Race #07, Hungary: Post-Race Checks

[Joona Lappaenen]

Sometimes I have the feeling that some people thinks "FSR" is a person who does everything in this league. But the truth is that it is managed by different people, and each division has a different race director. We are under the same rules, but we can have different opinions regarding an incident, specially when we have to apply a penalty. You can't expect the exact same criteria for all of us.

I think any incident that is considered debatable should initially be reviewed by a board of people instead of one sole race director. This should be something the race director initially has a view on but before making any kind of ruling should go through a board that makes a joined decision. This would limit any potential of bias (this is not saying there was any bias at all, just making it as neutral as possible generally speaking) and would make decisions more consistant. I think it's not in the interest of the league to first have a ruling and then have it appelead and then possibly have all that change.

Especially since the rules in the league and racing in general are the kind where things can be seen in many different ways.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

#1 There is nothing debatable about this incident

#2 Time penalties are given when the drivers in question finish close to eachother & in the points, most of the time when incidents happen the other driver doesn't finish in the points or does but is multiple positions behind the offending drivers.

#3 Comparing WS/WT/WC incidents is irrelevant

#4 It's shocking how many people don't know the rules or wish to ignore them

#5 It's shocking how many people will reply "but in F1, such and such did this..."

#6 F1 is irrelevant, read the rules

This should be something the race director initially has a view on but before making any kind of ruling should go through a board that makes a joined decision. This would limit any potential of bias (this is not saying there was any bias at all, just making it as neutral as possible generally speaking) and would make decisions more consistant.

That was attempted this year and it was quickly abandoned (after Melbourne) because the process was so slow and people were more upset about penalties than ever (surprise!).

 

[David Dominguez]

This should be something the race director initially has a view on but before making any kind of ruling should go through a board that makes a joined decision.

That's the typical "easy to say, hard/almost impossible to do". It's very difficult to get proper people, which enough knowledge, dedication, and at the same time not roled in any FSR team. As Mikko said we already tried this (I really wanted to have an independant race director in WC) but it was not worth it. Keep in mind also that we need to sort out the penalties as fast as possible, for the FSR fantasy game, highlights, etc.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

The appeal deadline passed 17 minutes ago and no appeals have been received...

I guess you guys were just trolling then.

 

[Morgan Morand]

The appeal deadline passed 17 minutes ago and no appeals have been received...

I guess you guys were just trolling then.

I think you need to attenuate your comments.
I talked with Pedro after he talked with someone. And we conclude it wasn't a solution. ( passing the +5s penalty to 1pt licence penalty ( same as huis ) was worse for my licence situation for example.
But this don't solve all thing talked before in this topic. It's "compromise" we made.
I'm still staying in my position about this incident, don't worry.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

I think you need to attenuate your comments.
I talked with Pedro after he talked with someone. And we conclude it wasn't a solution. ( passing the +5s penalty to 1pt licence penalty ( same as huis ) was worse for my licence situation for example.
But this don't solve all thing talked before in this topic. It's "compromise" we made.
I'm still staying in my position about this incident, don't worry.

So in otherwords, my review & penalties given were ideal.

 

[Ville Leppala]

So in otherwords, my review & penalties given were ideal.

Except for Jims back of the grid. Atleast you should consider doing something about that rule. I can bet my left nut that every single driver in FSR agrees that if you lose time going wide for example you shouldnt be penalized. Petar had same exact thing in WT and he wasnt penalized because he only lost time by doing that which i think is the correct way of aproaching things like this. Not just slap back of the grid for next race and say "Rulez are rulez brah". But thats just what I think.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

Except for Jims back of the grid.

#4 It's shocking how many people don't know the rules or wish to ignore them

 

[Ville Leppala]

#4 It's shocking how many people don't know the rules or wish to ignore them

Edited.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

Except for Jims back of the grid. Atleast you should consider doing something about that rule. I can bet my left nut that every single driver in FSR agrees that if you lose time going wide for example you shouldnt be penalized. Petar had same exact thing in WT and he wasnt penalized because he only lost time by doing that which i think is the correct way of aproaching things like this. Not just slap back of the grid for next race and say "Rulez are rulez brah". But thats just what I think.

#3 Comparing WS/WT/WC incidents is irrelevant

In any case I don't see the WT post-race checks done anywhere, so who knows if he'll get a penalty.

The "Rules are rules" approach is by far the best. If you had been here in 2008 & 2009 you'd know what I'm talking about.

 

[Ville Leppala]

#3 Comparing WS/WT/WC incidents is irrelevant

In any case I don't see the WT post-race checks done anywhere, so who knows if he'll get a penalty.

The "Rules are rules" approach is by far the best. If you had been here in 2008 & 2009 you'd know what I'm talking about.

The agreement was done on the server that he wouldnt get a penalty afaik. Im not saying you shouldnt do exactly what the rules say. Im trying to say that maybe you should consider updating that specific rule for future so people wont get penaltys like that which ruins the next race aswell. Especially when "going wide" doesnt help your time, it hurts your time and getting a penalty for that is stupid imo. Just to make clear if u cut / go wide and it helps your time then ofc its worth of penalty, but if you clearly lose time it shouldnt be penalized. Im done with this thread now, I hope this atleast makes u think about making this specific rule a bit more clear.

 

[David Dominguez]

Just to be clear, as I couldn't check it properly in the server, I gave Petar the freedom to decide between starting from P10, or taking the risk of starting from his Q2 position but with a potential penalty.

I also checked Jim's Q1 lap and there isn't anything to discuss about...

 

[Morgan Morand]

So in otherwords, my review & penalties given were ideal.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

Im trying to say that maybe you should consider updating that specific rule for future so people wont get penaltys like that which ruins the next race aswell. Especially when "going wide" doesnt help your time, it hurts your time and getting a penalty for that is stupid imo. Just to make clear if u cut / go wide and it helps your time then ofc its worth of penalty, but if you clearly lose time it shouldnt be penalized. Im done with this thread now, I hope this atleast makes u think about making this specific rule a bit more clear.

As admins we have to think further ahead than just the most obvious situations.

If you have a polesitter who ran wide and possibly lost/gained 0.001s and got pole by 0.001s, what do you do? Do you give a penalty and get called biased or do you not give a penalty and get called biased?

This subject has been brought up countless times for as long as I can remember (interestingly enough only during the season and not in the pre-season when rules are being decided) and this is the best solution (not to mention the only consistant one) for this problem.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

trolling

I'm confused, you are not happy with my ruling, but you are even less happy with some "alternative" ruling (which I'd like to hear btw). Based on process of elimination, you think you should not get any penalty?

 

[Morgan Morand]

I'm confused, you are not happy with my ruling, but you are even less happy with some "alternative" ruling (which I'd like to hear btw). Based on process of elimination, you think you should not get any penalty?

To be serious.
For the alternative ruling, talk with Pedro.

As i said before, Both drivers were wrong, 65laps done, with unnatural pace compared to others, being each other at 110%. Race cannot be perfect or asepticized.
Conclude this as Racing Incident, was, in my point of view, the right decision. ( my point of view ) maybe like you did with Marconi and me "incident" in monaco ( but sorry it was for 9/10th place and not huis ) .

I noticed William Levesque message. I wasn't disrespectful to huis, it was only hard. I was maybe more disrespectful if i took the kerb ( you see me reduce the angle of the wheel before passing the kerb ), loosing rear and crashed huis, like Marques/me hungary incident in 2010, the consequence would be more disaster than now.
And i repass huis before crossing track line, huis couldn't overtake me in tarmac area, but i wouldn't protest it, because it was a racing battle.
Spectacular moves shouldn't* affect decision, even if a certain person talked it BS.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

It's noteworthy that an alternative ruling of giving Morand the same penalty as Huis would have resulted in Morand having 1.0 out of 1.5 penalty points filled on his second license. This would leave him only 0.5 penalty points away from a league ban, so essentially Mikko's decision is the more favourable, whichever way you look at it.

 

[Pedro Rodrigues]

I didnt want to reply anymore but since the appeal subject was brought up, I'm forced to.

1- we dont agree with the penalty;
2- I asked a COA judge for his opinion about the incident and what could possibly result from an appeal;
3- his opinion was like what I was expecting about the most likely penalties: either the current penalty or at least 1.0 license penalty point;
4- we decided to not appeal.

So, clearly, considering the current license situation of Morgan, in the long run, a 1.0 penalty point is worst than the current penalty. That doesnt mean we agree with either of them. We made a compromise like Morgan said. Our opinion is that both drivers were aggressive and both did something wrong, so we think a warning would be enough for both or at max a 0.5 penalty point for Morgan if you consider him to have done more wrong than Bono.

To conclude this, we werent trolling just for fun while planning to do nothing as it was suggested. I hope that is clear now. Such accusations are a bit disappointing, but well, we are all humans, we all do mistakes, so let's move on.

See ya at Valencia.

 

[Mikko Puumalainen]

Such accusations are a bit disappointing.

Comparing to the accusations I've had to face in the last 48 hours I'd say that's nothing.

All the discussions here and on FB about "FSR (me) protecting Huis", constant memes, getting anyone you know on FB to comment when they clearly have no idea about anything.

Eny even going as far as saying "Three people will review it and, eventually, give back the win to Morand.", like it's a fact that I've made some obvious biased decision here.

And now that you've gone outside of the official procedures and privately asked a CoA judge what they think, and they say the penalty will either stay or at least be 1.0 penalty points, you still refuse to admit the faults in Morand's driving behaviour.

Insulted doesn't even begin to describe how I feel.

 

[Pedro Rodrigues]

Mikko, you are clearly posting angry. You have your reasons. But I wont reply to you anymore. I clarified our position and our decision to not appeal. That's it.

Again, let's move on.