Hamilton penalty: The trial (Poll)
Lewis Hamilton will be in Paris tomorrow to appeal against his Belgian GP penalty
Lewis Hamilton’s penalty in the Belgian Grand Prix has provoked unprecedented levels of debate and discussion on F1 Fanatic – nearly 900 comments spread across four articles.
Tomorrow the World Motor Sports Council meets to pass judgement on McLaren’s appeal against the penalty. Will they change the stewards’ verdict? Will the penalty be decided on a technicality? Here’s a look at what to expect from the trial – plus a vote on what the outcome should be.
An unusual appeal
It’s very rare to see an appeal about a stewards’ verdict on a racing matter to be the subject of an appeal. The majority of recent hearings have concerned technical infringements and other matters, such as ‘spygate’.
McLaren’s track record
However appeals brought by or concerning McLaren are much more common. And their track record is… not good:
May 30th, 2007: FIA investigate McLaren for allegedly using team orders to keep Lewis Hamilton behind Fernando Alonso in the Monaco Grand Prix. McLaren found not guilty.
July 26th, 2007: FIA investigate McLaren after Ferrari accuses them of illegally using their intellectual property. FIA does not punish McLaren, but…
September 13th, 2007: Ferrari appeal against McLaren’s spygate case victory. McLaren fined $100m and have their constructors’ championship points confiscated, for bringing the sport into disrepute.
November 16th, 2007: McLaren appeal against Williams and BMW for using fuel of an illegal temperature during the Brazilian Grand Prix. FIA decides the appeal is inadmissible.
December 12th, 2007: McLaren appeal against Renault for using confidential McLaren information. Renault found guilty but no penalty imposed.
The rules
There were similar recriminations after Klien was passed by Alonso at Suzuka in 2005
As has been discussed at length elsewhere, there is no written rule that states ‘a driver who overtakes a rival by cutting a corner must let their rival past and not overtake them at the following corner.” If there was, this matter would be a lot simpler!
Hamilton was originally punished under Appendix L to the International Sporting Code (Chapter IV, Article 2.g) which reads:
The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.
See the Sporting Regulations and International Sporting Code for more.
But of course, not every driver who goes off the track gets a 25-second penalty. Therefore, we have to look at past precedent to understand what a driver is expected to do if they go off the track.
Precedent
I don’t know of any past instances where a driver has passed another by cutting a chicane, given the place back, re-taken the place at the next corner, and subsequently been given a 25 second penalty.
The closest example to this I can think of was when Fernando Alonso passed Christian Klien by cutting the chicane at Suzuka in 2005. Alonso gave the place back, but then passed Klien at the next corner. He was initially instructed to give the place back, but the stewards then changed their minds and decided he didn’t have to (although by the time they got around to telling Renault, Alonso had already conded the place back to Klien).
This example is discussed in detail here and based on that it seems McLaren were expecting race control to tell them if they needed to give the place back to Raikkonen.
Since the Spa incident the FIA has issued a ‘clarification’ stating:
Drivers [have been] informed that in the event of a driver cutting a chicane and gaining a position, he not only [has] to give that place back but should also wait for another corner before he [can] attempt to retake it.
A crucial point of the hearing will be whether this instruction has been communicated to the drivers before. There does not appear to be any precedent which indicates it has (though as ever if you know of one please post details in the comments). Mosley seems to think there is (emphasis added):
The primary mistake in my view was the team’s. The team should have decided on precedent, and from everything they know, what advice to give [Hamilton]. I’m not going to express an opinion but the correct procedure was for the team to decide what to tell their driver.
Will the appeal be decided on a ‘technicality’?
Jarno Trulli got off on a technicality in 2001
Many appeals to the FIA end up being dismissed on technicalities. Most recently, the FIA threw out McLaren’s appeal against BMW and Williams on a technicality after waiting 25 days to hear the case despite the drivers’ title depending on the result of it.
In 2001 Jordan won its appeal against Jarno Trulli’s disqualification from the United States Grand Prix by showing that one of the stewards’ signatures was missing from the official text of the original decision.
A frivolous appeal?
The FIA can throw out appeals it considers “frivolous”. Max Mosley’s reaction to the appeal suggests this outcome is not out of the question:
My immediate reaction was this is going to waste a great deal of everybody’s time. Which is true, it’s what always happens. A tiny incident and it takes up hours of your time.
Writing in the Autosport Journal (sub. req.), Tony Dodgins argued why the FIA might throw the appeal out as ‘frivolous’:
An appeal court might conclude that in light of the Alonso precedent, McLaren’s appeal is actually frivolous.
However, Dodgins’ description of the ‘Alonso precedent’ appears to overlook the fact the stewards eventually told Alonso he didn’t need to give the place back. (Details here).
On one of the last occasions I can recall a penalty like this being a subject of an appeal, the FIA increased the penalty to the driver concerned. Eddie Irvine was originally given a one-race ban for his part in a crash in the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, but after his appeal the ban was extended to three races, because the FIA deemed the appeal ‘frivolous’.
Admissibility
Just as with the Williams/BMW fuel protest last year, there are questions over whether McLaren can appeal against the penalty. Hamilton’s 25-second penalty was served instead of a drive-through penalty because the infringement occurred so late in the race. Drive-though penalties during races cannot be appealed.
I’ve had a look at the regulations and I can’t find a part that says why McLaren’s appeal would be inadmissible. (See the links to the regulations above if you want to have a look).
The role of Charlie Whiting
McLaren has pointed out that it twice asked race director Charlie Whiting whether Hamilton had done enough to cede the place back to Raikkonen, and Whiting twice affirmed they had. Mosley had the following to say about that:
I think there were two mistakes made there. One is that McLaren should not have asked Charlie. The second is that he should not have answered. [...] Charlie is in one of the most high-pressured situations and in that situation the teams should not answer him and he should not answer them because he is not in a position to give even the beginnings of a considered opinion. So there were two mistakes made. [...] What I think Charlie said was: ‘I think it was OK’. At least that’s what I’ve been told. I’m not there and that will be for the court to decide. It’s all going to the court of appeal and it’s all open to the press.
The role of Whiting in the matter is a debatable point. Clearly in 2005 race control were involved in instructing Alonso whether to give the position back to Klien or not, which is presumably why McLaren wanted to clear the move with Whiting.
The Mosley factor
Mosley has been scathing of the coverage the incident has received in Britain. His relationship with his home nation’s press has already been tarnished this year after revelations about his participation in sadomasochistic sex orgies. Will this colour his view on whether Hamilton should get a penalty?
There is debate over what role Mosley plays in taking decisions to begin with. At Spa the stewards that decided to penalise Hamilton were Nicholas Deschaux, Surinder Thatthi and Yves Bacquelaine. Their positions are filled by different people at each race weekend.
However the only steward that asked Hamilton any questions during the deliberations was Alan Donnelly, the FIA’s representative who attends every race meeting. Questions are being asked about how close the communication was between Donnelly and Mosley, and Donnelly’s suitability for such a role given his past work for another team.
If noting else, the appeal might at least serve as a starting point for a debate on whether F1′s racing rules should be written down properly, instead of leaving them to unclear and often contradictory ‘precedents’ and poorly-communicated ‘clarifications’. Drivers and fans alike deserve better.
The poll
What SHOULD be the outcome of Hamilton's appeal
- Hamilton should receive a lighter penalty (14%)
- Hamilton should receive a harsher penalty (7%)
- Hamilton should receive no penalty (56%)
- The FIA should throw out the appeal (23%)
Total Voters: 693
Loading ...The hearing starts at 10am tomorrow (Monday).
Shashi said on 21st September 2008, 20:02
Its simple logic I think:
If the rules were clear enough, they didn’t need to be revised or clarified.
If the rules were clarified, the FIA has admitted that they were not clear.
That means the FIA penalized Lewis on the basis of a rule that wasn’t clear.
If a rule for the relevant incident *existed*, a new rule didn’t need to be created.
If a new rule was created, the FIA has admitted that the a rule for the relevant incident didn’t exist.
That means the FIA penalized Lewis on the basis of a rule that didn’t exist.
In other words, the FIA has penalized Lewis on the basis of rules that *it has admitted* were either not clear or didn’t exist.
I don’t see why the appeal would be unsuccessful (other than conspiracy theory nonsense).
Chalky said on 21st September 2008, 20:47
What I think will happen is that the FIA will throw out the appeal. What grounds? Well deciding championships in a courtroom is bad for the sport. You’d think they’d learnt that from last season. :)
BTW – I don’t agree with the penalty, but I even more strongly disagree to changing things in courtrooms weeks after a race. Bad \ ambigious decisions happen in all sports and we just have to accept it.
Right or Wrong, that’s my hunch.
Next season a better steward system may come from all of this. One perhaps that works so that the fans see the result on the track.
S Hughes said on 21st September 2008, 20:49
Shashi, I wish Lewis and McLaren had you on their legal team.
Oliver said on 21st September 2008, 20:54
Micheal Counsell #15
Nakajima was nowhere near Kimi and Lewis, it was Rosberg. Secondly, there was no accepted way of handing back the lead established prior to that incident.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 21st September 2008, 20:58
Boui – neither, hence the confusion. There’s nothing written down beyond ‘don’t go off the track’ and the precedent isn’t clear.
S Hughes said on 21st September 2008, 20:59
Chalky, but we DID see the result on the track. I actually strongly disagree with deciding championships in a backroom by anonymous, vaguely qualified officials. I would rather they were decided on the track as in Spa 2008. Lewis won, fair and square.
Steven Roy said on 21st September 2008, 22:54
Clearly the appeal should be upheld and the penalty rescinded. Other drivers left the track, gained an advantage and did not give it back but were not punished. Kimi went off three times and gained distance/time if not a position each time. Twice at La Source and once at Blanchimont.
Current drivers say the penalty should stand. Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Charlie Whiting (at the time) and Cesare Fiorio said it was wrong. Cesare Fiorio who was sporting director of Ferrari (and therefore cannot be regarded as pro-Hamilton) was live on Italian TV at the time and was absolutely incensed by the penalty.
The problem is I can’t see Max and the acolytes doing anything but upholding the penalty and possibly adding to it. You also have to question(again) why the best time for this to happen is when everyone involved from McLaren should be many thousand miles away. I remember Jacques Villeneuve in a similar situation having to fly twice across the Atlantic for a similar hearing.
I haven’t posted this here before although I have put it on other sites. Anyone wo thinks the clarification is a good idea does not understand the implications of it. Imagine Monza had dried up enough so that towards the end of the race the usual suspects were in the podium positions. For the sake of argument Heikki is leading with the wrong tyres and is 10 seconds off the pace. Felipe is second and closing fast and Lewis is running at the same pace as Massa but 2 seconds behind. We are on the last lap approaching Ascari Massa decides he wants to pass Kovalainen before it to prevent Hamilton getting too close. He tries to make the move but to avoid a collision he has to take to the escape road. Under the rules that applied until that incident at Spa all he would have to do is drop behind Kovi. Only an inch or two would be enough and then attack again. Now he has to sit behind him all the way down the back straight and all the way round Parabolica. Hamilton is simply going to arrive and fly past with Massa unable to do anything about it. Imagine a late safety car. THe guy in second could end up last for having the nerve to try an overtaking move.
Still think the clarified rule is a good idea?
Tengil said on 21st September 2008, 22:56
The question for me is whether the appeal is ruled admissable. If it is, I think the ruling will be overturned.
Kimi was just timid on the breaks and tried to block Lewis who dived inside. I expect they will gleefully throw it out on a technicality though.
There is a thing called Jante Law: “Don’t think you’re anyone special or that you’re better than us.” that can explain lots of peoples attitudes towards Lewis imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law
bernification said on 21st September 2008, 23:49
I’m of the opinion that the penalty should be rescinded, but there is absolutely no way it will.
Max will have it thrown out and give Mclaren a steeper punishment, for daring to question his absolute rule.
Could that man be anymore condescending?
Oddball said on 21st September 2008, 23:53
@Jonesracing82
I have been to Spa more than ten times, which obviously must be more than ten times more than you; La Source is turn#1 – Les Combes is turn#7!
And if you don’t believe me… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_de_Spa-Francorchamps
the limit said on 22nd September 2008, 3:50
To be quite honest, I am fed up with lawyers and courts deciding Formula One world championships, so by nature I am very sceptical of tomorrow’s outcome.
The whole appeal process, for me atleast, pours salt on an already open wound for the sport. If the FIA are to be believed, Lewis Hamilton broke the rules at Spa and was duly punished, end of conversation.
If their judgement, and rulings, are so sacred and beyond reproach, why bother with an appeal at all? Is it going to reinstate Hamilton as the winner of the Belgium Grands Prix, I doubt it? Is it going to save the sport face? I doubt that also.
Just another excuse for certain people who will remain nameless to get their faces in the papers, this time with their clothes on I hope!
Mick said on 22nd September 2008, 7:58
Hi Alianora. Was the alternative really to crash into Raikkonen? I’m not convinced of that. I think if there was a wall there, Hamilton would merely have braked and flat spotted his tyres. But that’s not the point. I still believe that he gained an advantage as he wouldn’t have been that close had he not cut the chicane. In saying that, I believe the penalty was harsh and should only be 10 seconds or a grid drop, which means he gets his win back. But, my gut feeling is that the apeal will be thrown out.
Jonesracing82 said on 22nd September 2008, 8:11
@ oddball!
i do know the circuit very well, but thx for checking!
i call eau rouge the turn after la source, that lil’ right kink down the hill to eau rouge is hardly a corner!
also, that right kink, just after eau rouge isnt a ‘corner’ either!
having said that, i really cbf arguing about ‘what constitutes a corner’
DG said on 22nd September 2008, 8:28
OK, so what is Old Charlies role at a GP then? I thought as ‘Race Director’ he was there to make the whole thing run smoothly, and maybe ensure all the Marshalls are awake? (no offence meant to the Marshalls)
But going by this year, all he appears to be there for is to a) allow some dubious C-list celebs into the Pit Lane, press the little ‘Go’ button, and make sure there aren’t any stray dogs on the track….
Or is his role more of a Film Director? Make sure theres no overtaking during the adverts, keep the Pit Lane clear of other cars when Ferrari are in, top up the C-listers martinis, talk to the Safety Car…..
Jonesracing82 said on 22nd September 2008, 8:39
good point there DG!
i always thought hos role was to do with this kind of thing, almost like “clerk of the course” as we have here in oz!