jenov2003 said:
I beleive you can change your vote in the poll. Just select the answer you wish to change it to.
Should team orders be allowed?
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
I beleive you can change your vote in the poll. Just select the answer you wish to change it to.
McZiderRed said:
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain* that when you are faced with a situation where it is mathematically impossible to win a championship with one driver and you have a chance where it is quite possible with the other, you're always, always going to have to favour the one with a chance. Even the driver who subsides must realise the logic in that there is no point ruining your team-mate's chance of winning a WDC when you have no chance at all.
The difference from today is that we have no idea which of Massa or Alonso will go to the last few races with a mathematical chance of winning the WDC. There is nothing to account for what may happen in the future, and it is not (or, should not be) Ferrari's right to decide what happens on the track between two drivers.
If they want to screw their own driver by giving him a front wing that is 1 second slower before the race, I don't have a problem with that, that's their prerogative and if they want to lose a WCC, that's up to them. There's nothing in the rulebook that says they have to give equal equipment to their drivers. But when you deliberately call a driver to move over, that is just sickening.
* Note to mods : This is not an insult to McZR, but a wider point.
Enja said:
It's ok, I know you don't mean it really...
Anyway, to answer your post, the example I gave was the one extreme as opposed to today's decision. The point I was trying to make was that the 'one-size-fits' all rule banning team orders, takes no account of the time that it's implemented. So, affectively we have a rule that is subjective. At which point is the decision made by a team that one driver should be favoured instead of the other. And who says they are wrong when they make that decision? The FIA? And how do they police it?
Hi Jenovjenov2003 said:
I understand your thinking, and of course it is difficult to police. However, from the average public's point of view, where credibility matters most, this rule largely appears to have been working!
Murder may be a difficult crime to police, yet we must never use that as a reason to say "We may as well allow it"…
I'm of the opinion that team orders are either allowed 100% of the time or illegal 100% of the time.
There should be no middle ground and convenient head turning by the FIA, as has been the case since team orders were banned in 2002 until today.
If team orders are illegal than they are illegal at the 1st race of the season, the 11th race and the last race, regardless of the WCC and WDC standings.
There should be no middle ground and convenient head turning by the FIA, as has been the case since team orders were banned in 2002 until today.
If team orders are illegal than they are illegal at the 1st race of the season, the 11th race and the last race, regardless of the WCC and WDC standings.
No worries.Enja said:McZiderRed said:It's ok, I know you don't mean it really...
I genuinely didn't mean it as an insult.
Enja said:
The difficulty for the team comes when both drivers are mathematically able to win the WDC, but due to both drivers taking points off each other, neither driver wins. A decision taken earlier in the season would probably have resulted in one of the drivers winning...
Don't get me wrong, I love a good race as much as the next man, but from a team's perspective, I can appreciate why there are team orders and why they should remain. Like I said, F1 is a team sport.
Just finished watching the race now, and didn't expect this sort of controversy. I'll get to the original question of the post in a second, but I'll start by saying that as the rule is there, banning team orders, they should be banned completely and absolutely.
This gets more and more difficult to interpret as the season progresses however, especially as someone mentioned earlier, the case of Kimi in 2008. However, in cases such as these, team orders I think are not strictly necessary. Massa would have been happy to let Kimi though, as it secured the WDC for the team. It was not necessary to issue an order to Massa on that occasion, as Massa would have done what he did for the good of the team. Making this distinction I think is almost impossible, but the distinction is there.
Saying all this, the one thing that is for sure, is that team orders always destroy the spectacle. The main reason for the outcry in 2002, and for the rule being brought in. The rule is there, it should be abided by.
Smedly made his feelings known with his radio messages, Massa made his feelings known on the podium. Massa made the team orders obvious by deliberately slowing. This shows a split in the camp, and I am sure it will all blow up in their faces. Alonso has shown in the press conference that he is able to lie with the best of them, and it will now be Ferrari being questioned, as opposed to RedBull.
Even if the WMSC decided not to take any further action, Ferrari's reputation is in tatters. This was a really shameful showing from them.
This gets more and more difficult to interpret as the season progresses however, especially as someone mentioned earlier, the case of Kimi in 2008. However, in cases such as these, team orders I think are not strictly necessary. Massa would have been happy to let Kimi though, as it secured the WDC for the team. It was not necessary to issue an order to Massa on that occasion, as Massa would have done what he did for the good of the team. Making this distinction I think is almost impossible, but the distinction is there.
Saying all this, the one thing that is for sure, is that team orders always destroy the spectacle. The main reason for the outcry in 2002, and for the rule being brought in. The rule is there, it should be abided by.
Smedly made his feelings known with his radio messages, Massa made his feelings known on the podium. Massa made the team orders obvious by deliberately slowing. This shows a split in the camp, and I am sure it will all blow up in their faces. Alonso has shown in the press conference that he is able to lie with the best of them, and it will now be Ferrari being questioned, as opposed to RedBull.
Even if the WMSC decided not to take any further action, Ferrari's reputation is in tatters. This was a really shameful showing from them.
I can't answer this topic aside from no and a liberal useage of this icon 
Just still watching the aftermath but that was male cow excrement.
So the red team accept their $100,000 fine and all is forgiven? Balls to that - void them both from the results one for asking for it and the other for accepting it.
Bullshit
Just still watching the aftermath but that was male cow excrement.
So the red team accept their $100,000 fine and all is forgiven? Balls to that - void them both from the results one for asking for it and the other for accepting it.
Bullshit
cosicave said:
Hi Cosi = a neat bit of editing there! And as for the analogy of murder - not quite the same and infinitely easier to police - written in statute and, hopefully, against all right thinking individuals (but you have to wonder after Rauol Moat).
There is part of me that thinks F1 lost it's credibility when it stopped it's racers racing (well, someone did!). What is the point of having two racers and then saying to them at some point, you can't race anymore - why not just go with the one driver?
The argument that things were 'this way' in the past, so should be 'this way' now, is quite invalid in my view.
Take safety; in the year in which Ayrton Senna would have been 50, it is well to remember that his tragic death was the last (of a driver anyway), and that was 16 years ago. Would anyone espouse a return to the era when maybe half a dozen drivers were killed each season?
So why is the fact that Fangio won some of his titles by being able to commandeer his teammate's car, an argument in favour of allowing team orders today? All that does for me is to diminish Fangio's reputation in my eyes, just has Alonso's has diminshed for me today. In what way were Ferrari's actions today, or for that matter Ferrari's actions in Austria in 2002, good for the sport?
The sport has evolved. Let's move on and banish such grubby antics as happened at Hockenheim on Sunday, June 25th 2010 to history.
No more team orders.
Take safety; in the year in which Ayrton Senna would have been 50, it is well to remember that his tragic death was the last (of a driver anyway), and that was 16 years ago. Would anyone espouse a return to the era when maybe half a dozen drivers were killed each season?
So why is the fact that Fangio won some of his titles by being able to commandeer his teammate's car, an argument in favour of allowing team orders today? All that does for me is to diminish Fangio's reputation in my eyes, just has Alonso's has diminshed for me today. In what way were Ferrari's actions today, or for that matter Ferrari's actions in Austria in 2002, good for the sport?
The sport has evolved. Let's move on and banish such grubby antics as happened at Hockenheim on Sunday, June 25th 2010 to history.
No more team orders.
bogaTYR
Points Scorer
Again, I am with CaT here and I voted Yes.
Its been in F1 forever and every team has team orders, yes has cos all teams have some form of team order right now, the teams who say they dont are liars, simple as that. So dont try and pretend and all go 'ooohhhh'. The teams that went all yellow now and screamed are in my eyes even more despicable then Ferrari. Although the scenes afterwards were a tad ridiculous.
But another point: what is a team order and what does the rule mean? To me, both are totally unclear.
For instance, if I set up one car other then the other so that one wins and the other not and hey presto, the right car does win, isnt that a "mechanical team order"? Why is this form of team order OK and the other not?
Let me make myself unpopular. I would love to see Button in a car as made for him as the Macca right now, and the whole team actually, is tailor made to fit LH. Isnt that a "season long team order"?
Another example, what about one car going slow on purpose and blocking all competitors? Isnt that a "negative team order"? And again, this is allowed and even seen as a valid part of a strategy, sometimes even applauded, but in theory its exactly the same. One driver gives another driver, his team mate, an advantage.
Seems to me there is serious room for improvement. Or even better, drop the rule.
Its been in F1 forever and every team has team orders, yes has cos all teams have some form of team order right now, the teams who say they dont are liars, simple as that. So dont try and pretend and all go 'ooohhhh'. The teams that went all yellow now and screamed are in my eyes even more despicable then Ferrari. Although the scenes afterwards were a tad ridiculous.
But another point: what is a team order and what does the rule mean? To me, both are totally unclear.
For instance, if I set up one car other then the other so that one wins and the other not and hey presto, the right car does win, isnt that a "mechanical team order"? Why is this form of team order OK and the other not?
Let me make myself unpopular. I would love to see Button in a car as made for him as the Macca right now, and the whole team actually, is tailor made to fit LH. Isnt that a "season long team order"?
Another example, what about one car going slow on purpose and blocking all competitors? Isnt that a "negative team order"? And again, this is allowed and even seen as a valid part of a strategy, sometimes even applauded, but in theory its exactly the same. One driver gives another driver, his team mate, an advantage.
Seems to me there is serious room for improvement. Or even better, drop the rule.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
