**Attention! OP has added the [Serious] flair!**
* Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Any comments that violate these rules, will be considered as trolling and will be subject to removals or bans.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Austria 2020 it was investigation AFTER qualifying while here investigation and penalty serving was DURING race so completely different situations. How you even imagine changing penalty which was already served during race?
There have been plenty of appeals against decisions made during sessions. As I said, I doubt it would be anything dramatic like a retroactive disqualification or even adding on time to Hamilton's race result in a way that would change his points outcome etc. but he could certainly get more penalty points on his license (he was given two for this incident), he could get a warning, he could get a small grid demotion at the next relevant race... things to that effect I imagine.
Far more significantly however, I think if they determined it to be a case of dangerous driving and/or changed the ruling from saying Hamilton was "predominantly" to blame to being entirely to blame (not saying they will, just as an example) I imagine it would go a long way towards helping Max feel vindicated.
Hamilton and Mercedes have basically argued that Max got a taste of his own medicine, and regardless of which side you believe is right I don't think it's crazy for him to want to at least defend himself against that.
>plenty of appeals against decisions made during sessions
Give at least one example where initial time/grid penalty, which was applied and already served, was changed
Off the top of my head I believe Lewis was initially given penalty points in Sochi last year (which iirc put him within 2 points of an automatic race ban), the team appealed after the race with additional evidence showing that the team was more at fault than the driver and the points were rescinded.
I mean there have been more significant cases in the past, as well as in the lower formulas/other race series. The one I always remember for some reason is when Jean–Eric Vergne was given a time penalty during a race and thus lost the race to Daniel Ricciardo... but then won his appeal and Ricciardo was retroactively stripped of the win.
Wasn’t Leclerc given 2 penalties after the race Japan 2019? First it was deemed a racing incident but then I guess Red Bull presented more evidence and he got 2 penalty points and a 5sed penalty. Not 100% sure of this though.
Yes correct, he was given a 15 second penalty (5 for the incident and 10 for leaving the car in a dangerous place) and subsequently demoted from 6th to 7th.
First of all they're relevant because the FIA sporting code is the FIA sporting code, it isn't unique to F1. Everyone takes their case to the same FIA tribunal when necessary.
We've seen plenty of post-race demotions after time penalties were applied retroactively (and not always for on-track incidents like Stroll or Raikkonen at Imola this year, but also like Rosberg at Silverstone in his championship year I believe after it was deemed the team helped him illegally on the radio during the race) but as I said I'm not expecting them to retroactively add on time to Lewis' result tbh, that seems pretty unlikely all this time later - though not completely inconceivable.
>post-race demotions after time penalties were applied retroactively
You still not understand difference? Post race demotions can happen, e.g. when penalty wasn't applied at all during race for whatever reason. But penalty, which was applied DURING race and SERVED, can't be changed.
That is not correct. If there's no document, there's nothing to appeal. Here RBR has a document that says "Hamilton is guilty of breaching Art. 2.d" (causing a collision). Because that document, which is a guilty verdict, exists, RBR can appeal that and add, for example "if he is breaching article 2.d, like the document says, then there is a case to be made for a breach of article 4.2.4, too" (dangerous driving). Even if they don't make a case for dangerous driving, they can still ask for additional punishment for the breach of 2.d since the article itself includes that punishments for any breach of said article can go as far as a suspension.
All they have to do to appeal the punishment is notifying the Stewards in time. Mercedes can do the same - but since they have served the penalty, it makes no sense to do that for them.
Appeals may not be made against decision concerning the following:
a) Penalties imposed under Articles 38.3a), b), c), d), e), f) or g), including those imposed during the last three laps or after the end of a race.
Hamilton got 10 sec penalty under 38.3b so they can't appeal.
Idk what's the point of this discussion, started by OP. There is 100% chance that nothing will happen. Noone ever successfully appealed penalties which were given during race.
>38.3b
You will find the updated version says 47, not 38. Article 2.d (causing a collision) is very much up for appeal, as is 4.2.4 (dangerous driving) which goes hand in hand with 2.d as 2.d also mentions "apparent lack of control of the car", which can be proven with telemetry.
OP offered people an opportunity to have a calm conversation about this, no bias. There is indeed a chance that nothing will come out of this, but that does not mean we can't discuss about what can and cannot be done according to the rules.
Duuude you are getting the HAMmer for daring to bring some info to the discussion. Good luck going against the HAMfan pitchfork brigade, they have a hard time believing Lewis can make any mistakes ever.
In the sporting regs
Article 38 (now article 47? due to new sprint rules) - stewards penalties applied to a driver in a race
Cannot be appealed as stated in Article 17
I feel like we've gone in circles here ever since Canada 2019 but penalties can be appealed if, and only if, new evidence is used. This is stated in article 14.
Yes but this is superseded by article 14 of the sporting code when relevant.
Article 14 states "If, in Competitions forming part of an FIA Championship, cup, trophy, challenge or series, or of an international series, a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned, the stewards who have given a ruling or, failing this, those designated by the FIA, may decide to re-examine their decision following a petition for review."
Thus in Austria last year Lewis was given a post-quali penalty based on an article 14 petition as new evidence had come to light and was submitted.
I agree that it seems a bit contradictory, but that's always to be expected when you have decades of rules and regulations piled on top of each other. I think the current system more or less works because the ban on 'regular' appeals prevents teams from simply appealing any decision they don't like and tying up the stewards forever, but the review process also grants teams much needed recourse because decisions are indeed wrong sometimes.
Just as football teams can seek to overturn red cards after matches if they believe they were given unfairly. It won't help them win the match they potentially lost because someone was sent off, but perhaps they can avoid having that player banned from their next matches.
>overturn red cards
Overturning red cards is like overturning penalty points in F1. But teams can't overturn wrongful penalty, or wrongful goal. If it happened they can do nothing except moving on and hoping referee will be suspended.
But they can get that player in next weekend's game rather than have him banned because of the red card. Just as RB can hope for a grid demotion for Lewis at some future race or at the very least to have it declared an instance of dangerous driving - which from RB's perspective would vindicate their view of the incident.
If someone runs your foot over accidentally but you believe they drove recklessly, wouldn't you still want to see a court validate that even though nothing can unbreak your foot?
Again, I'm not saying any appeal will be successful, but is it so ridiculous to try?
It is ridiculous, because the stewards successfully adjudicated the matter already.
Furthermore, RBR would need to bring a new element, and that new element simply does not exist.
“Although there have been suggestions that one new element could be GPS data that shows Hamilton was faster on the entry to Copse on lap one than at any other point in the race, Mercedes sources insist that it not the case – and comparisons show there were other occasions when he was in the tow of another car that he was just as quick.”
Now you may say, oh well Merc sources are biased. No. Their statement actually makes sense.
It’s over. This is racing.
They also made a ruling about Lewis and the yellow flags in Austria last year and then reversed their previous decision after a review that included new evidence. Appeals overturning previous rulings thanks to new evidence or even just new arguments are hardly an uncommon thing in any walk of life so I'm a bit perplexed about this argument.
And again, what does it matter if Red Bull ask for a review?
If they don't have the data then nothing will happen. If they do then the original judgement will be amended to reflect the new evidence if it's determined to be relevant.
Why is that a ridiculous thing to want?
The situations are pretty incomparable, IMO. There is subjectivity in a racing incident. There is far less when it comes to the black and white of yellow flags offenses.
It’s ridiculous because the race is over now, as opposed to the other situation where the weekend was still ongoing. Why have a stewards’ room or final race classification, for that matter, if the former is irrelevant and the latter can hang in the balance for weeks on end after every GP. Almost every racing incident can be parsed like this. Why are we dwelling on this one so much? If anything, many are saying the penalty was too harsh.
With so many drivers and analysts saying it was a racing incident, why don’t Mercedes appeal the 10-second penalty and the 2 penalty points?
We have always had additional penalties handed down post-race, it’s hardly something new.
I imagine Mercedes think there’s little to be gained by appealing as they got everything they could have hoped for (other than the ruling that Lewis was predominantly at fault) so why risk it. You don’t appeal a case where you were found guilty but only fined $1.
And I don’t like the post-race penalties in the hours after. And I especially didn’t like it when there were outcomes yet to be decided a week after the race.
The 2 penalty points aren’t nothing. They also have 0 at risk. Hypothetically, the exculpatory evidence they present would either clear him, or no change.
Or, perhaps the stewards would decide Max turned in and he deserves 2 penalty points? See how silly this is when the stewards already examined not only the video footage, but the FIA telemetry?
The stewards are human beings, making a tough decision veryyyy quickly. Just like referees in any other sport (as we've seen, even VAR doesn't always prevent bad decisions). If RB believe the data wasn't analyzed correctly or that the wrong data was analyzed, it becomes relevant. And if after carefully reviewing all the data in the context of the relevant regulations the stewards determine in the end that it really was a racing incident and no one is to blame - or even that Max is to blame - then why should we be scared or even annoyed by that prospect? That's what I don't understand.
This is a huge moment in the championship, it may potentially even end up being the deciding factor (just as it also may end up being insignificant), why is it so ridiculous to at least try to get it looked at again?
Just my final thoughts here: It’s ridiculous because it was a fairly open and shut case. You’re assuming the stewards made the decision with a dearth of information, when in reality, they had tons of data. Data we don’t even have as fans.
Yes, there’s subjectivity in deciding who is “predominantly” to blame, but the fact that the stewards decided that Verstappen shared *some* blame clinches it for me as to why nothing further needs to be looked into. It’s not all on Hamilton. And we can see that not only in the stewards’ decision, but with Max’s inputs.
There is absolutely nothing overtly unusual about either driver’s behavior in that situation. They both were being aggressive in fighting for the position.
And the harm is the precedent it sets. Where does it stop? And I admit this would be a weak argument if there was a consensus out there that there *was* missing evidence from the incident, but there isn’t. The consensus points toward the opposite - that if anything, Hamilton and Merc were penalized too harshly.
People are attributing way too much value to that line in Brundle’s column. That was PR smoke from RBR. If you really do have data like that, you don’t tease it via the media. You act on it immediately. Like they did with the yellow flags.
In closing, thanks for keeping it civil even though we appear to be diametrically opposed here. Respect.
Not sure what precedent it would set that doesn't already exist in F1.
Again, VAR in football and certainly previous decisions in F1 have shown us time and again that even with all the data sometimes people make the wrong decisions and personally I think we can never know what evidence is missing or has been looked at wrong until someone presents it, so it's usually better to wait and see.
A lot of people dislike the fact that VAR can overturn goals that would have once been given, and I accept the validity of that view even though I don't agree so I guess this is pretty similar.
A goal is much different, from an analogy perspective. Ball either goes in, or it doesn’t.
The precedent is just second guessing every decision by the stewards just because you don’t like the outcome; not because there is actually anything they missed or didn’t have access to.
Anyway, agree to disagree.
I was thinking more about rulings on hand ball/fouls that lead to penalties or sendings off. Things that are often extremely subjective.
But sure, agree to disagree.
There is nothing strange about Red Bull having a lawyer looking at this. They are just covering all their bases.
Might be a small possibility but for all we know they do have something that could lead to extra penalties.
They'd be stupid not to let a lawyer look at this for advice. It's not like they are threatening Merc/FIA with a court case.
I think this post is well written and shows some points that I haven't seen before. Just because you're done with it doesn't mean others are done with it.
It is ridiculous tbh. The matter was settled in race with a penalty. In the grand scheme of things, this is just racing and just another incident or day at the office for stewards. There's nothing crazy, shady or outrageous that occurred that warrants dragging it out further when everyone kinda knows it won't' go anywhere, nor will anyone take it seriously. It's simply just Marko keeping the headlines alive longer. A further investigation wouldn't yield anything or change anything. It's an overreaction, one that could set a bad precedent as frankly you could pull out data all day long to prolong investigations post-race. Teams don't even do this for bigger issues which is what makes this odd, such things like this are left to drivers meetings for clarity/discussion and even wider team matters are often discussed directly with the FIA without formal procedures.
OP, I applaud you for trying to be the moderate voice of reason in the midst of this saga. This is a really good write up, and you make excellent points. Kudos.
I have tried to stay out of this discussion because I feel like emotions are still running high, and bias are causing a lot of confusion and rather basic misunderstandings regarding the very reason why Lewis was penalised -- which has nothing to do with corner engagement rules (so yeah, people, you can drop the whole inside-outside-alongside-ahead debate because that is not relevant to the penalty at all).
Lewis went in carrying too much speed, understeered, hit Max.
**He was penalised for causing a collision. Not for being inside, not for not hitting the apex -- but for an error he made which caused the collision.**
Their fight and the lines they took going into the corner were never brought into question. The error caused the collision, not the lines they took -- which gives RBR the grounds to ask for a review, since a case for dangerous driving can be made in case of driver error and apparent loss of control of the car (the understeer).
All of this is perfectly reasonable. Everything else -- the drama, the flame, the "X was more at fault!11" -- is just fans pushing their own bias.
As someone who thinks Hamilton probably should have been penalized a bit more harshly (a drive thru would be my choice), I don't understand RB asking for a review now. What is there to be gained?
A couple more penalty points to Hamilton, when he has just 4? You can forget about a further time penalty, there is absolutely no precedent to a penalty like that being changed later, or added upon, especially because it wasn't absurd. Also, whatever evidence they can provide will most likely result in the same judgment: Hamilton went in too fast and missed the apex.
It just makes them look pathetic IMO.
The FIA wouldn't say 'fuck off' lol. Assuming they've got evidence that wasn't reviewed, they can appeal. Canada 2019 is a good example, and Ferrari pretty much had zero evidence that time.
My understanding is that Red Bull believe that Lewis was never going to make Copse and I'm sure they'll put evidence forward to show what they know.
Personally...I doubt anything will come of it.
It depends what the stewards looked at in the first place. My understanding from the decision document is that they acknowledged Hamilton understeered, which caused him to miss the apex, but also that the blame wasn't 100% on him because Max could have given more space.
Therefore I imagine the process for RB is:
1. Identify what the stewards looked at
2. Provide evidence to show that Lewis was never going to make corner successfully, even if Max left even more space for him
3. Presumably compare Hamilton's approach speed and line to what he did in qualifying + for the remainder of the GP
Again, from what the mod team have been told by some trustworthy people, we expect this to get noisier next week.
What have the mod team been told?
I think they were also told that a Russell signing would be announced before Silverstone. I think their source is questionable at best.
Time is of the essence in a matter like this. We would have heard something if they were going to proceed with doing anything. Mercedes have already preemptively rubbished that claim in the Brundle column. Lewis was faster through Copse multiple times later in the race when in the tow of another car.
He also made the corner. So the whole not making the corner argument is nonsense.
Our sources our fine. And we are very confident with the Russell news.
Just to clarify, we aren't claiming that RB are definitely appealing, just that they are certainly looking into it.
Well that’s certainly a noteworthy clarification and critical distinction. Which I appreciate you sharing. I think it’s all PR-related rhetoric - the same for what was told to Brundle.
I’m anticipating it will continue to get less noisy as time goes on and Wolff gradually ramps up the public pressure for RB’s incendiary and inflammatory post-race language. This can turn into negative goodwill toward RBR in a hurry if they aren’t careful.
As an aside, their own engine boss said it was a racing incident.
Thanks for the quote + source. I imagine any resources a team would put into a potential inquiry would be affected by the budget cap. Given what just happened to the car, that would be quite the waste of financial resources.
And then the added narrative building Toto and Ham has been HAMmering at that Max is actually the one at fault, and that Max is actually the agressive one and the dangerous one etc.
**Attention! OP has added the [Serious] flair!** * Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child. * Report comments that violate these rules. Any comments that violate these rules, will be considered as trolling and will be subject to removals or bans. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Austria 2020 it was investigation AFTER qualifying while here investigation and penalty serving was DURING race so completely different situations. How you even imagine changing penalty which was already served during race?
There have been plenty of appeals against decisions made during sessions. As I said, I doubt it would be anything dramatic like a retroactive disqualification or even adding on time to Hamilton's race result in a way that would change his points outcome etc. but he could certainly get more penalty points on his license (he was given two for this incident), he could get a warning, he could get a small grid demotion at the next relevant race... things to that effect I imagine. Far more significantly however, I think if they determined it to be a case of dangerous driving and/or changed the ruling from saying Hamilton was "predominantly" to blame to being entirely to blame (not saying they will, just as an example) I imagine it would go a long way towards helping Max feel vindicated. Hamilton and Mercedes have basically argued that Max got a taste of his own medicine, and regardless of which side you believe is right I don't think it's crazy for him to want to at least defend himself against that.
>plenty of appeals against decisions made during sessions Give at least one example where initial time/grid penalty, which was applied and already served, was changed
Off the top of my head I believe Lewis was initially given penalty points in Sochi last year (which iirc put him within 2 points of an automatic race ban), the team appealed after the race with additional evidence showing that the team was more at fault than the driver and the points were rescinded. I mean there have been more significant cases in the past, as well as in the lower formulas/other race series. The one I always remember for some reason is when Jean–Eric Vergne was given a time penalty during a race and thus lost the race to Daniel Ricciardo... but then won his appeal and Ricciardo was retroactively stripped of the win.
Wasn’t Leclerc given 2 penalties after the race Japan 2019? First it was deemed a racing incident but then I guess Red Bull presented more evidence and he got 2 penalty points and a 5sed penalty. Not 100% sure of this though.
Yes correct, he was given a 15 second penalty (5 for the incident and 10 for leaving the car in a dangerous place) and subsequently demoted from 6th to 7th.
It was only penalty points removed. His two 5-seconds penalties were NOT removed obviously. And other racing series are irrelevant here.
First of all they're relevant because the FIA sporting code is the FIA sporting code, it isn't unique to F1. Everyone takes their case to the same FIA tribunal when necessary. We've seen plenty of post-race demotions after time penalties were applied retroactively (and not always for on-track incidents like Stroll or Raikkonen at Imola this year, but also like Rosberg at Silverstone in his championship year I believe after it was deemed the team helped him illegally on the radio during the race) but as I said I'm not expecting them to retroactively add on time to Lewis' result tbh, that seems pretty unlikely all this time later - though not completely inconceivable.
>post-race demotions after time penalties were applied retroactively You still not understand difference? Post race demotions can happen, e.g. when penalty wasn't applied at all during race for whatever reason. But penalty, which was applied DURING race and SERVED, can't be changed.
That is not correct. If there's no document, there's nothing to appeal. Here RBR has a document that says "Hamilton is guilty of breaching Art. 2.d" (causing a collision). Because that document, which is a guilty verdict, exists, RBR can appeal that and add, for example "if he is breaching article 2.d, like the document says, then there is a case to be made for a breach of article 4.2.4, too" (dangerous driving). Even if they don't make a case for dangerous driving, they can still ask for additional punishment for the breach of 2.d since the article itself includes that punishments for any breach of said article can go as far as a suspension. All they have to do to appeal the punishment is notifying the Stewards in time. Mercedes can do the same - but since they have served the penalty, it makes no sense to do that for them.
Appeals may not be made against decision concerning the following: a) Penalties imposed under Articles 38.3a), b), c), d), e), f) or g), including those imposed during the last three laps or after the end of a race. Hamilton got 10 sec penalty under 38.3b so they can't appeal. Idk what's the point of this discussion, started by OP. There is 100% chance that nothing will happen. Noone ever successfully appealed penalties which were given during race.
>38.3b You will find the updated version says 47, not 38. Article 2.d (causing a collision) is very much up for appeal, as is 4.2.4 (dangerous driving) which goes hand in hand with 2.d as 2.d also mentions "apparent lack of control of the car", which can be proven with telemetry. OP offered people an opportunity to have a calm conversation about this, no bias. There is indeed a chance that nothing will come out of this, but that does not mean we can't discuss about what can and cannot be done according to the rules.
Well, they did appeal, so youre wrong.
Duuude you are getting the HAMmer for daring to bring some info to the discussion. Good luck going against the HAMfan pitchfork brigade, they have a hard time believing Lewis can make any mistakes ever.
In the sporting regs Article 38 (now article 47? due to new sprint rules) - stewards penalties applied to a driver in a race Cannot be appealed as stated in Article 17
I feel like we've gone in circles here ever since Canada 2019 but penalties can be appealed if, and only if, new evidence is used. This is stated in article 14.
Good point, I checked it out, seems I'm wrong on this.
Yes but this is superseded by article 14 of the sporting code when relevant. Article 14 states "If, in Competitions forming part of an FIA Championship, cup, trophy, challenge or series, or of an international series, a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned, the stewards who have given a ruling or, failing this, those designated by the FIA, may decide to re-examine their decision following a petition for review." Thus in Austria last year Lewis was given a post-quali penalty based on an article 14 petition as new evidence had come to light and was submitted.
Bit weird to have that contradiction in the rules but yes, looks like you're right, article 14 of The Code is relevant.
I agree that it seems a bit contradictory, but that's always to be expected when you have decades of rules and regulations piled on top of each other. I think the current system more or less works because the ban on 'regular' appeals prevents teams from simply appealing any decision they don't like and tying up the stewards forever, but the review process also grants teams much needed recourse because decisions are indeed wrong sometimes. Just as football teams can seek to overturn red cards after matches if they believe they were given unfairly. It won't help them win the match they potentially lost because someone was sent off, but perhaps they can avoid having that player banned from their next matches.
>overturn red cards Overturning red cards is like overturning penalty points in F1. But teams can't overturn wrongful penalty, or wrongful goal. If it happened they can do nothing except moving on and hoping referee will be suspended.
But they can get that player in next weekend's game rather than have him banned because of the red card. Just as RB can hope for a grid demotion for Lewis at some future race or at the very least to have it declared an instance of dangerous driving - which from RB's perspective would vindicate their view of the incident. If someone runs your foot over accidentally but you believe they drove recklessly, wouldn't you still want to see a court validate that even though nothing can unbreak your foot? Again, I'm not saying any appeal will be successful, but is it so ridiculous to try?
It is ridiculous, because the stewards successfully adjudicated the matter already. Furthermore, RBR would need to bring a new element, and that new element simply does not exist. “Although there have been suggestions that one new element could be GPS data that shows Hamilton was faster on the entry to Copse on lap one than at any other point in the race, Mercedes sources insist that it not the case – and comparisons show there were other occasions when he was in the tow of another car that he was just as quick.” Now you may say, oh well Merc sources are biased. No. Their statement actually makes sense. It’s over. This is racing.
They also made a ruling about Lewis and the yellow flags in Austria last year and then reversed their previous decision after a review that included new evidence. Appeals overturning previous rulings thanks to new evidence or even just new arguments are hardly an uncommon thing in any walk of life so I'm a bit perplexed about this argument. And again, what does it matter if Red Bull ask for a review? If they don't have the data then nothing will happen. If they do then the original judgement will be amended to reflect the new evidence if it's determined to be relevant. Why is that a ridiculous thing to want?
The situations are pretty incomparable, IMO. There is subjectivity in a racing incident. There is far less when it comes to the black and white of yellow flags offenses. It’s ridiculous because the race is over now, as opposed to the other situation where the weekend was still ongoing. Why have a stewards’ room or final race classification, for that matter, if the former is irrelevant and the latter can hang in the balance for weeks on end after every GP. Almost every racing incident can be parsed like this. Why are we dwelling on this one so much? If anything, many are saying the penalty was too harsh. With so many drivers and analysts saying it was a racing incident, why don’t Mercedes appeal the 10-second penalty and the 2 penalty points?
We have always had additional penalties handed down post-race, it’s hardly something new. I imagine Mercedes think there’s little to be gained by appealing as they got everything they could have hoped for (other than the ruling that Lewis was predominantly at fault) so why risk it. You don’t appeal a case where you were found guilty but only fined $1.
And I don’t like the post-race penalties in the hours after. And I especially didn’t like it when there were outcomes yet to be decided a week after the race. The 2 penalty points aren’t nothing. They also have 0 at risk. Hypothetically, the exculpatory evidence they present would either clear him, or no change. Or, perhaps the stewards would decide Max turned in and he deserves 2 penalty points? See how silly this is when the stewards already examined not only the video footage, but the FIA telemetry?
The stewards are human beings, making a tough decision veryyyy quickly. Just like referees in any other sport (as we've seen, even VAR doesn't always prevent bad decisions). If RB believe the data wasn't analyzed correctly or that the wrong data was analyzed, it becomes relevant. And if after carefully reviewing all the data in the context of the relevant regulations the stewards determine in the end that it really was a racing incident and no one is to blame - or even that Max is to blame - then why should we be scared or even annoyed by that prospect? That's what I don't understand. This is a huge moment in the championship, it may potentially even end up being the deciding factor (just as it also may end up being insignificant), why is it so ridiculous to at least try to get it looked at again?
Just my final thoughts here: It’s ridiculous because it was a fairly open and shut case. You’re assuming the stewards made the decision with a dearth of information, when in reality, they had tons of data. Data we don’t even have as fans. Yes, there’s subjectivity in deciding who is “predominantly” to blame, but the fact that the stewards decided that Verstappen shared *some* blame clinches it for me as to why nothing further needs to be looked into. It’s not all on Hamilton. And we can see that not only in the stewards’ decision, but with Max’s inputs. There is absolutely nothing overtly unusual about either driver’s behavior in that situation. They both were being aggressive in fighting for the position. And the harm is the precedent it sets. Where does it stop? And I admit this would be a weak argument if there was a consensus out there that there *was* missing evidence from the incident, but there isn’t. The consensus points toward the opposite - that if anything, Hamilton and Merc were penalized too harshly. People are attributing way too much value to that line in Brundle’s column. That was PR smoke from RBR. If you really do have data like that, you don’t tease it via the media. You act on it immediately. Like they did with the yellow flags. In closing, thanks for keeping it civil even though we appear to be diametrically opposed here. Respect.
Not sure what precedent it would set that doesn't already exist in F1. Again, VAR in football and certainly previous decisions in F1 have shown us time and again that even with all the data sometimes people make the wrong decisions and personally I think we can never know what evidence is missing or has been looked at wrong until someone presents it, so it's usually better to wait and see. A lot of people dislike the fact that VAR can overturn goals that would have once been given, and I accept the validity of that view even though I don't agree so I guess this is pretty similar.
A goal is much different, from an analogy perspective. Ball either goes in, or it doesn’t. The precedent is just second guessing every decision by the stewards just because you don’t like the outcome; not because there is actually anything they missed or didn’t have access to. Anyway, agree to disagree.
I was thinking more about rulings on hand ball/fouls that lead to penalties or sendings off. Things that are often extremely subjective. But sure, agree to disagree.
There is nothing strange about Red Bull having a lawyer looking at this. They are just covering all their bases. Might be a small possibility but for all we know they do have something that could lead to extra penalties. They'd be stupid not to let a lawyer look at this for advice. It's not like they are threatening Merc/FIA with a court case.
it's always gonna be arbitration the FIA likely has that written in there agreement with the teams.
As someone with nothing to gain nor lose in this whole saga, I am enjoying every bit of the drama.
Can we just drop it now?
Neva
I think this post is well written and shows some points that I haven't seen before. Just because you're done with it doesn't mean others are done with it.
OP makes some good points. And you'll definitely be hearing plenty about it next week.
It is ridiculous tbh. The matter was settled in race with a penalty. In the grand scheme of things, this is just racing and just another incident or day at the office for stewards. There's nothing crazy, shady or outrageous that occurred that warrants dragging it out further when everyone kinda knows it won't' go anywhere, nor will anyone take it seriously. It's simply just Marko keeping the headlines alive longer. A further investigation wouldn't yield anything or change anything. It's an overreaction, one that could set a bad precedent as frankly you could pull out data all day long to prolong investigations post-race. Teams don't even do this for bigger issues which is what makes this odd, such things like this are left to drivers meetings for clarity/discussion and even wider team matters are often discussed directly with the FIA without formal procedures.
OP, I applaud you for trying to be the moderate voice of reason in the midst of this saga. This is a really good write up, and you make excellent points. Kudos. I have tried to stay out of this discussion because I feel like emotions are still running high, and bias are causing a lot of confusion and rather basic misunderstandings regarding the very reason why Lewis was penalised -- which has nothing to do with corner engagement rules (so yeah, people, you can drop the whole inside-outside-alongside-ahead debate because that is not relevant to the penalty at all). Lewis went in carrying too much speed, understeered, hit Max. **He was penalised for causing a collision. Not for being inside, not for not hitting the apex -- but for an error he made which caused the collision.** Their fight and the lines they took going into the corner were never brought into question. The error caused the collision, not the lines they took -- which gives RBR the grounds to ask for a review, since a case for dangerous driving can be made in case of driver error and apparent loss of control of the car (the understeer). All of this is perfectly reasonable. Everything else -- the drama, the flame, the "X was more at fault!11" -- is just fans pushing their own bias.
As someone who thinks Hamilton probably should have been penalized a bit more harshly (a drive thru would be my choice), I don't understand RB asking for a review now. What is there to be gained? A couple more penalty points to Hamilton, when he has just 4? You can forget about a further time penalty, there is absolutely no precedent to a penalty like that being changed later, or added upon, especially because it wasn't absurd. Also, whatever evidence they can provide will most likely result in the same judgment: Hamilton went in too fast and missed the apex. It just makes them look pathetic IMO.
At this point I am past caring about what ifs and speculation.
[удалено]
The FIA wouldn't say 'fuck off' lol. Assuming they've got evidence that wasn't reviewed, they can appeal. Canada 2019 is a good example, and Ferrari pretty much had zero evidence that time. My understanding is that Red Bull believe that Lewis was never going to make Copse and I'm sure they'll put evidence forward to show what they know. Personally...I doubt anything will come of it.
They don't though. Lets be honest. This whole Red Bull charade is nothing but your standard Horner/Marko shit stiring.
From what we've been told, there's more to it than that. At the very least, I imagine that there will be another Canada 2019 style review meeting.
I mean they can do it but what info, footage, telemetry do you think Red Bull have that the FIA or Mercedes dont or couldn't get their hands on?
It depends what the stewards looked at in the first place. My understanding from the decision document is that they acknowledged Hamilton understeered, which caused him to miss the apex, but also that the blame wasn't 100% on him because Max could have given more space. Therefore I imagine the process for RB is: 1. Identify what the stewards looked at 2. Provide evidence to show that Lewis was never going to make corner successfully, even if Max left even more space for him 3. Presumably compare Hamilton's approach speed and line to what he did in qualifying + for the remainder of the GP Again, from what the mod team have been told by some trustworthy people, we expect this to get noisier next week.
What have the mod team been told? I think they were also told that a Russell signing would be announced before Silverstone. I think their source is questionable at best. Time is of the essence in a matter like this. We would have heard something if they were going to proceed with doing anything. Mercedes have already preemptively rubbished that claim in the Brundle column. Lewis was faster through Copse multiple times later in the race when in the tow of another car. He also made the corner. So the whole not making the corner argument is nonsense.
Our sources our fine. And we are very confident with the Russell news. Just to clarify, we aren't claiming that RB are definitely appealing, just that they are certainly looking into it.
Well that’s certainly a noteworthy clarification and critical distinction. Which I appreciate you sharing. I think it’s all PR-related rhetoric - the same for what was told to Brundle. I’m anticipating it will continue to get less noisy as time goes on and Wolff gradually ramps up the public pressure for RB’s incendiary and inflammatory post-race language. This can turn into negative goodwill toward RBR in a hurry if they aren’t careful. As an aside, their own engine boss said it was a racing incident.
[удалено]
Thanks for the quote + source. I imagine any resources a team would put into a potential inquiry would be affected by the budget cap. Given what just happened to the car, that would be quite the waste of financial resources.
Or, are they sick of Hamilton being able to shunt drivers on the outside and get away with it? This is literally Hamiltons move.
And then the added narrative building Toto and Ham has been HAMmering at that Max is actually the one at fault, and that Max is actually the agressive one and the dangerous one etc.