FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

At the end of the season, article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations (the Team Orders rule) will be reviewed by the F1 Sporting Working Group.

The rule as it stands:-
39.1 Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

So, this thread is to specifically discuss whether the rule should be changed, scrapped or left. It has nothing to do with any previous decisions and there should be no reference to any specific F1 teams or drivers. Lets just discuss the rule. Do you like it, don't like it, why etc.

For me, I find the current rule absolutely ridiculous. What it says is, any "order" i.e. an instruction that is given, by any team that will have an effect on any race is a Team Order and is prohibited. Technically, if a team ordered it's staff to work overtime to improve a part, and that part was to make the car faster then you have an "order" that is going to "interfere" with a race result. I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with all sorts of legal documents and this article is silly. I seriously doubt this was written by a legal team with any real experience.

For me, there should be absolutely no rule. Just get rid of it.

Let's state a few other facts. F1 is a team sport. You cannot change that. The prime object, at every race is for the "Team" to win. Like any other competition, EPL, AFL, NRL, NFL, NBA.

Drivers are members of a team. They must strive to achieve the prime goal of the team winning. Drivers in the same team are teammates.

As with all other team sports, you work with your teammates, to defeat the other teams. In soccer, teammates help each other, pass the ball to each other and try to challenge only the other teams players when they have the ball.

Acting as a teammate doesn't mean you can break any of the existing rules. You can't deliberately block or cause accidents etc.

There will be plenty of wheel to wheel racing - it will be where it belongs, between opposing teams.

Now, does this mean that one driver must always give way to another. The answer is no. Does it make any sense to try and have only one player score all the goals? Of course not. Drivers should do what is needed to help the team achieve it's prime goal of winning. If teammates are out front, running 1st and 2nd, then of course the guy in second place can pass, and of course the guy in front doesn't have to yield. But, the guy in front wouldn't "slam the gate" on a teammate, like he would on a competitor. Neither would the guy behind make stupid desperate lunges at his teammate ahead. But, it can also be like a footballer trying to win the golden boot or the FIFA footballer of the year, if it comes from his team efforts during the year then great. There are even times, where a team, that may already have secured their prime objective of winning, will try and assist a player win the golden boot by setting him up. For me, that's ok too. As long as the prime objective - the team winning - is already secured.

[bud]

I think it should only be allowed say after 75% of the season, where one driver has a chance at a title where the other does not.

I don't like seeing it happen early in the season, what driver in his right mind would want to concede victories or a shot at the title before the half way mark? as Ayrton Senna once said if you're not racing to win what's the point of racing!

[KyrosV]

I think Team orders are ok if the guy ahead is disadvantaging his team mate behind who is faster or in a Title run in.

What I do not agree with is having number 1 and number 2 status drivers contracted. Which I think there is becoming less of in the top teams that is producing good racing.

[Jabberwocky]

It is a difficult one. If one driver faster than another, then it makes sense to no mess the faster cars race up, especially if it is in the mid field and the faster car could make up more places/points.

To argue that you could then say if the driver is quicker he should be able to overtake the slower car. This can lead to putting both cars in danger, or slowing the faster car down for a few laps until it overtakes.

However if it at a point where one driver is in the championship hunt and the other has no mathermatical way of doing it then yep swap places.

[Landcruiser]

I cant think of any other sport where team orders come into play. If the car behind is faster, why is it behind?
I think it should be up to the individual driver to make the decision to let his team mate pass.

[vaptin]

I liked the 01 rule, "Permitted where a team can justify it for the championship [or something to that effect]". Worked diddn't it? Ferrari got punished quite severely, why did the introduce this new version which technically bans team orders even if one driver is out of the championship.

The idea behind the old rule seems to agree with the consensus on here, it's sort of what Bud is saying I think although he's got a solid quantitative basis behind his idea. Of course though, that ignores things like the points situation, I'd say its still wrong to do it in the third to last race when one driver is half a race win (in points terms) behind another? Or one of the drivers is already leading the WDC?

[Jabberwocky]

I cant think of any other sport where team orders come into play. If the car behind is faster, why is it behind?
I think it should be up to the individual driver to make the decision to let his team mate pass.

the faster car might of pitted and is coming back through the field

[What's Burning?]

Let's consider why the rule is there in the first place, I want to see racing and we want to see achievements earned yet there are situations were a team order can affect a situation and lead to a desired effect.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me which way the rule goes as long as it it clear, enforceable and with concisely defined fines/punishments so everyone, the teams the drivers and the fans know where to stand.

[Robert12010]

team orders should only be allowed when the championship is nearly over and one driver of a team cant win the title, that would make life easier

[The Immortal Dragon]

I cant think of any other sport where team orders come into play.

There are team orders in all team sports, I would say.

For example, a quite clear one:
In football; Player A gets a penalty for his team, but it was already decided that Player B would take any penalties.
So Player B scores when it should have been Player A to have that opportunity.
The team decides that Player B taking the penalty is the best chance they have to score and therefore win the match.
Player A gets nothing.

[vaptin]

I cant think of any other sport where team orders come into play.

There are team orders in all team sports, I would say.

For example, a quite clear one:
In football; Player A gets a penalty for his team, but it was already decided that Player B would take any penalties.
So Player B scores when it should have been Player A to have that opportunity.
The team decides that Player B taking the penalty is the best chance they have to score and therefore win the match.
Player A gets nothing.

Perhaps more clearly, last match of the season. A win for Chelsea guarantees them the title (this is football/soccer for those who don't follow), Drogba, a player for Chealsea needs another goal to win the prize for most goals in the season. If theres a penalty however, the manger had clearly stated that the teams usual penalty taker will take it, anymore penalties and then drogba could take it, this is what happened. Drogba pouted when the first penalty was being taken by the teams usual penalty taker (Lampard I think), but the team insisted that the goal of the team and the best chance for the team to achieve that goal would come before Drogba's personal desire.

[The Immortal Dragon]

I cant think of any other sport where team orders come into play.

There are team orders in all team sports, I would say.

For example, a quite clear one:
In football; Player A gets a penalty for his team, but it was already decided that Player B would take any penalties.
So Player B scores when it should have been Player A to have that opportunity.
The team decides that Player B taking the penalty is the best chance they have to score and therefore win the match.
Player A gets nothing.

Perhaps more clearly, last match of the season. A win for Chelsea guarantees them the title (this is football/soccer for those who don't follow), Drogba, a player for Chealsea needs another goal to win the prize for most goals in the season. If theres a penalty however, the manger had clearly stated that the teams usual penalty taker will take it, anymore penalties and then drogba could take it, this is what happened. Drogba pouted when the first penalty was being taken by the teams usual penalty taker (Lampard I think), but the team insisted that the goal of the team and the best chance for the team to achieve that goal would come before Drogba's personal desire.

Good, it's even better now

[What's Burning?]

It is difficult to classify F1 in the current state as a "team".

It would be more accurate to say it is two separate teams that share information, with two separate drivers that share information so in essence two separate teams, but one constructor. The constructor will have it's best interest in mind, while the two separate "teams" will have their best interest in mind.

The situation is more like a set of siblings with one parent.

Any assistance given by one team to another should be solely for the sake of sportsmanship. When one team feels that they have no change to win. If the constructor intervenes and sacrifices one team for the sake of the other without the consent of one of the teams then we have the situation we're discussing.

[f1ea]

To me: Team orders = choice for the teams.

Having the extra driver adds to the strategic value of the races. Regardless of Massa's position in the WDC, him having the possibility to take pts from Jenson made the Monza race much more interesting.

The same with having the possibility of Massa and Alonso swapping positions. It definitely adds to the strategic value. Without those 7 pts from Hockenheim, the WDC would be less interesting today. So if the issue is the spectacle...... i think team orders made the spectacle much better.

I can guarantee, the teams would not use a team order to hurt their interests deliberatly. They will work with what they have at hand and make their decisions within THEIR resources, incidentaly, the drivers are part of the team's resources.

When is it fair or not to the drivers? i'm sure they can figure it out between themselves. It is far too complicated, and the worst would be to have blackmailing and so on... but its none worse than having pay drivers or good drivers losing their seat to corporate interests.... and we can't really complain about that.

I think it should only be allowed say after 75% of the season, where one driver has a chance at a title where the other does not.

There's no way to tell when drivers are out of the hunt; whether it will come at 75% or 90% or 50% into nobody knows. So, penning a rule to take this into account will end up more flawed than the current. A mathematical probability is good for gambling, and the team's bosses are not there to gamble.

team orders should only be allowed when the championship is nearly over and one driver of a team cant win the title, that would make life easier

"nearly" over has no real meaning. And when one driver "can't win the title" is overwhelmingly broad...... the teams will never go for far-fetched possibilities (ie gamble).

[spankyham]

It is difficult to classify F1 in the current state as a "team".

It would be more accurate to say it is two separate teams that share information, with two separate drivers that share information so in essence two separate teams, but one constructor. The constructor will have it's best interest in mind, while the two separate "teams" will have their best interest in mind.

The situation is more like a set of siblings with one parent.

Any assistance given by one team to another should be solely for the sake of sportsmanship. When one team feels that they have no change to win. If the constructor intervenes and sacrifices one team for the sake of the other without the consent of one of the teams then we have the situation we're discussing.

WB, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

Ferrari is a single team, McLaren is a single team. You try and tell their owners that one driver can try and destroy their other driver on the trck like any other competitor. That is just laughable. They put in their hard cash, in copious amounts.

Conversely you imagine that Kuyt and Torres decide they will form an entity within Liverpool that will "compete" with Gerrard and Ngog. Sure, they agree to share data before the match, but during the game they will fight each for possession of the ball. This is just plain outright silly. Not one supporter would tolerate this. Fans understand that teammates help teammates. Not only do they understand it, they expect it.

The simple fact that you cannot avoid or walk away from is that F1 is a team sport. Drivers on the same team are teammates. All team members have an obligation to achieve the prime goal at every race of delivering a win for the "team".