Sato Penalty - Harsh?

[aryan]

Does anyone else think the penalty handed out to Sato is harsh and unfair?

I mean, assuming that he did overtake under yellow, the penalty for doing a mistake in this race should certainly be applied to this race. I don't see why it should affect another race. Just because the driver took himself out shouldn't mean that the FIA can apply the penalty to another race, should they?

Do we have any precedent on this kind of thing?

[wmcot]

I haven't heard anything about that? I do know that in the European Le Mans GT series, a penalty can carry over to the next race if the car does not complete the punishment before it fails in the race. It does seem like a stupid rule, since failing to finish should be a big enough penalty in itself!

[Mark]

Yes, it was very harsh. If Sato did overtake under yellow flags then it may have given him an advantage in that race, his position in the next race would not have changed no matter where he finished so a penalty after the event is totally unneeded. :down:

[Ian McC]

I would imagine it has more to do with breaking the rules from the point of safety rather than any advantage gained in the race.

[Valve Bounce]

Ridigilis. :(

[AndyRAC]

Extremely harsh, okay so he shouldn't have overtaken under yellow, but he spun off failed to finish, that was a punishment in a way. Then they give a penalty for next race, sorry just wrong, stewards make some strange decisions. It was as thiugh they thought Sato had had the temerity to spin off and avoid punishment, mind boggling.

[ioan]

I hope Super Aguri will not accept the ruling on this one and take it to the FIA.
I don't remember anyone being handed such penalty, not for the last 15 years. They didn't hand out a penalty for Trulli last race for crashing under the SC either.

[ArrowsFA1]

Had Sato not spun off he would have been penalised. Just because he spun off does not mean he should avoid a penalty. Passing under yellows (although Sato says he didn't) is a serious offence in motorsport and a penalty had to be applied somehow.

A 10 grid place drop will probably cost Sato less time then a 10sec stop/go penalty during a race anyway.

[Ranger]

He was going to be awarded the penalty anyway, but it is pretty harsh. There have been many cases of drivers crashing or going out of the race whilst a penalty seems inevitable for a driver, and no penalty being awarded. To be honest I think this 10-place drop has more to do with Sato's past run-ins with the stewards than the driving offence itself. Look at China 2006 and just about the whole 2005 season to see his penalties awarded to him (some justified, others quite harsh).

Quite a disappointing move as he has been driving quite well lately.

[ioan]

It seems he didn't even overtake under yellows!
Magnificent FIA stewards, like always. :rolleyes:

[Eyo]

It’s stupid and they should have given that stop ad go, or drive through before he crashed. It took them a lot of time to decide. Maybe they had there coffee at the time.
And what is it about the 10 places? Why is it always 10?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Ten places on the grid will probably only be 4 or 5 places for Sato though. ;)

[janneppi]

It’s stupid and they should have given that stop ad go, or drive through before he crashed. It took them a lot of time to decide. Maybe they had there coffee at the time.
And what is it about the 10 places? Why is it always 10?

10 is a nice round number.

[ArrowsFA1]

It seems he didn't even overtake under yellows!
Sato says he didn't. If that's the case then Super Aguri can always appeal.

[Eyo]

10 is a nice round number.

I guess that’s how they see it, simple enough.

[hugh_lee]

he says jenson was trying to overtake him and that he was just defending his position. F1live seems to agree with him (see link). i hope super aguri appeals the decision. when sato crashed i thought, "there goes half the excitement"

http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/070617213815.shtml

[jens]

Whatever the case with the penalty is, but one is clear - I think we are going to see some nice aggressive driving and passing by Taku at Magny-Cours again as he will be fighting his way up through the field. ;) He might pass more drivers than all the others together. :D

The only shame with the penalty is that if Taku happens to qualify really high (into a position, where it's possible to challenge for points), then it's a lost effort...

[osg]

Yes, it was very harsh. If Sato did overtake under yellow flags then it may have given him an advantage in that race, his position in the next race would not have changed no matter where he finished so a penalty after the event is totally unneeded. :down:

i couldn't agree more mark..... very poor decision making by the FIA.

[millencolin]

terrible desicion by the FIA... but the FIA are kings of terrible desicions so im not surprised

[ArrowsFA1]

Assuming Sato is guilty of the yellow flag offence what should the FIA stewards have done once he'd spun out of the race? Obviously they could not apply a penalty at the USGP once that had happened.

For those who think applying the penalty at the next race is harsh what other option did the FIA stewards have?

They can't ignore the offence 1) because passing under the yellow is a serious offence and 2) doing so would create a precedent that could be exploited in the future.

[Garry Walker]

I wouldnt say it is harsh, but I would say its retarded beyond belief, so I am not surprised at all that FIA has done this.


A 10 grid place drop will probably cost Sato less time then a 10sec stop/go penalty during a race anyway.

That is not a very good comparison to be honest.




For those who think applying the penalty at the next race is harsh what other option did the FIA stewards have?

They can't ignore the offence 1) because passing under the yellow is a serious offence and 2) doing so would create a precedent that could be exploited in the future.

Give him a warning and a fine, if he messes up with something again, then its a penalty.
This doesnt warrant a 10 gridspot penalty what he did at America.

What precedent would it create? That if you accidentally overtake someone under yellows, then instead of serving the "stop and go" penalty or drivethrough and still possibly having a chance to get points, you spin out and lose the chance to get points? Yeah, that would be a really clever thing to do. :rotflmao:

It is also a shame that this now gives davidson the chance to beat Sato at france, something he has so far mostly struggled to do

[aryan]

Arrows, I guess it depends on whether you view each GP as en event in itself, or whether you view the whole championship as one event. I like to stick with the traditionalist view of thinking that Grand Prix is a Grand Prix, it is an important event in itself, and achievements in a Grand Prix are worthy of praise.

With this view, there is no point in punishing a driver for something he did in another race. That was a whole different venue, it was a different event. "An incident from eternity should not carry in future".

Just a reminder of what any judge should have in mind before issuing a decree:

respiciendum est iudicanti ne quid aut durius aut remissius constituatur quam causa deposcit nec enim aut severitatis aut clementiae gloria affectanda est.

[ArrowsFA1]

I like to stick with the traditionalist view of thinking that Grand Prix is a Grand Prix, it is an important event in itself, and achievements in a Grand Prix are worthy of praise.
I agree :up:

With this view, there is no point in punishing a driver for something he did in another race. That was a whole different venue, it was a different event. "An incident from eternity should not carry in future".
As I've said, ignoring yellow flags is a serious offence. The flags are there for good reason and a driver who ignores them should be penalised. Sato's spin into the gravel was not a penalty, and it should not allow him to evade penalty.

Just a reminder of what any judge should have in mind before issuing a decree:

respiciendum est iudicanti ne quid aut durius aut remissius constituatur quam causa deposcit nec enim aut severitatis aut clementiae gloria affectanda est.
Ahhh yes, but in this case some are arguing that no penalty should be applied at all :) This case requires that a penalty is imposed.

What precedent would it create?
It creates the precedent that drivers do not get penalised for ignoring yellow flags if they retire from the race whatever the circumstances before the prescribed penalty can be applied.

[Garry Walker]

It creates the precedent that drivers do not get penalised for ignoring yellow flags if they retire from the race whatever the circumstances before the prescribed penalty can be applied.

There is no need to penalize for something like ignoring the yellow flag, when the drivers race is ruined/over already, whatever the circumstance. Because if he avoided taking that penatly by lets say, crashing out, then he would actually lose out by doing that. When you have to take a penalty, you still can fight for points if the circumstances are right, the penalty is meant to damage your race for breaking the rules, but if you crash out then you have been penalized enough, and you have no chance to get any points.

You really have to bring me a good example of specific situation which could come up, where not taking the penalty and retiring from the race, would actually benefit driver X, in comparison to taking the penalty and continuing the race, because I fail to see any advantage.

[ArrowsFA1]

...the penalty is meant to damage your race for breaking the rules, but if you crash out then you have been penalized enough...
The penalty for ignoring a yellow flag is entirely unrelated to a self imposed penalty caused by, for example, spinning out of the race. It is not meant to damage your race. It is meant to penalise you for breaking a rule.

Had Sato served the stop/go penalty then spun out of the race then we would not be having this discussion. However, had the FIA stewards done nothing after Sato spun out of the race he would have escaped penalty.

The penalty for ignoring yellow flags is there for a reason. Imagine that by ignoring the flag Sato had collided with another driver or spun into marshalls who were pushing a stranded car away from a dangerous position.

That is why the rule exists - to prevent overtaking under yellow flag situations - and why Sato should be penalised. The fact that he spun out of the race through his own error is irrelevant.

[Flat.tyres]

it never ceases to amaze me that people with no idea about motoracing are so flippant regarding the rules. do people appreciate just how dangerous this sport is.

the only reason that we dont have carnage out there is that rules like red flags / lights and yellow flags are strictly followed and transgressions penalised with vigour. perhaps Gary can email murray as to why Sato's being penalised. :laugh:

[Firstgear]

Ten places on the grid will probably only be 4 or 5 places for Sato though. ;)
Then the FIA can carry over the other 6 or 5 for the race after:

[ioan]

Assuming Sato is guilty of the yellow flag offence what should the FIA stewards have done once he'd spun out of the race? Obviously they could not apply a penalty at the USGP once that had happened.

For those who think applying the penalty at the next race is harsh what other option did the FIA stewards have?

They can't ignore the offence 1) because passing under the yellow is a serious offence and 2) doing so would create a precedent that could be exploited in the future.

The guy says he isn't even guilty, so why not assume that instead of assuming that he is?

I doubt you would be singing this song if it was Hamilton the one getting the penalty.

[ioan]

With this view, there is no point in punishing a driver for something he did in another race.

Right, given that the same penalty for a broken engine isn't forwarded for the next race than why would this be? Because it was Sato? Because it was one of the smallest teams on the grid?

[aryan]

Right, given that the same penalty for a broken engine isn't forwarded for the next race than why would this be?

Well, good point... :up: but I disagree with the engine rule as well :) For the same reason.

Arrows, we do exonerate people posthumously, but I know of no country where people are condemed posthumously. Have you ever heard of a case in which a dead person -- whose guilt could be proven to all parties without any reasonable doubt -- was brought to courth to face justice? There is a good reason why the answer is no.

Spinning out of a race is the equivalent of being dead, in motor racing. A dead person is never punished, no matter the crime.

I'll concede that I'm arguing a moot point since clearly the FIA and the motor-racing enthusiasts among us do not agree with this. I respect your argument that yellow flags should be enforced, I just disagree with the notion of punishing a person already dead.

This whole argument is assuming that Taku is guilty of overtaking under yellow.

[Big Ben]

I hope Super Aguri will not accept the ruling on this one and take it to the FIA.
I don't remember anyone being handed such penalty, not for the last 15 years. They didn't hand out a penalty for Trulli last race for crashing under the SC either.

I didn't know the rules forbid the drivers to crash during the SC :laugh:

[Flat.tyres]

Well, good point... :up: but I disagree with the engine rule as well :) For the same reason.

Arrows, we do exonerate people posthumously, but I know of no country where people are condemed posthumously. Have you ever heard of a case in which a dead person -- whose guilt could be proven to all parties without any reasonable doubt -- was brought to courth to face justice? There is a good reason why the answer is no.

Spinning out of a race is the equivalent of being dead, in motor racing. A dead person is never punished, no matter the crime.

I'll concede that I'm arguing a moot point since clearly the FIA and the motor-racing enthusiasts among us do not agree with this. I respect your argument that yellow flags should be enforced, I just disagree with the notion of punishing a person already dead.

This whole argument is assuming that Taku is guilty of overtaking under yellow.

im not too sure of convicting dead people but if a driver goes for an overtake under yellows, pulls off the racing line and hits a car that the yellows are being waved for, then we could have a couple of dead drivers.

i remember a couple of years ago with alonso not slowing down for yellows and nearly wipeing himself out. i dont care if its sato, lewis or anyone else. I support this penalty.

of course, if he's innocent then its no problem.

[inimitablestoo]

There is a precedent of sorts where drivers who have incurred a jump start penalty or speeding in pits penalty and haven't stuck around long enough to take a stop/go or drive-thru have been fined, but it's been a while and I can't recall who did it.

For what it's worth, yes, Sato should not escape punishment for what is a serious motorsport offence (if indeed he is guilty...) but the only problems with a 10-place drop are that a) it isn't likely to affect a Super Aguri much, even if the '07 car is much better than the '06 car and b) if anything, it gives them more freedom, as they can change engines in France with impunity, knowing they'll start at the back regardless.

Unless, of course, Super Aguri do what Sauber did at Indy in 2002 and simply replace Sato with another driver who doesn't have to take the penalty. Can't see it happening, but if the French shout loud enough for Montagny to make a one-off return, who knows...

[BobbyC]

The other question: How many laps did it take from the incident to the stewards' inquiry?

[truefan72]

First off all I didn't see where he overtook on Yellow, I watched the race again and couldn't see the in cident. BUT I DID SEE LIUZZI OVERTAKE WURZ ON THE YELLOW yet nothin was doen about that incident.

2. That penalty carryover is complete rubbish. on track Penalties should apply to the race pnly and no more. So if you got black flagged at a race but crashed before returning to the garage, you get black flagged for the next race?

if you got a 10 second penalty for speeding in the pits and crash, then it shoudl be carried over? I could go on and on but you get my drift. Absolute foolishness. It seems lika they want to punish Super Aguri more than anything else. Trust me, if this was Ferrari or McClaren this issue would have been dead before the ink dried on the notice.

3. The stewards in Indy were extremely incompetent all race long, from droping flags to incorrectly flagging drivers. I saw one stewart on turn 13 over and over display the blue flag as drivers were going by. Probably not understanding that these drivers were in competition. I mean he did it for almost 20 laps, and again after the seocond round of pitsstops reshuffled the order. He was waving blue flags to the cars ahead of Alonso despite the fact that they were legitemately ahead of alosno in track postion.


Super Aguri should protest this rule and if it is upheld then go back and display evidence of other drivers and cars from the 2007 season that received penalties but failed to finish. There is no precedent for this and this situation, especially with a dubious call should nto be the precedent setting incident.

F1 forgets that people show up to watch the races not applaud the intrcacies of rulings and stewerdship. The referees should never take centerstage.


Ridiculous :( :( :(

[truefan72]

Unless, of course, Super Aguri do what Sauber did at Indy in 2002 and simply replace Sato with another driver who doesn't have to take the penalty. Can't see it happening, but if the French shout loud enough for Montagny to make a one-off return, who knows...

yes but according to this stupid ruling, Sato will have to serve the penalty when he returns to the track

[Narr]

Does anyone know how long it took the stewards to apply the penalty?

I can remember the US stewards took most of the race to black flag JPM.......

[stevie_gerrard]

I was so gutted for Sato :( it's not fair on a guy like him, whether he overtook him or not, i thought 10 places was too much, even though it may be in the rules that he committed an offence. i could understand a smaller drop, say 2 to 3 places, but 10, seems a bit unfortunate to me.

[jso1985]

too harsh IMO, there's no way he could take advantage in Magny Cours for his offence at Indy, he broked a rule though, so I think he should be fined(and quite heavily, 50000€ or more)

[ArrowsFA1]

The guy says he isn't even guilty, so why not assume that instead of assuming that he is?
My comments on this thread are based on the fact that the FIA stewards judged him guilty of passing under a yellow flag. Regardless of what you think of their decision it is the one that counts, until (if) Super Aguri appeal the decision.

I doubt you would be singing this song if it was Hamilton the one getting the penalty.
Sorry ioan but that's rubbish. If any driver passes under a yellow flag he should be penalised.

[wmcot]

i remember a couple of years ago with alonso not slowing down for yellows and nearly wipeing himself out.


And if memory serves me rightly, he was awarded 3rd place for it, not penalized!

[ioan]

My comments on this thread are based on the fact that the FIA stewards judged him guilty of passing under a yellow flag. Regardless of what you think of their decision it is the one that counts, until (if) Super Aguri appeal the decision.

But you should comment based on evidence not on other peoples (wrong) views.
Don't tell me that if someone is convicted without being at fault you will rubbish him based on a judge's POV.

[ArrowsFA1]

And if memory serves me rightly, he was awarded 3rd place for it, not penalized!
Alonso was penalised in that race. He got a drive-through penalty for overtaking Verstappen under yellow flags.

But you should comment based on evidence not on other peoples (wrong) views.
The FIA stewards judged Sato to be guilty. They are the people who decide. Whether or not you or anyone else disagrees with their decision, and even if Sato says he didn't pass under yellow, that is the decision.

[ioan]

The FIA stewards judged Sato to be guilty. They are the people who decide. Whether or not you or anyone else disagrees with their decision, and even if Sato says he didn't pass under yellow, that is the decision.

It's a pity that you think this way. I hope that SAF1 will appeal against this penalty.

[ArrowsFA1]

It's a pity that you think this way. I hope that SAF1 will appeal against this penalty.
If Sato did not pass under a yellow flag then the team would be right to appeal and the penalty should be reversed.

[ioan]

If Sato did not pass under a yellow flag then the team would be right to appeal and the penalty should be reversed.

Exactly! ;)

[Valve Bounce]

If Sato did not pass under a yellow flag then the team would be right to appeal and the penalty should be reversed.

That does not detract from the fact that the penalty was way out of line and too harsh.

[Narr]

Alonso was penalised in that race. He got a drive-through penalty for overtaking Verstappen under yellow flags.

The FIA stewards judged Sato to be guilty. They are the people who decide. Whether or not you or anyone else disagrees with their decision, and even if Sato says he didn't pass under yellow, that is the decision.

Yellow flags also mean the drivers should take care not put their cars on the limit; Alonso was awarded 3rd in Brasil after ignoring the yellow flags and crashing heavily into Webber's car.

[OutRun]

Sato admits his own guilt. Button slowed down when he saw the Yellow flags but Sato kept racing to hold his position. The telemetry would show whether or not Sato was still on the throttle. Sato should have erred on the side of caution. The penalty is straight out of the rulebook. It's too late to protest the penalty.

[Flat.tyres]

But you should comment based on evidence not on other peoples (wrong) views.
Don't tell me that if someone is convicted without being at fault you will rubbish him based on a judge's POV.

I agree 100% with you.

can you show me any evidence that sato did not overtake under yellow because i am sure the fia will have presented evidence to SA that he did. they have the telemetary, the camera shots etc. that is evidence, not a POV.

now, if SA appeal and overturn the decision, then great, but nobody here knows what the evidence is in this case at the moment and i would like to see it.

[hugh_lee]

Right, given that the same penalty for a broken engine isn't forwarded for the next race than why would this be? Because it was Sato? Because it was one of the smallest teams on the grid?

and what of ralfie's move? he did more damage, and he goes on to race (at least that's what he call whatever he does) without penalty. or is there?

[William Hunt]

Even if he did overtake under yellow, the penalty is normally a 10 second pitstop, but since he couldn't take that penalty due to his retirement they gave him the 10 places penalty for the next year which I find extremely unfair and to say the least, harsh. I also wonder why Ralf didn't get a penalty for crashing into DC at the start and why Sato did get this punishment. But then off course, Ralf may find himself replaced by Franck Montagny in France :) .

[K-Pu]

First of all, I didn´t see Sato overtaking Button under yellows, but if my memory doesn´t fail, there was some kind of overtaking (as Truefan72 said) in that period. I´d have to check it again...

Second: The FIA must check if Sato is guilty because he says he´s not. there must be a proof, and not one of us has seen in on the race.

Third: The 10 place penalty is quite stupid. Hadn´t Sato crashed, he´d get a stop and go, but he spun off and his race was over. And I think you can´t penalise a pilot´s race at the next event, unless you do something really horrible and you deserve disqualification for more than one race.
I agree yellow flags must be respected, and there should be a punishment for it, BUT: Why should it be the next race? As it has been said before, there could be a better way of punishing Sato if he did overtake under yellow flags: Just fine him. A severe fine is a good punishment, and after having to pay a lot of money you´ll probably think it twice before doing it again. And it doesn´t ruin your next race.

Third: What were the stewards doing at the time? Couldn´t they have penalised Sato before he spun off? Do they have to make it the slow way, like they did with Montoya? In Spain we say "Las cosas de palacio van despacio", which means "official things go slowly", but... It´s F1! You can´t do it in slow motion because when you decide it, the race will be over. And it´s been said before too, some steward had been showing the blue flag to the wrong pilot consistently during the race, and even a blue flag was dropped on the track...

[wmcot]

Yellow flags also mean the drivers should take care not put their cars on the limit; Alonso was awarded 3rd in Brasil after ignoring the yellow flags and crashing heavily into Webber's car.

Exactly. That's the incident I was referring to in my earlier post! That was the 2nd time he ignored yellow flags at that race. He was penalized for the 1st time and awarded 3rd place for the 2nd time! Fair????

[wmcot]

Even if he did overtake under yellow, the penalty is normally a 10 second pitstop, but since he couldn't take that penalty due to his retirement they gave him the 10 places penalty for the next year which I find extremely unfair and to say the least, harsh. I also wonder why Ralf didn't get a penalty for crashing into DC at the start and why Sato did get this punishment. But then off course, Ralf may find himself replaced by Franck Montagny in France :) .


My earlier post referred to the LMS GT race at Silverstone. One of the Maseratis had incurred a 10 sec. stop-and-go at the previous race in China, but crashed before serving the penalty. The car had to serve the 10 sec. stop-and-go at Silverstone. To me, that seems much more fair even if I still find it a bit odd to have penalties carry over (other than the most severe infringements where a driver is suspended for a number of races, of course.)

[jens]

I understand both sides' arguments pretty well. ArrowsFA1 said that not enforcing a punishment would create a precedent. But has there ever been a precedent for s u c h situation? I remember that some guys have been punished after creating a collision - like Massa in Italy 2002 (and that's partly why he missed the 2002 US GP). After that decision no-one complained.

But what about yellow flags? What attitude should we take? Collision is 'serious enough' for punishment and ignoring yellow flags isn't? Where goes the dividing line whether a penalty should be carried over into next race or not?

All in all, that's a bit stupid situation indeed. If only Takuma had driven through the pitlane before his spin...

[Garry Walker]

The penalty for ignoring a yellow flag is entirely unrelated to a self imposed penalty caused by, for example, spinning out of the race. It is not meant to damage your race. It is meant to penalise you for breaking a rule.
There we obviously disagree in our interpretation. For me, one race means an entity. Everything taking place in that race has to be considered independantly from future events. If you break a rule in one race, then you have to be applied a penalty in the same race. If we applied Law in this case, we probably could derive backing to both view points. But Ioan made a good point about the engines. So there happens to be something of an inconsistency in FIAs dealings. What a surprise.
In any case, I do not think this penalty is proportional with the mistake he made.



Had Sato served the stop/go penalty then spun out of the race then we would not be having this discussion. However, had the FIA stewards done nothing after Sato spun out of the race he would have escaped penalty.
He got penalized already enough in the US GP and he gained nothing from it.



The penalty for ignoring yellow flags is there for a reason. Imagine that by ignoring the flag Sato had collided with another driver or spun into marshalls who were pushing a stranded car away from a dangerous position.
But he didnt, in fact the situation where the said move occured by all accounts was harmless and innocent and the result of a misunderstanding. Its not like the Brazil gp of 2003 where Alonso drove at full speed during yellows and crashed into a tyre like a moron.


it never ceases to amaze me that people with no idea about motoracing are so flippant regarding the rules. do people appreciate just how dangerous this sport is.
Do you consider yourself well informed on motoracing[sic]?


I doubt you would be singing this song if it was Hamilton the one getting the penalty.
That is a very good point.


Alonso was penalised in that race. He got a drive-through penalty for overtaking Verstappen under yellow flags.

But he ignored the yellow flags in the end when he crashed and got away unpunished.


I understand both sides' arguments pretty well. ArrowsFA1 said that not enforcing a punishment would create a precedent.
He has yet to explain me exactly how that precedent would benefit any of the drivers, despite me asking him about it.

[Valve Bounce]

I think Jacques was penalised the year he won the championship for some infringement and was suspended for one race. However, SchM suffered nothing when he later tried to ram Jacques at Jerez to stop Jacques from winning the title - he escaped scott free.

[Garry Walker]

I think Jacques was penalised the year he won the championship for some infringement and was suspended for one race. However, SchM suffered nothing when he later tried to ram Jacques at Jerez to stop Jacques from winning the title - he escaped scott free.

Yes, thats exactly how it was :rolleyes:

[Ranger]

I think Jacques was penalised the year he won the championship for some infringement and was suspended for one race. However, SchM suffered nothing when he later tried to ram Jacques at Jerez to stop Jacques from winning the title - he escaped scott free.
Michael was DQ'd from the championship, but kept his points and victories. The only thing he didn't gain from this was the 2nd place trophy on gala night plus a little slap on the wrist - but he was penalised nonetheless.

[ArrowsFA1]

He got penalized already enough in the US GP and he gained nothing from it.
He was not penalised at all for the offence of passing under yellow flags. The penalty you are referring to was a self inflicted error. Had he served a stop/go during the race, then spun off, would you be saying he was penalised twice for the offence of passing under yellows?

He has yet to explain me exactly how that precedent would benefit any of the drivers, despite me asking him about it.
To answer a question with a question ;) what precedent would be created if the FIA stewards imposed no penalty whatsoever on Sato, having established that he passed under yellows?

[Valve Bounce]

Michael was DQ'd from the championship, but kept his points and victories. The only thing he didn't gain from this was the 2nd place trophy on gala night plus a little slap on the wrist - but he was penalised nonetheless.

I knew somebody would bring that up - in other words, he escaped scott free. He did not get a qualifying penalty for the following race nor was he suspended for one or more races.

I'm not going into that anymore - I swore never to revisit Jerez, but I just wanted to make a point about how harsh Sato's penalty is in quantity. OK, the guy might qualify 19th or 20th in France, so the penalty is not that significant. But if the same penalty was to be applied to a front runner like Alonso, Hamilton, or Massa, or Kimi, the effect on their championship aspirations would be catastrophic.

Do we have set penalties for this infringement?

[Garry Walker]

He was not penalised at all for the offence of passing under yellow flags. The penalty you are referring to was a self inflicted error. Had he served a stop/go during the race, then spun off, would you be saying he was penalised twice for passing under yellows? No, but in the case we had now, punishing him lost its point and became an unproportionally great penalty.



To answer a question with a question ;) what precedent would be created if the FIA stewards imposed no penalty whatsoever on Sato, having established that he passed under yellows?
You still have yet to show me what anyone would gain by avoiding taking a penalty this way, which is what I have been asking you. Give me an example that could come up in reality, because I see nothing.

[Valve Bounce]

To answer a question with a question ;) what precedent would be created if the FIA stewards imposed no penalty whatsoever on Sato, having established that he passed under yellows?


OK, let me answer this one, please: Sato should have been penalised, but the fact that his race stopped meant that penalty could not have been served in that race.

But a ten place qualifying penalty for the next race is too harsh, that's what I am saying. That fact remains that his action was not a dangerous one. Under the circumstances, a two place penalty in quals would have been sufficient.

[Flat.tyres]

OK, let me answer this one, please: Sato should have been penalised, but the fact that his race stopped meant that penalty could not have been served in that race.

But a ten place qualifying penalty for the next race is too harsh, that's what I am saying. That fact remains that his action was not a dangerous one. Under the circumstances, a two place penalty in quals would have been sufficient.

valve bounce

You write some reasoned views but i cant agree with you here.

the penalty was for passing under yellows and the stewards say he must serve a punishment.

it doesn't matter a jot if it was dangerous or not. you cant go around penalising people just when they kill someone. You set the precident and that is that.

Massa wasn't being dangerous when he exited the pits. Schumacher wasnt when he baited Hill on the formation lap. Yet they both got Black flagged.

I have no axe to grind with Sato. great little chap and i have a soft spot for him. BUT, he (we are told) passed under yellow and that is that. Just because he slid out doesn't immunise him from having to be penalised for a dangerous driving infringement. people talk about engine blow outs or making a racing mistake in the race that takes out a competitor. These are different as no breach of the rules takes place. If the crash was deliberate then they take action as in Sch / Vil but if its a racing incident, then how can you penalise someone.

in a similar way, if Lewis passed under yellow, I would have the same attitude. The rules are there for everyones safety and claiming that its not so bad to break them if its safe to do so doesn't wash with me.

[ioan]

I took my time to watch the full race yesterday and what struck me was the number of cars attempting and even overtaking while those yellows were waved, still only Sato, who apparently was being let back to his place after Button overtook him under yellows, was given a penalty, for the next race!

Very very "fair" as lots of you consider. Why is that I'm not at all surprised about it? :\

[Valve Bounce]

OK, I guess you are right. :(

[Flat.tyres]

Do you consider yourself well informed on motoracing[sic]?


(about if it was Lewis etc.) That is a very good point.


First point. i understand my sport, yes. You understand spelling, grammer and spin. pretty unimportant qualities around the track but well done anyway.

Secondly, i have already answered my view. Cannot coment on others though.

[ArrowsFA1]

You still have yet to show me what anyone would gain...
Sato was seen to have broken a fundamental rule of motorsport and should be punished. A penalty reminds drivers there are consequences if they break rules. It really is that simple.

It's not about anyone "gaining". Well...apart from the marshals who can do their work under yellows safe in the knowledge that drivers are not still racing for position while they do so.

[jens]

I wonder about one thing. If Massa or Fisichella had crashed in Canada right after they had exited the pits under red light, then would they have had to suffer a penalty in US Grand Prix just because they went off before they got their punishment - black flag. In some way it would be a similar situation to Sato's. What do you think?

[Valve Bounce]

I wonder about one thing. If Massa or Fisichella had crashed in Canada right after they had exited the pits under red light, then would they have had to suffer a penalty in US Grand Prix just because they went off before they got their punishment - black flag. In some way it would be a similar situation to Sato's. What do you think?


Very good point. I'll leave this for Arrows to answer - I think I have run out of excuses for these guys. :(
But going on the severity of the penalty, maybe they would have been banned for one race? I hope not. :(

[BriannaBee]

Exactly. That's the incident I was referring to in my earlier post! That was the 2nd time he ignored yellow flags at that race. He was penalized for the 1st time and awarded 3rd place for the 2nd time! Fair????
It was unbelievable that Alonso wasn't given a suspension for that incident in Brazil 2003 because it was reckless and stupid, with luck being the only thing saving he and Webber from injury or worse.

[ClarkFan]

Why is it always 10?

Because FIA officials have to take off their shoes to count higher than 10, and they find that undignified.

You don't want to know what they have to do to count to 21! :eek:

ClarkFan

[ArrowsFA1]

I wonder about one thing. If Massa or Fisichella had crashed in Canada right after they had exited the pits under red light, then would they have had to suffer a penalty in US Grand Prix just because they went off before they got their punishment - black flag. In some way it would be a similar situation to Sato's. What do you think?
Good question, and it's impossible to second guess the stewards. All I know for sure is that ignoring a red light attracts a more serious penalty than passing under yellows.

[Garry Walker]

Sato was seen to have broken a fundamental rule of motorsport and should be punished.

He was punished..He just didnt have the chance to serve it :D


A penalty reminds drivers there are consequences if they break rules. It really is that simple. While I dont regard any of the drivers particulary intelligent, I am pretty sure they already know you get punished for passing under yellow flags.


It's not about anyone "gaining". Yes it is, because otherwise I see no reason for your "precedent" talk. What you said clearly implied that if Sato was let away this time, it might set a precedent for future, obviously that means something that other drivers can take advantage of. Now, if someone takes advantage of something, this already implies "gaining". Isnt that so? So go on and tell me what drivers would have to gain from this precedent, if Sato was let away without having to serve his punishment.

[ArrowsFA1]

What you said clearly implied that if Sato was let away this time, it might set a precedent for future.
Yup, a precedent that in future instances means a driver guilty of the same offence can point to Sato at the 2007 US GP and say 'why should I be penalised for doing the same thing' if Sato were to have been let off.

[Garry Walker]

Yup, a precedent that in future instances means a driver guilty of the same offence can point to Sato at the 2007 US GP and say 'why should I be penalised for doing the same thing' if Sato were to have been let off.

He wasnt let off, he was penalized for it. He just didnt have the opportunity to serve it. So any driver who would claim that Sato was let off would be speaking BS, as he wasnt let off. If any driver wanted to avoid taking the penalty, sato-style, then it would end in nonsense - He would have to spin out to avoid taking the penalty. Where would be the gain in that?

So I will quote the other part of my post again, in hope you come up with the explanation finally, as to how someone will be able to gain from this "precedent"



Yes it is, because otherwise I see no reason for your "precedent" talk. What you said clearly implied that if Sato was let away this time, it might set a precedent for future, obviously that means something that other drivers can take advantage of. Now, if someone takes advantage of something, this already implies "gaining". Isnt that so? So go on and tell me what drivers would have to gain from this precedent, if Sato was let away without having to serve his punishment.

[ArrowsFA1]

Not interested anymore. Going round in circles.

[ioan]

He wasnt let off, he was penalized for it. He just didnt have the opportunity to serve it. So any driver who would claim that Sato was let off would be speaking BS, as he wasnt let off. If any driver wanted to avoid taking the penalty, sato-style, then it would end in nonsense - He would have to spin out to avoid taking the penalty. Where would be the gain in that?

Completely agree with you. No one would try to escape a penalty with a DNF in the race. That would be the stupidest thing to do.

[Firstgear]

Imagine, if you will....

Ralfie is called into head office. "Ralfie, you are blindingly quick and are taking Toyota to places we've never been before. We'd like to extend your contract for a further 3 years @ $20,000,000 per season. But you also have a tendancy to, lets say, fall asleep at the wheel. So we are adding a clause into the new contract that will state that if you are assessed any penalties, your contract will be terminated immediately without further pay. This should give you the incentive to keep alert while in the car"

Ralfie smiles and replies, "Sounds great. But I'd like to tweak the wording just a bit. Lets change 'assessed any penalties' to 'serve any penalties' if that's ok with y'all."

"Done deal", says Toyota HQ.

Ralf walks away grinning, thinking to himself "All I have to do now is DNF in the race to escape serving the penalty."


Crazy scenario you may think? Not any more crazy than a driver intentionally stalling and blocking the track during qualifying so time runs out in the session. The only thing that a crazy scenario needs to become a reality is enough time.

[inimitablestoo]

I had to laugh when reading the correspondent in this week's Autosport who suggested that Sato's punishment ought to be moving into the works Honda :laugh:

[xtlm]

he says jenson was trying to overtake him and that he was just defending his position. F1live seems to agree with him (see link). i hope super aguri appeals the decision. when sato crashed i thought, "there goes half the excitement"

http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/070617213815.shtml

Same thought went trough my head also...he was gaining...o well, this is a harsh penalty!

[Allyc85]

anyone got a video of this as I missed the race!

[William Hunt]

If it was Button that was overtaking Sato, then it is realy unfair.

[Eyo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mCAX6WpEMM

This is something but it's not clear

[Allyc85]

cheers for that :) . From what I can see it does look harsh, and there should have been yellow flags further up the track to stop drivers racing into the braking point. Poor marshalling IMO

[Valve Bounce]

I didn't see any overtaking; did anyone see it? What I did see was the yellow flags suddenly being waved at latter half of that stream of cars.

[Garry Walker]

Not interested anymore. Going round in circles.

Then stop avoiding giving a clear and exact answer to my question :rolleyes:

[janneppi]

He wasnt let off, he was penalized for it. He just didnt have the opportunity to serve it. So any driver who would claim that Sato was let off would be speaking BS, as he wasnt let off. If any driver wanted to avoid taking the penalty, sato-style, then it would end in nonsense - He would have to spin out to avoid taking the penalty. Where would be the gain in that?


What if a driver is under a suspended penalty, "mess up once more and get a three race ban" type of situation, still he messes up and isn't getting points anyways so parks the car in a ditch before receiving the penalty?

[Garry Walker]

What if a driver is under a suspended penalty, "mess up once more and get a three race ban" type of situation, still he messes up and isn't getting points anyways so parks the car in a ditch before receiving the penalty?

But he has been given the penalty already, serving it (taking the drivethrough) or not is irrelevant in this case, there would be nothing useful in parking the car then. Serving the penalty doesnt have any effect on whether it has power or not.

[janneppi]

Ah, so Sato had been "awarded" with the penalty before he ran out of talent, i thought he had been faster than the judges. :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Then stop avoiding giving a clear and exact answer to my question :rolleyes:
The only thing I'm avoiding is a repetitive discussion. If you want to score points and keep battering away then that's up to you.

[Garry Walker]

The only thing I'm avoiding is a repetitive discussion.

You only need to give me one example and there would be no repetition, thats all I am asking. If you dont have any reasonable possible example to bring, then say so.

[PSfan]

Yup, a precedent that in future instances means a driver guilty of the same offence can point to Sato at the 2007 US GP and say 'why should I be penalised for doing the same thing' if Sato were to have been let off.


whats this non-sense about drivers getting away without a penalty by dnf would set a precedent? I'm sure Sato isn't the first to be under investigation and dnf'd before a penalty could be issued, I doubt the drivers received further punishment in those instances. In fact a precedent I believe had already been set where MS waited till the last lap to serve a drive through, thus crossing the start/finish in the pits to limit the damage, I believe he won that race, but my memory is a little shakey on this, I'm almost positive he didn't have to serve any penalty in the following race.

Ok found the details, it was the 1998 British GP:


At the British Grand Prix Schumacher was leading on the last lap when he turned into the pit lane, crossed the start finish line and stopped for a ten second stop go penalty. There was some doubt on if this counted as serving the penalty but the win stood.

Thanks wikipedia!!! :)

What makes Sato's penalty even worse is the fact that his penalty is based on the scoring loops. Button managed to get his nose ahead of Sato at the loop prior to the yellows, no completed pass was neccessary, which sets an even uglier precendent in my books... Drivers knowing where the scoring loops are, and racing to them despite seeing a yellow flag ahead.