Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
> > On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> > > Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
> >
> > Without context, no.  However:
> >
> > '48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
> > the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
> > Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
> > been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the
> > lead lap and the safety car.'
> >
> > In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
> > required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the
> > clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been
> > lapped by the leader) be required to unlap.  The choice to use
> > "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
> >
> > (Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
> > CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
> > official messaging system.  So Masi was operating outside the
> > bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
> The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
>
> The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
> those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
>

And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?

The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on the fly.

You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is
secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and agreed
to by all competitors and the ruling body.

You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.

> So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
> racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
> actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.

That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position
claimed".

The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obvious
your prejudice to everyone.
If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.
Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to find
anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the exact
opposite side of the same argument.

You are a transparent dumbass, Dumbass.

:-D

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
> > On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >>>On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
> > > > > > > > lap (note his trajectory).
> > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > > Hamilton to take avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
> > > > > > > > of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
> > > > > > > > he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
> > > > > > > > opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
> > > > > > > the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
> > > > > > > is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
> > > > > > > race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
> > > > > > > determined the winner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
> > > > > > and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > > card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
> > > > > play a card because they *are* victims - victims of Masi’s
> > > > > illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
> > > > > thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
> > > > > Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
> > > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
> > > > safety car which would have been within the regulations but
> > > > still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
> > > > what he deserved.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Masi should go.
> > > >
> > > > I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
> > > > entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
> > > > big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
> > > > to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's
> > > > bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
> > > > was ridiculous.
> > > Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
> > > an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
> > >
> > > 3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
> > > the same for Lewis / Max.
> > >
> > > 1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
> > > of the race.
> >
> > Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
> > that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car
> > he should have thrown a red flag.
>
> And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
> a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
> one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
> to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.

Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
>>>>>>>>> lap (note his trajectory).
>>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
>>>>>>>> Hamilton to take avoiding action.
>>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
>>>>>>>>> holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
>>>>>>>>> of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
>>>>>>>>> he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
>>>>>>>>> opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
>>>>>>>> the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
>>>>>>>> is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
>>>>>>>> race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
>>>>>>>> determined the winner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
>>>>>>> and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
>>>>>> card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
>>>>>> play a card because they *are* victims - victims of Masi’s
>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
>>>>>> Max whose win will always be tainted.
>>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
>>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
>>>>> safety car which would have been within the regulations but
>>>>> still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
>>>>> what he deserved.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Masi should go.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
>>>>> entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty
>>>>> big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open
>>>>> to being influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's
>>>>> bartering with Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get
>>>>> was ridiculous.
>>>> Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
>>>> an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
>>>>
>>>> 3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been
>>>> the same for Lewis / Max.
>>>>
>>>> 1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end
>>>> of the race.
>>>
>>> Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
>>> that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car
>>> he should have thrown a red flag.
>>
>> And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then
>> a different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen
>> one") would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted"
>> to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.
>
> Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine like
> a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
>

I'm not whining at all, sunshine.

But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to
have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes the
entire rest of his race.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:45:27 -0800, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
>> On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
>>
>> Without context, no.  However:
>>
>> '48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the
>> message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors
>> via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by
>> the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the
>> safety car.'
>>
>> In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the clear
>> meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been lapped by
>> the leader) be required to unlap.  The choice to use "any" rather than
>> "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
>>
>> (Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED CARS
>> MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the official
>> messaging system.  So Masi was operating outside the bounds of both
>> 48.12 and precedent.)
> The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
>
> The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
> those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
>
> So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still racing
> for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were actually
> important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.

you are someone who regularly make claim to the rule book so if we accept
allowing only some cars to un-lap what about the final part of rule 48.12
which states quite quite clearly "ON THE FOLLOWING LAP" not the same lap
the following lap.

& if you wish to check I have already pasted the full text of that
particular rule instead of trimming it as soon as it invalidated your
case.

it is not the lapped cars that are the issue (although that was bending
the rules considerably) it is the timing of bringing in the safety car
which was a flagrant violation of them!

--
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
-- Adlai Stevenson

On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
>>>
>>> Without context, no. However:
>>>
>>> '48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
>>> the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
>>> Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
>>> been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the
>>> lead lap and the safety car.'
>>>
>>> In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be
>>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car" the
>>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having been
>>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to use
>>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall meaning.
>>>
>>> (Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
>>> CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
>>> official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
>>> bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
>> The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
>>
>> The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
>> those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
>>
>
> And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?
Nope. So what?

Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that the
cars further back?

Yup.

>
> The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on the fly.
And if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes protest?

>
> You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is
> secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and agreed
> to by all competitors and the ruling body.
Actually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written without
ambiguity as much as is feasible.

There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety car".

"any" does not mean "all".

>
> You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
>
>> So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
>> racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
>> actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
>
> That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position
> claimed".
Which drivers didn't claim that?

>
> The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obvious
> your prejudice to everyone.
I have no prejudice. Sorry.

> If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.
> Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to find
> anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the exact
> opposite side of the same argument.
>
Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.

What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his position
going into turn 5?

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 12:10 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
> > > > On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC,
> > > > > martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
> > > > > > <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> >>>>>>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
> > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
> > > > > > > > > > first lap (note his trajectory).
> > > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > > > > Hamilton to take avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > > > holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
> > > > > > > > > > option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
> > > > > > > > > > prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
> > > > > > > > > > seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
> > > > > > > > > > soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
> > > > > > > > > the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
> > > > > > > > > It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
> > > > > > > > > of the race but in this instance it was the Race
> > > > > > > > > Director that determined the winner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
> > > > > > > > and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
> > > > > > > > card.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > > > > card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
> > > > > > > play a card because they are victims - victims of Masi’s
> > > > > > > illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
> > > > > > > would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
> > > > > > > especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
> > > > > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
> > > > > > safety car which would have been within the regulations but
> > > > > > still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
> > > > > > what he deserved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Masi should go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone
> > > > > > is entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a
> > > > > > pretty big one. What really annoys me, however, is how he
> > > > > > seems open to being influenced by principals shouting at
> > > > > > him - last week's bartering with Horner about what penalty
> > > > > > Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
> > > > > Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this
> > > > > became an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have
> > > > > been the same for Lewis / Max.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the
> > > > > end of the race.
> > > >
> > > > Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety
> > > > car at that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under
> > > > safety car he should have thrown a red flag.
> > >
> > > And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car,
> > > then a different set of people (who think there's a different
> > > "chosen one") would be whining about how the championship had
> > > been "gifted" to Hamilton, because he would get a free tire
> > > change.
> >
> > Before the accident Hamilton had it won. The fact you would whine
> > like a dumbass is a forgone conclusion but irrelevant.
> >
>
> I'm not whining at all, sunshine.

Well, it's certainly coming across that way given the dumbass nonsense
you have been spewing.

>
> But if Hamilton makes the tire change, he's almost certainly going to
> have many MORE cars between him and Verstappen, and that changes the
> entire rest of his race.

Is anyone meant to understand what you intend by that nonsense? If you
can't explain yourself by other than word salad... I, for one, am not
surprised.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first
>>>>>>>>> lap (note his trajectory).
>>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
>>>>>>>> Hamilton to take avoiding action.
>>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
>>>>>>>>> holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option
>>>>>>>>> of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when
>>>>>>>>> he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the
>>>>>>>>> opportunity to 'win' on his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
>>>>>>>> the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It
>>>>>>>> is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the
>>>>>>>> race but in this instance it was the Race Director that
>>>>>>>> determined the winner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
>>>>>>> and play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
>>>>>> card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
>>>>>> play a card because they *are* victims - victims of Masi’s
>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
>>>>>> Max whose win will always be tainted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
>>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
>>>>> safety car which would have been within the regulations but
>>>>> still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
>>>>> what he deserved.
>>>> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
>>> He definitely did not apply 48.12
>>> "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
>>> presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
>>> car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
>>> the end of the following lap."
>>>
>>> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that
>>> as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>>
>> 'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
>> the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority
>> in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders
>> in respect of them only with his express agreement:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> e) The use of the safety car.'
>>
>
> Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
> SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
>
>
>>>
>>> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision
>>> is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to
>>> accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though many would take a
>>> plain English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
>>> stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
>>
>> And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence
>> of his superiors in the FIA?
>>
>
> So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
> Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
> their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the regulations.

Liberty are in no way his superiors. And your second sentence is not
even complete.

>
> You are not the first to suggest such pressures.

I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.

>
>>>
>>> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
>>> course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
>>> factor here?
>>
>> Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
>> state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
>
> And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of the
> regulations... and fails!
>
> The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
> They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those same
> regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he alone is
> responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC are adhered to.
> Something he clearly failed to do.

I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced the rule.

Have you?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 15:35:02 -0800, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-12 7:36 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>>
>>> Have to be:
>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note his
>>> trajectory).
>>
>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to take
>> avoiding action.
>>
>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM. -
>>> GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on
>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>
>>>
>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>
>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC
>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>
>>
> What regulation did they fail to follow?
>
> Quote it.

It has been quoted one all ready, but as you seem to have missed it her it
is again in full
If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message
"LAPPED CARS MAY NOW
OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging
system, any cars that
have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the
lead lap and the safety
car.
This will only apply to cars that were lapped at the time they crossed the
Line at the end of the
lap during which they crossed the first Safety Car line for the second
time after the safety car
was deployed.
Having overtaken the cars on the lead lap and the safety car these cars
should then proceed
around the track at an appropriate speed, without overtaking, and make
every effort to take up
position at the back of the line of cars behind the safety car. Whilst
they are overtaking, and in
order to ensure this may be carried out safely, the cars on the lead lap
must always stay on the
racing line unless deviating from it is unavoidable.

***************************************************************************
Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car
has passed the leader the
safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.
***************************************************************************

If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable for
overtaking the message
"OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED" will be sent to all Competitors via the
official messaging
system.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the most important part of this
rule with respect to Sundays race.

--
Workers of the world, arise! You have nothing to lose but your chairs.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> >> On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
> >>> On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> >>>> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
> > > >
> >>> Without context, no. However:
> > > >
> >>> '48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
> >>> the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
> >>> Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
> >>> been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on
> the >>> lead lap and the safety car.'
> > > >
> >>> In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will
> be >>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car"
> the >>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having
> been >>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to
> use >>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall
> meaning.
> > > >
> >>> (Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
> >>> CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
> >>> official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
> >>> bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
> >> The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
> > >
> >> The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
> >> those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
> > >
> >
> > And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?
> Nope. So what?
>
So... what you said was utter nonsense, Dumbass.

> Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that the
> cars further back?
>

No, points mean prizes.

> Yup.

You're floundering so badly... and you're trying to convince yourself
otherwise.

It's SO SAD.

>
> >
> > The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on the
> > fly.
> And if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
> protest?

Then they would be lying... like you do all the time. But they didn't
did they. They made spurious claims in order to cover their arse.

Simple question for a simple minded dumbass.
Was 48.12 adhered to?

Be careful now, it's a trap... you have already admitted it wasn't,
Dumbass.

>
> >
> > You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is
> > secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and
> > agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
> Actually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written
> without ambiguity as much as is feasible.
>
> There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
> car".

There is no ambiguity in 48.12

>
> "any" does not mean "all".

In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive term.

To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
semantics.

>
> >
> > You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
> >
> >> So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
> >> racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
> >> actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
> >
> > That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position
> > claimed".
> Which drivers didn't claim that?

Sainz for one. Read the drivers comments, Dumbass.

>
> >
> > The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obvious
> > your prejudice to everyone.
> I have no prejudice. Sorry.

QED

>
> > If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.
> > Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to
> > find anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the
> > exact opposite side of the same argument.
> >
> Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.

"Your collective ignorance"

You don't even comprehend the irony, do you?

>
> What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his position
> going into turn 5?

So now you wish to change the subject.

I completely understand.

You've never shown a great understanding of racing and much less of
English and the regulations.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
> > > > > > <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> >>>>>>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
> > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
> > > > > > > > > > first lap (note his trajectory).
> > > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
> > > > > > > > > Hamilton to take avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
> > > > > > > > > > holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
> > > > > > > > > > option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
> > > > > > > > > > prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
> > > > > > > > > > seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
> > > > > > > > > > soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
> > > > > > > > > the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
> > > > > > > > > It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
> > > > > > > > > of the race but in this instance it was the Race
> > > > > > > > > Director that determined the winner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
> > > > > > > > and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
> > > > > > > > card.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
> > > > > > > card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
> > > > > > > play a card because they are victims - victims of Masi’s
> > > > > > > illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
> > > > > > > would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
> > > > > > > especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
> > > > > > racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
> > > > > > safety car which would have been within the regulations but
> > > > > > still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
> > > > > > what he deserved.
> > > > > Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
> > > > He definitely did not apply 48.12
> > > > "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
> > > > presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
> > > > lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to
> > > > the pits at the end of the following lap."
> > > >
> > > > But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply
> > > > that as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
> > >
> > > 'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
> > > the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding
> > > authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course
> > > may give orders in respect of them only with his express
> > > agreement:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > e) The use of the safety car.'
> > >
> >
> > Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
> > SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
> > > > decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is
> > > > now unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though
> > > > many would take a plain English reading of it and argue that,
> > > > despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
> > >
> > > And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the
> > > concurrence of his superiors in the FIA?
> > >
> >
> > So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
> > Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
> > their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the
> > regulations.
>
> Liberty are in no way his superiors.

They run the show. If you think they have no influence then you just
keep proving yourself a dumbass, Dumbass.

> And your second sentence is not
> even complete.

What you mean to say is that you don't comprehend it; that is not the
same thing, Dumbass.

>
> >
> > You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
>
> I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
> > > > course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
> > > > factor here?
> > >
> > > Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated
> > > clearly state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race
> > > Director.
> >
> > And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of
> > the regulations... and fails!
> >
> > The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
> > They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those
> > same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he
> > alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC
> > are adhered to. Something he clearly failed to do.
>
> I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced the
> rule.

WTF has your ignorance of same to do with the above paragraph?

Is there anything in that paragraph you disagree with? If so make your
weak and feeble case.

>
> Have you?

What? When you have to resort to such dumbass questions you clearly
have no intelligent response.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2021-12-13 12:52 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
>>>>>>> <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
>>>>>>>>> Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
>>>>>>>>>>> first lap (note his trajectory).
>>>>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required
>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton to take avoiding action.
>>>>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
>>>>>>>>>>> holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the
>>>>>>>>>>> option of pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to
>>>>>>>>>>> prang when he did. - MASSEY for gifting VER 10
>>>>>>>>>>> seconds, and the opportunity to 'win' on his new
>>>>>>>>>>> soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses
>>>>>>>>>> the likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste.
>>>>>>>>>> It is not unusual for a SC to determine the outcome
>>>>>>>>>> of the race but in this instance it was the Race
>>>>>>>>>> Director that determined the winner.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers
>>>>>>>>> and play a victim card. They just need to pick the
>>>>>>>>> card.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim
>>>>>>>> card” all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to
>>>>>>>> play a card because they are victims - victims of Masi’s
>>>>>>>> illegal decision to effectively award the race to Max.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
>>>>>>>> would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
>>>>>>>> especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
>>>>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the
>>>>>>> safety car which would have been within the regulations but
>>>>>>> still allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about
>>>>>>> what he deserved.
>>>>>> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
>>>>> He definitely did not apply 48.12
>>>>> "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
>>>>> presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
>>>>> lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to
>>>>> the pits at the end of the following lap."
>>>>>
>>>>> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply
>>>>> that as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>>>>
>>>> 'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
>>>> the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding
>>>> authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course
>>>> may give orders in respect of them only with his express
>>>> agreement:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> e) The use of the safety car.'
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
>>> SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
>>>>> decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is
>>>>> now unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though
>>>>> many would take a plain English reading of it and argue that,
>>>>> despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
>>>>
>>>> And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the
>>>> concurrence of his superiors in the FIA?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
>>> Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
>>> their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the
>>> regulations.
>>
>> Liberty are in no way his superiors.
>
> They run the show. If you think they have no influence then you just
> keep proving yourself a dumbass, Dumbass.
>
>> And your second sentence is not
>> even complete.
>
> What you mean to say is that you don't comprehend it; that is not the
> same thing, Dumbass.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
>>
>> I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
>>>>> course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
>>>>> factor here?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated
>>>> clearly state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race
>>>> Director.
>>>
>>> And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of
>>> the regulations... and fails!
>>>
>>> The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
>>> They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those
>>> same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he
>>> alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC
>>> are adhered to. Something he clearly failed to do.
>>
>> I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced the
>> rule.
>
> WTF has your ignorance of same to do with the above paragraph?

You've been claiming that "precedent" precludes the decision made by the
Race Director.

That implies that you know what precedents have actually been set.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Bigbird wrote:
>
> There is no ambiguity in 48.12
>
>
>> "any" does not mean "all".
>
> In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive term.
>
> To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
> semantics.
>
>
Alan is deliberately diverting the conversation from the critical part of
the rule.
The 'all; V 'any; debate is an irrelevant red herring.
the critical paragraph from 48.12 is

"Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car
has passed the leader the
safety car will return to the pits at the end of the FOLLOWING LAP.

this is a cold hard unambiguous statement with no room to manoeuvre which
is why "Mr Rules should be unambiguous" is diverting attention away from
it.

Only 1 question needs to be answered
Was the race restarted at the end of the same lap that lapped cars were
allowed to pass or the following one?

& the answer to that is not it any doubt therefore rule 48.12 was NOT
followed.

--
Deliberation, n.:
The act of examining one's bread to determine which side it is
buttered on.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:03:04 -0800, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 12:52 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
>>>>>>>>>>>> (note his trajectory).
>>>>>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>> to take avoiding action.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER,
>>>>>>>>>>>> holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of
>>>>>>>>>>>> pitting or not. - LAT, for managing to prang when he did. -
>>>>>>>>>>>> MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'win' on his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
>>>>>>>>>>> likely outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
>>>>>>>>>>> unusual for a SC to determine the outcome of the race but in
>>>>>>>>>>> this instance it was the Race Director that determined the
>>>>>>>>>>> winner.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
>>>>>>>>>> play a victim card. They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card”
>>>>>>>>> all season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card
>>>>>>>>> because they are victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to
>>>>>>>>> effectively award the race to Max.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>>>>>>> thoroughly have deserved the championship, but especially for
>>>>>>>>> Max whose win will always be tainted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
>>>>>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
>>>>>>>> car which would have been within the regulations but still
>>>>>>>> allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
>>>>>>>> deserved.
>>>>>>> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
>>>>>> He definitely did not apply 48.12 "Unless the clerk of the course
>>>>>> considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once
>>>>>> the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will
>>>>>> return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that
>>>>>> as the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with
>>>>> the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority
>>>>> in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders
>>>>> in respect of them only with his express agreement:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> e) The use of the safety car.'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
>>>> SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision
>>>>>> is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to
>>>>>> accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though many would take a
>>>>>> plain English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's
>>>>>> stewards decision, he did breach the regs.
>>>>>
>>>>> And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence
>>>>> of his superiors in the FIA?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
>>>> Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others with
>>>> their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the
>>>> regulations.
>>>
>>> Liberty are in no way his superiors.
>>
>> They run the show. If you think they have no influence then you just
>> keep proving yourself a dumbass, Dumbass.
>>
>>> And your second sentence is not even complete.
>>
>> What you mean to say is that you don't comprehend it; that is not the
>> same thing, Dumbass.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
>>>
>>> I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
>>>>>> course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
>>>>>> factor here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
>>>>> state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
>>>>
>>>> And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent misrepresentation of
>>>> the regulations... and fails!
>>>>
>>>> The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the SC.
>>>> They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed in those
>>>> same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they say he and he
>>>> alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs related to the SC are
>>>> adhered to. Something he clearly failed to do.
>>>
>>> I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced the
>>> rule.
>>
>> WTF has your ignorance of same to do with the above paragraph?
>
> You've been claiming that "precedent" precludes the decision made by the
> Race Director.
>
> That implies that you know what precedents have actually been set.

Was this paragraph form 48.12 followed?

"
Unless the clerk of the course considers the
presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car
has passed the leader the
safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
?

--
"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace."
-- Holly Near

On 14/12/2021 7:24 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 4:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there
>>> really was no choice.
>>
>> Masi really *did* have choices. He could have followed precedents set
>> earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took place.
>> That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared *and* would
>> allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run to complete the
>> race. Of course, that would also have allowed Hamilton to change his
>> tyres and benefit in that way...
>
> He could have "followed precedent" but was that a requirement or an option?
>
> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
>
>
>>
>>> Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
>>> drivers to race to the finish.
>>
>> ...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to the
>> end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end one of
>> two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have happened if it
>> was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on worn) or Verstappen
>> easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
>>
>> The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
>> championship to Verstappen.
>
> Only if you assume that every decision that benefited one of them over
> the other is "gifting" the championship as well.
>
> Hamilton took out his many competitor in Silverstone and was allowed to
> go on racing after a penalty. Was not making the penalty large enough
> "gifting" him the championship?
>
>>
>>> Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because
>>> they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other
>>> choices.
>>
>> See my other post. There really wasn't another choice given the
>> situation and racing precedents. They didn't have a crystal ball to be
>> able to know either what Verstappen was going to do (the reverse of
>> which is obviously not true) or how Masi would rule (unusually) on the
>> safety car.
>
> No. You're wrong.
>
> They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
> faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from Verstappen.
>
> They chose and it didn't work out.

They didn't 'choose' to have a 13 second advantage ( or several seconds
plus back-markers between after the SC called) negated by an
unprecedented and unfair call by the race director.

geoff

On 2021-12-13 12:43 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Without context, no. However:
>>>>>
>>>>> '48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and
>>>>> the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all
>>>>> Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have
>>>>> been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on
>> the >>> lead lap and the safety car.'
>>>>>
>>>>> In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader will
>> be >>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car"
>> the >>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron (having
>> been >>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The choice to
>> use >>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the overall
>> meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that "LAPPED
>>>>> CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors via the
>>>>> official messaging system. So Masi was operating outside the
>>>>> bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
>>>> The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
>>>>
>>>> The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to allow
>>>> those still actually racing for position to do so unimpeded, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so "unimpeded"?
>> Nope. So what?
>>
> So... what you said was utter nonsense, Dumbass.
>
>> Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that the
>> cars further back?
>>
>
> No, points mean prizes.

OK. So let's look.

The only "race" that was split by allowing some lapped cars, but not all
to pass the leaders was the battle between Sebastian Vettel and Daniel
Ricciardo...

....for what was then 12th place, which became and 11th place for Vettel
because Ricciardo pitted.

So releasing the cars they did left them free to race for the actual
points positions, and the one car that had their race "wrecked" wasn't
in a position to win any points anyway.

So when you implied that some drivers were denied the chance to race for
points, you're wrong...

....again!

>>
>>>
>>> The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on the
>>> fly.
>> And if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
>> protest?
>
> Then they would be lying... like you do all the time. But they didn't
> did they. They made spurious claims in order to cover their arse.
>
> Simple question for a simple minded dumbass.
> Was 48.12 adhered to?

I can't answer that.

And neither can you.

Because neither of us have studied all past applications of the rules
and the rulings that have arisen from them.

>
> Be careful now, it's a trap... you have already admitted it wasn't,
> Dumbass.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is
>>> secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and
>>> agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
>> Actually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written
>> without ambiguity as much as is feasible.
>>
>> There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
>> car".
>
> There is no ambiguity in 48.12

There most certainly is.

>
>>
>> "any" does not mean "all".
>
> In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive term.

Nope. Sorry. "Any" does not mean "all".

>
> To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
> semantics.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
>>>
>>>> So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually still
>>>> racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of those that were
>>>> actually important were those between Hamilton and Verstappen.
>>>
>>> That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for position
>>> claimed".
>> Which drivers didn't claim that?
>
> Sainz for one. Read the drivers comments, Dumbass.

How about you quote them, sunshine?

It's not my job to find what you claim is there.

>
>>
>>>
>>> The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how obvious
>>> your prejudice to everyone.
>> I have no prejudice. Sorry.
>
> QED
>
>>
>>> If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists i.e.
>>> Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard pressed to
>>> find anyone who would not be convinced that you would be on the
>>> exact opposite side of the same argument.
>>>
>> Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.
>
> "Your collective ignorance"
>
> You don't even comprehend the irony, do you?

Oh, I do.

>
>>
>> What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his position
>> going into turn 5?
>
> So now you wish to change the subject.
>
> I completely understand.
>
> You've never shown a great understanding of racing and much less of
> English and the regulations.

I understand racing very well. I understand it well enough, that the
best racers in our club (who include some very experienced and
successful drivers in both amateur and pro racing) invited me to join
the Race Drivers Committee and teach other drivers how to do it.

What's your racing experience again: was it WiRace, or just Pole Position?

:-)

On 14/12/2021 7:26 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 7:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>> On 13/12/2021 6:48 am, Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 17:25:13 UTC, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> trajectory).
>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
>>>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
>>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
>>>>>>>> 'win' on
>>>>>>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
>>>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for
>>>>>>> a SC
>>>>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
>>>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play
>>>>>> a victim card.
>>>>>> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card” all
>>>>> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card because
>>>>> they
>>>>> *are* victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively
>>>>> award the
>>>>> race to Max.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>>> thoroughly have
>>>>> deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will
>>>>> always be
>>>>> tainted.
>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
>>>> but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
>>>> would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
>>>> half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Masi should go.
>>>>
>>>> I agree though not just because of this decision - everyone is
>>>> entitled to a mistake under pressure albeit this was a pretty big one.
>>>> What really annoys me, however, is how he seems open to being
>>>> influenced by principals shouting at him - last week's bartering with
>>>> Horner about what penalty Verstappen should get was ridiculous.
>>> Masi has been unlucky in that the only scenario where this became
>>> an issue is when the accident happened when it did.
>>>
>>> 3 laps earlier for the accident and the outcome would have been the
>>> same for Lewis / Max.
>>>
>>> 1 lap later and the SC would have definitely been out at the end of
>>> the race.
>>
>> Because of the likely effect on the championship of a safety car at
>> that point, if he wasn't prepared to end the race under safety car he
>> should have thrown a red flag.
>
> And if he did that after Verstappen's stop under the safety car, then a
> different set of people (who think there's a different "chosen one")
> would be whining about how the championship had been "gifted" to
> Hamilton, because he would get a free tire change.

Yep, they sure would whinge about an even situation.

geoff

On 2021-12-13 1:25 p.m., geoff wrote:

>> They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
>> faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from
>> Verstappen.
>>
>> They chose and it didn't work out.
>
> They didn't 'choose' to have a 13 second advantage ( or several seconds
> plus back-markers between after the SC called) negated by an
> unprecedented and unfair call by the race director.
One simple question:

How do you KNOW it was unprecedented?

On 14/12/2021 7:41 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 1:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> Matt Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird
>>>> wrote:  >>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap
>>>> (note his >>>>> trajectory).
>>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton
>>>> to take >>>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up
>>>> HAM.  >>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or
>>>> not.  >>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
>>>> 'win' on >>>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the
>>>> likely >>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not
>>>> unusual for a SC >>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in
>>>> this instance it was the >>>> Race Director that determined the
>>>> winner.  >>>
>>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and
>>>> play a victim card.  >>> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card”
>>>> all >> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card
>>>> because they >> are victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to
>>>> effectively award the >> race to Max.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>> thoroughly have >> deserved the championship, but especially for
>>>> Max whose win will always be >> tainted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go
>>>>> racing" but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety
>>>>> car which would have been within the regulations but still
>>>>> allowed Verstappen a half-chance which was just about what he
>>>>> deserved.
>>>> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
>>> He definitely did not apply 48.12
>>> "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
>>> presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
>>> car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at
>>> the end of the following lap."
>>>
>>> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as
>>> the RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>>>
>>> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current decision is
>>> that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse
>>> him of breaching the regs.
>>
>> No, it's not. It remains a truth.
>>
>> The alternative truth they have come up with doesn't sit at all well.
>> 15.3 says the race director (not the clerk of the course) has all
>> authority over the deployment of the SC. That does not, in any common
>> sense or English sense give him the right to ignore the regulations
>> detailing the procedures.
>>
>>> Even though many would take a plain
>>> English reading of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards
>>> decision, he did breach the regs.
>>>
>>> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the
>>> course" and the "race director" having different roles is also a
>>> factor here?
>>
>> No. 15.3 is there to distinguish their roles; that is it's purpose, not
>> to give the RD the right to change the regs.
>>
>
> The fact that Mercedes protest was rejected means that the people who
> actually understand and administer the regs disagree with you.

No, it means they were panicked into a quick reaction to cover their arses.

geoff

On 14/12/2021 7:38 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> geoff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have to be:
>>>>>>>> - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on first lap (note
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> trajectory).
>>>>>>> It was certainly a very hard block pass that required Hamilton to
>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>> avoiding action.
>>>>>>>> - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to VER, holding up HAM.
>>>>>>>> - GIO for giving the P2 car the option of pitting or not.
>>>>>>>> - LAT, for managing to prang when he did.
>>>>>>>> - MASSEY for gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
>>>>>>>> 'win' on
>>>>>>>> his new soft tyres.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To not follow the regs in a way that actually reverses the likely
>>>>>>> outcome pre safety car leaves a bad taste. It is not unusual for
>>>>>>> a SC
>>>>>>> to determine the outcome of the race but in this instance it was the
>>>>>>> Race Director that determined the winner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad losers and play
>>>>>> a victim card.
>>>>>> They just need to pick the card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the “victim card” all
>>>>> season. In this instance Mercedes don’t need to play a card because
>>>>> they
>>>>> *are* victims - victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively
>>>>> award the
>>>>> race to Max.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom would
>>>>> thoroughly have
>>>>> deserved the championship, but especially for Max whose win will
>>>>> always be
>>>>> tainted.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to "go racing"
>>>> but he should have left the lapped cars behind the safety car which
>>>> would have been within the regulations but still allowed Verstappen a
>>>> half-chance which was just about what he deserved.
>>> Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
>> He definitely did not apply 48.12
>> "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
>> presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped
>> car has
>> passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of
>> the
>> following lap."
>>
>> But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to apply that as the
>> RD has absolute discretion under article 15.3.
>
> 'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the
> Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the
> following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect
> of them only with his express agreement:
>
> ...
>
> e) The use of the safety car.'

The use of, but not the manner of the use of. You mean he could legally
tell the safety-car to drive the other direction for a bi, or something
equally ridiculous on his whim ?

>>
>> Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current *decision*
>> is that
>> Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is now unfair to accuse him of
>> breaching the regs.  Even though many would take a plain English reading
>> of it and argue that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did
>> breach the
>> regs.
>
> And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the concurrence of
> his superiors in the FIA?

Yes.

>
>>
>> Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of the course"
>> and
>> the "race director" having different roles is also a factor here?
>
> Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated clearly
> state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the Race Director.
>

On 14/12/2021 10:30 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 1:25 p.m., geoff wrote:
>
>>> They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
>>> faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from
>>> Verstappen.
>>>
>>> They chose and it didn't work out.
>>
>> They didn't 'choose' to have a 13 second advantage ( or several
>> seconds plus back-markers between after the SC called) negated by an
>> unprecedented and unfair call by the race director.
> One simple question:
>
> How do you KNOW it was unprecedented?

I don't 'know' as a fact. But as nobody has suggested that there has
ever been such a precedent, I assume that is the case.

Now you are the obsessive - you would know if there is a precedent, and
you would have been spouting it willy-nilly if it existed.

So either show it, or stop being a total dick (OK, impossible I know
....) by the aspersion that there might be one,and blaming me for not
demonstrating it .

geoff

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 12:52 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-13 11:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-13 1:24 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 23:43:36 UTC, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2021-12-12 9:24 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2021 16:38:46 GMT, Sir Tim
> > > > > > > > <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC+11,
> > > > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > geoff wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Have to be:
> > > > > > > > > > > > - VER for his cunning attempt to wipe out HAM on
> > > > > > > > > > > > first lap (note his trajectory).
> > > > > > > > > > > It was certainly a very hard block pass that
> > > > > > > > > > > required Hamilton to take avoiding action.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - PER for epic, if not extreme, assistance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > VER, holding up HAM. - GIO for giving the P2
> > > > > > > > > > > > car the option of pitting or not. - LAT, for
> > > > > > > > > > > > managing to prang when he did. - MASSEY for
> > > > > > > > > > > > gifting VER 10 seconds, and the opportunity to
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'win' on his new soft tyres.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is why it feels such a wrong decision.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To not follow the regs in a way that actually
> > > > > > > > > > > reverses the likely outcome pre safety car leaves
> > > > > > > > > > > a bad taste. It is not unusual for a SC to
> > > > > > > > > > > determine the outcome of the race but in this
> > > > > > > > > > > instance it was the Race Director that determined
> > > > > > > > > > > the winner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The best man won but don't worry Merc will be bad
> > > > > > > > > > losers and play a victim card. They just need to
> > > > > > > > > > pick the card.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Horner, Marko and Verstappen have been playing the
> > > > > > > > > “victim card” all season. In this instance Mercedes
> > > > > > > > > don’t need to play a card because they are victims -
> > > > > > > > > victims of Masi’s illegal decision to effectively
> > > > > > > > > award the race to Max.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It’s a sad situation for both drivers, either of whom
> > > > > > > > > would thoroughly have deserved the championship, but
> > > > > > > > > especially for Max whose win will always be tainted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree. I can understand Masi wanting to allow them to
> > > > > > > > "go racing" but he should have left the lapped cars
> > > > > > > > behind the safety car which would have been within the
> > > > > > > > regulations but still allowed Verstappen a half-chance
> > > > > > > > which was just about what he deserved.
> > > > > > > Which regulation do you claim Masi breached?
> > > > > > He definitely did not apply 48.12
> > > > > > "Unless the clerk of the course considers the
> > > > > > presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last
> > > > > > lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return
> > > > > > to the pits at the end of the following lap."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But as the stewards have now decided, he didn't need to
> > > > > > apply that as the RD has absolute discretion under article
> > > > > > 15.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation
> > > > > with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have
> > > > > overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk
> > > > > of the course may give orders in respect of them only with
> > > > > his express agreement:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > e) The use of the safety car.'
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Correct, dumbass, the RD is in charge of all matters relating
> > > > to the SC. Do you have a point to go with that, Dumbass?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whether one agrees with that decision or not, the current
> > > > > > decision is that Masi applied the rules, so in a sense it is
> > > > > > now unfair to accuse him of breaching the regs. Even though
> > > > > > many would take a plain English reading of it and argue
> > > > > > that, despite last night's stewards decision, he did breach
> > > > > > the regs.
> > > > >
> > > > > And does anyone really think that Masi acted without the
> > > > > concurrence of his superiors in the FIA?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you think he was just a puppet of those higher ups in FIA and
> > > > Liberty? That he was being lobbied by not just RBR but others
> > > > with their own conflicting interests other than adhering to the
> > > > regulations.
> > >
> > > Liberty are in no way his superiors.
> >
> > They run the show. If you think they have no influence then you just
> > keep proving yourself a dumbass, Dumbass.
> >
> > > And your second sentence is not
> > > even complete.
> >
> > What you mean to say is that you don't comprehend it; that is not
> > the same thing, Dumbass.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You are not the first to suggest such pressures.
> > >
> > > I suggested no pressure, you inferred what is not there.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we need to concern ourselves with whether the "clerk of
> > > > > > the course" and the "race director" having different roles
> > > > > > is also a factor here?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. The same rules that people are claiming Masi violated
> > > > > clearly state that the "overriding authority" belongs to the
> > > > > Race Director.
> > > >
> > > > And the Dumbass attempts a totally transparent
> > > > misrepresentation of the regulations... and fails!
> > > >
> > > > The regs say the RD is in charge of all matters relating to the
> > > > SC. They do not say he can ignore all the procedures detailed
> > > > in those same regs relating to the SC; just the opposite they
> > > > say he and he alone is responsible for ensuring all the regs
> > > > related to the SC are adhered to. Something he clearly failed
> > > > to do.
> > >
> > > I haven't studied all safety car incidents since they introduced
> > > the rule.
> >
> > WTF has your ignorance of same to do with the above paragraph?
>
> You've been claiming that "precedent" precludes the decision made by
> the Race Director.
>
> That implies that you know what precedents have actually been set.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 12:43 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021-12-13 12:07 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-12-13 10:37 a.m., Mark Jackson wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/13/2021 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Without context, no. However:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > '48.12 If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do
> > > > > > so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has
> > > > > > been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging
> > > > > > system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will
> > > > > > be required to pass the cars on
> >>the >>> lead lap and the safety car.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the clause "any cars that have been lapped by the leader
> > > > > > will
> >>be >>> required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car"
> >>the >>> clear meaning is that every car meeting the criteron
> (having >>been >>> lapped by the leader) be required to unlap. The
> choice to >>use >>> "any" rather than "all" here doesn't change the
> overall
> > > meaning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Of course in the present instance, it doesn't appear that
> > > > > > "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" was sent to all Competitors
> > > > > > via the official messaging system. So Masi was operating
> > > > > > outside the bounds of both 48.12 and precedent.)
> > > > > The powers that be appear to disagree with you on that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The PURPOSE of allowing lapped cars to unlap themselves is to
> > > > > allow those still actually racing for position to do so
> > > > > unimpeded, right?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And were all cars "racing for position" able to do so
> > > > "unimpeded"?
> > > Nope. So what?
> > >
> > So... what you said was utter nonsense, Dumbass.
> >
> > > Are the cars racing for the lead in any race more important that
> > > the cars further back?
> > >
> >
> > No, points mean prizes.
>
> OK. So let's look.
>
> The only "race" that was split by allowing some lapped cars, but not
> all to pass the leaders was the battle between Sebastian Vettel and
> Daniel Ricciardo...
>

Wrong.

You clearly are even aware of what lapped cars were not given the
message as they should have been according to the regulations.

You can come back to this aside when you are able to demonstrate better
knowledge of the circumstances.

> ...for what was then 12th place, which became and 11th place for
> Vettel because Ricciardo pitted.
>
> So releasing the cars they did left them free to race for the actual
> points positions, and the one car that had their race "wrecked"
> wasn't in a position to win any points anyway.
>
> So when you implied that some drivers were denied the chance to race
> for points, you're wrong...
>
> ...again!
>

Or rather you are misrepresenting the facts and/or lying again!

> > >
> > > >
> > > > The regs are there to be adhered to, not to be reinterpreted on
> > > > the fly.
> > > And if the FIA says they were adhered to by rejecting Mercedes
> > > protest?
> >
> > Then they would be lying... like you do all the time. But they
> > didn't did they. They made spurious claims in order to cover their
> > arse.
> >
> > Simple question for a simple minded dumbass.
> > Was 48.12 adhered to?
>
> I can't answer that.

Or rather to do so honestly would undermine your ignorant argument.

>
> And neither can you.
>

Yes, I can. It clearly wasn't... in two very clear respects.

1. Some lapped cars were not given the message to pass the SC
2. The SC did not pull in on the lap following the unlapped cars
passing the SC.

> Because neither of us have studied all past applications of the rules
> and the rulings that have arisen from them.
>

Hey, look over there... a kitten.

> >
> > Be careful now, it's a trap... you have already admitted it wasn't,
> > Dumbass.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You have argued yourself that even "the spirit of the rules" is
> > > > secondary to the actual regulations as laid out in print... and
> > > > agreed to by all competitors and the ruling body.
> > > Actually, what I've argued is that the rules should be written
> > > without ambiguity as much as is feasible.
> > >
> > > There was ambiguity in the rules regarding the "use of the safety
> > > car".
> >
> > There is no ambiguity in 48.12
>
> There most certainly is.
>

Panto season is it.

> >
> > >
> > > "any" does not mean "all".
> >
> > In the context of 48.12 it clearly does. "any" is not an exclusive
> > term.
>
> Nope. Sorry. "Any" does not mean "all".

What cars does "any" exclude?

>
> >
> > To attempt to argue otherwise is to concede a pathetic attempt at
> > semantics.
> >

^^^^^^

> > >
> > > >
> > > > You're still looking like a dumbass, Dumbass.
> > > >
> > > > > So in the context of the ultimate race and WHO was actually
> > > > > still racing for position, the lapped cars to get rid of
> > > > > those that were actually important were those between
> > > > > Hamilton and Verstappen.
> > > >
> > > > That is not what several drivers "actually still racing for
> > > > position claimed".
> > > Which drivers didn't claim that?
> >
> > Sainz for one. Read the drivers comments, Dumbass.
>
> How about you quote them, sunshine?
>
> It's not my job to find what you claim is there.
>

It's not my job to quote anything for you. You will always be ignorant
no matter how much you are spoonfed.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The most damning thing for you is that you are blind to how
> > > > obvious your prejudice to everyone.
> > > I have no prejudice. Sorry.
> >
> > QED
> >
> > >
> > > > If the opposite situation had occurred with the protagonists
> > > > i.e. Hamilton pitting and Max staying out, you would be hard
> > > > pressed to find anyone who would not be convinced that you
> > > > would be on the exact opposite side of the same argument.
> > > >
> > > Your collective ignorance and idiocy is not my problem.
> >
> > "Your collective ignorance"
> >
> > You don't even comprehend the irony, do you?
>
> Oh, I do.

So you must be feeling pretty embarrassed right now...

....but we both know you are lying... so...

>
> >
> > >
> > > What do you think of Hamilton's utter failure to defend his
> > > position going into turn 5?
> >
> > So now you wish to change the subject.
> >
> > I completely understand.
> >
> > You've never shown a great understanding of racing and much less of
> > English and the regulations.
>
> I understand racing very well.

Saying you do is one thing but your demonstrate something quite
different.

> I understand it well enough, that the
> best racers in our club (who include some very experienced and
> successful drivers in both amateur and pro racing) invited me to join
> the Race Drivers Committee and teach other drivers how to do it.
>
> What's your racing experience again: was it WiRace, or just Pole
> Position?
>

I am not a liar.

What's your reputation in that regard.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 1:25 p.m., geoff wrote:
>
> > > They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had
> > > the faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead
> > > from Verstappen.
> > >
> > > They chose and it didn't work out.
> >
> > They didn't 'choose' to have a 13 second advantage ( or several
> > seconds plus back-markers between after the SC called) negated by
> > an unprecedented and unfair call by the race director.
> One simple question:
>
> How do you KNOW it was unprecedented?

Are you claiming it wasn't? If so you can of course provide a quote
from one of the many F1 sources that will have referenced such a
precedent since the race. Or perhaps you think their is a precedent
that know one knows about.

<sigh>

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 4:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But there
>>> really was no choice.
>>
>> Masi really *did* have choices. He could have followed precedents set
>> earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took place.
>> That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared *and* would
>> allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run to complete the
>> race. Of course, that would also have allowed Hamilton to change his
>> tyres and benefit in that way...
>
> He could have "followed precedent" but was that a requirement or an option?
>
> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?

No and no.

That is a red herring, though. If precedents and normal interpretations
of the rules are to be thrown out at the discretion of the race director
- which seems to be the implication - that is a new way of going racing.
It removes the ability of teams and drivers to accurately judge the race
ahead and provides the race director with the opportunity to change the
race fundamentally on a whim.

To do it at a crucial time in a crucial race and in a way that not only
allowed the pass but guaranteed no chance for the situation to change
essentially meant that the race was decided by him and not (as he
claimed) by going racing. He reset the conditions such that the entire
race and the ourcome of the WDC would be decided by a single lap where
the leader was on worn tyres and the second place driver was on fresh
tyres. That is not racing. If he left all of the backmarkers, the result
may have been the same, but it would have been fairer. If he let the
whole set of backmarkers through, it would have timed out behind the SC
but would also be fairer. He did two things that were unexpected
(partially sending the backmarkers through and calling the safety car in
early) and that left most observers with the impression that ot was a
partisan move.

Which part of that can you disagree with?

Was it not a deviation from precedent?
Did it not interfere with the race?
Did it not essentially decide the whole race?
side from finishing under green, in what way did it end as a real race?

In any sport, when you end up having to trawl through the rules to
understand what happened....and still not be able to work it out other
than to say "he had discretion" - it's a bad day for that sport.

These are the kinds of days where interpretation of the rules should be
*most* consistent with precedent.

>>> Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the two
>>> drivers to race to the finish.
>>
>> ...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to the
>> end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end one of
>> two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have happened if it
>> was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on worn) or Verstappen
>> easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
>>
>> The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
>> championship to Verstappen.
>
> Only if you assume that every decision that benefited one of them over
> the other is "gifting" the championship as well.

You are missing the point that this was a crucial decision with only one
possible outcome taken without any clear precedent. It was just a whole
new interpretation of the rules that could only reverse the result.

Seriously, if you can't see that you are either trolling or completely
clueless.

> Hamilton took out his many competitor in Silverstone and was allowed to
> go on racing after a penalty. Was not making the penalty large enough
> "gifting" him the championship?

He was penalised based on the rules and precedents. I said at the time
that he was lucky not to be out. Nonetheless, you are penalised on the
intent/accident nor the subsequent outcome. He was lucky. He has been at
the wrong end of luck in the past too.

It is not the same situation though.

(I don't believe he intended to take Max out but I assume you do based
on your wording. He wasn't found wholly to blame, and I think that was
right. This obsession wirh Silverstone and insisting it somehow means
that he deserves to lose is tiresome. Max repeatedly put himself in
positions where he was hit or the other driver had to take steps to
avoid collisions, so he can't keep crying when these things happen. I
happen to view - as you kmow - Silverstone as just such a case. Lewis
screwed up (no doubt) but the collision could have been avoided by Max
so trying to put 100% of it onto Lewis was plain wrong. Yes, he took
more blame - rightly - but he has a lot to learn about the difference
between passion and crossing the line into dangerous driving.)

>>> Mercedes made their choices (twice!) not to pit for better tires because
>>> they wanted track position. They had their chances to make other choices.
>>
>> See my other post. There really wasn't another choice given the
>> situation and racing precedents. They didn't have a crystal ball to be
>> able to know either what Verstappen was going to do (the reverse of
>> which is obviously not true) or how Masi would rule (unusually) on the
>> safety car.
>
> No. You're wrong.
>
> They CHOSE track position over having better tires. Hamilton had the
> faster car and could (potentially) have re-taken the lead from Verstappen.
>
> They chose and it didn't work out.

YOU are wrong. If they were 1-2 Ver-Ham on fresh tyres with one lap,
Verstappen would not have been passed.

The tactics were right under most normal circumstances, and I think
their main risk was a tyre failure.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-13 4:40 a.m., Mark wrote:
> >Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did the way it play out end up helping Verstappen? Of course. But
> > > there really was no choice.
> >
> > Masi really did have choices. He could have followed precedents set
> > earlier in the season and red flagged it while the clearance took
> > place. That would have allowed the debris to be properly cleared
> > and would allow a number of laps under racing conditions to be run
> > to complete the race. Of course, that would also have allowed
> > Hamilton to change his tyres and benefit in that way...
>
> He could have "followed precedent" but was that a requirement or an
> option?
>
> Does "any" mean the same thing as "all"?
>
>
> >
> > > Masi (note the correct spelling) did what he could to allow the
> > > two drivers to race to the finish.
> >
> > ...but it would have been a much more satisfactory way to race to
> > the end than artificially engineer a situation which could only end
> > one of two ways; the two colliding (which I suspect would have
> > happened if it was Hamilton on fresh tyres behind Verstappen on
> > worn) or Verstappen easily making the pass on the fresh rubber.
> >
> > The decisions could only have one outcome: gifting the race and
> > championship to Verstappen.
>
> Only if you assume that every decision that benefited one of them
> over the other is "gifting" the championship as well.
>
> Hamilton took out his many competitor in Silverstone and was allowed
> to go on racing after a penalty. Was not making the penalty large
> enough "gifting" him the championship?
>

Were the regulations adhered to? Did the race director (or stewards)
intentionally disregard sections of the regulations in order to give
Lewis an exceptionally lenient penalty knowing to do so would "gift"
him the championship? Unless the answers are no and yes respectively
then WTF has it to do with this?

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!