FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

I fail to see how anyone can prove that team orders were given. The team is allowed to tell a driver that he is holding up a team mate. That driver is allowed to yield in a gentlemanly manner. The team is allowed to thank him over the radio for doing so. That driver is allowed to be upset over being slower than his team mate...again...

Now....PROVE that the above is not what happened. If you can't prove otherwise....how can penalties be given? I would not be surprised to see the stewards decision reversed. There simply was no order given that can be proven to be such.

Proof is what's required in a court of law, in this case circumstantial evidence compounded by the obvious dissent and civil disobedience in which it was executed is all it takes.

[billindenver]

I fail to see how anyone can prove that team orders were given. The team is allowed to tell a driver that he is holding up a team mate. That driver is allowed to yield in a gentlemanly manner. The team is allowed to thank him over the radio for doing so. That driver is allowed to be upset over being slower than his team mate...again...

Now....PROVE that the above is not what happened. If you can't prove otherwise....how can penalties be given? I would not be surprised to see the stewards decision reversed. There simply was no order given that can be proven to be such.

Proof is what's required in a court of law, in this case circumstantial evidence compounded by the obvious dissent and civil disobedience in which it was executed is all it takes.

If the FIA really have no burden of proof at all on matters that have penalties in the millions of dollars...then the teams should be horse whipped for allowing such a system and no wonder there was talk of a break away series. I doubt very much that such is the case, and if some heavy handed penalty is handed out...I expect Ferrari will file a civil action. I certainly would.

[Jensonb]

I fail to see how anyone can prove that team orders were given. The team is allowed to tell a driver that he is holding up a team mate. That driver is allowed to yield in a gentlemanly manner. The team is allowed to thank him over the radio for doing so. That driver is allowed to be upset over being slower than his team mate...again...

Now....PROVE that the above is not what happened. If you can't prove otherwise....how can penalties be given? I would not be surprised to see the stewards decision reversed. There simply was no order given that can be proven to be such.

Proof is what's required in a court of law, in this case circumstantial evidence compounded by the obvious dissent and civil disobedience in which it was executed is all it takes.

If the FIA really have no burden of proof at all on matters that have penalties in the millions of dollars...then the teams should be horse whipped for allowing such a system and no wonder there was talk of a break away series. I doubt very much that such is the case, and if some heavy handed penalty is handed out...I expect Ferrari will file a civil action. I certainly would.

Sorry Bill, but Ferrari clearly broke the Team Orders rule, and have already been found guilty of it once - by the Stewards on the day. A coded team order is still a team order. The FiA will find it remarkably easy to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. They do not need to prove it absolutely. If it becomes unreasonable to doubt their guilt, that's enough. And since the Scuderia did it, and we heard and saw them do it, it would take magic on Ferrari's part to get out of it.

And either way, they will get their feet put to the coals for brining the sport into disrepute.

[Robert12010]

I fail to see how anyone can prove that team orders were given. The team is allowed to tell a driver that he is holding up a team mate. That driver is allowed to yield in a gentlemanly manner. The team is allowed to thank him over the radio for doing so. That driver is allowed to be upset over being slower than his team mate...again...

Now....PROVE that the above is not what happened. If you can't prove otherwise....how can penalties be given? I would not be surprised to see the stewards decision reversed. There simply was no order given that can be proven to be such.

Proof is what's required in a court of law, in this case circumstantial evidence compounded by the obvious dissent and civil disobedience in which it was executed is all it takes.

If the FIA really have no burden of proof at all on matters that have penalties in the millions of dollars...then the teams should be horse whipped for allowing such a system and no wonder there was talk of a break away series. I doubt very much that such is the case, and if some heavy handed penalty is handed out...I expect Ferrari will file a civil action. I certainly would.

Sorry Bill, but Ferrari clearly broke the Team Orders rule, and have already been found guilty of it once - by the Stewards on the day. A coded team order is still a team order. The FiA will find it remarkably easy to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. They do not need to prove it absolutely. If it becomes unreasonable to doubt their guilt, that's enough. And since the Scuderia did it, and we heard and saw them do it, it would take magic on Ferrari's part to get out of it.

And either way, they will get their feet put to the coals for brining the sport into disrepute.

I agree with that, but i think the team orders rule should be dropped because then this sort of controversy wouldnt come up but then thats part of the reason why we all love the sport isnt it?

[The Immortal Dragon]

The FiA will find it remarkably easy to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. They do not need to prove it absolutely.

That's not the way to hand penalties. If you want to hand a penalty, you need to have absolute proof.

It's a bit like the RBR's wing. It doesn't look like it's legal, but it passes scrutineering. They can't just ban it because it's reasonable to assume it is illegal.

[Narcil]

They have to be careful, otherwise counter claims from Ferrari will happen.

How many times this year have we heard the "We have to save fuel" line, just so that one team-mate doesn't have a go at the other. This is essentially team orders but not as obvious as "hey Massa can you like just pull over for a second and let Alonso through"

Even so I personally don't have a problem with team orders, I mean they do spend hundreds of millions on getting the team as high as they can, so having one driver getting past another one in order to benefit the team, doesn't seem to bad to me. Sure it doesn't make good racing, but F1 is more of a business anyway.

[smokin]

They have to be careful, otherwise counter claims from Ferrari will happen.

How many times this year have we heard the "We have to save fuel" line, just so that one team-mate doesn't have a go at the other. This is essentially team orders but not as obvious as "hey Massa can you like just pull over for a second and let Alonso through"

Even so I personally don't have a problem with team orders, I mean they do spend hundreds of millions on getting the team as high as they can, so having one driver getting past another one in order to benefit the team, doesn't seem to bad to me. Sure it doesn't make good racing, but F1 is more of a business anyway.

There's no 'Alonso' in team.

[f1ea]

They have to be careful, otherwise counter claims from Ferrari will happen.

How many times this year have we heard the "We have to save fuel" line, just so that one team-mate doesn't have a go at the other. This is essentially team orders but not as obvious as "hey Massa can you like just pull over for a second and let Alonso through"

Even so I personally don't have a problem with team orders, I mean they do spend hundreds of millions on getting the team as high as they can, so having one driver getting past another one in order to benefit the team, doesn't seem to bad to me. Sure it doesn't make good racing, but F1 is more of a business anyway.

There's no 'Alonso' in team.

Would Santander (or any other sponsor for that matter) have gone for Massa? No.
In fact, not even us little internet geeks would have bet an internet token on Massa (yes, all of you who always claim Massa is rubbish. but somehow seem surprised when the team tries to improve their chances of the championship)...

fact is, Alonso brought the cash to pay for Kimi's and Massa's salaries. They should be the grateful ones

[Jensonb]

The FiA will find it remarkably easy to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. They do not need to prove it absolutely.

That's not the way to hand penalties. If you want to hand a penalty, you need to have absolute proof.

It's a bit like the RBR's wing. It doesn't look like it's legal, but it passes scrutineering. They can't just ban it because it's reasonable to assume it is illegal.

Well no, it's nothing like that because the problem is not that the evidence is incomplete (As it is with the wing), it's that it is open to interpretation (The Team Orders rule is a qualitative rule, the flexing rule is quantitative). Since the data is qualitative, absolute proof (As in, logical or mathematic proof) does not apply, one simply needs to eliminate implausible explanations for the data. It is wholly unreasonable based on what was said and done during and after the race to conclude Ferrari did not break the Team Orders rule, and hence, they can be penalised for it.

[The Immortal Dragon]

Rules are not supposed to be qualitative. That's why pretty much everybody thinks the rule should be changed.
To give a penalty based on a qualitative interpretation can be risky; Ferrari can bring the case into a civil court which may interpret the facts in a different way from the FIA, letting a legal battle between Ferrari and FIA commence.
The FIA *must* think about that, too.

[Jensonb]

Rules are not supposed to be qualitative. That's why pretty much everybody thinks the rule should be changed.

Okay, while we're at it then, let's change the rule banning erratic behaviour behind the Safety Car, abolish penalties for causing an avoidable accident, chuck out the rule against bringing the sport into disrepute, modify the interpretation of "moving in the braking zone" so that it has a numerical rather than absolute distinction, change the interpretation of no overtaking behind the Safety Car from providing leeway for extenuating circumstances to an absolute no-passing rule - oh and we should probably do away with that silly brake-testing rule.



Also, I'mma fix that second sentence for you:

That's why pretty much everybody thinks the rule should be changed [Citation Needed].

Get some proof before you go throwing around statements like that. Considering the backlash at Ferrari in 2002, I sincerely doubt anything like "pretty much everybody" thinks anything of the sort.

[billindenver]

I fail to see how anyone can prove that team orders were given. The team is allowed to tell a driver that he is holding up a team mate. That driver is allowed to yield in a gentlemanly manner. The team is allowed to thank him over the radio for doing so. That driver is allowed to be upset over being slower than his team mate...again...

Now....PROVE that the above is not what happened. If you can't prove otherwise....how can penalties be given? I would not be surprised to see the stewards decision reversed. There simply was no order given that can be proven to be such.

Proof is what's required in a court of law, in this case circumstantial evidence compounded by the obvious dissent and civil disobedience in which it was executed is all it takes.

If the FIA really have no burden of proof at all on matters that have penalties in the millions of dollars...then the teams should be horse whipped for allowing such a system and no wonder there was talk of a break away series. I doubt very much that such is the case, and if some heavy handed penalty is handed out...I expect Ferrari will file a civil action. I certainly would.

Sorry Bill, but Ferrari clearly broke the Team Orders rule, and have already been found guilty of it once - by the Stewards on the day. A coded team order is still a team order. The FiA will find it remarkably easy to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. They do not need to prove it absolutely. If it becomes unreasonable to doubt their guilt, that's enough. And since the Scuderia did it, and we heard and saw them do it, it would take magic on Ferrari's part to get out of it.

And either way, they will get their feet put to the coals for brining the sport into disrepute.

Sorry Jenson, but if that is the level of proof they are going by..then I want both McLarens penalized for the "If I back off, will Jenson pass me?" which was answered by the team as "NO". How can that possibly not be interpreted as the team has told Jenson not to pass with their coded save fuel message. They are racing drivers. How can a guy on the wall say the man in second place will not pass if given the chance? It was clearly and obviously a team order...yet it wasn't verballized as such so it wasn't penalized. If you can't prove it...there was no crime. The same applies here. And for the record, I dislike Ferrari and McLaren equally....so I would be quite happy if both were penalized for team orders. But, the FIA can't let one obvious example slide and then hammer the next one....or the excrement is going to hit the rotating blades. All IMHO, of course.

[Jensonb]

Sorry Jenson, but if that is the level of proof they are going by..then I want both McLarens penalized for the "If I back off, will Jenson pass me?" which was answered by the team as "NO". How can that possibly not be interpreted as the team has told Jenson not to pass with their coded save fuel message?

Well, and see if you can follow me here, because this is crucial:

Jenson overtook Lewis almost immediately after that.

Also, on another note, "Hold Station" is not, technically, a Team Order which manipulates the race result. Unlike in the Ferrari instance, telling Jenson to save fuel and the fact he did overtake lewis means there is reasonable doubt, even if you interpret it as a Team Order which manipulates the race result, which - again - is a stretch.

[What's Burning?]

Sorry Jenson, but if that is the level of proof they are going by..then I want both McLarens penalized for the "If I back off, will Jenson pass me?" which was answered by the team as "NO". How can that possibly not be interpreted as the team has told Jenson not to pass with their coded save fuel message. They are racing drivers. How can a guy on the wall say the man in second place will not pass if given the chance? It was clearly and obviously a team order...yet it wasn't verballized as such so it wasn't penalized. If you can't prove it...there was no crime. The same applies here. And for the record, I dislike Ferrari and McLaren equally....so I would be quite happy if both were penalized for team orders. But, the FIA can't let one obvious example slide and then hammer the next one....or the excrement is going to hit the rotating blades. All IMHO, of course.

Because Jenson DID pass him, which throws out that argument.

[Jensonb]

I mean, seriously, if it was even the slightest bit reasonable to suggest McLaren had robbed Jenson of a chance at a win by breaking the Team Orders rule, who amongst us would be the first to point it out?

Hint: ------>