Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as far as
I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a tactic. Did
it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a penalty
for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage" letting a car past
while maintaining a lasting advantage would be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018...
which I found interesting. https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay behind
for two corners would have been a good idea but I note that that would
not have been sufficient in this case.
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as far as
I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a tactic. Did
it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a penalty
for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage" letting a car past
while maintaining a lasting advantage would be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018...
which I found interesting. https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay behind
for two corners would have been a good idea but I note that that would
not have been sufficient in this case.
On 2021-12-06 4:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as far
as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a
tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage" letting a
car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would be an
inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018...
which I found interesting.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay behind
for two corners would have been a good idea but I note that that
would not have been sufficient in this case.
One possibility is that you could change the rule so you must give
give back the position at the same point on the track just as soon as
you are informed that you need to give the place. In that way, the
infringing driver would be put into largely the same tactical
situation as he would have been if he hadn't gained/kept his position
by infringing the rules.
You could even go so far as to include that IF the infringing driver
gives back the place before the ruling comes down, then he can do so
at a point of his choosing.
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as far
as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a
tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage" letting a
car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would be an
inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018...
which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that
this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and
Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay behindTrouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that would
for two corners would have been a good idea but I note that that
would not have been sufficient in this case.
mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting advantage.
You might remember, better than I, that during the race someone took a
short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage was yielded. I
think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity to gain advantage
through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the
steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of
football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me off
was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate to
think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off, which
has happened all too long) but that is what these controversial
incidents feel like.
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as far
as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a
tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage" letting a
car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would be an
inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018...
which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that
this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and
Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay behind
for two corners would have been a good idea but I note that that
would not have been sufficient in this case.
Trouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that would
mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the Parabolica.
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as
far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as
a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would
be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from
2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that
this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and
Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay
behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note
that that would not have been sufficient in this case.
Trouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting
advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the race
someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage
was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity
to gain advantage through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the
steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of
football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me
off was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate
to think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off,
which has happened all too long) but that is what these
controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend fouling
to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the race. Now who
would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as
far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as
a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would
be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from
2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that
this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and
Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stayTrouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note
that that would not have been sufficient in this case.
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the
Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting
advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the race
someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage
was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be
encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity
to gain advantage through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the
steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of
football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me
off was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate
to think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off,
which has happened all too long) but that is what these
controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend fouling
to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the race. Now who
would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as far as Iwin/
am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a penalty
for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage" letting a car past
while maintaining a lasting advantage would be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018...
which I found interesting. https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay behind for
two corners would have been a good idea but I note that that would not
have been sufficient in this case.
One possibility is that you could change the rule so you must give give
back the position at the same point on the track just as soon as you are informed that you need to give the place.
In article <solk9q$if7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, nope@nope.com says...
One possibility is that you could change the rule so you must give give
back the position at the same point on the track just as soon as you are
informed that you need to give the place.
Meh. Not needed.
It just needs the stewards to make sure the drivers know that any
advantage must be completely neutralized before attempting to re-pass.
Being closer to the back of a car than you would otherwise have been is
an advantage, whether drs is involved or not.
On 7/12/2021 11:19 am, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/ >>>>>>
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as
far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as
a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would
be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from
2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that
this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and
Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stayTrouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note
that that would not have been sufficient in this case.
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the
Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting
advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the race
someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage
was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be
encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity
to gain advantage through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the
steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of
football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me
off was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate
to think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off,
which has happened all too long) but that is what these
controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend fouling
to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the race. Now who
would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Heard of 'diving' in football ?
On 2021-12-06 2:54 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 11:19 am, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/ >>>
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as
far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as
a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would
be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from
2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that >>>>>> this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and
Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stayTrouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note
that that would not have been sufficient in this case.
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the
Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting
advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the race >>>>> someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage
was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be
encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity
to gain advantage through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the
steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of
football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me
off was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate
to think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off,
which has happened all too long) but that is what these
controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend fouling
to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the race. Now who
would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Heard of 'diving' in football ?
Please describe how this would work...
On 8/12/2021 2:31 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-06 2:54 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 11:19 am, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/ >>>>
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as >>>>>>>> far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as >>>>>>>> a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would >>>>>>>> be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from
2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that >>>>>>> this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and
Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stayTrouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note
that that would not have been sufficient in this case.
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the
Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting
advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the race >>>>>> someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage >>>>>> was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be >>>>>> encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity >>>>>> to gain advantage through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the
steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of >>>>>> football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me >>>>>> off was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate >>>>>> to think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off, >>>>>> which has happened all too long) but that is what these
controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend fouling >>>>> to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the race. Now who
would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Heard of 'diving' in football ?
Please describe how this would work...
Deliberately getting into a situation where the other party cannot avoid
the protagonist going off/crashing/whatever, at surface level having
been caused by the other party who would be penalised.
Never seen football ?
geoff
On 2021-12-07 9:29 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 8/12/2021 2:31 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-06 2:54 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 11:19 am, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/ >>>>>
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as >>>>>>>>> far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as >>>>>>>>> a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a >>>>>>>>> penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would >>>>>>>>> be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from >>>>>>>>> 2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that >>>>>>>> this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and >>>>>>>> Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay >>>>>>>>> behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note >>>>>>>>> that that would not have been sufficient in this case.Trouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the >>>>>>>> Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting
advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the race >>>>>>> someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage >>>>>>> was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be >>>>>>> encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity >>>>>>> to gain advantage through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the >>>>>>> steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of >>>>>>> football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me >>>>>>> off was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate >>>>>>> to think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off, >>>>>>> which has happened all too long) but that is what these
controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend fouling >>>>>> to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the race. Now who >>>>>> would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Heard of 'diving' in football ?
Please describe how this would work...
Deliberately getting into a situation where the other party cannot
avoid the protagonist going off/crashing/whatever, at surface level
having been caused by the other party who would be penalised.
Never seen football ?
geoff
Describe in DETAIL how that would go.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:02:52 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as far
as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a
tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a
penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage" letting a
car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would be an
inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018...
which I found interesting.
win/
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay
behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note that
that would not have been sufficient in this case.
I belive it was after Hamilton was robbed in Spa, that they changed
ruling to say you could not retake the place handed back @ the next
corner.
It seems academic to me as he toasted his rears in the battle with
ham & would have been a sitting duck anyway
On 7/12/2021 11:19 am, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did
not, as far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is
a penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage
would be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget
that this was at the height of Ferrari International
Assistance, and Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to
stay behind for two corners would have been a good idea but
I note that that would not have been sufficient in this
case.
Trouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the
race someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any
advantage was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible
behaviour to be encouraged which necessitates fiercely
discouraging the opportunity to gain advantage through s form
of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that
the steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge
fan of football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What
truly put me off was what I saw as the growth of the
"professional foul". I hate to think F1 is heading in that
direction (on track as well as off, which has happened all too
long) but that is what these controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend
fouling to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the
race. Now who would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Heard of 'diving' in football ?
On 2021-12-07 7:28 a.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
In article <solk9q$if7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, nope@nope.com says...
One possibility is that you could change the rule so you must
give give back the position at the same point on the track just
as soon as you are informed that you need to give the place.
Meh. Not needed.
It just needs the stewards to make sure the drivers know that any
advantage must be completely neutralized before attempting to
re-pass.
But "completely neutralized" is highly subjective.
On 7/12/2021 11:19 am, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did
not, as far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is
a penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage
would be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from 2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget
that this was at the height of Ferrari International
Assistance, and Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to
stay behind for two corners would have been a good idea but
I note that that would not have been sufficient in this
case.
Trouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that
would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the
race someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any
advantage was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible
behaviour to be encouraged which necessitates fiercely
discouraging the opportunity to gain advantage through s form
of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that
the steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge
fan of football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What
truly put me off was what I saw as the growth of the
"professional foul". I hate to think F1 is heading in that
direction (on track as well as off, which has happened all too
long) but that is what these controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend
fouling to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the
race. Now who would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Heard of 'diving' in football ?
On 8/12/2021 7:21 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-07 9:29 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 8/12/2021 2:31 pm, Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-06 2:54 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 11:19 am, Bigbird wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2021 9:21 am, Bigbird wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/19/hamilton-fia-screwed-spa-2008-f1-win/
Sir Tim wrote:
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Red Bull's cynical attempt to "give the place back" did not, as >>>>>>>>>> far as I am aware, draw any inferences from the FIA/stewards as >>>>>>>>>> a tactic. Did it?
I think they should make clear that when the alternative is a >>>>>>>>>> penalty for "leaving the track and gaining and advantage"
letting a car past while maintaining a lasting advantage would >>>>>>>>>> be an inadequate response.
I was reminded of Spa 2008 and came across this article from >>>>>>>>>> 2018... which I found interesting.
Lewis was certainly screwed by the FIA, but let’s not forget that >>>>>>>>> this was at the height of Ferrari International Assistance, and >>>>>>>>> Raikkonen was driving … a Ferrari.
I think at the time we concluded that telling drivers to stay >>>>>>>>>> behind for two corners would have been a good idea but I note >>>>>>>>>> that that would not have been sufficient in this case.Trouble with the two corners idea is that, at Monza say, that >>>>>>>>> would mean a clear run from the second Lesmo right down to the >>>>>>>>> Parabolica.
Yup. It's really about the principle of maintaining a lasting
advantage. You might remember, better than I, that during the race >>>>>>>> someone took a short cut and cleverly lifted so that any advantage >>>>>>>> was yielded. I think we want that kind of sensible behaviour to be >>>>>>>> encouraged which necessitates fiercely discouraging the opportunity >>>>>>>> to gain advantage through s form of professional foul.
I think that yesterday Max's driving reinforced the view that the >>>>>>>> steward truly fucked up in Brasil. I have never been a huge fan of >>>>>>>> football but quite enjoyed watching the odd game. What truly put me >>>>>>>> off was what I saw as the growth of the "professional foul". I hate >>>>>>>> to think F1 is heading in that direction (on track as well as off, >>>>>>>> which has happened all too long) but that is what these
controversial incidents feel like.
That opens the possibility of a 'dive'. A deliberate pretend fouling >>>>>>> to justify that as the sole reason he didn't win the race. Now who >>>>>>> would be most likely to try that I wonder ...?
Eh?
Heard of 'diving' in football ?
Please describe how this would work...
Deliberately getting into a situation where the other party cannot
avoid the protagonist going off/crashing/whatever, at surface level
having been caused by the other party who would be penalised.
Never seen football ?
geoff
Describe in DETAIL how that would go.
No. You're the expert. Work something out for yourself.
Alan wrote:
On 2021-12-07 7:28 a.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
In article <solk9q$if7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, nope@nope.com says...
One possibility is that you could change the rule so you must
give give back the position at the same point on the track just
as soon as you are informed that you need to give the place.
Meh. Not needed.
It just needs the stewards to make sure the drivers know that any
advantage must be completely neutralized before attempting to
re-pass.
But "completely neutralized" is highly subjective.
As is the stewards role a lot of the time. If it were not you wouldn't
get yourself into so many nonsensical arguments. ;)
...but this is not "highly" subjective. It's up to the offender to
reduce any room for doubt.
Faux objectivity is not more equitable.
I accept that as your inability to actually show a scenario where your
claim would work.
I had forgotten how they had dismissed Verstappen's second cynical
attempt to avoid a penalty as inadequate.
In article <xn0n6drxywt29ro000@news.eternal-september.org>, bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com says...
I had forgotten how they had dismissed Verstappen's second cynical
attempt to avoid a penalty as inadequate.
They did?
As the investigation had already started, I'm surprised they even
considered it.
Saying that the attempt was 'inadequate' suggests that under
different circumstances it may have changed the outcome of that investigation.
As intended.
The whole point of suggesting a driver give a place back is to mitigate
any charge of a lasting advantage.
In article <xn0n6jkn438zplu002@news.eternal-september.org>, bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com says...
As intended.
The whole point of suggesting a driver give a place back is to
mitigate any charge of a lasting advantage.
That is not how I have understood it, although I may be picking at
nits.
The point of giving a place back is to avoid the need for an
investigation.
Once an investigation has started, it is duty bound to look only at
the offense. Anything that happens afterwards (the giving back of the
place) shouldn't be considered.
The offence being considered is a "lasting advantage". If the place is
given up and there is clearly no lasting advantage there is no offence.
That is why the race director suggests the team do so or gives them
that option rather than referring the incident to the stewards
immediately.
In article <xn0n6jlri3am7ki005@news.eternal-september.org>, bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com says...
The offence being considered is a "lasting advantage". If the place
is given up and there is clearly no lasting advantage there is no
offence. That is why the race director suggests the team do so or
gives them that option rather than referring the incident to the
stewards immediately.
ok. Agreed.
My point is that once it has been referred to the stewards, once the
stewards have begun their investigation, it is then too late to give
the place back. The act of giving back the place is done to try and
avoid an investigation.
In the incident with Max, whereby he gave the place back a second
time, this occurred after the investigation had begun. and therefore could/should not considered by the stewards in their deliberations.
The above is how I believed the F1 cogs turned.
The statement that the stewards considered the second attempt to be 'inadequate' suggests that they did consider it, and this is counter
to how I thought things worked.
Hope my point is clearer now.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 65:40:57 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,846 |