planetf1.com

lol

Images are not proof at all? No but video evidence is and thats where the images come from. End of.

See that big red thing in the sky on a bright summers day thats a couple of billion miiles away, thats called the sun - end of. It is a big ball of fire, its not ice and its certainly not a bowl of soup.

People are being rude because your constantly questioning something which has been done and dusted and dealt with by the FIA - who have more video evidence then any of us. They have deemed that there is ZERO case to answer for, they simply did their job and investigated something that was raised. The End.

Vettel did not overtake on Yellows - Game Over

Images of a green flag, taken from video a lap before the incident, are not proof, no. Why the attitude? And as I've said, I'm not saying that Vettel overtook under yellows. I'm not saying that Ferrari should have protested and that Alonso should have won, so stop trying to infer that I am. Besides, my original question was: "which objective evidence did the FIA use to reach their conclusion?" - I wasn't questioning whether the FIA are in a position to make a judgement, nor am I questioning their judgement.

How much more evidence (of which there is plenty in this thread) do you need to agree with the FIA and the general concensus? What else do you require?

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

let's be honest - this forum is a wrong place to find a 'proof' for the situation that FIA deals with. If you need to have an actual proof you need to contact FIA directly. Anything posted here is just info gathered by F1 fans. Not 'proofs' in a legal meaning. Only FIA can answer whether they needed to have some verbal confirmations or whether they use presumption of innocence (as normal legal systems) and if they know that there should've been a green flag and there is an official video evidence that there was green flag they (FIA) don't actually need to prove that overtake was legal. In such case those claiming it was illegal must prove that it was and gather evidences confirming such claim (as in any normal legal system).

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill.
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will,
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned.
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence in this thread. I didn't say that I disagree with the general concensus - did I?
I just wanted to be absolutely clear on the difference between "evidence" and "proof" and to find out if anyone knows what objective proof the FIA had, or whether they were relying on evidence such as we are in this thread. Those parading around images taken a lap before the incident and citing them as *absolute proof* that Vettel didn't overtake under yellow a lap later are, quite fankly, mis-guided. The fact that it is almost certain that Vettel overtook under green conditions is neither here nor there.

But this was my point. The FIA didn't say what they used as proof, or if they just used evidence and made a judgement, as those on this forum are, based on the most likely scenario. What I don't like is people on this forum being rude and claiming everyone else is an idiot, when they can't be bothered to read what people are actually asking. And then it turns out that the answer to my question is "we don't know", which is all I was trying to deduce.

And the fact that we don't know means that some things may still be worth discussing.

That was mostly indirect evidence, unless I missed something. I didn't read whole thread, but I assume that most of people here (including me) agree that Vettel did no wrong. I guess he is just curious. Probably he wants to know what evidence FIA used to make their ruling. I think this is good question.

_________________
Renault!

2012 Planet F1 Prediction Competition Champion

thank you dizlexik. To me it seems that noone on this forum as yet has definitive proof, unless I've missed something. Given that the FIA didn't say, it is indeed, in my view, a reasonable question to ask: did the FIA get first hand proof e.g. getting statements from the marshalls post, viewing footage that we don't have etc? Or did they reach the conclusion most forumers have based on the available evidence? For me, this is important to know.

I'm sorry, some of you seem to be confused by my question, but as I said, I'm most certainly not an idiot.

this is the thing - until there are proofs that something is illegal one doesn't have to prove that it was legal. this is the presumption of innocence: that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.
FIA doesn't need to prove anything until there are evidences that overtake was illegal. So far there are no such evidences, since FIA has video of green flag and internal rules and commands on the track where and when to put yellow/green other flags. I am sure there is a whole logbook of decisions during the race - it is normal for such events. If anything goes wrong they can go through logbook and restore all that decisions that where made.
It is not like - 'you, the guy in a hat, go to third corner and wave the flag. maybe yellow.'

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill.
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will,
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned.
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man.

As soon as I saw the slowmotion I talked about, I was convinced. For me, that was proof: it showed a green flag being waved.

The chances are slim that the FIA, with all their access to good footage, used the same footage as was available to us up until yesterday evening, but I am fairly adamant that that slowmotion was enough proof.

I have video proof that it is "yellow" !

We need an enquiry !

( PLEASE NOTE :- this is a joke. )

.

you could've googled it though:

up in the left corner is some guy at a marshalls post waiving with something... the colour is not easy to be seen but i'd reckon it's either black or green...

thanks Denorth. But for me this is the point.

If the FIA said "we've reviewed our logbooks, our videos of this on lap 4, corroberated what we saw with what the marshall's post reported etc" then that would be fine for me, or even an explanation of what actually happened, rather than simply saying "there's no case to answer".

You said that "until there are proofs that something is illegal one doesn't have to prove that it was legal".. and this is almost true - except you need to replace the word "proof" with "evidence" or "suspicion" of "reason to believe". After all, people get arrested on suspicion and not on proof.

At the time the video evidence was first shown on Sky Sports F1 during the race, it stirred up a lot of debate - it certainly seemed to be evidence that an overtake happened under yellow. On this basis, I think they should have investigated it but I am equally sure they didn't even know about it until after the race. It's alright in hindsight for forumer's to gather a load of circumstantial evidence in order to explain why the overtake wasn't investigated, but only the FIA can explain it. And so far they haven't - they have only asserted (after the event) that there's no case to answer, without stating the grounds or reasoning. I would have liked to know whether the FIA knew at the time and investigated "inofficially" during the race, or whether they only checked after the debates started and found that, thank god, they hadn't missed what could have been a championship deciding incident.

But now we're in the situation that forumer's are left to try to assemble the evidence and guess what the FIA may or may not know (and then claim it to be the absolute truth and get all irate about it), rather than the FIA just presenting how (or WHEN) they reached their conclusion.

I've just been on the blower to Charlie Whiting, and he said the FIA used the links in this thread to ascertain that Vettel passed Verne under green flag conditions. He said the clincher was the analysis on Sky, found in this link, which has been posted several times in the thread:

http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/news/12433/8293852/Did-Sebastian-Vettel-overtake-Jean-Eric-Vergne-illegally-during-the-Brazilian-Grand-Prix-

Charlie said that the way the nice man explained things so easily and patiently, as if talking to a six year old child, together with the way key things were hi-llighted to aid those with poor visual acuity, was particularly convincing.

Pot, kettle, black.

I believe that mds has answered that there is video and photographic evidence beyond the one showing the green flag on the lap before - there are videos and stills showing a green flag at the very moment that Vettel actually passed Vergne. So hopefully that has cleared that matter up.

However, I'd also like to pick up on a couple of other points.

You're calling other people rude, yet the answers to your question about the photographs were already in the thread. Don't you think it is a tad rude that after people have gone to a great deal of effort to already showcase, explain and discuss the evidence, that you expect them to come along and reiterate it rather than read the thread for yourself? And surely you can understand why those people, who in some cases have already posted over and over to clarify things, are somewhat frustrated.

The other thing I don't understand is why you want to know what evidence the FIA used to determine the move was legal. The fact is that if a move is legal they don't examine it. We don't get a report after the race stating that passes X, Y and Z were completed under green flags and therefore OK. It is the very absence of any investigation that demonstrates the legality. This whole matter was sparked by a youtube video where a well-meaning individual thought they'd seen something, but they actually hadn't. (Incidentally, you've got the wrong incident - this is NOT the one brought up by SkySports during the broadcast.) The Spanish press then picked it up and there were mutterings apparently coming from Ferrari and it ended up being blown massively out of proportion. Now, it would be different if there was reasonable foundation to begin with as in, there was NO green flag, but that isn't the case so there wasn't reasonable foundation for any of this to begin with. If there's any sort of suggestion that the FIA should explain themselves in this matter then it is opening the door to a situation where the FIA is ultimately going to have to justify every single thing that occurs on track that is legal.

The process by which the stewards are made aware of possible infringements has been explained at length in this thread and it would be pretty hard for them to miss an overtake under yellows. Coupled with the fact that there is conclusive video evidence of a green flag just before Vettel begins the overtake, it's a non-issue what the FIA considered.

_________________
Formerly kai_

thanks Kai. You're assuming that the FIA saw the incident at the time and determined it was a non-issue. From the way things panned out, and given that the FIA were "pushed" to make a statement about it after the event, it seems odd that they didn't just say that they saw the alleged infringement at the time, identified at the time that a green flag was being waved (mistakenly or not) at the marshalls post, and let things continue. I would be interested to know whether the FIA knew at the time that a green flag was being waved, or whether they (like every one here) had to review the evidence afterwards to reach a conclusion that (thank god) it was a non-issue.

For me, this is an extremely important distinction - it points to the possibility that the FIA could have missed a championship-deciding incident. The FIA didn't investigate it at the time because it was not deemed to be an incident at all - but was this because they didn't see it at all, or because they saw it and saw nothing wrong? Also, given the magnitude of the consequences of making such an oversight or mistake (e.g. on the marshall's part), it would seem there could be improvements to prevent this kind of confusion happening again.

And no, I don't think it's rude to ask a question which I hadn't seen asked before within the 13 pages of this thread. I didn't ask people to re-iterate what they'd already said or for anyone to go and collect any information for me because I couldn't be bothered. Besides, some people clearly have more time than others to spend their time investigating this kind of thing, so one could assume they enjoy it and don't have anything else to do.

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2881 ... g-insists/

Please, either

1) give it a rest or
2) hire a lawyer and take it to court

and please don't

1) prolong a case deemed closed by the sanctioning body just to stir things up or
2) prolong a case deemed closed by the sanctioning body just to feed your ego

sorry, but you can't do that - replace those words the way you suggested. Arrest does not equal guilt. Only court can decide if there is enough proof to claim that someone is guilty. If there is not enough evidence people are let go after some quantity of hours that are given for gathering evidences of their guilt. (in normal countries).

I will repeat my advice: want to know all the reasoning - ask FIA. the fact that they didn't make all wording public doesn't mean anything really. it is not really their problem that some observers are not satisfied.

Again, their logs books show that overtake was legal, then what exactly needs to be investigated? if there is no rules broken, no investigation needed. That video created such noise because comments were based on the lack of information about green flag. As result there was an assumption that there wasn't. FIA knows there was green flag and there is no 'incident'. What exactly needs to be investigated?

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill.
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will,
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned.
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man.

Blinky - no, I won't "give it a rest" or hire a lawyer, but thanks for the advice. If you bothered to read what I'm saying, you'd understand that your quotes are irrelevant to my questions: 1) How did the FIA determine there was a green flag being waved? (after lengthy discussion, the concensus seems to be that they must have used their own video which is better quality than we've seen, although the FIA haven't confirmed it) 2) did the FIA know at the time that a green flag was being waved at that location? and 3) was it a mistake that the green flag was being waved at that location at that time?

To quote Charlie Whiting's statement as a "case closed" argument is rather missing the point.

THis has nothing to do with stirring and nothing to do with my ego, which I can assure you, is probably smaller than yours.

Besides, since when has this forum been satisfied that Charlie Whiting's word is gospel truth and avoids the need for independent thought an analysis??

2) From info I have read provided by other marshalls, I understand marshalls get their orders for waving a certain flag and must repeat the order to ensure it wasn't misheard. So that would be yes.
3) I don't see why it would have been a mistake, as the situation from that point on was entirely safe, they had cleared the reason for the yellows (incident with Maldonado).

As for 1, we might never know - but I don't think it's a habit of the FIA to say which sources they use for ruling over a case, nor to make the used footage publicly available.

I understand where you're coming from with your position - that the FIA may have missed an incident. The point I'm making is that IMO you've gotten it backwards. This became an issue for discussion because a random individual was examining Vettel's onboard from the race and thought he'd come across something and based on that you're querying whether Race Control/the stewards/the FIA missed a championship-deciding incident. My position is that the guy on youtube ballsed it up completely. Now I'm NOT questioning that the viewing public going through things with a fine-tooth comb can provide valuable insight, but what this incident is an example of is not that, but rather that relying on the viewing public like that is dangerous and it shouldn't be used to cast doubt on the authorities determinations without it having been rigorously examined itself in the first place. In this instance the guy was well-meaning and genuine, BUT what if he'd actually doctored the video to make his point (which people do with youtube videos all the time)? Would we then also be having the argument that the FIA might have missed an incident and it is of concern?

This matter was completely closed when it was highlighted in the onboard shot of Vettel passing Vergne that there was a green flag, which was the same video used by the original guy on youtube. It wasn't circumstantial evidence or counter evidence, but there in front of him and he missed it. It was always there on the video and it is as plain as day in this thread. It became extremely irresponsible of AS and other media outlets to start fuelling the flame because now we have a situation where a non-issue is casting doubt on the FIA practices when, actually, they had it right all along. My point is that the authorities never missed anything; the guy posting the youtube video did.

Now, I did get all my information and understanding of this incident from this thread. I also did my own research of the rules to confirm that some of what was being posted was correct and watched the youtube video and read the articles, but all of that was in the thread. So I do feel that if you'd read the thread properly and taken the time to do it that you would have gotten those answers. Indeed, I struggle to believe you paid attention to it given that you never saw the image and videos of Vettel overtaking Vergne directly and thought the only images were those of the flag being waved on the lap before, despite the fact that the former appears at least six times in the thread.

_________________
Formerly kai_

1) they opened their eyes and saw the green flag waving

2) yes, because they would have had to instruct the marshal to wave it

3) it doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not, but no, it most likely wasn't a mistake

_________________

Inappropriate post removed

_________________

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

Bored now.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

Despite FIA and Charlie whiting saying it was legal, despite Ferrari not appealing it... you just know there will be people saying "Vettel won illegaly" and he "Passed under yellows" because they have "proof" when in reality they do not like Vettel/Red Bull/Helmut Marko and just want to slate them at every opportunity.. it is sad

And they will dig it up year after year until the end of time, especially when discussing greatest drivers of all time. He will be tainted for something that never happened.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

No, he won't be. It's a local Spanish phenomenon. They will hate everyone who beats Alonso anyway so no love lost.

And to answer to some allegations directly to me by domdonald:

/thread - it was pretty clear then and there that there is a green flag - ergo legal overtake. After the initial evidence, there was a new evidence that brought the green flag to light and the position of the accusers started to shift constantly.

From "clearly under yellows",
to "what flag, I can't see any flag",
to "the flag is Photoshopped see this low-resolution YouTube video from an Alonso fan",
to "the flag may be yellow, or red, or purple, or the national Flag of Brazil",
to "okay, there is a green flag there but there is no way Vettel saw it",
to "the green flag is a mistake of the marshal",
to "but Vettel doesn't lift enough under yellow" (this one is particularly rich given that Alonso out-braked himself at the first corner under yellow, clearly not trying to slow down at all)

The only constant thing was the overtake is illegal. Actually, scratch that, the only constant theme was "let's strip Vettel from the WDC and give it to Alonso".

Also, CW clearly stated that the marshal saw the overtake and saw no reason to report it to race control as it was under green conditions.

So, what you're saying is that there was a yellow flag all along and the green flag was a Photoshop?

Seriously though, I supported Webber against Vettel in 2010, but after this insanity, I find myself shifting my allegiance to Vettel against Samurai Jack, which I know is illogical but I can't help it.

What I can't understand is all the bashing on Alonso for the "miracle" twit, https://twitter.com/alo_oficial/status/ ... 6624214016 http://translate.google.es/#auto/en/No% ... 20milagros.

I find Bernie's and some editors' (in this website) comments a bit too harsh, not to mention fanboyism in the forum. Bernie does not hide his preferences over Vettel (remember the pit lane chat just before Abu Dhabi's race), Schumi is the least one that should talk about fair play, and all the people criticizing a whole nation just because some guys posted a video on youtube claiming that there were yellow flags... it's kinda incomprehensible.

After nights of thinking of what alonso meant with "Miracles"

I'm surprised this thread is still alive, even becoming the most popular thread on the first page.

But seriously, I like how this season ends including the Ferrari's appeal saga. It spices up what has been a quite thrilling finale. This appeal saga wraps up the season even more unforgetably.

Now let's wait for 2013.

It has given plenty of gunpowder to the anti-alonsists hasn't it?

Carmegedon !!!

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk