Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, I can't watch the Ricciardo attempt at this time, but if it happened on a wider corner, then it won't serve as an example. Also, you are putting the requirement for awareness on a far greater scale for the defender, than for the attacker, who already has the benefit of having the easier, more complete view. So I can't follow your reasoning there.
Unless you can explain why you don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of the corner, despite Mr Whiting doing so, we are stuck, I'm afraid.
I can understand why someone might think I make too much of Jo Ramirez's statement about Senna's speed, but I do consider it crucial. The old expression "a gap that was always going to disappear didn't come into existance without good reason.
I'm not putting awareness on a greater scale on the defender. I'm saying a driver can't ignore where the other driver is on track when he makes a move. In this case, Senna had already dived up the inside, so Prost lost the right to turn in.
According to which rule at the time? (Yes, I know racing etiquette is nowhere to be found either.)
Zoue wrote:
I think I have already explained it. If you think it's acceptable for a driver to steer into another as if he wasn't there, simply for some strange concept of ownership, then I agree we have zero common ground. I think I've been fairly clear on why I don't agree with it, in that deliberately hitting another car for any reason is unacceptable. Perhaps you might explain why some undefined concept of ownership gives a driver the right to plow into another? F1 has never been a contact sport, so I just don't see how that fits in with the rules in any way.
As I said also, that question is for Mr Whiting to answer. He used ownership of the corner, defined by position at the apex, as explaining why a driver is allowed to run a car off the track. If it is allowed in 2017, then why would it be wrong in 1989?
Zoue wrote:
I'm not quibbling about Ramirez' statement. I'm quibbling about Prost's actions. Firstly, he wasn't aware of Ramirez' statement at the time he crashed into Senna, so it doesn't carry any weight with what he did. Secondly, he couldn't possibly have known for sure that Senna was going too fast. He may have estimated, sure, but that in itself doesn't give him licence to cause a collision. That's the only issue at hand here: whether Prost was in his rights to use his car as a battering ram. And I can't see any reasoning that would produce an affirmative answer to that question
True, Ramirez spoke after both cars went missing from the race result. But the statement simply confirmed Prost's reading of the situation: Senna too far back for a proper overtake. From a sporting point of view, there is no reason to reward desperation or bullying. And that is again where ownership comes in.
While I am against drivers causing avoidable accidents, it is abundantly clear from the outcome of the accident, that Prost had no idea what a battering ram is supposed to accomplish! As we all saw a year later, Senna had much more experience in that field.
To me as a Formula 1 fan, it is unacceptable that stewards' or race control decisions can't be researched by us. I have no idea whether other sports suffer from a lack of publication of rules that are used in reaching a verdict, but it does seem the case in F1.
In answer to which rule at the time, ramming another car has never been a part of the rules. It's a no-contact sport.
True, but neither is dive bombing. Still, that wasn't the rule I was asking about. You wrote
Zoue wrote:
I'm saying a driver can't ignore where the other driver is on track when he makes a move. In this case, Senna had already dived up the inside, so Prost lost the right to turn in.
Although I would normally agree with you, without reference to the rules, it is with reference to the rules that the stewards are supposed to arrive at a verdict. That is the essence of the problem I have with this and quite a number of other incident outcomes.
If the mere presence of a car on the inside is reason enough for a defending driver to yield to the attacker, regardless of how overoptimistic/unsporting/stupid the attacking driver is, then surely that fact is documented in the rules?
Zoue wrote:
Prost's words don't really tally with his actions, which is why people are having difficulty with the events of 1989. He took a very unusual line in that corner, which brought him into direct contact with Senna, and he never adequately explained why he did that. It's difficult to draw any conclusion other than that he saw Senna and chose to make contact rather than cede the place. Which makes the accident his fault. Speculation on whether Senna would have made the corner is just that and cannot be a justification for Prost's actions.
I would love to have Prost explain it to me, because no other source seems to be available to those studying the whole incident. I have brought forward one factor in this discussion, which you reject; being ahead. The basis on which you reject that should be the rules. Note that I have also pointed out that being ahead is nowhere to be found in the rules now, but is still used in at least one 2017 verdict.
I don't know much about other sports, so I can't offer any analogies. Footballers being attacked, rather than the football, perhaps? But I don't know the rules governing football, and I don't find it an interesting enough sport to want to study them.
Zoue wrote:
I agree that there should be much greater transparency in the decision making around penalties, especially in this age of instant information access. If they are confident enough to make a decision that has a significant impact on the title fight, they should be confident enough to explain (and justify) their thought processes. Sadly, however, we will never know the real truth about this particular episode, but the only realistic explanation for Prost not deliberately targeting Senna is incompetence, which is hard to reconcile with his ability. The balance of probability indicates intent, which makes Prost the guilty party
Here also I offered an explanation, which you rejected. Whether the basis for your rejection is merely being realistic, is something I doubt.
One verdict the stewards reached recently sheds some light on the fact that more is used than just the rules: Austria 2016.