The rules of the game.

DeVore

The F1 debacle is interesting in that it highlights an interesting point.

I've been a games player of one sort or the other for all of my life as long as I can recall. If it wasnt Chess at a young age it was battle sims or Gaelcon or online games etc.

In all of them you push as hard as you can within the limit of the rules set down. In the best games the rules allow you to be creative to come up with new strategies and tactics which might express your personality.

Imagine Monopoly, we've all played it, the idea is to have the most cash at the end right? So you should just reach over and take a load of cash from the bank, right?
No, the idea is to willingly constrain yourself within a set of rules and *THEN* end up with the most money.

The fun lies in pushing the rules to their limit and yet not breaking them.

The whole Ferrari thing has people up in arms yet its a common tactic in cycling, sailing etc. People are booing Ferrari but I dunno, its either in the rules or its not... blame the people who wrote/enfoce the rules for not being clear I say.

DeV.

chernobyl

Jesus, it is in the rules.

48) If in the opinion of the Formula One Commission a competitor fails to operate his team in a manner
compatible with the standards of the Championship or in any way brings the Championship into disrepute, the
FIA may exclude such competitor from the Championship forthwith

This rule was invented after the DC/MH switcheroo.
Fine F1 is a money driven business but the $hit that happens on the track is "sport" not pro wrestling.
No one has the right to dictate or script the out come of a race.
The decision for Rubens to move aside was made Sunday morning not openly, but Todd and Brawn would already have decided that if on the last lap there was 1/2 for Rubens and Michael respectively that .....

The guys knew they had broken the rules, they were caught on TV doing it last year (you can check that in my sig) but this time they were very sly about it.

Trojan

Agreed, I don't think there's much to discuss there, I blame F1 for what's happened, particularly their ambigious stance on the competition law.

Al.

Trojan

Originally posted by chernobyl
Jesus, it is in the rules.

48) If in the opinion of the Formula One Commission a competitor fails to operate his team in a manner compatible with the standards of the Championship or in any way brings the Championship into disrepute, the FIA may exclude such competitor from the Championship forthwith
This rule was invented after the DC/MH switcheroo.

That's a different rule, and subject to interpretation - it might be difficult to prove that they brought the "Championship into disrepute" by their actions on the last lap.

However, ironically, it's much more likely that they brought the "Championship into disrepute" by their actions on the podium, which is what M$ may get banned for. Ironic, or wha?!

Al.

Dont be at yourself

I don't think the issue should be if it adhered to the rules or not, but rather if it was the sporting thing to do.

I don't think you can blame the FIA on this. If there were no murder laws, would we blame the murderer or the government? I know who'd I'd blame.

chernobyl

Trojan, yes the rule is subject to interpretation but F1 cannot absorb the wrath of an annoyed fan base.
As much as F1 team chiefs deny F1 has a serious finanical crisis, F1 is dying and quickly.

Yes you can blame the FIA in part.
If you knew the ppl who are expected to enforce the "laws" never did would you at first take liberties like "braking a trafiic light" ...(or) Ferraris barge board infringements.....man was that a farce and then move onto larger crimes like constantly speeding (or)cheating openly in a race..

jonno

Nobody has mentioned the Schumi/Irvine incident in Malaysia 1999. Or the Irvine/Salo incident in Germany 1999. Why not, exactly the same thing happened. In Germany, Irvine was going for his third win and it was about the same time in the season. In Malaysia Schumi did exactly what Barrichello did and made it blatently obvious he was letting him by.

Why isn't this coming up?

Kali

nobody probably mentioned those because:

a) the championship was a lot tighter
b) malaysia was one of the later races
c) salo was never going to be/could never be a contender

anyway rubens and michael have been called before the FIA.. which is a bit pointless imo considering they're just doing what they're told... bring jean todt up id you ask me.

the only reason ppl booed was because of the circumstances of the overtaking manoveur.. i.e. a few metres before the line.. had they done this mid-race nobody would have minded. guaranteed.

chernobyl

/raises hand!

I did, and i mentioned it in the other thread too.
Ferrari have broken the rules on 3 occasions since the new rule was introduced and now its time for a sacrificial lamb.

Trojan

Originally posted by chernobyl

Ferrari have broken the rules on 3 occasions since the new rule was introduced and now its time for a sacrificial lamb.

chernobyl: you're missing the point completely! What new rule have they broken?

The Ferrari team didn't break any rule on Sunday The rule in place there does not forbid what happened on the track.

However, beyond a shadow of a doubt, MS did bring F1 into disrepute by handing the winners trophy to the 2nd place driver, on the podium. I genuinely hope he gets punished for this, it's disgraceful. If he is going to abide by team orders then he has to accept the consequences, be they negative, or in this case, positive. He cannot decide that "hey, our team orders meant that I won, but I should probably give Rubens the trophy". If he felt so strongly about it, he shouldnt have passed him.

I think the FIA need to make an explicit law, and yes, I do blame the law-makers.

And to answer another point on the thread - if our government did not have a law to stop murders, then I would most definitely blame them for all the murders that occured. How could you not? No, they didn't actually murder the victims themselves, but it's their responsibility to deter people from crime.

Al.

Xterminator

i have a suggestion.

We could call F1 sports entertainment, rather than sport.

Thus we see scripted 'sports like' scenario's played out.
Hell we could even have a close title race, with the bad guy winning till the last round, when the clean shaven hero emerges to win!

Cause unless the competion becomes real, your watching pro Wrestling with cars

Trojan

Originally posted by Xterminator
We could call F1 sports entertainment, rather than sport.

Thus we see scripted 'sports like' scenario's played out.
Hell we could even have a close title race, with the bad guy winning till the last round, when the clean shaven hero emerges to win!

rotfl - brilliant

bucks73

Would the crowd have reacted the same way had it been the final race of the season and MS needed the 10 points to win the championship?

I doubt it but Ferrari still should have allowed Barichello to take the win as MS was well ahead of the two Williams drivers in the championship and the new car was performing much better than the BMW. The prospects for the season for Ferrari were already very good and only a disaster could have stopped MS winning the title.

Trojan

Originally posted by bucks73

I doubt it but Ferrari still should have allowed Barichello to take the win as MS was well ahead of the two Williams drivers in the championship and the new car was performing much better than the BMW. The prospects for the season for Ferrari were already very good and only a disaster could have stopped MS winning the title.

I don't believe that's a valid argument.

There's no way we can predict "MS is prolly gonna win, so why not give RB the points". They'd look pretty damn foolish to their sponsors if MS lost the season by a point or 2.

You *must* take the points on the table if they're there for the taking, whilst keeping within the rules of course. Which they did.

The FIA is still the culprit here.

Al.