planetf1.com

You do know that some boards are at marshal post, right?

Anyway, as explained that bit of the post was merely being pedantic.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"

There is a protest deadline for a reason, for circumstances which are the exact equivalent of what you've described. Having said that, I'm on the fence in regards to whether or not Vettel would/should get penalised. Essentially, Vettel broke the rules irrespective of whether or not that part of the track should have been yellow. People are saying there was a green flag near the pit-lane exit, I haven't bothered to look yet.. so my opinion at the moment is nullified, but if there wasn't a green flag there, then I feel as though Sebastian should be penalised, because even if it wasn't supposed to be yellow, it was, he saw it, and still overtook. If he didn't see it, well that's just driver error and doesn't put him above the rules (what a long sentence).

_________________
DISCLAIMER #1: You're probably going to ignore the above post.
DISCLAIMER #2: My posts often tend to deter any users from posting again on a thread. I'm a thread-killer.

Now there are even marshals from Interlagos defending the green flags. What a circus it has all turned into.

_________________

Ferrari can't do anything officially. Article 174(d) of the ISC states that Protests against any error or irregularity occurring during a competition, referring to the non-compliance of vehicles with the regulations and concerning the classification established at the end of the event shall, except in circumstances which the stewards of the meeting consider as physically impossible, be made within thirty minutes of the official publication of the results. So if Ferrari wanted to protest anything they would have had to do that within 30 minutes of the end of the result. This would not fall under the 'physically impossible to do so' argument.

They could only use the 'review' option of Article 179b if a. they were a party to the decision (as in, a signatory of the decision, which would be Toro Rosso and Red Bull and the FIA) and they're not and in any case, b. there was a decision, which there isn't.

This was established with the fuel temperature issue in 2007 when McLaren appealed the Stewards' decision determining that the Williams and BMW were in fact legal. McLaren's appeal was thrown out because they weren't a signatory to the appeal (that was Williams, BMW and the FIA, who could have appealed their own stewards decision) and the ICA stated that McLaren had to launch a protest under 174(d) of the ISC.

So the only remaining possibility is that the FIA review the decision themselves, which is what the BBC article was getting at. Could that happen? I suppose so. However, I'd also consider the following matters.

For starters, for the FIA to do this would embroil F1 in a controversy of changing the result of the WDC after the fact. Hardcore fans like us and Ferrari/Ferrari fans may be willing to sit through that for the outcome, but the casual fans, which are the vast majority, would not and it would do detrimental damage to the image of the sport. Admittedly because it involves Ferrari the FIA might consider doing it - I'm not saying that to suggest that the FIA favour Ferrari, but it's well known that Ferrari carry more weight than the other teams, even just based on them getting a special payment from the TV Revenue that other teams don't. I've no doubt that the Spanish press making a big issue of this is in part to put pressure on the FIA to suggest that this is an important issue to fans as well.

So that leads me to the second consideration, which is that if the FIA were to go down this path, they would want to be ABSOLUTELY sure of the outcome before they did it. They're not going to open an inquiry that is tenuous, involves a lot of technical arguments about flags vs lights vs dashboards and whether the flag or the light was an error, and what the rules are about drivers slowing down under yellows to allow someone through, to call the WDC into question, much less only to have the outcome be, "hey yes, at the end of the day, it's confirmed". Given we can see on that video that a green flag is being waved - from Vettel's onboard just before he attempts the pass on Vergne so absolutely pertinent to the matter at hand - we know that at the very least there is a 'he passed under green flags' argument to be made. Moreover, if it were to come out that it was under yellows, I'd bet any money you like that Red Bull would make the argument that Vergne slowed deliberately with the intention of letting Vettel through, which we know from the 2009 Hamilton-Trulli incident under a Safety Car (even more strict than waved yellows) means that the driver who made the overtake is allowed to keep the position.

Now, for the record, it is my position that there was a green flag so the pass was legal. And with regards to the latter argument about Vettel passing Vergne because he appeared to be slowing, I believe that is irrelevant. What I am trying to highlight is that if the FIA did open this up for review it would end up a massive shitfight in the ICA and that is the LAST thing the FIA would want.

_________________
Formerly kai_

I've removed the other comments from your post because this is where we're in slight disagreement.

The failure at scrutineering was because Williams and BMW were outside the regulations on the issue of fuel temperature relative to ambient temperature (more than 10 degrees difference). The scrutineers had their measurement for the ambient temperature and way of measuring fuel temperature and when they performed their task the fuel was outside the acceptable limits.

However, when this was considered by the stewards, who are the ultimate arbitrators at the track and to whom Whiting and Bauer can only give their opinions (recall Spa 2008 when Whiting said Hamilton giving the place back was enough and the stewards decided otherwise), and Williams and BMW put forward their arguments, it came out that there was no prescribed way for measuring ambient temperature or for measuring fuel temperature. So ultimately there was no foundation on which to penalise them based on the scrutineers' data. Moreover, Williams and BMW were within the 10 degree range when based on their own data. So they weren't in breach of what was in the regulations.

This is distinct from the Sauber situation in that there was a hard and fast prescribed measurement AND way of measuring it in the regulations. So it was a straightforward technical breach.

The ICA threw out McLaren's appeal due to the technicalities, but they did also go through and explain why the stewards decision was correct and that they would have endorsed it regardless, to clear up any doubt about the matter. So although McLaren didn't succeed for technical reasons, they wouldn't have succeeded even if the appeal had been admissible.

I'm not a Raikkonen fan, but I sincerely hope that you, as a Raikkonen fan, don't feel that that hangs under a cloud because under the regulations it genuinely doesn't.

_________________
Formerly kai_

I'm really surprised that this thread hasn't been locked yet. I think the argument has run its course and we are just cycling back and forth.

I feel like I'm in a crowded room where everybody's shouting the same things without listening and nobody can hear me.

This really is an ugly side to F1 fandom.

_________________
twitter: @racer_nobu
blog: http://racingvacation.blogspot.com/

This is really simple ...

When the video was posted ... and congrats to the guy who produced it ... it appeared that there was a case to answer as to whether or not SB passed under Yellow. If he did then that should have been a penalty, and no amount of giving up the place later would mitigate.

However, as is often the case, we now have more evidence. That evidence suggests that SB passed a Green Flag before overtaking. It doesn't matter if the flag was meant to be Green, or even if a spectator was waving it. If SB saw a Green Flag, then he was racing and that is really the end of it.

If, as seems unlikely now, SB passed under Yellow, then he should, even now, be penalised. That kind of "rush of blood to the head" gets marshals killed.

But unless the FIA investigates, and decides he passed under Yellow because they have better pics than we do, then the matter is closed and he is the legitimate 3X World Champion. Good for him. Whatever the circumstances, that is quite the achievement.

I didn't see one green flag, all i saw were a blur of green trees. If your so confident show me the place exactly where vettel saw this imaginary green flag.
Legitimate like a hole in the RB8 floor world champion That bit i do agree on, F1 nowadays is nothing but a marketing exercise rather than the actual racing... I would go as far to say its fixed to a certain extent!

I have no intention of pandering to this nonsense any more. The pics up-thread do seem to show a Green flag, and I feel fairly confident that if it is not, then Ferrari will spot it.

In the meantime, you either haven't read the thread, or you just want to argue.

I have better things to do.

kai - i posted that regulation, but the more I thought about it, the more I decided that it refers to a technical breach. Like illegal parts on the car. The use of the terms "non-compliance of vehicles with the regulations and concerning the classification" could exclude the actions of drivers. Its not technically the CAR that would be in non compliance, it is the action of the driver in it. I don't believe Ferrari is considering a protest (whether they are allowed to or not) and I don't think the FIA are investigating despite some journos reporting it, as they have no evidence. I also don't think SV did anything wrong. But did want to point out that the quoted regulation might not be relevant. I deleted my post with the same thing for that reason.

_________________

I did think about that, but I took the view that 174(d) does refer to all of the regulations for three reasons. First, because it does not specify technical regulations. Second, because it uses the word vehicles rather than car which IMO is a catch-all phrase rather than a terminology to narrow it down. Third, because if it does not include all the regulations then there is actually NO provision for a team to protest the results based on the sporting regulations, which we know not to be the case as it has been done in the past.

Regardless, however, Ferrari have no means to directly open up a protest because either they have passed the time limit prescribed in that regulation or there is no provision for them to do it.

All they can do is petition the FIA to do something under 179(b) on the basis that this information is a 'new element'. Would they win that argument? Not sure. When Vettel was penalised for running Webber off the road in Japan '07 under the Safety Car a person who'd been at the track and filmed themselves posted a youtube video showing things from an entirely different angle that demonstrated that Hamilton had contributed with his own behaviour under the Safety Car. A forumer on here (Fiki) sent that link to Toro Rosso, who forwarded it to the FIA under 179(b) and the stewards revoked the penalty. But that was new because it was a camera angle the FIA didn't have available to them. s179(b) was also invoked after Australia 2009 in the case of the Trulli-Hamilton matter. The FIA became aware of the information that suggested Hamilton had lied, which they did actually have available to them at the time, but chose not to check. So that's probably more pertinent.

However, where both of these can be distinguished is that it was different information to what was looked at at the time. In this situation, if they didn't penalise him because there was a green flag, it's not new information to say that there might have been a green flag. Which suggests to me that Ferrari will only have a chance of getting this opened IF they can provide some genuinely conclusive evidence that there was a yellow flag.

_________________
Formerly kai_

Fair enough. When I was rereading it I had my F1-thinking cap on, the one that makes you think about every letter of the law. To me, it sounded like 174(d) was for technical breaches, and that there must be a provision elsewhere for breaches of the sporting regs/code, but I couldn't find any. So you may be right that it covers both since there is no other one. Or maybe it really doesn't, and some team will have a field day arguing it at some point. This type of thing, the whole scenario really, just highlights how much confusion can be created by the FIA rule-writers. I hate it, but I also don't have a viable solution to offer to make the rules more clear.

As for 174(d) - we can't know what the stewards did or didn't look at at the time, regardless of what they had available to them. Makes you wonder with all the GPS data they have why there is no system that sets off an alarm in race control when one vehicle's transponder passes another in a yellow flag zone. If the cars are GPS tracked, and the dash light system in the car knows when it is passing a flag, shouldn't be that hard to alert someone when cars have changed relative position and are not on the pit lane. Then the only human element involved would be if there were mitigating circumstances like a driver going off the circuit or some other unusual situation. They'd at least know to look at it then. Perhaps the GPS isn't accurate enough, or doesn't report often enough. Given the delay in showing a position change on the timing screen I could see that being the problem. Who knows.

_________________

Ferrari is planning to lodge another complaint with FIA which could result in vettel loosing the title.

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8293281/Ferrari-Consider-Title-Deciding-Protest

IMO a championship is won on the track... ALonso gained a lot of respect this year coz of his exceptional driving and had he won, it would have been deserving... but if he wins the championship now in this manner, i would not look at him as a worthy champion...Comments...

_________________
KIMI: Yeah,Winning feels good.But I am not the type of guy to jump up and down and rub it in everyone's face.

Ferrari are completely right to consider protesting. The evidence is there. BUT..... like you said, the Championship should be won on the track

That would make alonso look like a complete hypocrite http://www.google.com/gwt/x?client=ms-u ... pg1&whp=30

The evidence is there that the pass was legal. I kindly direct you to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5446

Also, to summarize the whole thread there in a few frames:

But if vetel has illegally overtaken under yellow lights why should he win the championship? The rules are there for a reason they are not there for 21 cars to obey and one to obey most if the time but not when he is trying to catch up.

im not sure what youre trying to direct me to. i see flashing yellow lights and Vettel pulling off a pass.

I see the green flag that the marshal is waving... but i also see the yellow flag flashing on Vettel's dash and on the monitor

If he does win the title, he has used all the means possible to win it. He has used the mind games, Massa and specificity of the FIA rulebook.

The commentators picked this up LIVE and discussed it. but the BBC site said it was not shown LIVE and it happened during a Replay of the Start

If true, so much for the "Alonso wouldn't want to win the WDC in a court room" comments.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

- Vettel's dash does not bear official relevance. It's there to aid, not to be the be-all end-all truth. Flags trump the dash.
- you see Vettel passing yellows first, then passing the green flag waved, then overtaking Vergne. From the green flag onwards, you can overtake, always.

According to english press... I dont trust ANY media at all.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2012 Championship finish: 6th place

According to PlanetF1 article on it Alonso seems to be the only one pushing hard on it and that the deadline is Nov 30th. Next 24 hours should be quite interesting ^_^.....

Do we really need a third thread on this?

Vettel got to the waved green flag the passed.

Theres no issue. You cant invent something thats not there.

_________________
Supporting in 2012:
Mark Webber.
Lewis Hamilton.

Ok. So BBC Sport and Planet F1 say something and you're treating it as the truth ?

Do you think they have spoken to Alonso about this ? because I really doubt they have. The media are probably making something up .

_________________
Forza Fernando !

somehow i wish they'd protest (although i doubt it) because the FIA would show the waved green flag to the world and the people would eventually get over it...

Am I the only surprised with the lack of commentaries of the type: "Oh this even should be on debate! Vettel deserves the tittle no doubt".

I wonder what the RBR team have to say about this tho...

It would be entirely wrong to retrospectively remove Vettel's title, the whole thing would be a PR disaster for the sport. However, if Vettel has infringed the regulations, it would be equally wrong for him to get away without punishment.

I therefore suggest that in the interest of the sport as a whole, the 2012 season results are allowed to stand but Vettel is given a 50pt penalty for next season, starting Red Bull on -50pts should enliven the 2013 season

_________________
Sebastien Vettel, the youngest driver ever to have the fastest car in F1 for four consecutive years

Inappropriate post removed

Technically they wouldn't be retrospectively removing it as he hasn't been officially declared champion yet.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

i don't think it's a bunch of disgruntled supporters. What do you think is the right thing to do? Just ignore an incident in which someone potentially violates the rules, which directly helps them to win the sport's biggest prize? Do you think the other competitors should not highlight a possible infringement of the rules which directly affects them in a massive way?

At least you should admit that this should have been investigated at the time and should be investigated now - it has nothing to do with being "disgruntled". You're a fool if you believe that (or most likely a hypocrite).

I for one would like to see a formal investigation, especially because these rules are there for safety reasons. Flouting of these rules in the past has led to severe punishments. If there was a confusion with the flags vs lights, or if the lights magically turned out to be yellow and orange rather than just yellow, let the investigation clear it up, then we'll all know the official line.

Noone would like to see a championship decided in this way, but if the incident had been investigated during the race, as it should have been, we wouldn't be in this position now. You can't blame Ferrari or anyone else for that.

Anything recent and controversial should be formally investigated by the FIA, even if it's fairly obvious (in which case it should only take 5 minutes). In this case it looks like there was a green flag being waved, so the FIA can confirm that for us, and confirm Vettel's WDC. I don't see what's so hard about that.

If Vettel saw both a green flag and flashing yellow lights, well, you can't punish a driver for overtaking under mixed messages.

This is silly now. The other thread has several clear explanations about why no rules were broken. It isn't even a grey area. The only people who think Vettel broke a rule are those who haven't understood how flags and light panels work.

Let it be fully investigated by those who have all the information, rather than tv companies or forumers who have partial information, if he's done wrong then he should be punished accordingly.

_________________
If...

Just one question: what makes you think or conclude it wasn't investigated?

I don't understand why someone not doing anything wrong should be investigated at all. Surely the only time something should be investigated is if there's a possibility they have done something wrong.

What we have in this situation are three events where there has been suspicion by the media and and the public that Vettel broke the rules, which has subsequently been disproven in all three instances by the footage. So there is no issue to begin with.

If we expect the stewards or the FIA to confirm that Vettel's passes are legal, then we're opening up a situation where any time a person wants to throws some doubt on a situation - whether legitimate or not - it has to be investigated. If you follow this through then in theory every single action on track needs to be confirmed as legal.

In the case of the Kobayashi pass, the stewards did go to the extent of confirming that that was the yellow and red flag.

_________________
Formerly kai_

Of course I can blame them. There is no controversy - Vettel passed JV after the green flag, it's evident on the video. There may have been investigation over the race but it concluded that all is okay. Mark my words, there will be no official appeal of any kind and if Ferrari start making noises about this they can be charged for bringing the sport in disrepute.

So FIA should make special announcement that Vettel is not a cheater? Because some ignorant fan published video on YouTube that disproves his own theory? Are you talking seriously? Because in such case I want FIA to investigate and make announcements about every case in which Alonso drive anywhere near yellow flags this year.

Had a look at the video again closely and whilst I would have liked Alonso to have won the title, I don't think any protest would be successful.

There are some yellow lights showing at the side of the track, but there are 3 issues here:

1. The yellow sector on the video is through turns 1 and 2 and halfway down the straight. Where is there a car either in the barriers or on the sidelines?

2. It is not clear if any marshalls are waving any flags

3. If they were official yellows, a waring would show on Vettels dash. It does not on this occassion and therefore not sanctioned by Charlie on this occassion.

In my opinion, it is likely that there were yellow and red warnings for the rain or it is a malfunction of the lights system, which we have seen in the past.