Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah

[Autumnpuma 0]

I don't give a damn if Schumacher gets disqualified for that, that was hilarious

Indeed!

[Zaz 0]

"a car slowly approaching the checkered flag under the SC conditions." What? It looked anything like Alonso was going slowly! He knew he still had to race as did all the other cars. As I've said previously, if the race was truly over, they coould all have tootled their way to the line, waving to the crowd and doing burnouts as they went. But they didn't. They all got back on the pace. They all knew that the race was NOT over until they'd crossed the line.

Did you see the race in Australia 2009? The same situation with SC on the last lap. The SC went in just at hte end of the final lap... the difference was that the marshalls kept on waving yellow flags and showing SC boards (nowhere in the rules is said about that). And the whole peloton did not go on trailing to the checkered flag... thay as well stepped on the gas and rushed along the remaining 500 meters as if they were racing again... even under the yellow.

[pabloh20 1]

Interesting! Although that could mean 4 things if I can think about this clearly at this time:

1) The Monaco race didn't actually end under the SC, the SC just happened to pit that lap and it happened to be the last lap, the track was green and racing was allowed.

2) The Monaco race did end under the SC but the marshals waved the wrong flags.

3) The Monaco race did end under the SC but the SC procedure has changed since Australia '09, and yellow flags + SC Board are no longer displayed in such a situation.

4) There is no rule relating to on track flags when a SC finish takes place, providing it is a SC finish then no matter what flags are waved drivers are not permitted to overtake as the rule states. The choice of flags is irrelevant and decided on a race by race basis (there is no written procedure about flags and SC finishes).

Looks to me like, unless the SC finish procedure has changed then the Monaco race either didn't end under a SC or the marshals displayed the wrong flag (if we follow precedent, which the FIA don't).

Aye, pretty good summary. Personally, I would say 3 has occurred.

It does beg the question though, if the car-pit radio had failed (I can't remember which team, but I seem to remember 1 of the drivers mentioning that theirs keeps failing this year) then is the driver expected to know this rule, or should it be evident from the track status, as indicated by the flags/lights, what the 'situation' is?

[Ikyrotz 0]

I think this is the most sensible interpretation. There seem to be 2 main arguments against this view: that rule 40.13 makes more sense as a definition of a SC finish than simply as instructions on what to do if one happens, and that rule 40.13 is very specific and therefore takes precedence over other considerations.

I don't find the first argument entirely convincing because the wording of 40.13 seems clear to me without needing to be read as a definition - or to put it another way, the rules offer an alternative definition of when the SC is deployed and when it is not, according to 40.11.

The other argument doesn't make much sense to me because it seems almost circular. The idea seems to be that 40.13 is more specifically about the final lap than 40.11, therefore if ever the SC pits on the last lap, it must automatically be because of 40.13 and not 40.11. That certainly doesn't follow deductively and it's not what I find the most plausible. Common sense suggests (to me at least) that the rules allow for the SC to pit for 2 different reasons on the final lap, and if you're told 'SC in this lap' then the SC is no longer deployed.

This is exactly how I interpret the rules (which is not to say it is how FIA intended them to be interpreted). If 40.13 is to take precedence, then the rule clearly should have said "If the SC is on the track on the last lap..." instead of "If the race finishes while SC is deployed....". Now, since there are rules which say what happens when SC is taken off the track (=no longer deployed), confusion arises as to what happens on the last lap if those rules (40.11) take effect. If 40.13 takes precedence, then one would assume 40.11 is not followed, and thus the lights on the SC should stay on the whole lap, and yellow flags should be shown together with SC signs. If I'm not completely off, the procedures of 40.11 are there exactly because they allow to prepare the drivers to race again. If there is no racing allowed anymore, then these procedures should not be followed. In Monaco, they were, and one can't blame MS for actually racing when opportunity came.

[pabloh20 1]

This is exactly how I interpret the rules (which is not to say it is how FIA intended them to be interpreted). If 40.13 is to take precedence, then the rule clearly should have said "If the SC is on the track on the last lap..." instead of "If the race finishes while SC is deployed....". Now, since there are rules which say what happens when SC is taken off the track (=no longer deployed), confusion arises as to what happens on the last lap if those rules (40.11) take effect. If 40.13 takes precedence, then one would assume 40.11 is not followed, and thus the lights on the SC should stay on the whole lap, and yellow flags should be shown together with SC signs. If I'm not completely off, the procedures of 40.11 are there exactly because they allow to prepare the drivers to race again. If there is no racing allowed anymore, then these procedures should not be followed. In Monaco, they were, and one can't blame MS for actually racing when opportunity came.

Good, logical assessment. I guess we shall wait and see if the FIA 'clarify' the rules after this incident.

[Max Mosley 2]

Rules as to where overtaking can normally occur has changed, thus FIA can cover their arses as to why green flags were waved in Monaco while yellow flags were waved in Aus 2009.

Don't ask me to defend the FIA's position or rules, because I think they're stupid.

Don't ask me to tell you why green flags are the best thing to wave in this circumstance, because they aren't.

I'm simply explaining how the rules have been interpreted in this instance.

It's crap, but that's the way it is.

Yes I think you raise a good point about one possible reason why green flags were waved in Monaco and not in Oz '09. But I am still not convinced. Here are some pertinent rules:

40.4 When the order is given to deploy the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED" will be displayed on the timing monitors and all marshal's posts will display waved yellow flags and "SC" boards for the duration of the intervention.

40.11 When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP" will be displayed on the timing monitors and the car's orange lights will be extinguished This will be the signal to the teams and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap.

At this point the first car in line behind the safety car may dictate the pace and, if necessary, fall more than ten car lengths behind it.

In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents before the safety car returns to the pits, from the point at which the lights on the car are turned out drivers must proceed at a pace which involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers or impede the restart.

As the safety car is approaching the pit entry the yellow flags and SC boards will be withdrawn and replaced by waved green flags with green lights at the Line. These will be displayed until the last car crosses the Line.

40.13 If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed it will enter the pit lane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking.

So as I see it, this new argument is that whenever the SC enters the pitlane, the actions described in rule 40.11 are carried out, even if the SC is pitting due to rule 40.13. This interpretation of the rules would fit with what actually happened but I don't think it's the most sensible way to understand the rules as they're written, or as the sport has behaved in the past. What interests me here is not whether one team guessed the intended interpretation but rather what a reasonable person would conclude from the way the rules are written.

It's not at all obvious to me that 40.11 comes into play when the SC pits according to 40.13. The wording of 40.11 begins: "When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car...", so it appears to be talking about a different situation. Yes I know you can argue that technically maybe 40.13 implies that it's somehow "safe" to pit the safety car even though it's a SC finish etc, and that maybe the clerk of the course has made a "decision" even though the SC was coming in because of rule 40.13 rather than track conditions and despite still sending the message "track clear", and that maybe the SC is still "deployed" even though it was "safe to call it in" etc etc but to me this seems even more tenuous than this interpretation already was.

Moreover, rule 40.4 suggests instead that yellows and SC boards will be displayed whenever there is a SC intervention. If, as in rule 40.13, "the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed" then you could argue technically the procedure in 40.4 rather than 40.11 should be followed because there is still an "intervention" whereas race control has not really decided it's "safe" to bring in the SC.

I'd still like to know whether in Oz '09 teams received the messages 'SC in this lap' and 'track clear' because the rule changes shouldn't affect those instructions as far as I can see.

And one other thought occurs, which is that can't you argue that the obvious ambiguity in the rules suggests to a reasonable person that you're not supposed to read too much into rule 40.13. If they wanted to say what others think they did then they should have made it clearer. They could have written "if the SC is deployed at the start of the final lap, it will pit at the end of the lap and competitors will continue as normal without overtaking".

This is exactly how I interpret the rules (which is not to say it is how FIA intended them to be interpreted). If 40.13 is to take precedence, then the rule clearly should have said "If the SC is on the track on the last lap..." instead of "If the race finishes while SC is deployed....". Now, since there are rules which say what happens when SC is taken off the track (=no longer deployed), confusion arises as to what happens on the last lap if those rules (40.11) take effect. If 40.13 takes precedence, then one would assume 40.11 is not followed, and thus the lights on the SC should stay on the whole lap, and yellow flags should be shown together with SC signs. If I'm not completely off, the procedures of 40.11 are there exactly because they allow to prepare the drivers to race again. If there is no racing allowed anymore, then these procedures should not be followed. In Monaco, they were, and one can't blame MS for actually racing when opportunity came.

Yes, exactly what I think!

[pabloh20 1]

Yes I think you raise a good point about one possible reason why green flags were waved in Monaco and not in Oz '09. But I am still not convinced. Here are some pertinent rules:

So as I see it, this new argument is that whenever the SC enters the pitlane, the actions described in rule 40.11 are carried out, even if the SC is pitting due to rule 40.13. This interpretation of the rules would fit with what actually happened but I don't think it's the most sensible way to understand the rules as they're written, or as the sport has behaved in the past. What interests me here is not whether one team guessed the intended interpretation but rather what a reasonable person would conclude from the way the rules are written.

It's not at all obvious to me that 40.11 comes into play when the SC pits according to 40.13. The wording of 40.11 begins: "When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car...", so it appears to be talking about a different situation. Yes I know you can argue that technically maybe 40.13 implies that it's somehow "safe" to pit the safety car even though it's a SC finish etc, and that maybe the clerk of the course has made a "decision" even though the SC was coming in because of rule 40.13 rather than track conditions and despite still sending the message "track clear", and that maybe the SC is still "deployed" even though it was "safe to call it in" etc etc but to me this seems even more tenuous than this interpretation already was.

Moreover, rule 40.4 suggests instead that yellows and SC boards will be displayed whenever there is a SC intervention. If, as in rule 40.13, "the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed" then you could argue technically the procedure in 40.4 rather than 40.11 should be followed because there is still an "intervention" whereas race control has not really decided it's "safe" to bring in the SC.

I'd still like to know whether in Oz '09 teams received the messages 'SC in this lap' and 'track clear' because the rule changes shouldn't affect those instructions as far as I can see.

And one other thought occurs, which is that can't you argue that the obvious ambiguity in the rules suggests to a reasonable person that you're not supposed to read too much into rule 40.13. If they wanted to say what others think they did then they should have made it clearer. They could have written "if the SC is deployed at the start of the final lap, it will pit at the end of the lap and competitors will continue as normal without overtaking".

I am not sure if you have had chance to see some of the previous posts, but Tommy posted a videoe of the Oz finish and yellow flags/SC sign were still being displayed as they crossed the line. However, you couldn't overtake until the start/finish line then, so it may not be entirely conclusive.

You have raised a very good point, though, Muzza. If it was a SC finish, that would suggest the track still wasn't clear and so the track status should not have been green. Green flags at the very least suggest the track is clear, even if it doesn't mean that cars are allowed to overtake. It would seem that the track had the wrong status.

[cavallino 2]

Green flags at the very least suggest the track is clear, even if it doesn't mean that cars are allowed to overtake. It would seem that the track had the wrong status.

Since we are going over the same things again, I will repost what I said two days ago This is why penalizing a driver for overtaking under green flags is a bad bad bad precedent:

By having the signals for safety car conditions - waved yellows, 'SC' boards, yellow lights, like in the picture of Australia 2009 that I posted. As soon as they announce the safety car, the race is under 'safety car conditions', even though it obviously take a minute for the car to drive out onto the track. However, none of those indications were there at the end of the race, instead we had green lights everywhere.

It's bloody ridiculous - the radio is a fallback, and they fail all the time, in fact Schumacher had radio issues just before the race start. YOU CANNOT depend on the driver to know which lap they're on through radio. That's why we have flags/ coloured signals. Green - free to race. Yellow - caution, no overttaking. Double waved yellow - go really slow or something. Yellow/ Red (?) oil on track. Black flag - DQ, stop immediately. Red Flag - race stopped. Chequered flag - race over. These are signals for racing drivers that they can read even at 300kph, and now they get them on their steering wheel dashboard. Now with this judgement they are making a mockery of it. Schumacher is supposed to know it's the last lap and therefore he cannot overtake even though there are green flags everywhere? F$%k you FIA.

[pabloh20 1]

Since we are going over the same things again, I will repost what I said two days ago This is why penalizing a driver for overtaking under green flags is a bad bad bad precedent:

I agreed with you in essence 2 days ago and have questioned that conclusion over the last couple of days. I still agree it's a dangerous precedent that they could be setting.

However, green flag does not mean it's ok to overtake, if you have a look at the rules. It simply means the track is clear, as somebody pointed out earlier in the discussion, which means the track status was wrong.

Oh and we are allowed to discuss these things

[cavallino 2]

However, green flag does not mean it's ok to overtake, if you have a look at the rules. It simply means the track is clear, as somebody pointed out earlier in the discussion, which means the track status was wrong.

Green flag means precisely that. Or as the driver, are you then supposed to wait for the overtaking flag? What does the overtaking flag look like? A photo of Max's bare arse would do - easily recognisable even at 300kph since we spent months looking at it again and again.

Green flag means end of yellow flag restrictions. It means: http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/F1_faqs/2003/f1_faqs.html

The green flag indicates the end of the danger and the ban on overtaking

[Zaz 0]

This is exactly how I interpret the rules (which is not to say it is how FIA intended them to be interpreted). If 40.13 is to take precedence, then the rule clearly should have said "If the SC is on the track on the last lap..." instead of "If the race finishes while SC is deployed....". Now, since there are rules which say what happens when SC is taken off the track (=no longer deployed), confusion arises as to what happens on the last lap if those rules (40.11) take effect. If 40.13 takes precedence, then one would assume 40.11 is not followed, and thus the lights on the SC should stay on the whole lap, and yellow flags should be shown together with SC signs. If I'm not completely off, the procedures of 40.11 are there exactly because they allow to prepare the drivers to race again. If there is no racing allowed anymore, then these procedures should not be followed. In Monaco, they were, and one can't blame MS for actually racing when opportunity came.

I think the rules specified in 40.11 and 40.13 interract between each other. Or FIA thinks so. In 40.11 when they say in the last sentences that the yellow is to be replaced by the green they do not say that there is to be a race again. So whenever the SC goes in the yellow is to be replaced with the green. And since they specify that the SC is to go in at the end of the final lap and the cars are to finish the race without overtaking... anyway the green should be there when the SC goes in according to 40.11.

[AleHop 0]

The FIA changed one rule and neglected to realise how it would affect another previous rule (hence the confusion).

It appears that a body of highly paid fools (FIA) have between them, failed to think things through (again).

Could it not be like tennis? The same f*cking set of rules year after year?

At least SC rules, please.

[yurp 0]

Green flag means end of yellow flag restrictions. It means: http://www.fia.com/m...03/f1_faqs.html

The green flag indicates the end of the danger and the ban on overtaking.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you here Cav - but it's only fair to mention that that comes from the FAQ (not the rule book) and was also scribed back in April 2002.

It's still a worthy addition to the debate though - It clearly states that the FIA held the opinion that a Green flag means an end to overtaking restrictions at least up until 2002.

If they now insist that it only means 'track is clear', we should ask...

a ) was that always the case and their FAQ is wrong?

b ) does that contradict the rule book itself?

and

c ) did they change their definition of a green flag in last few years? and if so, did they tell anyone?

if the answers are all 'no', then they're in a pickle with conflicting statements - which wouldn't be a new thing.

[yurp 0]

Could it not be like tennis? The same f*cking set of rules year after year?

At least SC rules, please.

Agreed.

I think my view on rules are fairly well known - see my signature - simple is good.

Yellow flag and SC rules were fine, I don't know why they made this change to 'overtaking after first SC line' - what was wrong with the Start-finish line anyhow?

[pabloh20 1]

Green flag means precisely that. Or as the driver, are you then supposed to wait for the overtaking flag? What does the overtaking flag look like? A photo of Max's bare arse would do - easily recognisable even at 300kph since we spent months looking at it again and again.

Green flag means end of yellow flag restrictions. It means: http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/F1_faqs/2003/f1_faqs.html

No, the green flag doesn't stipulate that -

Indeed, according to 40.11 -

As the safety car is approaching the pit entry the yellow flags and SC boards will be withdrawn and replaced by waved green flags with green lights at the Line. These will be displayed until the last car crosses the Line.

And from Appendix H to the International Sporting Code -

2.4.5.1 f) Green flag

This should be used to indicate that the track is clear: it

should be waved at the marshal post immediately after

the incident that necessitated the use of one or more

yellow flags.

It may also be used, if deemed necessary by the Clerk of

the Course, to signal the start of a warm-up lap or the start

of a practice session.

So for this situation, the green flag means the SC is coming in and the track is clear.

I am agreeing with you, Cav. Even if the rules turn out to be 'right' and the green flags should have been waved in this situation (end of Monaco race), I don't think it's a very logical rule(s).

[LabradoRacer 2]

What does the overtaking flag look like? A photo of Max's bare arse would do - easily recognisable even at 300kph since we spent months looking at it again and again.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

[AleHop 0]

Yellow flag and SC rules were fine, I don't know why they made this change to 'overtaking after first SC line' - what was wrong with the Start-finish line anyhow?

For some reason the FIA have been messing with the SC rules in the last years. Remember the pit-lane close rule which they changed back to normal a couple of seasons later.

[LabradoRacer 2]

Bummer. Merc has officially decided to withdraw the appeal. Shucks, they could have easily won or at least heavily embarrassed the FIA nabobs.

Hope this angers Schumi to greater heights.

[Quiet One 15]

http://www.totalf1.com/full_story/view/340693/Mercedes_withdraws_appeal_over_Schumacher_penalty/

MGP withdraws appeal, recognize that they failed to understand how rule 40.13 work, said that it is confusing on how it interacts with the other rules (40.11 and 40.4) and got a promise from FIA to clarify it in the future. They also stated that they don't think Damon Hill was the culprit here.

But...what do they know? Guys at MGP are just a bunch of Alonso Blind fanbois, after all.

[Medilloni 6]

Bummer. Merc has officially decided to withdraw the appeal. Shucks, they could have easily won or at least heavily embarrassed the FIA nabobs.

Hope this angers Schumi to greater heights.

Obviously, they realised that the rule was clear as a bell. Not.

Interesting that they've tried to calm down the Hill vs Schumi garbage (source, Autosport)

"Mercedes GP would like to emphasise that we fully support the inclusion of past drivers on the stewards' panel and are completely satisfied that the Monaco Grand Prix stewards acted professionally, impartially and properly in this matter...."

[cavallino 2]

http://www.totalf1.com/full_story/view/340693/Mercedes_withdraws_appeal_over_Schumacher_penalty/

MGP withdraws appeal, recognize that they failed to understand how rule 40.13 work,

No they didn't say that, they said there are different interpretations.

This was expected, and even after the race and in the post race comments you can tell that Norbert Haug was already cautious about pursuing the appeal. You pick your fights, you don't fight for 6th place for the 9th place driver in the championship if you're a big team.

[Autumnpuma 0]

No they didn't say that, they said there are different interpretations.

This was expected, and even after the race and in the post race comments you can tell that Norbert Haug was already cautious about pursuing the appeal. You pick your fights, you don't fight for 6th place for the 9th place driver in the championship if you're a big team.

There were many incorrect decisions on Sunday.

[AleHop 0]

There were many incorrect decisions on Sunday.

Apparently one of them was Brawn's.

[JHS 1]

Damn, Mercedes not gonna appeal? From where I was sitting it sounded like they had a pretty sound argument.

[LabradoRacer 2]

Apparently one of them was Brawn's.

I don't agree, but still funny Smart Alex!