him out to dry, banging wheels and all


But this isn't just something we have seen once, or even occasionally. This is something we see all the time. It would look ludicrous to have punished Max after letting so much go in the past.

I agree, it happens too much. So the real question is when/where to draw the line, not if it needs to be drawn.

I'd say this was the perfect time, no one would care if it was two backmarkers on lap 3, but the two main rivals two laps for the win, it would be a message all right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
Johnson wrote:
I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.

You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16309
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

You have a good point mikey. I think it was obvious, the last few years they have been tightening the rules, redefining them and punishing drivers on things that before would maybe go unpunished. But my main point still stands. Should we allow wrong decisions in order not to upset the drivers?

I was perhaps too harsh before, consistency and precedent are important, but doing the right thing should be above all.


It's not about not upsetting the drivers. You just have maintain a degree of even handedness. I would like to see behaviour like this punished. However you can't just decide to go against all previous judgements in the middle of the race on a whim.

I don't think it is on a whim nor middle of the race, it was 3 hours after the race. Sometimes it takes a certain incident to bring out the rule book and have another look, or even tweak it. Remember how they looked at (ironically) the crowding thing again and defined what constitutes "being alongside" on another car? It was after an incident, not sure which one, though I think it was the dodgy defence moves Schumacher put on Hamilton in 2011 or so. Same for the one defensive move and weaving, they looked at them again after some incidents and firmed up the rules. Or more recently the overtaking outside the track in turn one in the beginning of the race.

I do not find it unthinkable to do this. If people abuse a rule, then you have to take action. I am not sure what you mean by handedness, but to me not punishing something because of the past is like trying to save face and it gives really the wrong impression; because it appears to be ok to overtake someone and hang him out to dry, banging wheels and all


But this isn't just something we have seen once, or even occasionally. This is something we see all the time. It would look ludicrous to have punished Max after letting so much go in the past.

I agree, it happens too much. So the real question is when/where to draw the line, not if it needs to be drawn.

I'd say this was the perfect time, no one would care if it was two backmarkers on lap 3, but the two main rivals two laps for the win, it would be a message all right.


Do it whenever you like. Just tell the drivers you're changing the way the rules will be applied so things that were allowed to pass before won't be anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 709
It's funny how some people don't like me using terminology and phrases such as 'punting Leclerc off the track' or 'pushing him off' etc. but that is literally what he does, it's what he chooses to do on lap 69. On lap 68 he did not choose to do this, he wanted to pass for the win cleanly like he did with Bottas and Vettel, on lap 68 he decides to exit the corner tighter and slower and use more of the right hand part of the track.

On lap 69 he decides that he is running out of time and just wants past even if he's not able to do it cleanly. He decides to put his foot on the gas and to exit turn three as though there is no car on the outside of him, he forces Leclerc into a decision: either (1) I am going to crash into you and push you off the track or (2) you can steer yourself off the circuit to avoid any contact whilst I take the lead uncontested. To Leclerc's credit he opts for option (1), (many drivers in the past unfortunately opt for option (2) and so this crowding off the track does not get highlighted nearly as often as it should), so because Leclerc decides to stay on track as he should, he literally does get crashed into deliberately and punted off the circuit.

My words are not sensationalism here, this is what Max literally chose to do to win this Grand Prix, he elected to crash out a rival, and it makes him no different than other drivers that have caused deliberate crashes in the past. He did the same with Ocon in Brazil 2018, only he chose to crowd Ocon off up the inside of the corner pre-apex by chopping ruthlessly across him as though Ocon wasn't there, so he is capable of either maneuver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10285
Location: Ireland
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.

Precedence is what did Vettel in Canada isn't it?

Everyone bangs on about the stewards applying consistency. And they can only be consistent when drawing from previous incidents. And because F1 has become such a penalty-happy series they have oodles of precedent incidents to draw from

It is not easy, I agree. When they have been doing something wrong for years it is difficult to change it. Should they be stuck in a loophole because of precedent?

If they want to wipe the slate clean then I would prefer they do it after the season has concluded. I would like to think that the recent uproar over stewarding decisions and calls for a review of the regulations will actually lead to something. And I would like to think they will wait until the current racing season has finished before they enact any changes

I hate midseason changes, they're not sporting

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:06 pm
Posts: 950
Johnson wrote:
I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been. Its as if Leclerc is trying to drive through Max's car.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.


Refer to lap 68. Leclerc left him more space for that lap clash on the corner entry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 10285
Location: Ireland
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:

I do believe that in the past the stewards have made incorrect decisions "for the good of the sport" or because a particular driver/team was impacted (there were a lot of dodgy calls around 2008 for example). I don't believe that this was one of those occasions


This was one of those occasions, because in an objective, rational sense, this type of move from Max, (punting his opponent off the course in order to take the lead), is wrong. Yet the stewards ruled it as right. Lap 68 showed how they should be racing, lap 69 showed how they shouldn't be racing, and Max was at fault for the difference between the two laps. Objectively the stewards got this wrong, I don't think anyone wants to see drivers overtaking others by making contact with them and pushing them off the track, but that was literally what happened here, and yet it went unpunished.

Not according to the way the sport is policed by those who are policing it

F1 Racer wrote:
I don't care about precedent, I don't care that drivers have gotten away with this kind of thing in the past, objectively this is not proper or fair racing. Leclerc gave Max space, Max did not give Leclerc space, it is not fair.

Unfortunately for you the stewards take precedent into account. It's part of the job they do and plays a role in how they make their decisions

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:06 pm
Posts: 950
Siao7 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
I wanted Charles to win his first race, but its not a penalty. This is the best view of it, stabilised footage.

https://streamable.com/bftsg

Given that Max is approaching a hairpin type corner on the inside, Leclerc does not give him enough space, he crowds him. How tight does he expect Max to go... 2 cars can not make it through there with Leclerc squeezing Max like that. I also feel like the touch makes Max force him off track even more, as Max's car stops steering, so it looks worse than it would have been.

Leclerc almost runs the racing line himself, although there are two lines through this corner. Some were running the kerb, some were running wide on it.

You do realise that Leclerc saw Max and actually corrected and opened up his line to go wider and leave more space, right? He did not turn into Max, this claim is laughable, he steered away from him. Both drivers in fact opened up their lines, Leclerc to give more space and Max to force Charles run out of space...


The problem was Leclerc didn't need to do that. Doing another lap 68 move would have been perfectly fair n legal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What surprises me most of all is people banging on precedence. Personally I couldn't care less about precedence. Since when does precedence trump making the right decision? Should everyone get a clean pass since Senna wasn't penalised in Suzuka for example? It is mind boggling.

It is really unfortunate that it happened at the very end and it was for the lead, that will always attract more attention. But to allow it just because people don't like results being decided after the race is just wrong.

Precedence is what did Vettel in Canada isn't it?

Everyone bangs on about the stewards applying consistency. And they can only be consistent when drawing from previous incidents. And because F1 has become such a penalty-happy series they have oodles of precedent incidents to draw from

It is not easy, I agree. When they have been doing something wrong for years it is difficult to change it. Should they be stuck in a loophole because of precedent?

If they want to wipe the slate clean then I would prefer they do it after the season has concluded. I would like to think that the recent uproar over stewarding decisions and calls for a review of the regulations will actually lead to something. And I would like to think they will wait until the current racing season has finished before they enact any changes

I hate midseason changes, they're not sporting

I totally agree, although in fairness it is not a change per ce, more like them actually enforcing the rules.

But with so many young drivers now, I'd rather it be sooner than later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:26 pm
Posts: 144
I'm no Verstappen fan, but that was a pass. Chances are the only reason he didn't get a penalty is there would be no more orange army to justify continuing races in Europe, but the outcome was the correct one. There never should have been a cloud over his victory. I lost quite a bit of respect for LeClerc, who came off as an entitled sort of chap.

_________________
Does anyone think that there has ever been a moment of frustration with his father when Max has pointed out to Jos that he was the Pierre Gasly of 1994?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1912
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:

I do believe that in the past the stewards have made incorrect decisions "for the good of the sport" or because a particular driver/team was impacted (there were a lot of dodgy calls around 2008 for example). I don't believe that this was one of those occasions


This was one of those occasions, because in an objective, rational sense, this type of move from Max, (punting his opponent off the course in order to take the lead), is wrong. Yet the stewards ruled it as right. Lap 68 showed how they should be racing, lap 69 showed how they shouldn't be racing, and Max was at fault for the difference between the two laps. Objectively the stewards got this wrong, I don't think anyone wants to see drivers overtaking others by making contact with them and pushing them off the track, but that was literally what happened here, and yet it went unpunished.

I don't care about precedent, I don't care that drivers have gotten away with this kind of thing in the past, objectively this is not proper or fair racing. Leclerc gave Max space, Max did not give Leclerc space, it is not fair.

But Max was on the inside. He gave Leclerc the choice of backing off or going around the outside. Charles chose the latter and put his car in a dangerous position.

Using words like 'punting' is not fitting to what actually happened.

Laps 68 AND 69 were pure racing IMO.

I can't believe this comment from you Mmista, normally your comments are spot on.

It does not matter who is on the inside, two cars can go around the bend together just fine. What you describing is basically anyone going for a divebomb and then claiming that "I was on the inside, the other guy had the chance to back off"...

I'm not condoning divebombs, but my opinion is Leclerc also had the opportunity to back off slightly and go for the switchback (with DRS if he had braked earlier). Instead, he chose to put his car where he did, even though I agree that Max's move was a little opportunistic. But that's what we want to see, right?

What I'm fearing now are similar incidents in future where the driver being overtaken will purposely stick his car closer to the middle of the corner, risking contact between both cars and then crying foul when it doesn't go their way. The driver doing the overtaking will have to think twice about a move like Max's yesterday.

Will it harm wheel-to-wheel racing in the future? Who knows.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7790
MistaVega23 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
mcdo wrote:

I do believe that in the past the stewards have made incorrect decisions "for the good of the sport" or because a particular driver/team was impacted (there were a lot of dodgy calls around 2008 for example). I don't believe that this was one of those occasions


This was one of those occasions, because in an objective, rational sense, this type of move from Max, (punting his opponent off the course in order to take the lead), is wrong. Yet the stewards ruled it as right. Lap 68 showed how they should be racing, lap 69 showed how they shouldn't be racing, and Max was at fault for the difference between the two laps. Objectively the stewards got this wrong, I don't think anyone wants to see drivers overtaking others by making contact with them and pushing them off the track, but that was literally what happened here, and yet it went unpunished.

I don't care about precedent, I don't care that drivers have gotten away with this kind of thing in the past, objectively this is not proper or fair racing. Leclerc gave Max space, Max did not give Leclerc space, it is not fair.

But Max was on the inside. He gave Leclerc the choice of backing off or going around the outside. Charles chose the latter and put his car in a dangerous position.

Using words like 'punting' is not fitting to what actually happened.

Laps 68 AND 69 were pure racing IMO.

I can't believe this comment from you Mmista, normally your comments are spot on.

It does not matter who is on the inside, two cars can go around the bend together just fine. What you describing is basically anyone going for a divebomb and then claiming that "I was on the inside, the other guy had the chance to back off"...

I'm not condoning divebombs, but my opinion is Leclerc also had the opportunity to back off slightly and go for the switchback (with DRS if he had braked earlier). Instead, he chose to put his car where he did, even though I agree that Max's move was a little opportunistic. But that's what we want to see, right?

What I'm fearing now are similar incidents in future where the driver being overtaken will purposely stick his car closer to the middle of the corner, risking contact between both cars and then crying foul when it doesn't go their way. The driver doing the overtaking will have to think twice about a move like Max's yesterday.

Will it harm wheel-to-wheel racing in the future? Who knows.

I am not sure a switchback would work here to be honest. And if nothing else, Leclerc opened up his line to make space, this was not sticking his car in the middle of the corner and crying foul. I think that it is always the overtaking driver's responsibility to conclude a "safe" overtake. And of course both drivers' responsibility not to crash with each other. There is no such thing that says that the outside driver shall back off, the reality is that they have to give each other space.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1251
No. Because that whole move is just motor racing - from karts to F1 it's no different.

If you leave a gap on the inside big enough another to car to fit into - you run a risk. They will take it and you WILL be run wide on the exit if you stay there. It's that simple. Accept that and either back out or face the consequence. If you don't want that to happen, defend the inside and take the risk of them going round the outside where you can return the favour and push them out when THEY are on the outside by the time you get to the exit.

That is how it is and always has been.

Unless the driver on the inside literally adjusts his line to nerf you out (and I dpn't see that Verstappen did), or goes straight on much deeper than needed (Rosberg!!) then it's just hard but far racing.

Leclerc left the gap and Verstappen, being a racing driver, took it.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 3:19 pm
Posts: 3
I'm glad we didn't have to deal with a penalty, but to me this should be an opportunity to clarify the rules in this scenario. F1 should not allow side by side cars to force one another off the track. We should have had max and leclerc wheel to wheel down the back straight - instead Leclerc was simply pushed off the track despite having established track position next to Max.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33194
trento wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
yodasarmpit wrote:
Absolutely nothing wrong with that pass, Max took the line and remained full lock without losing control. It will be a sad day if that is considered penalty worthy.


Check out the attempt pass at 0:50. Leclerc left him just enough room & Verstappen managed to hit the apex & race clean leaving Leclerc room on exit.

Then go to 1:40. Leclerc leaves Verstappen more room but instead of catching the apex, he keeps it wide by i'd guess 1/2 a car width, then, even though he'd had more than enough room to tighten up the corner, he instead straightens the car up, allowing it to drift to the outside & forces Leclerc off the track.


Yep the first attempt didn't work so the second attempt he didn't bother with the apex of the corner but just went to force Leclerc off the track.


the question is why Leclerc left him even more room? It was winning or losing the race. I'm really puzzled.

I don't understand why Leclerc didn't defend the inside line in the first place, he seemed to think that there was more merit to staying wide perhaps for a better exit, also I would be guessing he thought he had a right to stay on the track?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1912
DOLOMITE wrote:
No. Because that whole move is just motor racing - from karts to F1 it's no different.

If you leave a gap on the inside big enough another to car to fit into - you run a risk. They will take it and you WILL be run wide on the exit if you stay there. It's that simple. Accept that and either back out or face the consequence. If you don't want that to happen, defend the inside and take the risk of them going round the outside where you can return the favour and push them out when THEY are on the outside by the time you get to the exit.

That is how it is and always has been.

Unless the driver on the inside literally adjusts his line to nerf you out (and I dpn't see that Verstappen did), or goes straight on much deeper than needed (Rosberg!!) then it's just hard but far racing.

Leclerc left the gap and Verstappen, being a racing driver, took it.

My thoughts exactly. Everyone's opinions will differ depending on their affinity to a certain driver/team or how long they've been watching the sport.

Role reversal time - if it was Leclerc going for the pass on the outside and Max forces him wide, then what then?

I've been replaying this angle time and again this afternoon:

https://streamable.com/bftsg

I cannot see what Max has done wrong in either scenario. Hanging drivers out to dry is one of the oldest tricks in the book. A little tyre bump shouldn't be punished as long as the move itself is not reckless.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 711
Have to agree that they reached the right decision for me. Smart racing from max and I'm definitely not a fan. You just can't penalize when they leave no space on exit unless you are absolutely certain that it was deliberate which is almost impossible when its a skilled racer. I think it's good that they took the time to look at it carefully though as I'm sure that Max adapts his approach to the corner on the second lap to use all of the track but that's racing and he has the racing line.

If they penalize this it would fundamentally change racing. I think it would give far too big an advantage to the overtaking driver, and you would see a lot of crashes and defending drivers penalized with out being able to defend the corner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6753
Location: Nebraska, USA
I find it interesting that there are such interesting lines being drawn here. With this incident and the Vettel one last race, we find some screaming for the the strictest application of the "rules" as it applies to one situation, but willing to accept less in the other. Personally, I would apply "racing incident" to both cases and let them race.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 711
Blake wrote:
I find it interesting that there are such interesting lines being drawn here. With this incident and the Vettel one last race, we find some screaming for the the strictest application of the "rules" as it applies to one situation, but willing to accept less in the other. Personally, I would apply "racing incident" to both cases and let them race.

I knew this would come up, just glad it is different drivers involved so hopefully there can be some impartial discussion! I can understand and respect those who argue both should be treated similar and considered racing incidents. Key differences were pointed out at the time of the Vettel incident though. Yesterday was a true racing incident. Fairly normal overtaking incident where the rules of engagement apply. What set the other incident aside for me was the lead drivers mistake, and very quick closing speeds between the cars. It would be a lot more dangerous going forward if a driver knew he could block another car approaching at racing speed after making a mistake that substantially slows them down.

I think what is making fans side with the overtaking driver more in both incidents though is the current rules and just how difficult it is to overtake another car on track.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group