... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
select one sentence out of it to quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM

geoff

On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>  ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>
> geoff

Did you miss the part where he says:

"And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race
that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?

And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
with corner cutting" (about 12:20).

Just checking.

BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
every situation.

On 16/12/2021 2:10 pm, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>   ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>
>> geoff
>
> Did you miss the part where he says:
>
> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race
> that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
> safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?

Here-say, and even if so still hardly a grounds for changing the racing
regulations on the spot.

>
> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).

Not the subject in question.

>
> Just checking.

No, diverting.

>
> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
> ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
> in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
> every situation.

You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
rule should be OK ?

geoff

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
> in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
> every situation.

Ya i can see you have no
problem with cheating in auto racing.
Seen it over and over.
Your lap times at your go cart
probably involve cheating too.
You have no credibility.
So fuck off asshole.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 8:12:59 PM UTC-7, texas gate wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>
>
> > but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
> > in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
> > every situation.
> Ya i can see you have no
> problem with cheating in auto racing.
> Seen it over and over.
> Your lap times at your go cart
> probably involve cheating too.
> You have no credibility.
> So fuck off asshole.

*go cart track

On 2021-12-15 8:44 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 16/12/2021 2:10 pm, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>   ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> Did you miss the part where he says:
>>
>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
>> race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
>> the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>
> Here-say, and even if so still hardly a grounds for changing the racing
> regulations on the spot.

I see, so his conclusions you'll trust...

....but not his statements of fact.

And it's "hearsay"; one word.

>
>>
>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>
> Not the subject in question.

Relevant to the whole question of who was gifted what and what
regulations weren't followed.

>
>>
>> Just checking.
>
> No, diverting.
>
>>
>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
>> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
>> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
>> equitably in every situation.
>
> You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
> rule should be OK ?

Nope.

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-15 8:44 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > On 16/12/2021 2:10 pm, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > > >   ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
> > > > maybe select one sentence out of it to quote.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
> > > >
> > > > geoff
> > >
> > > Did you miss the part where he says:
> > >
> > > "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before
> > > the race that it would be a priority to get the race going
> > > again, should the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36
> > > into the video)?
> >
> > Here-say, and even if so still hardly a grounds for changing the
> > racing regulations on the spot.
>
> I see, so his conclusions you'll trust...

You are a strange fellow. It's about following his discussion and
agreeing or not with the inferences and opinions. What did you feel you
were being asked to trust?

That you wish to ignore a very well argued, supported and demonstrated
position and make the extraordinary inference that the regulations
should be ignored based on the most insipid hearsay demonstrates your
complete inability to be objective.

>
> ...but not his statements of fact.
>
> And it's "hearsay"

Exactly.

PS have you found any precedent yet or are you still floundering?

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 16/12/2021 7:01 pm, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-15 8:44 p.m., geoff wrote:
>> On 16/12/2021 2:10 pm, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>   ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
>>>> maybe select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> Did you miss the part where he says:
>>>
>>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
>>> race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
>>> the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>>
>> Here-say, and even if so still hardly a grounds for changing the
>> racing regulations on the spot.
>
> I see, so his conclusions you'll trust...
>
> ...but not his statements of fact.
>
> And it's "hearsay"; one word.

And is dick-head one word or two ?

>>>
>>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
>>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>>
>> Not the subject in question.
>
> Relevant to the whole question of who was gifted what and what
> regulations weren't followed.

If that one wasn't followed then it wasn't - a totally separate matter.
The was that *was* followed wasn't a regulation.

>>>
>>> Just checking.
>>
>> No, diverting.
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
>>> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
>>> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
>>> equitably in every situation.
>>
>> You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
>> rule should be OK ?
>
> Nope.

At least we agree there.

geoff

On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
> > ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
> > select one sentence out of it to quote.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
> >
> > geoff
> Did you miss the part where he says:
>
> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race
> that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
> safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>
> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>
> Just checking.
>
> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
> ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
> in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
> every situation.
What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it was
a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?

What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
a SC period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely
which lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was
in at the time the SC was called?

If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up
SC removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
"following lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
been such an obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
being on the cards?

Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.

My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.

In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
distance completion or something like that?

Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc ferme
rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would simplify (as well
as delay, obviously) things?

Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have left
very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won (providing
it was done fairly).

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> And it's "hearsay"; one word.

you fucking useless, cock sucking,
piece of shit, cunt hole

On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>>
>>> geoff
>> Did you miss the part where he says:
>>
>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race
>> that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
>> safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>>
>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>>
>> Just checking.
>>
>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
>> ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
>> in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
>> every situation.
> What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".

We don't know of course.

>
> It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it was
> a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?

I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.

>
> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
> a SC period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely
> which lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was
> in at the time the SC was called?
>
> If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up
> SC removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
> "following lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
> been such an obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
> being on the cards?

Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
perhaps it was briefed.

>
> Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
>
> My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
> by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.

OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.

He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
would come in on the same lap that that was happening.

>
> In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
> have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
> re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
> distance completion or something like that?
>
> Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc ferme
> rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would simplify (as well
> as delay, obviously) things?
>
> Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have left
> very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won (providing
> it was done fairly).

I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle this...

I'm just saying we have far from a full picture.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> And it's "hearsay"; one word.

go fuck your pathetic self.
5 words asshole.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>> ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
>>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>> Did you miss the part where he says:
>>>
>>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
>>> race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
>>> the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>>>
>>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
>>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>>>
>>> Just checking.
>>>
>>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
>>> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
>>> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
>>> equitably in every situation.
>> What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
>
> We don't know of course.
>
>
>> It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it
>> was a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
>
> I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
>
>
>> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC
>> period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
>> lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
>> time the SC was called?
>>
>> If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up SC
>> removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a "following
>> lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have been such an
>> obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that being on the cards?
>
> Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
> perhaps it was briefed.
>
>
>> Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
>>
>> My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
>> by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
>
> OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
>
> He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
> would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
> would come in on the same lap that that was happening.
>
>
>
>> In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
>> have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
>> re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
>> distance completion or something like that?
>>
>> Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc
>> ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would
>> simplify (as well as delay, obviously) things?
>>
>> Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have
>> left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won
>> (providing it was done fairly).
>
> I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle this...
>
> I'm just saying we have far from a full picture.

No you are just looking for ways to keep the argument going with trivial &
irrelevant issues.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you must be using Windows.

On 2021-12-16 1:03 p.m., alister wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
maybe
>>>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>> Did you miss the part where he says:
>>>>
>>>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
>>>> race that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should
>>>> the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>>>>
>>>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
>>>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>>>>
>>>> Just checking.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
>>>> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
>>>> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
>>>> equitably in every situation.
>>> What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
>>
>> We don't know of course.
>>
>>
>>> It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it
>>> was a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
>>
>> I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
>>
>>
>>> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC
>>> period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
>>> lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
>>> time the SC was called?
>>>
>>> If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up SC
>>> removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a "following
>>> lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have been such an
>>> obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that being on the cards?
>>
>> Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
>> perhaps it was briefed.
>>
>>
>>> Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
>>>
>>> My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
>>> by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
>>
>> OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
>>
>> He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
>> would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
>> would come in on the same lap that that was happening.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
>>> have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
>>> re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
>>> distance completion or something like that?
>>>
>>> Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc
>>> ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would
>>> simplify (as well as delay, obviously) things?
>>>
>>> Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have
>>> left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won
>>> (providing it was done fairly).
>>
>> I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle this...
>>
>> I'm just saying we have far from a full picture.
>
> No you are just looking for ways to keep the argument going with
trivial &
> irrelevant issues.
Is the exact nature of what the teams and the race director agreed would
be the protocol for safety cars during the late stages of the race
"irrelevant" to this discussion?

Is pointing out that a prior agreement that something like this may have
been discussed is a plausible explanation for why Hamilton didn't so
much as metaphorically raise an eyebrow when he was informed of what
would happen "irrelevant"?

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 06:16:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Larkin wrote:
<snip general irrelevance>
> It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it was
> a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
>
> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC
> period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
> lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
> time the SC was called?

That would be one option & covered by the current regs but open to DR
descretion which was the cause of the problem.
>
<snip unkowable conjecture>

> In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
> have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
> re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
> distance completion or something like that?

The 75% rule does not say a race MUST be declared if a red flag occurs at
over 75% as demonstrated in Bacu which had 1 lap remaining on restart
>
> Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc ferme
> rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would simplify (as
> well as delay, obviously) things?

I was thinking along the same lines a mandatory red flag if the safety car
is on track or required with lest than 5 laps to go. no need to change any
of the current red flag processes.

>
> Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would have
> left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter who won
> (providing it was done fairly).

--
Telephone, n.:
An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance.
-- Ambrose Bierce

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> > On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
> >>> ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or
> maybe
> > > > select one sentence out of it to quote.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
> > > >
> > > > geoff
> > > Did you miss the part where he says:
> > >
> > > "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before
> > > the race that it would be a priority to get the race going again,
> > > should the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the
> > > video)?
> > >
> > > And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t
> > > away with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
> > >
> > > Just checking.
> > >
> > > BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
> > > little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is
> > > very difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that
> > > will apply equitably in every situation.
> > What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
>
> We don't know of course.
>

....but no sane person would presume they meant change the regs on the
fly and take the decision as to who would win the championship.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2021-12-16 1:03 p.m., alister wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:50:22 -0500, Alan wrote:
> >
> >> On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
> >>>>> ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one.
> Or maybe >>>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
> > > > > >
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
> > > > > >
> >>>>> geoff
> >>>> Did you miss the part where he says:
> > > > >
> >>>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before
> the >>>> race that it would be a priority to get the race going
> again, should >>>> the safety car come out late in the race." (2:36
> into the video)?
> > > > >
> >>>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t
> away >>>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
> > > > >
> >>>> Just checking.
> > > > >
> >>>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
> >>>> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is
> very >>>> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that
> will apply >>>> equitably in every situation.
> >>> What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
> > >
> >> We don't know of course.
> > >
> > >
> >>> It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that
> it >>> was a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to
> who?
> > >
> >> I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
> > >
> > >
> >>> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
> a SC >>> period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass,
> surely which >>> lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern
> it was in at the >>> time the SC was called?
> > > >
> >>> If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed
> up SC >>> removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
> "following >>> lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
> been such an >>> obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
> being on the cards?
> > >
> >> Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
> >> perhaps it was briefed.
> > >
> > >
> >>> Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
> > > >
> >>> My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been
> considered >>> by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of
> Sunday's race.
> > >
> >> OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all
> happening.
> > >
> >> He was told specifically that only the cars between him and
> Verstappen >> would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told
> the safety car >> would come in on the same lap that that was
> happening.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >>> In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done
> be to >>> have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or
> grid >>> re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75%
> race >>> distance completion or something like that?
> > > >
> >>> Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc
> >>> ferme rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would
> >>> simplify (as well as delay, obviously) things?
> > > >
> >>> Max vs Lewis both on new softs in a 5 lap race to the end would
> have >>> left very few with a bad taste in their mouths, no matter
> who won >>> (providing it was done fairly).
> > >
> >> I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle this...
> > >
> >> I'm just saying we have far from a full picture.
> >
> > No you are just looking for ways to keep the argument going with
> > trivial & irrelevant issues.
> Is the exact nature of what the teams and the race director agreed
> would be the protocol for safety cars during the late stages of the
> race "irrelevant" to this discussion?
>

As we can presume they did not agree to throw the rule book out of the
window and let the RD decide the winner, yes.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

In article <gsGdncf-CotxBCf8nZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org says...
> You mean that something like "make it spectacular despite the rules"
> rule should be OK ?
>

WWF1 ?

--
Alan LeHun

Alan wrote:

> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
> equitably in every situation.

Difficult, it's absolutely impossible when the RD can do what he likes
then retrospectively reinterpret the regs on the fly in ways they were
never intended.

--
Bozo bin
Build
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 17/12/2021 6:50 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>   ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
>>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>> Did you miss the part where he says:
>>>
>>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the race
>>> that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
>>> safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>>>
>>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
>>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>>>
>>> Just checking.
>>>
>>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
>>> ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
>>> in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
>>> every situation.
>> What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
>
> We don't know of course.
>
>>
>> It can't mean a priority over safety.  So did they all agree that it was
>> a priority over fairness?  And in which case, fairness to who?
>
> I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
>
>>
>> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
>> a SC period?  Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely
>> which lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was
>> in at the time the SC was called?
>>
>> If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up
>> SC removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
>> "following lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
>> been such an obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
>> being on the cards?
>
> Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
> perhaps it was briefed.
>
>>
>> Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
>>
>> My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
>> by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
>
> OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
>
> He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
> would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
> would come in on the same lap that that was happening.

Possibly a bit busy driving ?

geoff

On 17/12/2021 7:13 am, alister wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 06:16:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Larkin wrote:
> <snip general irrelevance>
>> It can't mean a priority over safety. So did they all agree that it was
>> a priority over fairness? And in which case, fairness to who?
>>
>> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite a SC
>> period? Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely which
>> lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was in at the
>> time the SC was called?
>
> That would be one option & covered by the current regs but open to DR
> descretion which was the cause of the problem.
>>
> <snip unkowable conjecture>
>
>> In hindsight, would the best "let them race" thing to have done be to
>> have red flagged the race and gone for either a rolling or grid
>> re-start? Or would he have had to over-rule a reg about 75% race
>> distance completion or something like that?
>
> The 75% rule does not say a race MUST be declared if a red flag occurs at
> over 75% as demonstrated in Bacu which had 1 lap remaining on restart
>
>>
>> Maybe a mandatory red flag (with clarified and equitable post-parc ferme
>> rules applied) is the best option at that stage that would simplify (as
>> well as delay, obviously) things?
>
> I was thinking along the same lines a mandatory red flag if the safety car
> is on track or required with lest than 5 laps to go. no need to change any
> of the current red flag processes.

It's not as if when the SC was called Masi thought it would likely take
fewer than 5 laps to clear crashed car and clean up any debris.

So yes, and in this case it would have been a no-brainer to red-flag it
laps earlier. Then there could have been 'racing' (to quote Masi),
instead of a farce.

geoff

On 2021-12-16 6:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 17/12/2021 6:50 am, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-12-16 9:16 a.m., Matt Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 16 December 2021 at 01:10:31 UTC, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-15 4:38 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>>   ... and BAK would presumably choose to not quote this one. Or maybe
>>>>> select one sentence out of it to quote.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXaKJgLmnM
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>> Did you miss the part where he says:
>>>>
>>>> "And actually, the teams and race directors [sic] agreed before the
>>>> race
>>>> that it would be a priority to get the race going again, should the
>>>> safety car come out late in the race." (2:36 into the video)?
>>>>
>>>> And the part where he explicitly calls out that Hamilton "g[o]t away
>>>> with corner cutting" (about 12:20).
>>>>
>>>> Just checking.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as little
>>>> ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very difficult
>>>> in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply equitably in
>>>> every situation.
>>> What did everyone mean though in terms of being "a priority".
>>
>> We don't know of course.
>>
>>>
>>> It can't mean a priority over safety.  So did they all agree that it was
>>> a priority over fairness?  And in which case, fairness to who?
>>
>> I wish we had the exact text of the discussion/agreement.
>>
>>>
>>> What could a RD do (other than what he did on Sunday) to expedite
>>> a SC period?  Fastest option is to not let lapped cars pass, surely
>>> which lets the race recommence in more or less the pattern it was
>>> in at the time the SC was called?
>>>
>>> If it was in his mind that one of the things he could do to speed up
>>> SC removal was the removal of the usual requirement to have a
>>> "following lap" after lapped car removals, surely that would have
>>> been such an obvious proposal that he would have briefed on that
>>> being on the cards?
>>
>> Given the absolute lack of any objection by Hamilton at the time,
>> perhaps it was briefed.
>>
>>>
>>> Or indeed partial removal of cars to speed things up.
>>>
>>> My expectation is that neither of those things had ever been considered
>>> by the RD or the teams until the dying laps of Sunday's race.
>>
>> OK. So why didn't Hamilton make any complaint when it was all happening.
>>
>> He was told specifically that only the cars between him and Verstappen
>> would be allowed to unlap themselves and he was told the safety car
>> would come in on the same lap that that was happening.
>
> Possibly a bit busy driving ?

Nope.

That's my point. He was fully capable of complaining about the situation
while actually full-on racing, but only did so after his last
opportunity to get back in front was gone.

While behind the safety car he was talking a lot...

....just not about the supposed "manipulation".

On 2021-12-16 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
>> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
>> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
>> equitably in every situation.
>
> Difficult, it's absolutely impossible when the RD can do what he likes
> then retrospectively reinterpret the regs on the fly in ways they were
> never intended.
>

Again, you display your omniscience.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 6:18:48 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Again, you display your omniscience.

fuck off moron

On Friday, 17 December 2021 at 01:18:48 UTC, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-16 3:42 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, I agree completely that the rules should be written with as
> >> little ambiguity as possible, but I also acknowledge that it is very
> >> difficult in any sport to write a hard and fast rule that will apply
> >> equitably in every situation.
> >
> > Difficult, it's absolutely impossible when the RD can do what he likes
> > then retrospectively reinterpret the regs on the fly in ways they were
> > never intended.
> >
> Again, you display your omniscience.
In both cockpit and RD control room, there was plenty going on.

I seriously doubt Lewis had rule 48.12 in his head when Masi set it
aside. Omniscience, maybe - but no different to your omniscience in
knowing that Lewis didn't complain about it because he was aware of
it.

In the RD control room, there should have been at least a call from
someone in there that "the rules say (or at least suggest it is normal) to
leave another lap after lapped cars have passed" with a positive
decision to choose not to apply that (using the newly discovered RD's
discretion) in the interest of getting the race going before the
flag was waved. At the moment we don't know whether that was
explicitly stated or not. The suspicion from most of the motorsport
press it seems is that it was not an explicit decision, that the decision
to restart immediately was a rushed one which failed to consider that
because of contextual pressures. I wonder if there is a "black box"
style recording of communications between the RD, the clerk of the
course, the stewards etc at the time which will give us an insight into that?

From the drivers perspective, Lewis will have known one thing - that
if Max started under SC behind him on new softs vs his old hards that
Max would have an outstanding chance of overtaking whether that was
one lap, two laps or more.

Lewis didn't even really know how many laps were left as his dash was
showing him duff info (Sky commentators posited that it was programmed
with the no of laps from last year's race?).

There was only 2 scenarios that Lewis would have likely had in his mind;
either the SC runs to the end of the race (in which case, it's a done deal)
or SC comes in and Max gets to have a go at him under a big tyre advantage.

The only uncertainty would have been about lapped car removal which is
sometimes done and sometimes not. Lewis would have been (or at least
should have been) well aware that the removal of those cars was a
possibility with discretion to be exercised by the RD as that has been seen
previously. On the final point of lapped cars getting the "following lap"
to catch up the train, I would seriously doubt that that was in his mind
though; and I don't remember Bonington referencing it either?

It didn't matter to Lewis whether only the cars between him and Max
were removed, or all the cars.