FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[f1ea]

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.

Just because a driver disobeys a team order, does not mean a team order is not given. In fact, seconds after, there was a new message, called "you have to save fuel" and he did not attempt a pass after... which gives support to there being a team order. The rule bans team orders, not the obediance to them or not.

So... who decides what would alter the race result? could Jenson have overtaken, tried to, crash with Lewis or ran out of fuel in the midts of all that?

Was it reasonable for the benefit of the team to tell them to hold stations? yes
Was it reasonable for Jenson to try the pass anyway? yes
Was there a team order? yes
Does anybody know there was one? yes
Can it be proven? no

[vaptin]

The rule itself is rubbish anyway, so is this "bringing the sport into disrepute", you shouldn't need a separate all encompassing rule, if they break a direct rule punish em for that.

Ferrari have ground at least to argue against bringing the sport into disrepute, how much and how significant I'm not sure; team orders are generally an accepted part of f1, Ferrari did it too try and maximise their chances of a WDC whilst not effecting their WCC, is that such a bad thing morally in f1 (I'm assuming this is what "bringing the sport into disrepute" refers to, look another problem with FIA wording, the phrase is so damn open ended).

[vaptin]

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.

Just because a driver disobeys a team order, does not mean a team order is not given. In fact, seconds after, there was a new message, called "you have to save fuel" and he did not attempt a pass after... which gives support to there being a team order. The rule bans team orders, not the obediance to them or not.

So... who decides what would alter the race result? could Jenson have overtaken, tried to, crash with Lewis or ran out of fuel in the midts of all that?

Was it reasonable for the benefit of the team to tell them to hold stations? yes
Was it reasonable for Jenson to try the pass anyway? yes
Was there a team order? yes
Does anybody know there was one? yes
Can it be proven? no

Have to disagree with what you said there, if the team order is completely ignored by the driver it can't have interfered with the race result.
Agree with your second part though, how exactly do you determine whether the result of the race was caused by the team order.

[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.

Just because a driver disobeys a team order, does not mean a team order is not given. In fact, seconds after, there was a new message, called "you have to save fuel" and he did not attempt a pass after... which gives support to there being a team order.

So... who decides what would alter the race result? could Jenson have overtaken, tried to, crash with Lewis or ran out of fuel in the midts of all that?

Was it reasonable for the benefit of the team to tell them to hold stations? yes
Was it reasonable for Jenson to try the pass anyway? yes
Was there a team order? yes
Does anybody know there was one? yes
Can it be proven? no

You're leading us neatly back to "Reasonable Doubt". it is reasonable to doubt McLaren's guilt, it is not reasonable to interpret Ferrari's actions as anything but a deliberate breach of the ban on team orders which manipulate the result. There is plenty of evidence McLaren could point to that "save fuel" meant "save fuel" - Button has noted that most of the race was, unusually, flat-out. We saw as much, as the four lead cars remained rapid throughout until around the time the Red Bulls crashed.

Also, note the distinction between manipulate and alter. Hold station orders are also hard to reasonably apply to the Team orders rule as drivers are frequently told to hold station, for various reasons, regardless of who is ahead. This theoretically alters the result, but does not manipulate it.

[vaptin]

If Ferrari can reasonably show they believe Alonso would've overtaken Massa eventually they'll get away with it, I think this time the responsibility is on Ferrari to prove Alonso would've passed Massa and not rather than the FIA to prove Alonso would not have passed Massa?

Ferrari might not even go that far, Jensonb looking at your reasoning behind McLaren's case for reasonable doubt, Ferrari could always point out that ALonso was faster than Massa, and that's what Rob Smedely said. Massa therefore decided to, let Alonso through, rather than risk a redbull Turkey incident.

Ferrari could always say, they made the message becuase they thought Alonso was going to get passed anyway, suddenly it becomes a case of team orders, but the team was not trying to interfere with the race result, reasonable doubt again?

[The Immortal Dragon]

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.

All of these rules have a quantitative basis; causing an avoidable accident: there was an accident and one of the drivers could have been less reckless in his actions; the moving in the breaking zone is NOT a rule, just a guideline, which doesn't even mention "braking zone"; but still, if it did, you couldn't argue much that someone moving 500m before the corner moved in the braking zone; the SC rule simply has an exception, which is often not done anyway (because the race director doesn't let it to be done).

ALL rules of ALL sports are based on a quantitative basis except for the team orders one. Something is wrong, don't you think?

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.

Instead of talking unkindly to anybody who doesn't agree with you just to make your point, read the previous pages of this thread and look at how many people said this rule should be changed - even if only to clarify that the rule should only apply if both drivers can still win the WDC.

[What's Burning?]

Ferrari's race drivers have been summoned by the FIA to the forthcoming disciplinary hearing of the World Motor Sport Council.

That is the claim of the Spanish sports daily AS, which on Friday said both Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa must appear either in person in Paris or via video link.

The pair swapped positions during July's German Grand Prix at Hockenheim, allegedly due to the imposition of an illegal team order.

Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali said before leaving Spa-Francorchamps last weekend that he was "sure the World Council will understand our point" on Sept. 8.
Felipe Massa (Left) and Fernando Alonso (Right) could still lose points for their role in the team orders affair. (Photo: LAT Photographic)

But some, including Red Bull's Helmut Marko, are hoping the outcome will be a points loss for the Italian team and its drivers.

"No, I don't think so. We're relaxed," said Alonso last Sunday.

After Wednesday's hearing, it is expected the verdict will be published later that day.

As well as the drivers and legal team, boss Domenicali and team manager Massimo Rivola are also slated to be in attendance at Place de la Concorde.

[vaptin]

Wouldn't normally trust the Spanish press, but the drivers will be there you don't say. . .

[billindenver]

FIA - "Mr Massa, we have all heard the radio recording, and in it you were told multiple times to pick up the pace. Why did the team do that?"
Massa - "They wanted me to pick up the pace so that I wasn't holding up my team mate. I was not able to do so."
FIA - "Mr. Alonso. We have heard that your team mate was slower than you...is this true."
Alonso - "I was constantly looking for the anchor that he was dragging, but was unable to locate it. Perhaps all four tires were flat..but he was certainly slower"
FIA - "Mr. Massa, are we to believe that Alonso was faster than you on that day...is that what you are trying to tell us? Can you prove this?"
Massa - "Two time world champion, versus my zero. Yes, he is faster than me on a daily basis. He is 32 pts ahead of me as of today. Are you stupid?"
FIA - "Leaving that issue aside. Prior to the pass, the team told you that "Alonso is faster than you...confirm"....what did they mean by that?"
Massa - "They meant that Alonso was faster than me, the same thing they had been saying all race. They were trying to motivate me to go faster."
FIA - "Are you really trying to tell us that it wasn't a coded, super special message for you to pull over and let him by? "
Massa - "If it was I wouldn't have understood it, I left my secret decoder ring in my other gloves"
FIA - "So then how did you interpret the message?"
Massa - "Well, they said Alonso is faster than you" which I interpreted as Alonso, my teammate, was lapping at a greater pace than I was."
FIA - "So it wasn't a super secret coded message that meant "Save fuel?"
Massa - "Nope, it was an honest interpretation of our respective speeds...so, rather than pull a redbull, I decided to allow him by"
FIA - "Mr. Massa...come now, tell the truth....super secret encoded message, right?"
Massa - "Nope...just regular old normal message....with not one illegal word in it....and I chose on my own to allow him by. Is that against any rules?"
FIA - "Not at present, but we are considering making a rule that allows us to tell you over the radio what you can and can not do....all depending on up to the minute viewer ratings of course.

[Peng]

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.

That isn't really a good example Bill since Button actually did end up passing Hamilton so if it was team orders Button clearly didn't follow those orders.

And seriously people claiming the save fuel message is super secret team orders for do not overtake have some serious conspiracy issues especially considering Mclaren have had problems at the end of the race atleast once that i can remember with barely having any fuel left in the car for Scrutineering.

Than again saying anything to you MrMclarenhaternumber1 is pretty pointless since your blinded to anything Mclaren related.

[f1ea]

You're leading us neatly back to "Reasonable Doubt". it is reasonable to doubt McLaren's guilt, it is not reasonable to interpret Ferrari's actions as anything but a deliberate breach of the ban on team orders which manipulate the result. There is plenty of evidence McLaren could point to that "save fuel" meant "save fuel" - Button has noted that most of the race was, unusually, flat-out. We saw as much, as the four lead cars remained rapid throughout until around the time the Red Bulls crashed.

Also, note the distinction between manipulate and alter. Hold station orders are also hard to reasonably apply to the Team orders rule as drivers are frequently told to hold station, for various reasons, regardless of who is ahead. This theoretically alters the result, but does not manipulate it.

Not really. The fact that team orders have previously been carried out before (even with the rule in place) to no punishment, m eans the FIA cant all of a sudden pull out a "suitable punishment" out of the bag. The same ammount of evidence to prove "save fuel" meant "save fuel" can be brought out by Ferrai to prove that "Alonso is faster than you" meant "Alonso is faster than you".

That isn't really a good example Bill since Button actually did end up passing Hamilton so if it was team orders Button clearly didn't follow those orders.

As ive said before, just because a driver doesnt do one thing or the other discard the fact that orders may have been given. The sin is the order, not whether or not its obeyed.

[vaptin]

That isn't really a good example Bill since Button actually did end up passing Hamilton so if it was team orders Button clearly didn't follow those orders.

As ive said before, just because a driver doesnt do one thing or the other discard the fact that orders may have been given. The sin is the order, not whether or not its obeyed.[/quote]

From a moral point of view sure, which should affect judgement if the accusation is "bringing the sport into disrepute", however the rule is "Team orders which affect the out come of the race", if the order wasn't obeyed, it can't have affected the outcome of the race, what happened in Turkey looked like Jenson refusing to play ball and a pretty unhappy driver who the team order was supposed to benefit.

[myownalias]

Why don't the FIA simply impose a rule that says "All teams must carry enough fuel to complete the race at full racing speed" and take away the ability to change the fuel mixture from inside the car! That'll deal with the "save fuel" ambiguity!

[vaptin]

Why don't the FIA simply impose a rule that says "All teams must carry enough fuel to complete the race at full racing speed" and take away the ability to change the fuel mixture from inside the car! That'll deal with the "save fuel" ambiguity!

Meh, details details, won't affect the mentality. Next the teams will just be saying - ease up, the brakes are wearing out or something.

Although, requiring the teams to race flat out in terms of fuel would be a good idea in general though, might as well expand that and allow the teams more engines so they don't have to turn the revs down and engine save in races.

[What's Burning?]

The sin is the order, not whether or not its obeyed.

Nah, the sin is me not being able to see racers race, man did I enjoy Vettle trying to pass Webber. Man did I enjoy Jenson overtaking Lewis and then having Lewis push to take back his spot. REAL racing. I enjoyed that! it will be in every single highlight clip of the 2010 season.

I didn't get to see Alonso RACE pass Massa... a driver that according the the world should have not been able to hold him off and was struggling with the hard tire compound. So I don't actually know if Alonso can overtake Massa when he has to, I haven't seen it.

OH WAIT... yeah there was once this year that I saw Alonso actually overtake Massa, that was in the entrance to pit lane!