Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1138429
maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 3 JULY 2019 20 FORMULA 1 SPORTS FOR a sport that some have labelled as boring, there sure have been a lot of incidents, controversies and, yes, even some great racing in the first nine races of the 2019 Formu- la 1 season. The Austrian Grand Prix provided the latest - a truly superb drive by Red Bull's Max Verstappen culminat- ing in a controversial passing move for the lead on Ferrari's Charles Leclerc with two laps to go. Was it "hard racing", as Verstappen said, or "not the way" to overtake, as Leclerc argued? And so for the second time in three races, the victory de- pended on a decision in the stewards' room. Except at the Red Bull Ring the decision took rather longer than it did when Ferrari's Sebastian Vet- tel was deprived of victory with a five-second penalty for dangerous driving in Canada while the race was still run- ning. More than three hours after the end of the race, nearly two hours after the two drivers spoke to officials, it was de- cided that it was a "racing in- cident" because stewards "did not consider that either driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for the incident". The delay between the race ending and the result being confirmed was criticised by some on social media - and created the opportunity for a swiftly discredited fake FIA statement, claiming Verstap- pen had lost his win, to be circulated among some in the media - but ultimately it is probably better to reach the right decision slowly than the wrong one quickly. Verstappen tried two moves on Leclerc. In the first, he got inside the Ferrari at Turn Three, but left him room to stay on the track on the out- side. Leclerc was able to out- accelerate him on the run to Turn Four and keep the posi- tion. On the next lap, Verstap- pen again got alongside - they were wheel to wheel at the apex, with Verstappen a few centimetres ahead - but this time he ran out to the edge of the track on the exit, and Leclerc was forced into the run-off area so had no chance to try to attack into Turn Four. The point of contention was not over whether Verstappen ran Leclerc off the track in completing the move on lap 69 - which he clearly did - but whether that was legal or not. It is the same rule of which Vettel fell foul in Montreal. But it was not the same sort of incident. The agonising choice faced by the stewards was summed up by Mercedes F1 boss Toto Wolff. "I wouldn't want be in the stewards' shoes," Wolff said. "As racers, we all like hard racing but you just need to define where the limit is. And this is where the regulations come into play again. Difficult one." What is the problem? The issue here is in chapter four of appendix L of the FIA sporting code. It states: "Ma- noeuvres liable to hinder oth- er drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited." And: "It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessar- ily slowly, erratically or in a manner deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time." The problem with that text is in its limitations, and its in- ability to contain the subtle- ties of the ethics of racing. Is it 'hard racing' to force a driver wide and into the wall or off the track when he is ful- ly alongside you - as Leclerc and Verstappen were - or partly, as in the case of Ham- ilton and Vettel? Or is that 'dirty driving'? When are you required to give space and when are you not? When has a driver won a corner, and is therefore enti- tled to dictate his racing line, and when is the move effec- tively done and the driver be- ing attacked has to cede posi- tion? There are no hard and fast rules here, and everyone has a subtly different opinion of what is acceptable and what is beyond the pale. Verstappen and Leclerc are old rivals from karting but it seems they have differing positions on on-track ethics themselves. "It's hard racing otherwise we have to stay at home," Ver- stappen said. "If those things are not allowed in racing then what's the point of being in Formula 1?" Leclerc responded: "It is just not the way you overtake." Predictably, their team boss- es also differed in their views. Ferrari's Mattia Binotto said: "The rules for us are clear. There has been a colli- sion and he has been forced off the track. "There are rules, which we may appreciate or not and they have been applied in past races, but we respect the deci- sion." Binotto added that Ferrari would not be taking further action because it was time for the sport to move on. Red Bull's Christian Horner said: "He had won the compe- tition in the braking area. He was slightly ahead, he'd got to the apex first. "At that point, he has won the corner. It is for the other guy to back out and try the undercut. It is slam dunk. Checkmate." Some argue that the drivers should be left to get on with it, and that sooner or later a code of ethics will emerge that defines what is accept- able and what is not. But the problem with that is that it will always reward dirty driving. The rules, after all, were brought in because first Ayrton Senna and then, par- ticularly, Michael Schumacher drove in a way that changed what "hard racing" was. One potential solution would be to appoint perma- nent stewards. It will be un- der serious consideration in the coming days and weeks Schumacher literally drove into rivals, sometimes forc- ing them off the track, in an attempt to win - sometimes successfully, sometimes not. And the risk of death or injury that generally stopped driv- ers in the 1960s, '70s and '80s from driving in this way has largely been removed. Should that change what is accepted in terms of "racing"? This topic has always been controversial, one that goes to the very heart of the es- sence of F1. After the Vet- tel/Hamilton incident, it has come front and centre, and now Verstappen/Leclerc will have only intensified the de- bate. Hard racing or unfair? Verstappen highlights F1's current dilemma Red Bull's Verstappen celebrates his victory