Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
I think it is right that teams can present additional evidence if it affects the decision. The main aim is that the right decision is reached in the end.
Ideally this would be during the race though, and post-race matters kept to a minimum.
I think the FIA have this somewhere near right with a specific timeframe in which appeals can be made. Possibly look at other sports' review systems to see if something can be learnt in terms of capping the appeals?
The challenge is that F1 doesn't (normally) have breaks in play.
|
Good points
In basic natural law the accused has a right to face their accuser to defend themselves.
In F1 the driver is not always the accused (the jack issue), it is the team being penalized but the driver suffers in terms of his effort, because he has already served the 5 second penalty.
So there should always be a right of reply and a defense is the commonsense allowance.
how do you cap an appeal?
If the prosecution changes the boundaries or adds additional information during the first appeal, then there should be a right of rebuttal and appeal again.
Similarly, if the penalty is served and the adjudicators accept it has been served and notify the team that it has been served, should they then be allowed the change their minds later, especially if it alters the driver's ability to defend it on track and alters the racing result?
I don't think they should.
If we expect drivers to give account for errors, then officials decisions, once made and notified should not be changeable during the event.
One a decision is made and notified (posted on the official's board, real or virtual), then that's it.
Certainly, no other team or competitor should be able to add information to substantially change or alter the official's decision during the meeting because that constitutes interference.
If that happened at Jeddah, it was out of place.