Team Orders-gate: no punishment

[F1000X]

As if I didn't hate Ferrari enough... I feel bad for Massa.

[ADx_Wales]

So Hamilton lies, and gets punished.
Ferrari lie, nothing happens.

Typical FIA.

If I was Italian, or Spanish, Brazilian, a short dumpy frenchman who looks a bit like Mel Brooks or even some Northern Monkey who did not have the balls to admit what they did, I do not know how I would sleep at night.

[Ed24]

I'm disappointed, because it gives them absolutely no incentive for them to not do it again.

I don't know if they missed the uproar after Hockenheim, but fans don't like races manipulated like Hockenheim or Austria 02 unless one driver is completely out of the championship hunt (i.e. China 2008).

[ADx_Wales]

Its bad enough that I did not want to watch another race after Monaco, I dont know what to think now.
They should have handed punishment out AFTER Monza when all the biased idiots who wear red would not be as volitile.

[Ed24]

Apparently the Spanish media is saying that they actually did consider a 5 second penalty for Alonso (which would have given Massa the win, but left Alonso in 2nd).

That would have been extremely controversial, since Alonso didn't actually break any rules!

[CarlosFerreira]

So Hamilton lies, and gets punished.
Ferrari lie, nothing happens.

Typical FIA.

If I was Italian, or Spanish, Brazilian, a short dumpy frenchman who looks a bit like Mel Brooks or even some Northern Monkey who did not have the balls to admit what they did, I do not know how I would sleep at night.

I'm disappointed, because it gives them absolutely no incentive for them to not do it again.

I don't know if they missed the uproar after Hockenheim, but fans don't like races manipulated like Hockenheim or Austria 02 unless one driver is completely out of the championship hunt (i.e. China 2008).

There's a couple of different quotes, and I'm looking at them with interest because they show there's two different things at stake here.

ADx_Wales, you're talking about the court precedent. You talking about a precedent set when Mad Max was in charge: personal revenge. People, teams, institutions would face the stick at Max's whim, in case he held some grudge against them. That's what happened to McLaren and Hamilton. More than once, I'd like to mention. The result has been embarrassing shambles such as Briatore being banned from having anything to do with the sport, only for the courts outside to consider that to be (rightly) illegal. After Todt was elected, that has quietened down. There is no legal precedent here, the WMSC is starting from a fresh sheet of paper. Other teams, I am supposing, would face exactly the same outcome.

Ed24, your perspective is just as interesting. The FIA, by not punishing Ferrari, is not upholding the fans' preference. That is a problem for the future of F1, and an important one. Is F1 a team sport? In that case, Ferrari and other teams do well to have team orders, and ignore the feelings of that weird, expensive part behind the wheel. Is F1, on the contrary, an individual sport where drivers should shine? By all means, let's have one-car teams and equal cars for everybody.

[Ferrim]

Say whatever you want, I'm happy that this was the outcome. I feared it wouldn't be, because I said I would stop watching F1 if they were disqualified for this.

I'll let the rant for those of you that -IMVHO- don't understand what Formula One is and has always been about.

[Ed24]

I'll let the rant for those of you that -IMVHO- don't understand what Formula One is and has always been about.

It may have been about that in the past, but I think times have changed.

I recommend you read Joe Saward's analysis of that exact point.
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/the-rights-and-wrongs-of-team-orders/

[Yannick]

Apparently the Spanish media is saying that they actually did consider a 5 second penalty for Alonso (which would have given Massa the win, but left Alonso in 2nd).

That would have been extremely controversial, since Alonso didn't actually break any rules!

Well, I would have liked that, but let's hear from The Whole Spanish Press themselves, shall we?

[Myrvold]

Easily. $100 000 is the price for team orders. Not much compared to a championship!

[WeirdKerr]

Oh well the whole thing is a farce anyway.... just shows its not a sport anymore its a show.... and a show cannot be brought into disrepute....i for 1 will still watch this so called sport as ...ummm well i have nothing better to do with my sundays... disgruntled and cynical of morayshire....

[jackanderton]

I think the public reaction to what they did already shows the sport's governing bodies what they think of it. If this decision produces further acts of cynicism that dampen the entertainment value of motor racing then the fans will respond accordingly.

You can tell by looking back at Alonso's sheepish celebrations and Massa's utter unhappiness that they had been part of something that cheapens the whole point of why people watch the sport. Ferrari humiliated themselves publically.

Those are fairly punishing, degrading things to begin with.

One thing people who defended Ferrari over this have to bear in mind is- if nothing untoward actually happened, why did it feel so innately like something had?

[coops]

F1 and Ferrari will be fine. There will be no backlash, no big switch off and no protest. This is what happens in F1. Sometimes you agree with it and sometimes you dont.

[eagleash]

Say whatever you want, I'm happy that this was the outcome. I feared it wouldn't be, because I said I would stop watching F1 if they were disqualified for this.

I'll let the rant for those of you that -IMVHO- don't understand what Formula One is and has always been about.

I've got me helmet on and I say - the FIA has just done The Right Thing. I will now hide in my trench.

I agree with you, I'll help you dig. We'll build a trench as deep as the German trenches in the Battle of the Somme.

Count me in.

[CarlosFerreira]

Well, one of the things I'm looking forward to now is the ALMIGHTY ROW on the podcast - Jamie and Enoch disagree as to the relevance of rule 39.1.

By the way, as a measure of straight thinking, the FIA announced it is to review the aforementioned rule.

Furthermore, the FIA announced that Formula 1's thinktank, the Sporting Working Group, would be asked to look into the team orders ban.

The statement added: "The judging body has also acknowledged that article 39.1 of the sporting regulations should be reviewed and has decided to refer this question to the Formula 1 Sporting Working Group."

[eagleash]

Well, one of the things I'm looking forward to now is the ALMIGHTY ROW on the podcast - Jamie and Enoch disagree as to the relevance of rule 39.1.

By the way, as a measure of straight thinking, the FIA announced it is to review the aforementioned rule.

Furthermore, the FIA announced that Formula 1's thinktank, the Sporting Working Group, would be asked to look into the team orders ban.

The statement added: "The judging body has also acknowledged that article 39.1 of the sporting regulations should be reviewed and has decided to refer this question to the Formula 1 Sporting Working Group."

One blogger has argued that this means team orders are not illegal even if the current rule still exists.

[fjackdaw]

So Hamilton lies, and gets punished.
Ferrari lie, nothing happens.

Typical FIA.

Actually, Hamilton got punished for lying with the intention of having another competitor disqualified, which is ten times worse than anything Ferrari did.

I wonder if there would be the same kind of outcry if this had been a different team?

[CarlosFerreira]

Well, one of the things I'm looking forward to now is the ALMIGHTY ROW on the podcast - Jamie and Enoch disagree as to the relevance of rule 39.1.

By the way, as a measure of straight thinking, the FIA announced it is to review the aforementioned rule.

Furthermore, the FIA announced that Formula 1's thinktank, the Sporting Working Group, would be asked to look into the team orders ban.

The statement added: "The judging body has also acknowledged that article 39.1 of the sporting regulations should be reviewed and has decided to refer this question to the Formula 1 Sporting Working Group."

One blogger has argued that this means team orders are not illegal even if the current rule still exists.

That's a complicated one. So, someone was caught in blatant infringement (for all intents and purposes) of the law - and received no effective penalty. The ruling body also says it is reviewing the aforementioned article - but it's still there. I reckon if we were to hear "Jenson, move out of the way for Lewis to win this, matey", it would cause a bit of a stir. And Ferrari would protest against it.

[CasinoSquare]

Say whatever you want, I'm happy that this was the outcome. I feared it wouldn't be, because I said I would stop watching F1 if they were disqualified for this.

I'll let the rant for those of you that -IMVHO- don't understand what Formula One is and has always been about.

I've got me helmet on and I say - the FIA has just done The Right Thing. I will now hide in my trench.

I agree with you, I'll help you dig. We'll build a trench as deep as the German trenches in the Battle of the Somme.

Count me in.

+1 for Team, Old Git

[eagleash]

Who you calling old git?

[CarlosFerreira]

Oy! Nah fighting in me trench, ya mugs!

[mario]

Say whatever you want, I'm happy that this was the outcome. I feared it wouldn't be, because I said I would stop watching F1 if they were disqualified for this.

I'll let the rant for those of you that -IMVHO- don't understand what Formula One is and has always been about.

I've got me helmet on and I say - the FIA has just done The Right Thing. I will now hide in my trench.

I agree with you, I'll help you dig. We'll build a trench as deep as the German trenches in the Battle of the Somme.

Count me in.

You'll need to build those defences up, because, by the looks of things, some of these posters are planning on wheeling out the triple barrelled payapa cannons.

Well, one of the things I'm looking forward to now is the ALMIGHTY ROW on the podcast - Jamie and Enoch disagree as to the relevance of rule 39.1.

By the way, as a measure of straight thinking, the FIA announced it is to review the aforementioned rule.

Furthermore, the FIA announced that Formula 1's thinktank, the Sporting Working Group, would be asked to look into the team orders ban.

The statement added: "The judging body has also acknowledged that article 39.1 of the sporting regulations should be reviewed and has decided to refer this question to the Formula 1 Sporting Working Group."

I guess that the FIA has to now act if it is the case that Rule 39.1 is effectively unenforceable - either to repeal it, or to implement something in place of the current rule which would could be enforced, now that Ferrari have effectively been let off for breaking the rule.
I get the feeling that, under heavy commercial pressure from Bernie, and from other voices within motorsport, that the FIA might be pressured into removing the team orders rule, or at least be pushed by many parties to relax or remove the rule.
After all, although Ferrari was so blatant about it, we all know that team orders have been fairly widely used all along the pit lane - we saw Mclaren tell their drivers to stop fighting in Turkey, Red Bull tell Webber to back off from Vettel in Canada, and going further back, we've had Massa move over for Kimi (Brazil '07), and Kimi move over for Massa (China '08), or Heidfeld virtually pulling over at Turn 1 in Canada to let Kubica take the win in 2008. Those are just a handful of the incidents where team orders have been used since 2002, yet, because nobody has been explicitly ordered to move over, they have got away with it.

Even in this case, whilst it is obvious what has happened, Ferrari, technically, never told Massa to move over. Had Ferrari taken legal action, the WMSC would then have to prove in a civil court that Ferrari's code words were deliberate team orders - not necessarily easy to do, when Ferrari can claim that they were merely informing Massa of Alonso's relative pace.

[eagleash]

Oy! Nah fighting in me trench, ya mugs!

Which one's Baldrick?

[CarlosFerreira]

Oy! Nah fighting in me trench, ya mugs!

Which one's Baldrick?

Fernando is.

[CasinoSquare]

Who you calling old git?

Mate, i was at Mansells first test run in a Lotus. I am old for this forum

[eagleash]

Who you calling old git?

Mate, i was at Mansells first test run in a Lotus. I am old for this forum

"Mate" I remember Peter Collins. I thought everyone on this forum knew how old I am........

[eytl]

I will join those in the trench. Three thoughts occur to me.

Firstly, I'm interested to read Joe Saward's views on team orders and their place in F1 in the article which Ed24 linked to. I found myself agreeing with him for most of it ... until he incredulously concluded that F1 should "adapt to suit its fans", having also pointed out that much of the fanbase and popularity of F1 has come about because of media frenzy and the commercialised fame phenomenon, the same industry that, in other spheres of life, has "created celebrities who are famous simply for being famous". So F1 should be debased to take into account the same nonsensical populism that created Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian?

Let's turn all sports into a popularity contest! Forget a game of football - let's just let the hooligans fight it out on the streets to determine the winner! Forget a motor race - let's just let people vote on a poll and decide the winner each time! Sport mirrors real life in that not everything always goes the way you want it to. Sporting results, like life, is not always "fair" - because fairness itself is a subjective concept based on what you do/do not want. That is abundantly clear from the discussion of the team orders topic on this forum.

Secondly, even if you grudgingly accept that F1 is a team sport more than anything else, you only have to look at the recent Belgian GP to see that individuals do have a role, they are not merely commercial pawns. Hamilton, Webber and Kubica rose to the top of the pile at Spa because, as individual sportspersons, they were by far the best. Hamilton and Kubica may also happen to be the "favoured son" within their teams ... but Webber is clearly not. Vettel, on the other hand, blew his chances by very individual and very human errors. No team/commercial interests could save him. If you needed your faith reaffirmed that F1, for all its team/commercial/business interests, hasn't lost its human element, just look at Spa.

So perhaps the odd overt team order isn't quite to the ruin of the sport after all.

Thirdly, to all those of you who are out of the trench, if in Abu Dhabi this year Vettel is told to move over to let Webber past to secure enough points for the championship, and Vettel grows a conscience and actually does so, would you be complaining?

[CasinoSquare]

Who you calling old git?

Mate, i was at Mansells first test run in a Lotus. I am old for this forum

"Mate" I remember Peter Collins. I thought everyone on this forum knew how old I am........

..hence the Old Git reference Perhaps it should have been Senior Old Git to my mere Old Git!

[eagleash]

Oy! Nah fighting in me trench, ya mugs!

Which one's Baldrick?

Fernando is.

Can I be Melchett please? MAAAHH Blackadder

[CarlosFerreira]

Secondly, even if you grudgingly accept that F1 is a team sport more than anything else, you only have to look at the recent Belgian GP to see that individuals do have a role, they are not merely commercial pawns. Hamilton, Webber and Kubica rose to the top of the pile at Spa because, as individual sportspersons, they were by far the best. Hamilton and Kubica may also happen to be the "favoured son" within their teams ... but Webber is clearly not. Vettel, on the other hand, blew his chances by very individual and very human errors. No team/commercial interests could save him. If you needed your faith reaffirmed that F1, for all its team/commercial/business interests, hasn't lost its human element, just look at Spa.

So perhaps the odd overt team order isn't quite to the ruin of the sport after all.

That's why you're the Senior Grand Prix Analyst around here...

Thirdly, to all those of you who are out of the trench, if in Abu Dhabi this year Vettel is told to move over to let Webber past to secure enough points for the championship, and Vettel grows a conscience and actually does so, would you be complaining?

I asked that in another thread; not everyone would, that's for sure.

[eagleash]

Mate, i was at Mansells first test run in a Lotus. I am old for this forum

"Mate" I remember Peter Collins. I thought everyone on this forum knew how old I am........

..hence the Old Git reference Perhaps it should have been Senior Old Git to my mere Old Git!

So you were calling me an old git. Bleeding kids.....

Come on shove up a bit make room for Enoch.....

[CarlosFerreira]

Can I be Melchett please? MAAAHH Blackadder

Yeah. We'll get Stefano Domenicalli to play Lt George, he always looks startled and slightly out of it.

Also: if you're into reading not ranting, James Allen has a rather balanced post on the goings on with the Todt regime (and he disagrees with me, mentioning Ferrari should have been punished):

As I’ve been arguing here on JA on F1 Ferrari should be punished for breaking the rule, as they have been up to a point, but the rule needs urgent review. The Todt regime at the FIA is very different from the Mosley regime and it does things in a much more collegiate and procedural way. This may not be as much fun for people who liked the mischief of the Mosley era, but it is more fitting for F1 today.

Todt himself was a firm believer in team orders when he was a team manager, employing them regularly with Peugeot and Ferrari, to suit the company’s objectives, regardless of what fans might think.

I’d like to see the SWG embrace a complete reworking of the team orders rule, certainly with some indications of when they are appropriate, such as once 75% of the season has elapsed or when one team’s driver has less than 60% of the other drivers’ points or something along those lines.

There also needs to be consideration given to team order switches lower down the field. To switch the lead cars is very high profile and controversial, but it happens for 10th place too, so how can you allow for that? In fact what happens if it isn’t covered by the TV? Does that mean it doesn’t matter?

[Phoenix]

Team orders, in my opinion, are legit to be applied if a driver has a clear advantage over the other in the championship but needs the points, or if a driver accepts to sign as a second driver. It's a part of the game, like it or not.

[ADx_Wales]

If its a team sport, get rid of the drivers championship.

[thehemogoblin]

If its a team sport, get rid of the drivers championship.

One of the beautiful things about Formula One is that there are two titles to balance. That kind of dynamic doesn't exist anywhere in American sports at least (but soccer arguably fits that, with league, cup, and continental championships).

[eagleash]

If its a team sport, get rid of the drivers championship.

If it's an individual sport, why dislike a team?

[TimmyB]

This was the right decision.

If Ferrari got DQ'd or whatever then they'd be appealing the results of most races for the rest of the year. Of course, you first have to get over the fact that the rule is not enforceable.

I've proposed this solution before but here it is again:

If a teams two cars finish in consecutive positions then the team can choose to switch the points awarded for those two positions.

Thus at the German GP, Massa would have got the win and Alonso would have got the 25 points.

I challenge anyone to find a flaw in that rule.

[Ed24]

Enoch, they are some very interesting points.

1. I think F1 must adapt itself for the external environment though, including the fans, to an extent. You can see from the proposed 2013 rules that they realise they must adapt to be seen as more environmentally friendly in order to attract teams, sponsors and avoid public criticism. Also, attitudes towards safety and driving standards change over time. If Webber deliberately crashes out Hamilton at Turn 1 at Suzuka this year, there will be a different reaction and a different penalty than 20 years ago, I would think.

In this case, I think that very few fans like seeing races like Germany 10 or Austria 02, even if they can see that it may have made sense for the team. Also, the fans have constantly portrayed the FIA as "Ferrari International Assistance". This was an interesting opportunity for the FIA to move away from this. It may be impossible to completely remove team orders, but in my opinion, its worth trying to at least. A suspended ban could have done this.

But while F1's core audience might understand the integral importance of the team, do the casual fans want to see this? And this is a big debate for F1. Do we go to new nations with relatively little motorsport culture, like Korea or UAE, or do we shore up traditional markets like France or Argentina?


2. I agree that the individuals still have a very important role in F1. The Germany 2010 situation proves it as well. Alonso seems to have been very demanding on the radio in order to get his way. If it was Massa or another driver in Alonso's shoes, would he have been so demanding, or just tried to overtake? The human interest story of Massa possibly winning one year after his crash was also a big part of the saga, and that would have been a very positive story for F1.


3. I think the intention of the rule has always been to allow late-championship team orders, if one driver is out of the championship. I think the drivers are conscious to this as well, and are happy about it. Just look at China 2008, no teams complained (as far as I know), and very few fans complained either.

I read somewhere that Mosley actually said that, but haven't been able to find a quote.

[fjackdaw]

This was the right decision.

If Ferrari got DQ'd or whatever then they'd be appealing the results of most races for the rest of the year. Of course, you first have to get over the fact that the rule is not enforceable.

I've proposed this solution before but here it is again:

If a teams two cars finish in consecutive positions then the team can choose to switch the points awarded for those two positions.

Thus at the German GP, Massa would have got the win and Alonso would have got the 25 points.

I challenge anyone to find a flaw in that rule.

The punctuation - there should be an apostrophe in "team's".

Other than that, I think it's a good idea... it's still not perfect in terms of the spectacle of the race, but it sure beats a car slowing down and pulling over.

[jackanderton]

I think it's a dreadful idea that solves nothing and arguably makes things worse. So your cheque's probably in the post.