Big Tea wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:24 pm
diffuser wrote: ↑
Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:12 pm
If you beleive that Masi acted in good faith. The only thing left is that he made too much of an effort to finish under green. He was too focused on bending the rules to finish under green that he forgot that teams were making decisions based on how long he normally took to bring in the safety car and all the actions that go with it.
That left Hamilton with a huge disadvantage vs Max in the restart.
This is what I believe. Just the opposite of deliberately being controversial I think he really did mean things for the best. But, it was not his job to decide what was for the best, and the best for who
Unfortunately for Masi though, his tone and compliance wiith requests when talking to Horner/Wheatley and his tone and compliance when talking to Wolff for many viewers rightly or wrongly
displayed a notable difference that regardless of any intention, looked very much like a severe lack of impartiality.
That, paired with aforementioned compliance with what sounds like being coached by the boss of one team as to how to proceed with the Race direction (diverting from your own independently made decision before being coached to do otherwise), and the outcome of such affecting the race in such a way that the clear leader of the race has their fairly/strategically gained advantage wiped out.
Not through natural running of proceedings, but because you stopped doing what you were going to do which was within the rules (no unlapping), and "coincidentally" changed your decision on how to proceed in a way that just happened to match exactly the views of what the Red Bull pit wall thought was best to do. Of whose only intention was to put their remaining car in the best position possible to win the the WDC.
Further fuelling the view of being a lapdog for one particular team liable to be unduly influenced in way that affects the fairness of proceedings, you can hear Masi be asked the question, "why aren't we getting these lapped cars out of the way", to which he responds not by allowing the lapped cars to unlap using the standard procedure to do so, but by literally selecting a certain group of cars to be metaphorically picked up with the hand of his officiating powers, and simply moved those cars "out of the way" of the relevant red bull driver so he could get the best opportunity at attacking car number 44 on the last lap and win the WDC.
Horner requested Masi got lapped cars out of the way. Masi did just that.
Wheatley requested Masi not bother letting cars to be moved out of the way catch up to the field. Masi did just that
Horner requested Masi give the apparently required "one racing lap". He did just that.
And after all that, when Wolff correctly stated that what Masi had done was not right (literally wasnt, according to the report), Masi defended himself and his decisions by parroting the words of Wheatley back to Wolff, about engineering "a motor race" in a way that seemed cold and combative, in stark contrast to the Red Bull team who's frustrated instructions and requests he replied to with "understood" and "give me a minute".
He kissed Wheatleys and Horners asses for all to hear, but only because he had "genuine intentions?
He passively aggressively insulted Toto Wolff with his snarky reply that just so happened to echo exact parts of the instructions from Johnathan Wheatley, but only because he had "genuine intentions",?
He went against his own precedent set by himself just one season ago about their being a requirement within the regulations for all lapped cars to unlap, because he had "genuine intentions"?
He diverged and put in play Red bulls plan for the restart as dictated to him by Red Bull, after making his own independent decision that fell within the rules of the sport, because he had "genuine intentions"?
He then went up to the stewards room after all the pressure had been removed and he had time to assess his "human error", but instead stood firm, allowing Red Bull to argue his case for him that "any" does not mean "all", despite his own public showing of what he understood the rules to mean last year regarding whether all lapped cars need to unlap according to regs?
Because he had "genuine intentions"?
Even though the "no unlapped cos may overtake" message would have actually given the green flag finish he was had "genuine intentions" for achieving just fine before he started picking up and placing cars around the track where it best suited Max Verstappen, at the behest of Red Bulls pit wall?
Well. Okay then. Its a view, I guess.
You want to know what's funny though? Even though it stinks, I too also haven't truly felt like Masi just got up and SAID " right I'm gonna do what I can to make sure Max gets this WDC".
Yet when you simply note down what he was doing, what he was saying, how his attitude was between different teams, whether he ought to have known the consequences of the actions he was taking, whether he believed what he was doing was correct based on his own announcement of his understanding of the rules the prior season, whether he acknowledged any genuine mistakes once given the opportunity to review, etc etc, it's difficult for him to be shown in a light that doesnt "raise questions".
So, although we can talk forever about how genuine Masis intentions were during that safety car period, unless you just ignore the evidence of your own eyes and ears, it seems quite difficult to argue that a person who as defense of their actions that day is so apparently unconsciously vulnerable of manipulation to the point of "twisting" rules and regulations because they fear the ire of one set of team bosses more than the possibility of damaging the entire reputation and integrity of Formula 1, could ever keep their position as someone who literally has the power to affect the outcome of races.