(L to R), Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Max Verstappen, Red Bull, Bahrain International Circuit, 2022

The omission in the FIA’s Abu Dhabi report which may store up trouble for the future

2022 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA’s report on the contentious conclusion to the 2021 world championship was a long time coming.

It was made public 97 days after the final race of last year, and one day before the first race of the new season. Whether or not this was by design, it left little time for reflection on its contents, which were presented little over an hour before the cars hit the track for the first qualifying session of 2022.

However the fact any report appeared at all was remarkable. The sport’s governing body had a strong incentive to downplay its reaction to the Abu Dhabi controversy, and in the immediate aftermath of the race that seemed to be the direction it would take.

In announcing its reaction the FIA conceded only that the handling of the disputed Abu Dhabi Grand Prix “generated significant misunderstanding and reactions from Formula 1 teams, drivers and fans”, which appeared to leave no room for an admission something had gone badly wrong. In response it promised an “analysis and clarification exercise”.

But, to the FIA’s credit, the end product was not as toothless as this euphemistically-worded pitch may have led readers to expect.

Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen, Yas Marina, Abu Dhabi, 2021
F1’s controversial finale drew a huge audience
Interest in its findings was naturally high. F1 boasted 107 million people watched last year’s season finale but what they saw reflected poorly on the management of the world championship.

Lewis Hamilton was on course to overhaul Max Verstappen’s championship lead until the disputed final lap restart following which his rival passed him to win. Race director Michael Masi’s sudden decision to deviate from past practice, made while being lobbied by both interested teams, provoked incomprehension at first followed by fury as it swung the outcome of the world championship.

Three months later the FIA delivered its verdict on Masi’s handling of the race. The outcome turned out to be less a “clarification” of a “misunderstanding”, more an explanation of what went wrong and how it intends to prevent a repeat.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

The clearest measure of the seriousness of a mistake is whether the person who committed it is allowed to remain in the same position of responsibility. Long before the FIA’s report emerged it was made known this wouldn’t happen, and that Masi would be replaced in the role.

Report: FIA publishes Abu Dhabi findings, confirms Masi made errors but states result will stand
The report is long on the explanations for the pressure Masi found himself under at the time and short on the details of the errors made. Indeed, the FIA World Motor Sport Council’s statement which accompanied the report states what went wrong far more plainly, noting: “The race director called the safety car back into the pit lane without it having completed an additional lap as required by the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.”

On Masi’s disputed decision to only allow the lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to rejoin the lead lap, it adds: “human error lead to the fact that not all cars were allowed to un-lap themselves.” Note the phrase “human error” does not occur within the report itself.

The report contains many paragraphs describing the pressure Masi was under, all of which is no doubt valid. But there is also an element of circular reasoning here: The time pressure was a partly self-inflicted consequence of the decision to bring the Safety Car in a lap earlier than the regulations specified. Adhering to the rules became a secondary consideration to restarting the race for the benefit of ‘the show’.

As a result of the report the FIA has a new, three-person race direction team equipped with a new Remote Operations Centre. This will hopefully prove more than sufficient to prevent future race directors deciding on a whim to implement new interpretations of vital rules in the dying laps of world championship-deciding races (or any other time).

But what if it isn’t? What if a future race director makes some other error which decides a pole position, a race victory or, as in this case, a world championship?

Speaking in February, weeks before the FIA announced the findings of its “analysis and clarification exercise”, McLaren team principal Andreas Seidl made the wise observation that they needed to do more than just identify what went wrong in a single instance and address it for the future.

“We need to accept mistakes can happen, on the team’s side but also on the FIA’s side,” said Seidl.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“For me it’s very important as well that we also discuss a racing mechanism where you have, let’s say that we’re in a position that if mistakes happen, where should you raise your hand and admit them and have a mechanism in place in order to correct those mistakes also, or correct the consequences that such mistakes or controversies could have.

Andreas Seidl, McLaren, Circuit de Catalunya, 2022
The FIA must be able to rectify its errors, said Seidl
“That is as important as trying to avoid similar controversies in the first place.”

Mercedes eventually backed down from appealing against the race result because it realised that even if they were successful, the outcome would be the cancellation of the Abu Dhabi race result, which would not alter Hamilton’s championship defeat.

No mechanism existed with the FIA’s rules to restore his lost title. Laps have been retroactively deleted from race results due to errors with the chequered flag, but the rules do not allow for the same to take place when the race director has made a mistake.

However Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff was keener to praise the progress the FIA has made, under new president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, by being open over its findings, when not everyone wanted the report to be published. “We need to see the step change that has been made by releasing the report line-by-line,” said Wolff in response to a question from RaceFans.

“I’m happy that there is more transparency. I know from my conversations with Mohammed that he’s very resolute in putting in a system that is prone to less mistakes. There’s good people, there will be a virtual race room between the FIA offices and I think this is what counts.

“Dwelling about Abu Dhabi doesn’t make my or our life easier at all. It’s happened, the trophy is in somebody else’s cabinet, and that’s it. Chapter closed. And I think the FIA will have learned how things should not be handled.”

Whatever your opinion of how the Abu Dhabi row was handled, the desire to move on from it is surely universally shared at this point. But it’s in the best interests of all concerned not to proceed too hastily, before all lessons have been learned.

Otherwise the next team to be wronged may have fewer trophies in their cabinet than Mercedes, and be less willing to take a lost championship on the chin in quite the same way.

2022 F1 season

Browse all 2022 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

117 comments on “The omission in the FIA’s Abu Dhabi report which may store up trouble for the future”

  1. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
    4th April 2022, 12:32

    Can we move on from this? The bloke has lost the job already.

    1. Click bait. These articles still do well in the UK.

      1. Yep, the necessary Web clicks are a priority.
        It’s a pity a once serious f1 fan site is so obviously partnering with only one driver.
        After Dieter left there is little objective journalism.

        1. I think it’d be alright if Keith just stopped emphasising that he feels that Hamilton had certain victory stolen from him. That’s not factual reporting, that is opinion.
          It wasn’t certain, and still wouldn’t have been even if someone else had been in Race Control.

          1. He never mentions how Hamilton stole first position (according to the rules at least) at the very beginning of the race. Strictly speaking he did have to give the position back, the rest is only subjective interpretation of the rules. Not just that, he was told to give “time” back, and he didn’t even do that and there was no reaction (he walked away with extra 4 seconds I think?). If this didn’t happen, in the last lap drama their positions would be reversed, if it’d still happen. But dragging on this nonsense is really becoming tasteless now. I hate sore losers (which Hamilton wasn’t, I applaud his reaction, but his fans don’t follow his example).

          2. That’s true, dex, hamilton’s reaction was significantly better than the fans’.

          3. Yeah. No valid argument:
            – Makes it sound like “his” victory was a foregone conclusion
            – Very selective with the decisions made by FIA officials. Like it’s terrible when it against Sore Lew but no biggie when it was in the other direction (e.g. 1st lap)

            At least it helps clarify how many journalists and not just in politics (though adjacent), participate in the “let’s sell this narrative and see how many can we convince” that is so in vogue this days.

        2. And there it is.

      2. If you don’t want to read about it, you can just avoid clicking on it. Nobody is forcing you to read these articles.

      3. Yeah, this is one of those narratives that won’t ever be dropped. A bit like how certain media decided in 2007 that Alonso and Hamilton would be enemies and that Alonso was the villain. Still running strong with that lazy narrative today.

        Some fans, especially in the UK, think that if they talk enough about this, complain enough, write angry comments, that they will somehow make an asterisk appear next to Verstappen’s 2021 WDC. Of course they will fail at that because it was epic and it will be more remembered as the driver who dethroned Hamilton. A bit like when Alonso dethroned Schumacher. It was a big milestone.

        1. This isn’t about Hamilton, you narrow-minded pinhead.

          This is about the fact that if Verstappen, or LeClerc, or Schumacher, or anyone else, gets the title stolen due to bad refereeing, THERE IS NO WAY TO FIX IT.

          It was demonstrated in Abu Dhabi that if the race director screws up, there is no mechanism within the arbitration process of the FIA, to rectify the mistake. The FIA stewards are going to back the RD, the FIA appeals process will back the FIA stewards.

          Stop obsessing about Hamilton, and try to see the sport as a whole.

          1. You are effectively calling for the Flashback system used in the F1 games, in arbitration form.
            Where is your outrage for Verstappen when he gets the literal apex moment of his life taken away from him through no fault of his own – nor his team’s – in your ideal reality?

            You HAVE to move on, retroactively taking wins, points, championships etc away based on “fairness” is a non-starter. Had Max copied MSC at Jerez ’97 then that would have been a scenario in which a personal punishment, which is what you are advocating, would fit, but the absolute onus has to be on the various governing bodies to run a watertight ship.

            It is ludicrous to think that the teams in F1 would be willing to give up their trophy cabinets to cover for flaws in FIA etc recruitment and rule making.

          2. my brother in Christ, triggered much? No need for the name-calling. I was giving an illustration regarding the narratives that the media choose to run with and that fans end up parroting for years to come. 2007 is an example and 2021 will be another example.

            Whatever opinion you have of the matter, it’s time to move on. It wasn’t an optimal way to end the championship, but the reality is that it wasn’t even the most controversial stewarding call that year.

            Let me also correct another misstatement, there is a mechanism to correct mistakes made by stewards and race directors. Mercedes went through that process, eventually choosing to withdraw. We’ve had many instances where points have been taken away and then given back after appeal. I remember the 1999 Malaysia-Ferrari controversy with their bargeboards. Ferrari ended up winning that WCC because of it.

            In 1995 Michael Schumacher won a race by deliberately crashing into Damon Hill. Similar things happened, although much less obvious in 88′ and 89′ between Prost and Senna.

            Now, those, are truly controversial. What happened in Abu Dhabi was problematic because of the ambiguity in the rules. The loophole has been closed or so it seems. There will never be another situation like Abu Dhabi 2021. But don’t ever forget that Lewis Hamilton lost that championship on track, by getting overtaken on track, while leaving the inside open. There was nothing ambiguous about that.

          3. Both of you missed the point. As long as the FIA is responsible for fixing the mistakes made by FIA officials, it won’t happen, no matter who the driver is.

            The Abu Dhabi report says that Michael Masi didn’t enforce the rules correctly. What they didn’t talk about was the pretzel-like logic applied by the stewards to refuse to acknowledge that fundamental fact.

            What’s missing is an impartial path for the teams to follow to rectify such errors. Assuming there won’t be any in the future is… optimistic. At best.

            And I’m “triggered” by the fans who can’t consider this particular issue without mentioning Hamilton or Verstappen, because it’s not about the drivers. It’s about the FIA and their inability to admit that this might happen again.

        2. So what second rate country do you hail from?

          1. Alan Thomson
            5th April 2022, 3:30

            The same one you are from.

    2. Yes you can. Just move on to the next article, it’s really simple. Unless you want to censor what’s being discussed within F1, F1 publications for reporting it, and posters from commenting on it.

      1. Yes, because when we talk about “censorship” we’re talking about a person freely commenting on a web article about a dumb racing thing. That’s exactly what that’s about.

    3. You are here.

      The point is waaaaay over there.

      You missed it.

      Totally.

    4. U are entitled to move on. Just do it, and dont complain about articles not interesting to you.

  2. The report also failed to address the role of the stewards, who went out of their way to protect Masi and tried to argue some ridiculous notion of the race director having a god-given power to override everything.
    Those specific stewards (and also those who, for example, refuse to give obvious penalties like that of Max in Brazil) should also have been “fired”.

    1. The role that the stewards played does also need looking into because they did have a good opportunity to overturn that farce

      1. RandomMallard
        4th April 2022, 15:01

        @3dom That is, in my opinion, the main problem with Abu Dhabi. How do you overturn it? They ruled, probably correctly, that voiding the final lap wasn’t appropriate as there isn’t a mechanism that allows for this to happen (unless the chequered flag is flown early but that’s a very specific scenario), and even if they did, it would likely have had the effect of voiding the entire race because it wouldn’t have gone the distance. The only provisions for shorter races are when it’s been red flagged or the chequered flag is shown early. And yes they can change the results at their own discretion, but that would be extremely difficult to do when Verstappen hasn’t done anything wrong himself. TLDR, in my opinion, not only did Masi make some wrong decisions, but the nature of those decisions and the rulebook made it impossible to overturn the results of those decisions, and that, as Seidl says, is what needs to be addressed next.

        1. This gets repeated a lot (and it is of course part of the Mercedes narrative that *of course* they would have won their appeal, but tragically there was no suitable remedy for them) – but there is the example of Canada 1995 for a race result that was declared a lap early with neither a red flag nor an early chequered flag.

          On that occasion, a track invasion just after race winner Alesi crossed the finish line prevented some of the cars further down the order from finishing, as race control ordered them to stop on track; rather than score them a lap down the results were declared from the lap prior.

          Admittedly this is not an exact analogy with Abu Dhabi, but it does show that there are some circumstances in which a lap can be essentially voided without having to annul the entire race.

          1. RandomMallard
            5th April 2022, 14:12

            @red-andy My bad, I was not aware of this scenario. As you note, it’s a very interesting scenario. Although in Abu Dhabi’s case I’m sure that Red Bull would have appealed had they taken the results a lap earlier, because. I should have researched this more thoroughly. Thanks for bringing this to my attention though.

    2. Indeed the report failed to mention the stewards, and so have all the accredited media. Also missing is the crucial fact that Masi’s initial decision was going to give a racing finish and did not need changing for any reason whatsoever, apart from which driver was going to have the advantage.

  3. Oh boy, this comments section is going to turn into absolute shower. Sigh. I wish people could comment constructively without the baiting and backbiting.

    On the subject itself: the FIA needs to be held accountable and what ocurred must never be repeated, irrespective of the drivers and teams involved. A shameful episode that brought the sport into disripute.

    1. On the subject itself: the FIA needs to be held accountable and what ocurred must never be repeated, irrespective of the drivers and teams involved. A shameful episode that brought the sport into disripute.

      Or to look at it from the other side, @bradders – people must remember that the FIA owns F1, and has sole authority over the rules, their interpretations and their application.
      They can do whatever they want, and ultimately there’s nothing anyone else can do about it. If they say everything’s okay, then it is.

      Private enterprise (which F1 is) is a double-edged sword. What’s good for some is bad for others.

      1. Sure thing, S. They absolutely do, you’re right.

        But they cannot wince at the criticsm which is then levelled at them when they interpret the rules in an unprecedented fashion. Saying everything is okay does not make it so. Perhaps in their bubble, but not outside of that.

        1. Nobody likes to be criticised – especially if they felt their actions were justified in the circumstances.

          If the FIA are satisfied with what’s going on in their bubble, then that’s all that matters. It’s their bubble.
          We can’t change it, nor should we try to.

      2. the FIA owns F1, and has sole authority over the rules, their interpretations and their application.
        They can do whatever they want, and ultimately there’s nothing anyone else can do about it. If they say everything’s okay, then it is.

        @S But there is surely a limit to what they can get away with, because if they turn fans off the sport, then they reduce the revenue within motorsport which doesn’t just affect the stakeholders in motorsport but surely affects the FIA themselves. It’s all linked

        1. I guess there is a limit, @3dom.
          But each person has a different limit, and each has their own reasons for having it where it is.

          Consider that we are still talking about the 2021 season finish now, 5 months later and 2 events into the 2022 season. That’s incredible engagement in this day and age – especially for something that, in global terms, is really quite insignificant.
          Viewership for the beginning of this year is up, online engagement is high and I’d bet there are more than a few of sponsors on F1 cars that weren’t there at this time last year.

          Sensationalism works, even though apparently nobody likes it.

        2. You say there’s a limit, yet for example F1’s popularity under the ever so slightly despotic Jean-Marie Balestre went skyrocketing, and a large part of the reason for that was JMB messing about playing favourites, making up rules on the fly (see what Senna got done for at the Suzuka chicane) and generally just being enough of a capital C to keep the F1 fraternity hot under the collar but glad to be there all the same.
          Perhaps despite F1’s massive changes since those days, all this sort of tabloid-ish outrage is just as much an attractor for viewership as it was back then.

      3. Maybe, but there are limits, though. FIA has to mind the sponsors. If they feel the sport is handled very badly and start to worry that reflects on their brands, there’s trouble.

    2. Are you referring to the 8 years of hybrid era where one team had a complete advantage over all other teams? An era where every championship except the last was contested by two drivers from one team giving us a champion each year who really just had it way too easy as Damion Hill likes to say all of the time. “Just way too easy.” Why are there not more stories on the woeful pathetic start Mercedes have made this year on this site? Is it the shabbiest start to a year by a constructors champion ever? They should get a trophy for their efforts to make up for the one they lost last year. Or a story or two on Hamilton’s state of mind at the moment? I have no issue pointing the bias out. It’s as obvious as day. Every time I read an article on this subject I think of the last lap of last year and the joy to the majority of the world it brought. Absolute pandemonium it was. Beautiful and glorious and shiny. The article was a good read. I have wondered why certain brains at Mercedes left and moved else where. I wonder if there was what you may consider to be toxicity in the camp. Perhaps some of the staff that left had watched Aliens for the first time and it all hit home for them. Game over man! Game over!

  4. More importantly the report does not clarify how soon can the race director call that no cars can unlap. That was the mistake that started it all back in Abu Dhabi.

  5. “The race director called the safety car back into the pit lane without it having completed an additional lap as required by the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.”

    So that’s admitting the race should have finished under the SC and Lewis Hamilton should be an 8-time champion, Verstappen a 0-time champion. It’s as good as we’re going to get.
    Could it happen again? Yep.
    Back to 2022.

    1. But it’s not in the report. And the only theoretical option was to null the result.
      With the same deserved champion as result.

      1. I know it wasn’t in the report; that was precisely the point I was making with ‘it’s as good [or bad] as we’re going to get.’
        ‘Deserved’ is a value judgment for another time: here FIA has admitted in an ‘officially unofficial’ and indirect way that the race (and championship) would have ended differently had its own regulations been followed, that’s all.

        1. here FIA has admitted in an ‘officially unofficial’ and indirect way that the race (and championship) would have ended differently had its own regulations been followed, that’s all.

          No, they didn’t. They said nothing of the sort.

          1. OK! happy that’s settled then.

          2. No, they didn’t. They said nothing of the sort

            I’m curious, which part of the quoted text “The race director called the safety car back into the pit lane without it having completed an additional lap as required by the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.” did you not understand?

            The “additional lap as required” would have meant the safety car came in next time round, and released from behind the safety car, LH would have led the sequence of cars across the start/finish line.
            Chequered flags waves, everyone heads to park ferme, first three drivers stand on podium:
            1. LH
            2. MV
            3. CS

            Sounds like a different result to me.

            Order of crossing the line assumes no-one tries a Schumacher and does an (illegal) overtake between the pit entrance and the line

            BTW. Contrary to statements below, the rules-correct finish would not be “under the safety car” it would have been a lead driver led restart at the finish (bit of a mind twist)

          3. I’m curious, which part of the quoted text “The race director called the safety car back into the pit lane without it having completed an additional lap as required by the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.” did you not understand?

            I understood it all, Steve.
            Perhaps you can point out the part where they make reference to the race results?

            You probably can’t, because this report isn’t about race results.

            The additional lap could have happened one lap prior to the end of the race, thus leaving the race to still end under green. It could have happened any time, for that matter.
            As such, the FIA report deals only with the things they can control and are directly responsible for – the application of the rules.

            Unless you are one of those people who believe the FIA forced a specific result?

    2. It’s not admitting that at all @david-br.
      It’s saying that the SC should have stayed out for one more lap – not that the race should have ended under SC.
      The rule and the circumstances are two separate issues.

      1. It’s saying that the SC should have stayed out for one more lap – not that the race should have ended under SC.

        If the SC had stayed out one more lap, the race would have finished under the SC. Therefore if the SC should have stayed out one more lap, the race should have ended under the SC. The two things are intrinsically linked, so I don’t understand how this sentence makes any sense…

        1. If…
          But there is no “if”.
          Just fantasies

          1. I agree. No ifs about Silverstone either. All this nonsense about being deliberate, black flags, stolen victories, etc. is just an odd ball’s fantasy. No matter how many times they post it.
            You would think those who have an excuse for every Max issue during the 2021 season would have moved on by now; especially given they are consistently on here whinging at everyone else to move on.

        2. Therefore if the SC should have stayed out one more lap, the race should have ended under the SC.

          Not “the race should have ended under SC.” They haven’t mentioned the ending of the race OR the specific timing circumstances. You are taking 1 and 1 and adding it up to 3, @drmouse.
          The FIA are saying that a rule was misinterpreted/misapplied and that is what they are addressing.
          The timing is not relevant in this report. If it had all happened 3 laps earlier, I’d still expect the report to be identical.

          The two things are intrinsically linked, so I don’t understand how this sentence makes any sense…

          Actions and consequences.
          They may be linked, but they are still separate considerations.

          1. Actually should be

            You are taking 1 and 1 and adding it up to 2

            True, had the race director altered other decisions, like deciding to let all lapped drivers unlap or none of them, then a different calculation would apply. But I suspect the result would have been a race win for Lewis either way.

          2. If you should have given me £100 but didn’t, I should have £100 more than I do. If I should have caught a flight to Berlin, I should be in Berlin. If the SC should have stayed out for one more lap when there was only one lap remaining, the race should have finished under the SC. They may be actions and consequences, but one directly infers the other. They are a single concern, directly linked in a way which provides no alternative. To try to argue one without the other is illogical and, frankly, laughable.

          3. If the SC should have stayed out for one more lap when there was only one lap remaining

            The report doesn’t mention, and isn’t concerned with:

            when there was only one lap remaining

            Is there a rule which states I should give you £100? Did I write it? Do I get to interpret and apply it?
            If you got onto a plane to Berlin, but it was redirected, you might not end up in Berlin. Who knows, you may even have boarded the wrong plane.

            In this report, the FIA is saying ‘the SC should have stayed out for one lap longer, regardless of what lap it was. The end. That’s all we are talking about.’
            You may want them to write more, but they didn’t. And won’t.

            I think I’ve adequately explained action and consequence as separate entities. Use a dictionary if you need more info.

    3. If you want to be fair to the written rule then Lewis should have given the place back on lap one but Masi shot the RedBull protests down. Really the 2 big decisions in that race should have been reversed which would have favoured Merc as I think Lewis would have got past Max again with his straight line speed advantage. As it turned out it didn’t and Max finally had some luck come his way.

      1. Indeed, which was about fair for the whole 2021, in fact hamilton still gained a lot of points through luck\verstappen’s bad luck on balance in the season.

    4. Yaaawn

  6. To be honest, one of the outcome from the incident is a better handling of incidents. I’ve noticed few times during the first two races that race director is quick to deploy VSC when it is clear the incident can’t be resolved under (double waved) yellow, then eventually deploy SC. I think this is the proper approach to go gradually and not necessarily to stick to one choice for too long if it appears it is not the appropriate one. Have to give credits where it’s due.

    The report is more about the changes made after the event that the report itself, and, for once, F1 hasn’t just defended itself and buried its head in the sand. Let’s move on, but glad some indications about the way to follow have been provided (not clear but still better than before and than feared).

  7. The report is long on the explanations for the pressure Masi found himself under at the time and short on the details of the errors made. Indeed, the FIA World Motor Sport Council’s statement which accompanied the report states what went wrong far more plainly, noting: “The race director called the safety car back into the pit lane without it having completed an additional lap as required by the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.”

    Pressure had little to do with it. Masi is an experienced race director and has been involved in Motor Racing for decades. He knew full well the result of his actions as he made the call, just as the RB management knew they had the race in the bag.

    Mercedes eventually backed down from appealing against the race result because it realised that even if they were successful, the outcome would be the cancellation of the Abu Dhabi race result, which would not alter Hamilton’s championship defeat.

    Two of the three owners of the
    Mercedes F1 team were fully on board with taking it to the courts. I think the FIA made it clear from the being they would take the necessary actions. That would have been a major reason for their withdrawal of legal action.

  8. Otherwise the next team to be wronged may have fewer trophies in their cabinet than Mercedes, and be less willing to take a lost championship on the chin in quite the same way.

    Firstly: Lost a race at most, not a championship. Secondly: It was quite the opposite of taking it on the chin. Lewis did. The team surely didn’t.

    1. Well, they did, but only when Lewis told them too.

    2. It was the WDC deciding race, thereby the rule-breaking of the RD decided not only the race but also the WDC. Facts.

  9. Time pressure was mentioned a few times.

    Why was there time pressure? We can finish the race under safety car if needed, you can take all the time you need to unlap the car, who was giving him pressure? Has FIA investigated Massi’s financial? If Massi did not receive a single cent from this I would be surprised. This is corrupted. You guys can hate hamilton, or Love MAX all you want, but if this happen to max the other way around, I would say the same thing.

    Massi did not take away Championship away from Hamilton, he has taken it away from MAX too, and max fans should be mad about it.

    1. Why.. There was a well deserved winner.
      Most victories, most laps in the lead (by a mile).
      Most dnf without any fault of his own.
      Most steward decisions against him (and to the advantage of ham)
      And with the stolen victory in Silverstone after a black flag action by Lewis the points difference should be done before As.

      1. Most victories, most laps in the lead (by a mile).

        When will you stop repeating this over and over again? All that those laps led and victories meant was that he went into the last race as one of only two drivers who could win the WDC. That’s all. What’s so hard about understanding this?

        1. The hard part seems to be that max won.

          1. I think you meant gifted the win ;-)

          2. Ploss, hamilton wouldn’t have been gifted the win if it hadn’t been for abu dhabi happenings? That’s very strange to read.

  10. Of the 3 issues that were controversial, it seems 2 are still ambiguous. Lapped cars has been addressed, but when the safety car comes in and whether Rule 15.3 allows the Race Director to override any other rule seem to be open to interpretation still. With Rule 15.3 … do any of the other rules matter?

  11. Michael Royle
    4th April 2022, 14:43

    The report clarified the rule about any vs all unlapped cars, but still ambiguity over the timing of safety car coming in, which leaves this unresolved for next time … and if Rule 15.3 allows the Race Director to overall any rule, do any of them matter?

  12. In hindsight what bothers me most is that the whole season there has been a lot of pressure on the race director and a lot of bad decisions, starting as early as Bahrain. However, one gets the feeling that the whole need to reflect on the meddling of the teams in stewards’ decisions and the evaluation of the performance of Masi has only started after AD. Which probably means FIA is only listening when lawyers get involved.

  13. Jonathan Wheatley: “You need to let them go, then we’ve got a motor race.”.
    Masi: “Toto, it’s called a motor race, okay.”

    1. Let’s hope somewhere in the future you will understand how a race works.

    2. Ahah, indeed, doesn’t look good for masi.

    3. I see you didn’t add all of Toto’s requests.
      I can’t imagine why….

  14. Somehow I hope the end of this year we again have a SC situation and ALL cars are allowed to unlap including the new world champion who wins the race on new tyres from a virtual lost position.

    1. If so we have at least an entertaining year with tension untill the last race.
      And if ultimately the best one wins most real f1 fans are happy.

  15. RandomMallard
    4th April 2022, 15:28

    No mechanism existed with the FIA’s rules to restore his lost title.

    This is the key issue here. People can argue whether it’s a lost title or not all they want, I’m not going to get involved in that and will try and take a more generalised view of it.

    The FIA rules are currently written in a way that makes it incredibly difficult to impossible to overturn wrong decisions. Whether or not that’s correct is a different matter, but it is currently the case. For example, most major football competitions now use VAR to give an opportunity to correct obviously wrong decisions. I’m aware that VAR is far from perfect of course, and I don’t think it would work brilliantly in F1, but surely there has to be some way of giving an opportunity to review decisions made by officials.

    Currently in F1, the rules only account for very specific scenarios (chequered flag waved early/late, red flags, etc) but not more unexpected or unusual ones. Of course sorting this out is very difficult, and naturally getting a new rule for every possible situation is not only impractical (the rule book would be massive) but impossible – you cannot factor in every possible situation. I know there’s been a lot of talk about grey areas in the rules, but this might be what is needed here. Room for interpretation where necessary, but not excessive freestyling (if that can be policed). Because at the minute the only scenario we have is that the official’s word is final, no matter how flawed that decision is.

    However, such a change would have to be properly coordinated and thought through. If anything, I’m potentially quite glad nothing has been changed on this front for the 2022 season because it means nothing has been rushed. I don’t know if (and to be honest, doubt) they’re working on anything, but I would rather it take more time to be implemented but be done properly and thoroughly than a knee-jerk reaction.

    And while we’re on the topic, I hope an eventual outcome of this is the FIA signing up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. As flawed as CAS is, it at least provides a somewhat independent process of adjudication. I doubt it would have had an effect on Abu Dhabi, because again, there is no mechanism in the rules that easily allows an overturning, but can remove the ridiculous situation where the only place to appeal against FIA decisions is internally within the FIA itself.

    1. I wish I’d seen your comment before I posted mine below! I think it’s easy to say “We ought to have a way to review decisions by officials, like VAR.” But VAR is a process for getting decisions correct while the competition is still ongoing, and it’s for assessing the legality of an action by competitors. F1 already has that — it’s what the stewards do every time they issue a decision. A mechanism to review Abu Dhabi would need to overturn an action after the competition had concluded, and would be assessing whether an action by the officials was legal.

      There’s no real analogue for Abu Dhabi in football, but it’s more akin to a referee error in timekeeping than anything that VAR could address. If, say, a referee fails to blow the final whistle after stoppage time expires, allows a team to resume play and score the winning goal, controversy will ensue and the referee may lose their job, but ultimately, the result stands.

      1. RandomMallard
        5th April 2022, 14:23

        @markzastrow Mainly agree. What football has with VAR compared to F1 with the stewards is the ability to stop proceedings while a review takes place, and still play the “full” 90 minutes due to stoppage time. You can’t really do the same in F1, because a review requires time, which in turn takes laps, and while you could neutralise the race while a review takes place, that either has to be done using an incredibly impractical red flag or a safety car/VSC that takes up laps which can’t then be re-added later (as much as NASCAR and Formula E try, it wouldn’t really work in F1). And in Abu Dhabi’s case, either of an extra lap under SC or a red flag on lap 57 (when the decision was made) would have effectively ended the race (the lap back to the grid after a red flag counts as an official lap, so the race would end on that “formation lap”). So I completely agree about there not really being an equal analogy between football and F1 in this scenario.

        Interesting you mention timekeeping though. In football, sometimes if the referee blows the whistle too early, then the governing body in question can essentially order the final few minutes of the match to be played at a later date. It’s rare, but not unheard of. One thing I did notice while scrolling through pages of F1/FIA regulations was that the FIA courts cannot order a race to be re-run/finished at a later date etc. I mean it makes total sense, the logistics of organizing the end of a football game versus organizing a grand prix are immensely different in scale, it’s just another interesting difference between the sports.

    2. Yes, that would be a good thing to have, I’ve always been annoyed by how the appeals are basically lost as soon as they are made cause the stewards, the race director and the fia back each other.

  16. I’m not sure that what Seidl seems to be calling for — a mechanism to overturn results after the event has concluded if an officiating error is found — exists in many other sports. Certainly, if one competitor is found to have violated the rules, they can be disqualified and the results altered. But goals are not awarded after a match for penalties that the referee should have given. That’s not to say F1 can’t be different in this regard, but it would be unusual in the wider context of sport. Officiating errors are, by and large, part of sport, as undesirable as they may be. I think the way forward is to structure the rules and workflow so that the officiating crew can more easily do the job that is asked of them.

    1. Indeed.
      Though I would add also acknowledging that sport is a human activity, and human judgement (including error) is actually a desirable feature – not something that should be edited out after the fact.

      Sport should be sport, and not get too focused on being science.

  17. To the majority of F1 fans in the world the outcome of last year was justice. A relief valve had been engaged. This is Earth and not the planet Should. There is a reason why Max Verstappen is still world champion. He earned it. Fact. There is nothing you can do about it except be in denial. The outcome will not change. The majority of fans will remain content with the outcome of last year as they do. It’s just a real warm fuzzy feeling I get every time someone reminds me of it. So good. Can’t wait for the next article.

    1. I feel the same way when they remind us about Silverstone. Max had three attempts to throw the lead away and then got dummied by Ham when he attempted to close the door at Copse. How can you be leading into Luffield by being faster out of Brooklands, take a defensive line you don’t need to take, end up slower down the Old Pit Straight, then be dummied when you try to close a door that doesn’t need closing.
      Almost as clever as throwing yourself off the track when acting as the safety car.
      Or being punted off at Copse and still being partially to blame.

      1. Nope. It was all Lewis’ fault. Very dangerous driving and even more dangerous because he gets vindicated by British press.

    2. To the majority of F1 fans in the world the outcome of last year was justice

      BS. Total BS.

      1. Emma, you are not he majority.
        No mather how hard you yell, that’s a fact.

        1. Neither are you. No matter how many inane and biased comments you post.

          1. Mmm, wait a sec, we have a counterproof for this: in the poll of the best driver of the year, I was surprised but majority voted verstappen, in which case I don’t see how he doesn’t deserve the championship, it’s very simple to me: if you score the drivers every race, verstappen comes out with a higher average, obviously hamilton would come out with higher in abu dhabi but that’s not enough to offset monaco etc.

  18. Noframingplease (@)
    4th April 2022, 16:37

    @keith Collantine Great article and I know your hart was broken during the last race a I know you wanna feed Racefan readers with your personal view in the typical british ‘I’m not biased’ way. But hey shall we than also investigate every point the FIA decided in the favor of Lewis and MB during 2021. And with ‘every point’ I mean EVERY, and not only the decisions and discussions Racefans is writing about. So we begin with race one where Lewis crossed 29 times the track limit and gained an advantage. When Max did the same he was penalized (yes I know, he passed lewis at the same time). Did a Racefan reporter than complained about fuzzy rules, and demanded a clarification? Was there a clarification about the fact that the flappy rearwing of the RB was a reason for rulechanges (while they past the test) and the flappy frontwing of the MB was no reason for any thoughts? If I look in what way Lewis managed to come back during the season the FIA had a certain role in that. Not always direct ‘favors’ for lewis, also enough little ‘technical directives’ which where more in favor for MB. And nobody talked about the fact how a Toto Wolff is able to influence F1 rules and get under the radar at the same time. F1 has never been straight forward transparent sport. Games, influencing it was all there from the beginning. So when people and writers start complaining about rules that where not followed, remember that for every issue there can be an issue mentioned that doesn’t suit the other fans. The only thing you accomplish here is polarization between fans which we will see during the next F1 in the UK.

    1. I gave up early when I realised the poster doesn’t accept RD Event Notes and thinks his boy and others can go outside the same track limits during the same race, for the same reason; but that doesn’t count.
      I also assume by investigate every point there was no mention of Max leaving the track when acting as the safety car with no punishment, or why everyone bar him could see the RB Mk 3 wheel gun still showing red after it was detached from the nut?

      1. Noframingplease (@)
        4th April 2022, 19:28

        @ian dearing yes, you didn’t understand my message probably and ticked all the boxes off the ‘racefan’ commenter. Yes, if the redlight was showing on the wheelgun there is probably soneting happening,…. But calling that a safety measure?

      2. RandomMallard
        5th April 2022, 14:26

        I mean I gave up the moment he tagged a dead account that hasn’t been active in 10 years and as far as I can tellhas never posted anything on the comments.

  19. Don’t hold your breath – despite Max becoming world champion 4 months ago Keith is yet to post an article writing about the new World Driver Champion Max Verstappen.

    Keith also failed to write about Hamilton going off track to keep his position early in the race – seemingly Keith has no issue with that all, unless of course Max does it then we get 10 articles about it. Just go back to the articles around Silverstone where Max was blamed by this website rather than Lewis for dive bombing into Max in a way he never would have made the corner.

    Also nothing or far too little about the initial mistake Masi made announcing “Lapped cars may not overtake” while everyone teams, fans and media was expecting the message lapped cars may overtake. If that initial message would just have been correct “lapped cars may overtake” then there wouldn’t be anything to write about.

    All lapped cars would have overtaken safety car and the safety car would have come in a the same time, the race would have been restarted and Max like he did would have overtaken Lewis.

    Fact is that Mercedes screwed up their strategy leaving Lewis not once but twice out on ever aging tyres, gambling the safety car wouldn’t come in again, instead of playing from strength and take new tyres. Mercedes clearly had the faster car in Abu Dhabi and more straight-line speed so it would have been very difficult for Max to keep Lewis behind on the double straight.

    Better to rename Racefans back to its original name F1Fanatic.co.uk to make it perfectly clear it is a British (=Lewis) biased website.

    1. Surely there are many sites where they’ve written extensively about Max? In case those aren’t enough, there’s a review on this one of a book you may enjoy – Max the Dutch Master!

    2. Also nothing or far too little about the initial mistake Masi made announcing “Lapped cars may not overtake” while everyone teams, fans and media was expecting the message lapped cars may overtake.

      I’m convinced all cars could have unlapped on lap 56, if the go ahead was given. So lap 57 last lap behind safety car, lap 58 race continues.

    3. True, that’s an underrated take, the italian commentators even understood wrong, the message came “lapped cars will not be allowed to overtake” and they said they “will now be allowed to overtake”, only a min after they noticed they read it wrong, and then it was changed again, if they had simply let them pass on lap 56 like usual no controversy would’ve happened; bad luck for hamilton on last race ofc but that doesn’t even do enough to equalise the luck across the year.

  20. Can we all agree Max got lucky in Abu Dhabi and gained +7 points by gaining 1 place?
    Can we agree that Lewis got lucky in Imola with a red flag after beaching his car +18 points? And Silverstone +26 points?

    1. Yes, but verstappen likely gained a 15 points swing in relation to hamilton, 7 for the win instead of 2nd place, 7 cause hamilton ended up 2nd instead of 1st + free fastest lap for verstappen, assuming hamilton had it before which I think is true, then 16.

      Silverstone was minimum 18 points, verstappen would’ve easily been 2nd without being taken out, so this is already enough to say hamilton was luckier, then you have imola which is maybe not 18 points, I think he could’ve got back into the points, but something like 14-15, and then you have baku (11, verstappen was winning with fastest lap before tyre exploded, obviously hamilton wouldn’t have made the mistake without verstappen’s tyre problem), and then hungary, where verstappen would’ve probably been 2nd with hamilton 1st if it weren’t for the carnage at lap 1, so that’s again like 9 points swing.

      If people add spa and monza, spa arguably verstappen lost points: a normal race with vers and ham in the end would give verstappen more points than he got in comparison with hamilton, and monza was again verstappen bad luck: there’s no way they would’ve crashed if verstappen hadn’t lost like 7 additional seconds at the pit stop, because they wouldn’t have been close enough.

  21. Only fools still watch…

  22. The FIA must be able to rectify its errors

    Hell no… You can’t award places back after the fact… It’d be like a team being awarded a goal a week after the match ended because a penalty wasn’t called at the time.

    If anything the rules should be less complicated to avoid this clusterf… from happening. Like lapped cars being put in the back of the queue instead of being let past. It’s so much easier, quicker and safer. Yes there’s an advantage, but regaining a lap under a SC is also an advantage.

    1. Is Lance Armstrong still a multiple TDF winner or?

      1. Did max verstappen something wrong in Abu Dhabi?
        I know Lewis cut the corner without repercussions. But max???

      2. Noframingplease (@)
        4th April 2022, 21:50

        Is this the ‘anti max and let’s glorify everything about lewis the GOAT’ website? Or is it you can’t stand any critics about a maybe the best driver ever who’s personal character is what people do not like? If you think the 2021 season was only the last race in abu dabi, like most lewis fans like you think, that’s rather hilarious. We al saw a season where lewis got many times luck on his side (now and than with the help of the FIA), but oh jeez,…. That last race. The 2022 has already begon and the UK is still talking about the past. Sorry, the Lance comparison is way beyond tasteful. Looking how Lewis and Toto are always managing their narratives about their competitors and influencing the public opinion (at least in the UK) is more in line with the stories Lance was trying to put in the air

        1. Indeed, that’s a very common theme among hamilton fans, to look only at the last race.

        2. It appears my point went right over your head.

          You can’t award places back after the fact

          In some cases, yes you can. That’s all (and that’s all the Lance reference was about).

          1. Noframingplease (@)
            6th April 2022, 17:58

            @emma No not above my head dear. But Lewis fans are forgetting that moaning, and changing the outcome of the last race, will create a precedent. So why not investigate every action where Lewis had a profit in case the stewards made a decision? Oh,… sorry, I forgot that when you are living in the Lewis bubble, those situations don’t get any attention.

  23. Nothing to see here, move along…Usual FIA whitewash.. move along.

  24. when not everyone wanted the report to be published.

    There’s a difference between saying there’s no need to publish the full report and not wanting it to be published.

  25. Dislike this topic. Not because of the author, but the level of misguided nonsense it draws out of people whether they want to troll / wind up others who, justifiably, aren’t happy based on the actions of people that know better and have documented direction to do in such situations.

    Even though I suspect Ferrari can keep up this performance for the season, I hope it’s on the agenda for them to be in the frame to win something.

  26. We used to have the CWAFBP* in this website (ok, it was F1F by then)

    Now in Racefans net we have the CWAD21WP**

    *Compulsory Weekly Alonso and/or Ferrarri Bashing Post
    **Compulsory Weekly Abu Dhabi ’21 Whinging Post

    1. Noframingplease (@)
      6th April 2022, 17:42

      @melanos You forgot the well know CWLGMB

      Ccompulary Weekly lets’s glorify Mercedes Benz

      1. yep, certainly

        1. and of their present #2 driver

  27. This is what Journalism is about. Giving a voice issues when the world “seems” to have moved on

    I appreciate the effort Keith. Posterity will judge in the end

  28. We need a commission who validate the decision taken by the race-directors, and a group who validate the decision of the commission, then a board who decides of the decisions of the group is in accordance with the rules of the commission who validate the decision of the race-directors, and then we toss a coin….

Comments are closed.