[Closed] Ferrari may appeal the World Title

total bbc non story. the incident was played live on SKY was briefly discussed where it was agreed that if the flags were yellow the race stewards would deal with any infringement.
it was later confirmed that the flags were infact yellow and red ( slippy surface) and perfectly acceptable to pass under..
next up the bbc will be telling us that jimmy saville may have been up to no good..

Lights are issued from race control and will be correct. Flags have an added element of dopey Marshall

A) That's not Vettel's problem is it?

B) According to the FIA, all lights must have repeaters that inform each marshall post of their status.

total bbc non story. the incident was played live on SKY was briefly discussed where it was agreed that if the flags were yellow the race stewards would deal with any infringement.

total bbc non story. the incident was played live on SKY was briefly discussed where it was agreed that if the flags were yellow the race stewards would deal with any infringement.

Well, if SKY says it's true, it must be true.

Two different incidents, red/yellow flag was on Kobiashi, suspect yellow was on a Torro Rosso.

Or blue

Warns a driver that he is about to be lapped and to let the faster car overtake. Pass three blue flags without complying and the driver risks being penalised. Blue lights are also displayed at the end of the pit lane when the pit exit is open and a car on track is approaching.

Edit: I know it says light but it could also mean flag...perhaps

Were any of the drivers involved about to be lapped?

Nearly 2 pages and no one has complained about the American style usage of 'appeal' in the thread title.
🙂

Did that Torro Rosso slow down ? Perhaps with a problem ??

Alonso is so overrated by people on here. His car wasn't nearly as bad as has been made out and since the fragile Massa has had his contract renewed Alonso hasn't been able to get hear him. Without all the mechanicals and people driving into him Hamilton would have walked the championship.

This very dull video shows three incidents. The last of which seem to be a clear violation.

Were any of the drivers involved about to be lapped?

No, however that Marshall post is at the end of the pit lane where you re- join the track.

...travelling circus cum farce...

I think I've got that DVD.

Post of the week.

Good spot Sam.
Also, to take up landcruiser's point, s it only 'overtaking' which is forbidden or 'passing?' Two very different things, one a risky move to force your way passed another car, the other might be a compliant car just getting out of the way.

Overtaking = Passing, classed as the same thing.

It's an irritating technicality. Would Vettel have been able to pass the Torro Rosso if there had been no flag, yes he had the pace advantage. So I don't feel it would have influenced the overall outcome of the race.

How may people arguing over this are doing 50 by the time they pass the 50 sign as opposed to getting to 50 after passing the sign.

He was in sight of the green and good to go in my clearly valueless opinion 🙂

toby1 - Member
It's an irritating technicality. Would Vettel have been able to pass the Torro Rosso if there had been no flag, yes he had the pace advantage. So I don't feel it would have influenced the overall outcome of the race.

It's not a technicality though, it's a hard and fast rule.... it's set in stone in all forms of motorsport...

"DO NOT PASS UNDER A YELLOW"

It's only when you have been there and had a rider of a Superbike sprawled across the track and you realise he was on the racing line, you'd have hit him if you'd gone for the overtake on the other rider. Situations like these (from back in my racing days) highlight that no overtaking/passing under a yellow is there for a VERY good reason... it's not just because the marshalls are bored, it's because potentially there's a danger to someone somewhere out on track near that particular section.

LOL at all the Ferrari/Alonso bashers. If the situation was reversed do you really think RedBull would just say "Oh well they talked about it on Sky(*) and said it was OK, so that's the end of it".

(*) Yeah I know it's not actually the same incident, and probably is OK anyway.

I dont/didn't want either of em to win he title but I have to say that the "boring video" that ampthill posted, clearly shows a rule infringement.
In my opinion Ferrari have a case.

the American style usage of 'appeal' in the thread title.

Edit: oh, now I see what I think you mean...

It's vital that consistency is applied - no matter how marginal the rule contravention is.

Ferrari were penalised just because a little seal broke on Massa's gearbox the other week, even though it probably just caught on something and they never even needed to do any work on it.

So it would hardly be fair to let Vettel off even if what he did was accidental would it now.

TGA agree about consistency, but let's be clear about the Ferrari seal. A deliberate breaking of a seal to (self) impose an infringement with the sole intention of benefiting Alonso's title chances. Without cheating (in effect and note EJs comments on doing it again at Interlagos) Alonso's title hopes were gone before Brazil. If he won know it would be a very hollow victory IMO

#whoosh.... I think he might have been being a little tongue in cheek there teamhurtmore

regarding the hitting 50 before the 50 signs, I got caught on this by a copper hiding behind a tree. Cue a deserved £60 fine and three points.

kb - surely we appeal for, against or to something or someone? 🙂

Appeal on it's own is just wrong. 🙁

Pook/TGA - oops!!! 😳

It may not be the KK or JEV overtakes late in the race that are causing the speculation

starts about 10 mins in

I imagine the finger pointer will dislike having fingers pointed on this occasion.

Sorry this should have been raised whilst they still at the race. Sad though it may be as Hamo has been ****ed over soo many times by the rules post-races.

Would Alonso want to win this way? I hope not. However if rules are rules they should be followed. Otherwise why not let Hamo off when he was penalised to the book.

I hope nothing comes of it TBH

Technically, the deadline for protests is 23:59 tomorrow, so we'll see

Well that's clearly a pass under yellow in that video jota posted

Unless someone can explain why not?

Unless someone can explain why not?

Because there's a green flag waving from a marshalling post at the pit exit.

[img] [/img]

and at around 35-37 sec in this video

They should drop the 20sec post-race penalty IMO. If he had it during the race he might have driven even faster/adjusted his strategy so to do it when he can't counter/adjust is unfair IMO.

Ah, I couldn't see it. Only that his dashboard was showing yellow and "FLAG"

So that's KK and JEV passes cleared as OK...what was the third in the boring video seeing as though it's now removed?

Think that green flag above was the lap before. Surely the yellow trackside lights that he passed only seconds before overtaking supersede that. His dash light was yellow as well.

Maybe he just made a mistake having seen the green ahead.

I think he's the better driver myself but unless it can be established that he wasn't in a yellow zone at the point of that pass, he should be penalised.

His dash light was yellow as well.

Dash lights are supplementary and not binding. Surely if there's any doubt about whether the marshal had a green flag or not, he shouldn't be penalised. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Think that green flag above was the lap before

Agreed, Vettel didn't pass JEV [the 1st time] until lap 4

kb - surely we appeal for, against or to something or someone?

Appeal on it's own is just wrong.

The article actually goes on to say that the FIA are required to investigate whether there is an appeal or not.

If he passed under yellow, he should not be WDC.

Game over.
[url= http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104644 ]http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104644[/url]

Good

I think it's good too that Ferrari have the right to ask questions if they feel a rule has been broken.

it was always going to be a non entity because if Ferrari lodged its appeal, then RBR would simply have told the FIA to withdraw webber from the race results and a made up infringement that was not covered in the post race inspection (i.e. they changed his car setup on the start line before the race) and RBR would have taken a 10,000EU fine and still won the title.

it would have plunged F1 into yet another "shoot itself in the foot" controversy showing it was far more concerned about minor tiny rule following and post-race infringements that the sport itself.

personally there should be a simple rule change that would state if the stewards didnt see it or report it during the race, then it cannot be brought up otherwise.

Roady-tony - would you apply the same thinking to other sports eg goal-line technology, hawk-eye etc? (Genuine question BTW!)

But....
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20541589 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20541589[/url]
The beast lives on............... 😆

The FIA confirmed to AUTOSPORT that no team had asked for a review of the incident.

Roady-tony - would you apply the same thinking to other sports eg goal-line technology, hawk-eye etc?

I would, if the refs or stewards etc. miss something and no one else brings it up immediately for clarification, that should be it.
It should always be about the spectacle and not decided in a court or committee room days or weeks later