planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:29 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Canada 2019: Vettel Penalty
As per the rules, the penalty is correct and justified 29%  29%  [ 25 ]
As per the rules, the penalty is correct, but it seems harsh and shouldn't have been awarded 14%  14%  [ 12 ]
As per the rules, the penalty is correct. It seems harsh but it's consistent and that's what has been asked for 26%  26%  [ 22 ]
Penalty not justified at all, Vettel had no way to comply with what the rules state 27%  27%  [ 23 ]
Problem is the rules, not the stewards 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 86
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1152
Which option best describes your thoughts.



Rules
1) Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage.
2) Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
3) It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time.

Verdict
"The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that car 5 [Vettel], left the track at Turn 3, rejoined the track at Turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 [Hamilton] off the track"

My thoughts: Initially that it was totally undeserved. Looking at the rules:

1) Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage.
-Well I think the speed it happened at Vettel was just trying to avoid a crash when he rejoined - there was no time to factor in where/when was safe and further braking/changes of direction would in reality only be more likely to cause a bigger accident.

2) Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
--Don't buy that one at all, I didn't see any intention from Vettel to hinder Hamilton.

3) It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time.
--As 2

So for me, maybe it comes down to 1) and the "gain a lasting advantage" bit. Well if Vettel hadn't drifted to the right so far right, Hamilton with his extra speed would have passed, so in that sense Vettel gained - in as much as he didn't lose. But I still don't see it was deliberate and I don't think it's reasonable to expect Vettel to have the presence of mind to keeping his out of control car off the racing line when rejoining given it was not fully back under control.

So can see where the penalty came from , but I don't believe he could have done anything else.

_________________
"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 Jun 10, 2019 5:44 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1359
How about adding the voting option that the stewards are horribly inconsistent?

I have seen worse infractions ignored.

But this is no surprise where politics dominate the sport and even influence the results. Prost got Senna disqualified (and was gifted the title) at Suzuka because he was a buddy of Balestra.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3392
Gone for the middle option.

I felt at the moment it happened it technically deserved a penalty - but didn't want it to receive a race result affecting one - as I know that unsafe rejoining is something the FIA can't allow to propagate down through the junior formulas.

Ultimately, the best thing would have been to have had it investigated after the race, however there is a pressure to prevent the podium ceremony from differing from the final result - so this forces the stewards into making the decision while the race is still occurring.

I don't think that the incident and penalty in isolation are particularly controversial - if it had been between two midfield drivers for 8th place then I don't think that people would feel even 5% as strongly about it as they do in this case. What makes it controversial is the fact it impacted who the winner of a race was, and took the first non Mercedes win of the season away.

That being said, I think it would have been better to have either awarded a non race result penalty (say, 3 place grid penalty at the next race) or investigated it after the race. If the stewards had had the option - but they didn't - then a time penalty of 1 or 2 seconds would have at least meant that race continued to be interesting. We knew that Hamilton would finish less than five seconds behind Vettel so the race was lost the moment he receive the penalty. - but a 1 second penalty would have meant he would have had to have sat on Vettel's gearbox through the final chicane and would have been a photo finish.

However, the minimum time penalty the stewards can award is 5 seconds. It's a shame as it did ruin the end of what had been a brilliant race - however the sport is not WWE and the stewards have to award penalties based on the rule with zero regard to how it affects the entertainment.

I also think that they were under no illusions about how badly received the penalty would be, so it was a big call to make it, whether or not it was the right one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2279
As per the rules, the penalty is correct. It seems harsh but it's consistent and that's what has been asked for

The obvious and choice really. It is harsh but rules are rules and you cannot pick and choose when to apply them when it is so clear they have been broken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:58 pm
Posts: 103
If I am honest, I don't like time penalties for a few reasons, one thing is the driver can in theory just make sure he's over 5 seconds ahead of the person behind them, and takes away from the race not only means the driver who finishes first.. Isnt really classed as first but means the person behind them knows all they need to do is stay within that time.. I mean sure Hamilton may have wanted to overtake.. But I'm sure the knowledge he didn't need to might have affected his approach

Also I'm sure stewards could also take track characteristics into it, think on it if it was another track without that wall there, Hamilton may have just went a lil wider and used his momentum to pass, also the part vettels went off the track was all grass, no concrete or anything and could slamming on the brakes actually made things worse

I feel while yes punish drivers.. But need to rethink penalties


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 663
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
I think the penalty was correct as per black and white, but harsh in the sense you are applying black and white logic to something very grey.

It's easy for the stewards, pundits and fans to say this and that, with all the data, replays, slow-mo's.... you forget the driver made his decisions quite literally in the blink of an eye, probably sh!tting himself as he is having a big moment, at high speed, on a tight track.

Good as these guys are, it is impossible to see the whole picture, be particularly calculated, show good judgement or even really change your mind once committed, all in fractions of a second.

It's not just true of this incident.

_________________
Car 36 Blog - if anyone is interested in how I'm getting on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 446
It is called RACING for GOD's sake.

If it was called 'After you Lewis' it would be a proper call.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:58 pm
Posts: 103
Badgeronimous wrote:
I think the penalty was correct as per black and white, but harsh in the sense you are applying black and white logic to something very grey.

It's easy for the stewards, pundits and fans to say this and that, with all the data, replays, slow-mo's.... you forget the driver made his decisions quite literally in the blink of an eye, probably sh!tting himself as he is having a big moment, at high speed, on a tight track.

Good as these guys are, it is impossible to see the whole picture, be particularly calculated, show good judgement or even really change your mind once committed, all in fractions of a second.

It's not just true of this incident.


Yeah... Especially when you consider the sort of crashes that happen at very track.. Panis in 97 is one that sticks in my head, and of course vettels f1 debut was after Kubica crashed in Canada.. Basicly its a notorious track for crashes.. Vetel was probably doing all he could not to crash and doing all he could not to crash into Hamilton.. No one has considered that aspect.. That he was trying to avoid just broadsiding the Merc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31090
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Gone for the middle option.

I felt at the moment it happened it technically deserved a penalty - but didn't want it to receive a race result affecting one - as I know that unsafe rejoining is something the FIA can't allow to propagate down through the junior formulas.

Ultimately, the best thing would have been to have had it investigated after the race, however there is a pressure to prevent the podium ceremony from differing from the final result - so this forces the stewards into making the decision while the race is still occurring.

I don't think that the incident and penalty in isolation are particularly controversial - if it had been between two midfield drivers for 8th place then I don't think that people would feel even 5% as strongly about it as they do in this case. What makes it controversial is the fact it impacted who the winner of a race was, and took the first non Mercedes win of the season away.

That being said, I think it would have been better to have either awarded a non race result penalty (say, 3 place grid penalty at the next race) or investigated it after the race. If the stewards had had the option - but they didn't - then a time penalty of 1 or 2 seconds would have at least meant that race continued to be interesting. We knew that Hamilton would finish less than five seconds behind Vettel so the race was lost the moment he receive the penalty. - but a 1 second penalty would have meant he would have had to have sat on Vettel's gearbox through the final chicane and would have been a photo finish.

However, the minimum time penalty the stewards can award is 5 seconds. It's a shame as it did ruin the end of what had been a brilliant race - however the sport is not WWE and the stewards have to award penalties based on the rule with zero regard to how it affects the entertainment.

I also think that they were under no illusions about how badly received the penalty would be, so it was a big call to make it, whether or not it was the right one.

Another option would be for Vettel to give the place to Hamilton then you still have a race to the flag.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:27 pm
Posts: 26
So this poll has five options; three start with "As per the rules, the penalty is correct...". One of the other two options is undecided. If you are against punishment you only have one option: "Penalty not justified at all, Vettel had etc... "

I think a few options are missing. I have a few suggestions:

-Penalty not justified at all, what a load of bollicks
-Penalty not justified at all, , stop this nonsense, you are killing our sport
-As per the rules, the penalty is correct; Vettel tried everything to divert from the fact that he made another error
-This would have never happened under Bernie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1152
Interesting I was slow creating the poll and only 38 votes so far (what has happened to this forum!) but the majority basically support the decision. Wasn't expecting that!

_________________
"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 Jun 10, 2019 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2717
I'd suspect that, in the cold light of day, people realise that a penalty was justified. Even I called Pants at the time but, whilst I'm still not entirely happy about the outcome, do understand and respect the reasoning behind the penalty.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 88
I was thinking the same thing as Pokerman, if Vettel had of conceded his position to Hamilton shortly after the incident, it looked like the Ferrari had the pace to get past Lewis again on the straight. Then a Ferrari win would have been completely legitimate no questions asked. Sure, Hamilton was given the win, but if Sebastion had not have been given a penalty, then everyone would be saying that it was a fix to award Ferrari a win to keep the season competitive, so really the stewards were in a no win situation.

I would like to say in behalf of all Canadians that I apologize for the fan reaction and the booing at the end of the race. That detracted from what was otherwise an amazing weekend of spectacular racing. No way that any of the drivers or teams deserved that booing and was not fair to Lewis or Mercedes after what they went thru that weekend. I felt the way Martin Brundle came onto the podium at the end of the race and cornered Sebastion was very disrespectful to both drivers and was unprofessional and created a no win situation. I was embarrassed as a Canadian for that reaction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2717
Longnose wrote:
I was thinking the same thing as Pokerman, if Vettel had of conceded his position to Hamilton shortly after the incident, it looked like the Ferrari had the pace to get past Lewis again on the straight...

Veering slightly off-topic here but from what I observed I feel that, in clean air, Hamilton and his Merc would have had the measure of Vettel and his Ferrari in that race. Had Vettel conceded the position I think that it would have been game over there and then.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3392
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Gone for the middle option.

I felt at the moment it happened it technically deserved a penalty - but didn't want it to receive a race result affecting one - as I know that unsafe rejoining is something the FIA can't allow to propagate down through the junior formulas.

Ultimately, the best thing would have been to have had it investigated after the race, however there is a pressure to prevent the podium ceremony from differing from the final result - so this forces the stewards into making the decision while the race is still occurring.

I don't think that the incident and penalty in isolation are particularly controversial - if it had been between two midfield drivers for 8th place then I don't think that people would feel even 5% as strongly about it as they do in this case. What makes it controversial is the fact it impacted who the winner of a race was, and took the first non Mercedes win of the season away.

That being said, I think it would have been better to have either awarded a non race result penalty (say, 3 place grid penalty at the next race) or investigated it after the race. If the stewards had had the option - but they didn't - then a time penalty of 1 or 2 seconds would have at least meant that race continued to be interesting. We knew that Hamilton would finish less than five seconds behind Vettel so the race was lost the moment he receive the penalty. - but a 1 second penalty would have meant he would have had to have sat on Vettel's gearbox through the final chicane and would have been a photo finish.

However, the minimum time penalty the stewards can award is 5 seconds. It's a shame as it did ruin the end of what had been a brilliant race - however the sport is not WWE and the stewards have to award penalties based on the rule with zero regard to how it affects the entertainment.

I also think that they were under no illusions about how badly received the penalty would be, so it was a big call to make it, whether or not it was the right one.

Another option would be for Vettel to give the place to Hamilton then you still have a race to the flag.

I think that the stewards should never have the power to order a driver to concede a position. While there are situations where an ethical case can be made for it, ultimately it is direct manipulation of the race order.

While time penalties can and do affect the race order, that's a side effect. While Vettel's time penalty did relegate him to second place, it didn't automatically do that. There was always the possibility (in this case a very unlikely posibility) that he would have pulled out a 5 second gap and finished first.

The stewards job is to interpret the rules and choose the appropriate sanction if they deem a penalty justifiable.

Now, if a driver decided to concede their position before the penalty is reviewed - the stewards can consider that when making their decision. However, I think it would have made no difference in this incident. This was not a sporting decision, it was a safety one. Vettel was deemed to have acted unsafely, and as such returning the position did not rectify the problem the stewards awarded the penalty for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3123
Location: UK
I disagreed with the penalty at the time, but now having seen the stewards' reasoning and understanding the whole thing better I think the penalty was justified according to the rules.

However I do disagree with the rules, in that they do not take intent into account and I think that is important. For me, penalties should only be dished out for serious lapses in judgement that create a dangerous situation; in this instance although Vettel did rejoin the track unsafely it wasn't through poor judgement or decision making, he just didn't have enough control of the car because of the lack of grip on the grass. Thus once he'd gone off the track, the manner in which he rejoined was inevitable and out of his hands. His only error in judgement throughout the whole incident was in going off the track in the first place, which on its own does not warrant a time penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7609
Location: Belgium
Until I see evidence (proof, really), that Vettel deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track, I can't reach any other conclusion than racing incident and thus no penalty.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6603
Location: Nebraska, USA
Fiki wrote:
Until I see evidence (proof, really), that Vettel deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track, I can't reach any other conclusion than racing incident and thus no penalty.


Racing incident!
:thumbup:

I don't see how anyone can say the ruling is consistant...The very lack of consistency is one of the problems.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6310
Fiki wrote:
Until I see evidence (proof, really), that Vettel deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track, I can't reach any other conclusion than racing incident and thus no penalty.

Except that intention is totally irrelevant in this case. The only question is; did he rejoin the track in an unsafe manner? That's what the penalty was for. The rule does not say anything about intention but it does say that you cannot force another driver to take avoiding action when you rejoin the track.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
The textbook definition of a racing incident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
I just realized that Ricciardo did in fact compare the incident to Monaco 2016:

"If he pulls a little further to the left, he'll spin. When he brakes on the grass, he'll spin too. There was not much room for Lewis but still enough.I had an identical situation with Lewis in 2016 Monte Carlo. He had to go through the emergency exit and almost pushed me into the wall on his return. With me it was tighter than now with him. He didn't get a penalty. That was a good thing. It was a hard racing."

https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/4075 ... ocked-him/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4670
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6881
Location: Michigan, USA
Lt. Drebin wrote:
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
Exediron wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6310
KingVoid wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.

Multiple posters (not just myself) have explained why that incident was different.

If you can’t understand the difference then that’s your problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 952
KingVoid wrote:
I just realized that Ricciardo did in fact compare the incident to Monaco 2016:

"If he pulls a little further to the left, he'll spin. When he brakes on the grass, he'll spin too. There was not much room for Lewis but still enough.I had an identical situation with Lewis in 2016 Monte Carlo. He had to go through the emergency exit and almost pushed me into the wall on his return. With me it was tighter than now with him. He didn't get a penalty. That was a good thing. It was a hard racing."

https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/4075 ... ocked-him/


Ricciardo needs to brush up on the rules, the track is defined by the white lines. Hamilton left him just over 1 car width. Vettel left Hamilton zero track, he was on the white line himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 955
Location: Kansas
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Gone for the middle option.

I felt at the moment it happened it technically deserved a penalty - but didn't want it to receive a race result affecting one - as I know that unsafe rejoining is something the FIA can't allow to propagate down through the junior formulas.

Ultimately, the best thing would have been to have had it investigated after the race, however there is a pressure to prevent the podium ceremony from differing from the final result - so this forces the stewards into making the decision while the race is still occurring.

I don't think that the incident and penalty in isolation are particularly controversial - if it had been between two midfield drivers for 8th place then I don't think that people would feel even 5% as strongly about it as they do in this case. What makes it controversial is the fact it impacted who the winner of a race was, and took the first non Mercedes win of the season away.

That being said, I think it would have been better to have either awarded a non race result penalty (say, 3 place grid penalty at the next race) or investigated it after the race. If the stewards had had the option - but they didn't - then a time penalty of 1 or 2 seconds would have at least meant that race continued to be interesting. We knew that Hamilton would finish less than five seconds behind Vettel so the race was lost the moment he receive the penalty. - but a 1 second penalty would have meant he would have had to have sat on Vettel's gearbox through the final chicane and would have been a photo finish.

However, the minimum time penalty the stewards can award is 5 seconds. It's a shame as it did ruin the end of what had been a brilliant race - however the sport is not WWE and the stewards have to award penalties based on the rule with zero regard to how it affects the entertainment.

I also think that they were under no illusions about how badly received the penalty would be, so it was a big call to make it, whether or not it was the right one.

Another option would be for Vettel to give the place to Hamilton then you still have a race to the flag.

:thumbup: :nod:

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
Imagine what the people who support Vettel’s penalty think about this iconic battle:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6310
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.

Multiple posters (not just myself) have explained why that incident was different.

If you can’t understand the difference then that’s your problem.

No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 955
Location: Kansas
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.


:thumbup: :nod:

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.

Multiple posters (not just myself) have explained why that incident was different.

If you can’t understand the difference then that’s your problem.

No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6310
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.

90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 955
Location: Kansas
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.

Multiple posters (not just myself) have explained why that incident was different.

If you can’t understand the difference then that’s your problem.

No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.


After 24 hours of thought a lot of folks are changing or tempering their opinions of the matter. The closer you look at it the more it looks like re-entered unsafely and maintained advantage in an unfair way.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.

90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?

Yes, not worthy of a penalty though, for a number of reasons.

1. He was not in control of his car when he rejoined
2. The decision is inconsistent with past incidents of similar nature

This is a textbook definition of a racing incident.

90% is an estimate/figure of speech. The only people who agree with the penalty are Rosberg (Mercedes ambassador) and Palmer. The people who disagree are Ricciardo, Webber, Chandok, Andretti, Mansell, Brundle, Wurz, and there are more I can’t remember.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31090
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Gone for the middle option.

I felt at the moment it happened it technically deserved a penalty - but didn't want it to receive a race result affecting one - as I know that unsafe rejoining is something the FIA can't allow to propagate down through the junior formulas.

Ultimately, the best thing would have been to have had it investigated after the race, however there is a pressure to prevent the podium ceremony from differing from the final result - so this forces the stewards into making the decision while the race is still occurring.

I don't think that the incident and penalty in isolation are particularly controversial - if it had been between two midfield drivers for 8th place then I don't think that people would feel even 5% as strongly about it as they do in this case. What makes it controversial is the fact it impacted who the winner of a race was, and took the first non Mercedes win of the season away.

That being said, I think it would have been better to have either awarded a non race result penalty (say, 3 place grid penalty at the next race) or investigated it after the race. If the stewards had had the option - but they didn't - then a time penalty of 1 or 2 seconds would have at least meant that race continued to be interesting. We knew that Hamilton would finish less than five seconds behind Vettel so the race was lost the moment he receive the penalty. - but a 1 second penalty would have meant he would have had to have sat on Vettel's gearbox through the final chicane and would have been a photo finish.

However, the minimum time penalty the stewards can award is 5 seconds. It's a shame as it did ruin the end of what had been a brilliant race - however the sport is not WWE and the stewards have to award penalties based on the rule with zero regard to how it affects the entertainment.

I also think that they were under no illusions about how badly received the penalty would be, so it was a big call to make it, whether or not it was the right one.

Another option would be for Vettel to give the place to Hamilton then you still have a race to the flag.

I think that the stewards should never have the power to order a driver to concede a position. While there are situations where an ethical case can be made for it, ultimately it is direct manipulation of the race order.

While time penalties can and do affect the race order, that's a side effect. While Vettel's time penalty did relegate him to second place, it didn't automatically do that. There was always the possibility (in this case a very unlikely posibility) that he would have pulled out a 5 second gap and finished first.

The stewards job is to interpret the rules and choose the appropriate sanction if they deem a penalty justifiable.

Now, if a driver decided to concede their position before the penalty is reviewed - the stewards can consider that when making their decision. However, I think it would have made no difference in this incident. This was not a sporting decision, it was a safety one. Vettel was deemed to have acted unsafely, and as such returning the position did not rectify the problem the stewards awarded the penalty for.

It use to happen often in the past, teams would often confer with the stewards because the alternative would be a drive through penalty, nowadays a 5 second penalty is worth the gamble like what we saw in Monaco were it can be seen worth the risk of an unsafe release to gain a position because you are only risking a 5 second penalty.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6310
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.

90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?

Yes, not worthy of a penalty though, for a number of reasons.

1. He was not in control of his car when he rejoined
2. The decision is inconsistent with past incidents of similar nature

This is a textbook definition of a racing incident.

90% is an estimate/figure of speech. The only people who agree with the penalty are Rosberg (Mercedes ambassador) and Palmer. The people who disagree are Ricciardo, Webber, Chandok, Andretti, Mansell, Brundle, Wurz, and there are more I can’t remember.

I highlighted the pertinent part of your response. The rule book does not acknowledge intent as being in any way part of the assessment. Likewise, the ability of the driver to control the car is not a part of the assessment either. We've already established that the ruling is completely consistent with past applications and your appeals to authority do not have any logical value whatsoever. The bottom line is that the rule clearly states that, if you run off of the circuit, you must rejoin in a safe manner and not cause any competitor to take evasive action. As we both agree that Vettel failed to do that, there is no real debate to be had here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31090
Fiki wrote:
Until I see evidence (proof, really), that Vettel deliberately crowded Hamilton off the track, I can't reach any other conclusion than racing incident and thus no penalty.

This Vettel being out of control and it wasn't his fault didn't add up when the stewards looked at his telemetry, after he corrected for the oversteer moment he was in control of his car but chose to crowd Hamilton further towards the barrier rather than turn left and give Hamilton room.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31090
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
The judges forgot the main rule in court, and the main starting point of all fair judgement - presumption of innocence. They in fact did not prove any illegal intent by Vettel. They just applied the rule to what they thought to be the truth. Poor judgement.

Intent usually doesn't matter in applying sporting penalties. I think the penalty points on his license were unnecessary, however.

These kinds of incidents (like the one we saw yesterday) without a intent are almost always deemed a racing incident.

I cannot remember the last time I ever saw a driver penalized for something remotely similar to this.

What a dishonest statement. Max in Japan last year. Pretty much the exact same thing and the exact same penalty.

Multiple posters (not just myself) have explained why that incident was different.

If you can’t understand the difference then that’s your problem.

Yet you bring forward Monaco 2016 claiming that was exactly the same.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31090
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it wasn't that different. The incident that is different is the one you want to compare it to (Monaco 2016). Max's incident was extremely similar. Both Max and Seb went off at high speed. Both Kimi and Lewis went around the outside (the only way they could have gone) and both Max and Seb kept their foot in it in order to keep the position; resulting in an unsafe return to the track. Your little narration of the incidents is irrelevant to the fact that they were both essentially the same and they were both slam dunk penalties.

Verstappen was in complete control of his car and new exactly what he was doing. Vettel was fighting the car over the grass and on the exit.

Anyway, despite your amazing arrogance, it does seem like 90% of the people who have driven an F1 car before disagree with your assessment. But of course you know better than all of them.

90% huh? A very specific number...I'd hate to smell the place you pulled that out of. Appeals to authority aside, let me ask you this; did Vettel rejoin the track in an unsafe manner?

Yes, not worthy of a penalty though, for a number of reasons.

1. He was not in control of his car when he rejoined
2. The decision is inconsistent with past incidents of similar nature

This is a textbook definition of a racing incident.

90% is an estimate/figure of speech. The only people who agree with the penalty are Rosberg (Mercedes ambassador) and Palmer. The people who disagree are Ricciardo, Webber, Chandok, Andretti, Mansell, Brundle, Wurz, and there are more I can’t remember.

The stewards had the telemetry and viewed it that Vettel was fully in control of his car when he chose to further squeeze Hamilton towards the barrier.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 16th

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


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: Blinky McSquinty, Junglist 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