Did Max deserve a penalty?

Welcome back to another edition of #ForumFriday, where I'll be posting a topic for discussion here on the iGP Manager forums!

Were the FIA correct to not penalise Max Verstappen after his move on Charles Leclerc at the Austrian GP?  Did they chuck the integrity of the rulebook out the window by not sticking to the letter of the law, or did they do the right thing by siding with fan emotion?

It is with a heavy heart I must say, lol no. Brief, but true.

It was not an obvious/intentional/premeditated infraction.  It's not often I side with the FIA.... they got it right it this time. 

While Leclerc could have a case that max didn't leave him enough space, he did go from the outside, giving Max that chance, which he duly took. I'm fine with FIA's decision, this time. But they need more consistency. The one in Canada was a poor decision, and thus, the question arises for lack of consistency.

in my view how racing should be he should not get one, it was hard but still ok.

in case of fairness over the Season he would have deserved one. when we consider Canada and France.
Especially when you focus on the logic of the stewards in Canada, Vettel got the penalty because he did not drove to the left. Verstappen opened the steering wheel, so there was purpose in that action, like they saw it in Vettels case so yes i deserves a penalty.
They have to apply the rules consistent. If they are Not happy with them, they have to change them during the winter break.
So overall he deserves one, but rules should be changed in the next break.

Personal opinion in racing the lead car has priority, if level going into the corner the car on the inside has so in this case max. Hard racing leaving no room at all but fully within the rules. The difference between this and vettel is max is taking the racing line through the corner, vettel was rejoining the track.

Maybe yes, but actually no.

Long answer: To me it's a racing incident, hard racing but in quite a grey area as the cars were actually side by side; I personally wouldn't want to be in the stewards panel for that one. But regarding the move, almost every top driver of late from Hamilton to Vettel to Ricciardo to Nico Rosberg have done similar. And Max has gotten away with more dangerous stunts which should rightfully have been penalized but for some reason have almost never been *cough* moving under fooking braking *cough*.

The penalty in Canada was controversial. A penalty for Max in Austria would also have been controversial.

But FIA is clearly inept with giving out these penalties. If you look at for example most of the American racing series, not only do their rules of racecraft have a bit more clarity (rules on proactive defending vs reactive defending, etc. Max's moving-under-braking move would never get a pass in any American racing series), all penalties can only be given during the race. There's no such clownery as post-race penalties like F1 has had for decades. A post-race 3 hour investigation into the incident should not have happened in the first place and is a sign of incompetence on the part of the FIA/F1 stewards.

So if anything, it's not really the drivers we should be pointing fingers at here, but the FIA and the stewards.

Nik, the whole idea here is to make a more informed decision rather than a split sec/emotional decision during a race. They both have their pros and cons and by no means neither system is perfect.  Lastly, they are both ran by people...


Under the circumstances I still feel it was the right call. 

I feel that the current system of having different stewards also is a hindrance when it comes to consistency, or making the decisions quickly. If I'm not wrong, F1 currently has a different set of stewards for every weekend. This, I believe, is hurting FIA's case for consistency. What one set of stewards may perceive as being dangerous might not be all that unsafe to another set of stewards. If there are few fixed directors like with VAR in football, there would be more uniform decisions and less controversies. 

Yes... But the current rules need reviewing. 

I have a suggestion for debate in a future #FridayForum. 

What is the best, and the worst, thing about iGP. 
 I think it could be a useful exercise. 

I'd rather focus on what's working rather than wasting time on what's npot working right now.... Jack has his hands full as is, and as a father of three I can so relate to that.  Similar thread was on not too long. Jack answered the call and most of us are good with that. 

Like the QR addition though.

So you'd just close down the bugs threads? 

Seriously, the way things improve is by eliminating the bad in conjunction with adding new features. Feedback should be welcomed. And the way to ensure the  success of the game is to encourage players to get involved in the direction of the game's evolution. 

Yes, and other racing series are able to do that without the cumbersome shenanigans you tend to see in F1. You can come up with clear rulings and clear explanations for them without needing 3 hour post-race debilitations or post-race penalties (arguably the most infamous example being Ayrton Senna 1989 Suzuka). The only reason for post-race penalties in most other series is for technical infringements or other forms of cheating.

What a series needs is a thorough and clear enough rulebook, and consistent, competent enough stewards to enforce them. These regulations should be clear and consistent enough that teams, drivers, and fans would be able to understand a good chunk of them should they look them up. F1 is not and has never been a paragon when it comes to its ever-quickly-changing and at times confusing rules and regulations. 

Still, on the case of Verstappen and Leclerc I do agree they are right to not award a penalty; it's just rather ridiculous that there is a post-race 3 hour review after the race, after the podium ceremony and trophies have been awarded. Side-by-side racing like that has always been a grey area, and you can find instances of the car on the inside pushing the driver on the outside wide everywhere without penalties being handed out. The main reason this incident has blown up is because of the controversial penalty back in Canada; one side of the fanbase argues Vettel is not as fault as he's recovering from his off-roading detour and didn't deliberately turn into Lewis, the other argues that Vettel is deliberately swiping into Hamilton's path to force him into the wall. Whether you agree with one or the other, the official transcript from the FIA regarding the decision has rather vague wording:

"Decision: 5 sec time penalty, 2 penalty points on license
The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5 (Vettel), left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced Car 44 (Hamilton) off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision"

Which some will argue is a harsh but perhaps fair penalty. I say otherwise as I believe at most if Vettel is deliberate, it's to defend his position by positioning his car rather than forcing Hamilton into the wall as there's virtually no run-off on the outside.

But then compare the Vettel vs Hamilton incident with Verstappen vs Leclerc, and you can see where the issues most fans take with lie:

Vettel vs Hamilton:
- Vettel makes a mistake; he didn't deliberately cut the corner
- When Vettel rejoins the track, he is at reduced speed and not completely alongside Hamilton, but leaves some room on the outside
- Hamilton takes evasive action on the outside, even backing off, to avoid a collision, but otherwise had room to work with
- All in all, very good driving from both these world champions to avoid contact

Verstappen vs Leclerc:
- Verstappen and Leclerc go into the turn side-by-side after Leclerc for some reason leaves the door as wide open as a shark's gaping maw. Verstappen is on the inside and Leclerc on the outside. Remember both cars are side by side.
- Verstappen deliberately pushes Leclerc outside and off the circuit
- Leclerc has to take evasive action, going onto the runoff area to avoid a collision, but it was otherwise hard but arguably fair racing

If you compare the two incidents, the penalty for one and the lack of penalty for the other, it's very easy to see why the fanbase is divided. 

Even if Vettel had gotten a penalty, it's unfortunate that the minimum penalty for F1 is a 5 second time penalty. In other series some penalties merely involve the shuffling of on-track position, and if applied to Vettel vs. Hamilton, if applied, Vettel will merely be asked to concede position to Hamilton before being allowed to battle on-track again. 

But in the span of 2 races it's quite evident that the way F1 rules work and are enforced by the stewards leave quite a bit to be desired. 

P.S. I like the idea of Forum Fridays for iGP-related discussions. Perhaps they could be separate from F1-related or other racing-related ones. 

But then again, if we are looking at the consistency pattern, can we really blame the stewards if they keep on changing every single race? FIA's race penalty system is really messed up. If the stewards were same every race, they could hand out similar penalties for the supposedly dangerous incidents to every driver. It's related to perception and emotion in the current system-- while the Austrian gp decision was good even though it took a long time, since I imagine that the stewards were stuck in a 'should-we-give-it-or-not' situation because of the way the previous stewards committed a blunder by handing out Vettel a penalty in Canada-- as if they imagined that Vettel could've disappeared from the face of the earth, or the wall could've shifted away. And, then, if that was to be  a penalty, the Verstappen situation should also be a penalty, and vice-versa. 

I'm not sure weather he diserved a penalty or not, but one thing is clear: There is a lack of consistency in the stewards decisions.
What Verstappen did to Leclerc was without a question worse than what Ricciardo did to Norris in France (without even talking about Vettel in Montreal). By that logic it's not fair to have given a penalty to Daniel but not Max. Either you give a penalty to both or none. Personnaly i'm in favor of the "let them race" stewarding strategy, but all i'm asking for is some consistency