Ferrari summoned to WMSC 'team orders' hearing 4 days before Italian GP!

[mad_ani]

mad_ani, the teams are entitled to the team orders, it's very simple really; they put the money and if they need to ask their drivers for certain things , they should be entitled to. As long as they don't ask them to crash into other drivers or between them of course that is, if they want to -for example- keep positions or change places between them, they should be allowed to do that.

It's how it's been since the beginning of time, and surely that won't change now.

Heck, in the old days the #1 driver would take #2's car should his car fail..

Agree that team orders have been used in the past...to more extreme measures as well...But where do we draw a line between racing and team orders??

As a kid, I switched on Tv's every Sunday afternoon to watch good overtakings and racing between cars...and I still want to see the same now, even if its between team mates...

[Hermann]

Agree that team orders have been used in the past...to more extreme measures as well...But where do we draw a line between racing and team orders??

As a kid, I switched on Tv's every Sunday afternoon to watch good overtakings and racing between cars...and I still want to see the same now, even if its between team mates...

I don't know how old you are but i suppose F1 has changed a lot since you were a kid. When i was a kid, i saw too many fatal accidents on race tracks, can't say i want those times back, though the racing was better. But they had their 'scandals' as well.

I would say the question is more where do we draw the line between 'team orders' and 'team strategy'. Ferrari didn't 'order' the switch, at least i have not seen any team radio reporting Ferrari telling Massa to 'move over'. Its more that they 'reminded' him of something they had been discussing before the race.

It was not a clear team- order that way, it became a question of interpretation. If they had an agreement with the drivers, its team strategy, not order. And you can't prohibit team strategies, there are teams racing each other as well as drivers racing each other.

When Todt said on the radio 'let Michael pass for the championship' it was a very clear team order indeed, but if you have an agreement for the race beforehand and let one driver know in the race 'xy is faster than you' meaning 'remember what we talked about, if he is faster than you, find a place to let him pass without defending too hard' its in a grey area.

Ferrari might argue that way in the WMSC meeting, we will have to wait and see the outcome.

[Anni]

When Todt said on the radio 'let Michael pass for the championship' it was a very clear team order indeed, but if you have an agreement for the race beforehand and let one driver know in the race 'xy is faster than you' meaning 'remember what we talked about, if he is faster than you, find a place to let him pass without defending too hard' its in a grey area.

I keep wondering what they talked about before the race. Why did Smedley say something like "Keep concentrated and we will win" in the beginning if it was clear, Massa won´t be allowed to win? Why did Massa look happy before the race and hurt after the race? If he had known he would have to let Alonso pass, wouldn´t he have been sad or angry before the race, too, and not so much hurt after the race, because he had already known?
Domenicali made it clear he and Montezemolo decided before the race, but did Massa know? Would it make sence, to tell a driver before a race he won´t be allowed to win. This won´t be the best for the motivation.

[Hermann]

I keep wondering what they talked about before the race. Why did Smedley say something like "Keep concentrated and we will win" in the beginning if it was clear, Massa won´t be allowed to win? Why did Massa look happy before the race and hurt after the race? If he had known he would have to let Alonso pass, wouldn´t he have been sad or angry before the race, too, and not so much hurt after the race, because he had already known?
Domenicali made it clear he and Montezemolo decided before the race, but did Massa know? Would it make sence, to tell a driver before a race he won´t be allowed to win. This won´t be the best for the motivation.

No, for sure that was not the agreement that he was 'not allowed to win'. But i'm sure there was some kind of agreement about the drivers racing each other, something like 'whoever is in front should be xx seconds faster or able to keep a certain distance'. Which might have led to Fernando's radio message to let the team know that under normal circumstances, he could overtake Felipe. And he tried several times but even in a faster car, as we know, its hard to overtake nowadays when the driver in front is defending hard. Just think of Silverstone, Fernando was a lot faster than Kubica, but even then Kubica tried to prevent that by forcing Fernando off track and we know how that ended.

Massa had no intention to let Fernando by obviously, though he was indeed faster and though he knew that actually, he should not fight him too hard. And in my 'interpretation' this led to the 'famous' radio call from Smedley.

Thats why i'm saying its a grey area. Starting as a team strategy and ending, in a way, as an order. In the end maybe Massa was reminded of who is paying his salary.

Either way, i'm curious to see how the WMSC is going to sort that out.

[mad_ani]

I don't know how old you are but i suppose F1 has changed a lot since you were a kid. When i was a kid, i saw too many fatal accidents on race tracks, can't say i want those times back, though the racing was better. But they had their 'scandals' as well.

I would say the question is more where do we draw the line between 'team orders' and 'team strategy'. Ferrari didn't 'order' the switch, at least i have not seen any team radio reporting Ferrari telling Massa to 'move over'. Its more that they 'reminded' him of something they had been discussing before the race.

It was not a clear team- order that way, it became a question of interpretation. If they had an agreement with the drivers, its team strategy, not order. And you can't prohibit team strategies, there are teams racing each other as well as drivers racing each other.

When Todt said on the radio 'let Michael pass for the championship' it was a very clear team order indeed, but if you have an agreement for the race beforehand and let one driver know in the race 'xy is faster than you' meaning 'remember what we talked about, if he is faster than you, find a place to let him pass without defending too hard' its in a grey area.

Ferrari might argue that way in the WMSC meeting, we will have to wait and see the outcome.

Well if it was a strategy and pre discussed, why did Massa have to be reminded three times??Why did he not be happy on the podium??it was his first podium in many events...
Yes, there was no definative words to say "move over"...but how would you explain the position swap??

Now I dont want WMSC to call on Massa (or Alonso....) as to why Massa slowed down suddenly...remember they have all the telemetry...and suddenly slowing down on the track is no means safe unless there is a genuine problem with the car....

If Massa does concede it was the case of team order.(coded or not)..then Ferrari face punishment...
and this could hurt us in WCC....and I dont want to see Ferrari being stripped of point or fined....

or even be called to WMSC....

[Hermann]

Well if it was a strategy and pre discussed, why did Massa have to be reminded three times??Why did he not be happy on the podium??it was his first podium in many events...
Yes, there was no definative words to say "move over"...but how would you explain the position swap??

Now I dont want WMSC to call on Massa (or Alonso....) as to why Massa slowed down suddenly...remember they have all the telemetry...and suddenly slowing down on the track is no means safe unless there is a genuine problem with the car....

If Massa does concede it was the case of team order.(coded or not)..then Ferrari face punishment...
and this could hurt us in WCC....and I dont want to see Ferrari being stripped of point or fined....

or even be called to WMSC....

Me neither, of course. I would want them to find an 'elegant' way to solve that.

Yes, why did Massa obviously had to be 'reminded' (if that is what happened) indeed? Good question.

He definitely knew what it meant when Smedley told him, very slow, very accentuated, 'Fernando- is- faster- than- you!' adding an exclamation mark at the end. And then, he reacted. Could not have done it more obviously. All in all, this was what led to the penalty.

I'm just speculating here, of course. We don't know for sure if there was such an ageement beforehand or not.

Obviously i have never been payed millions but i did have situations when my boss told me to do something in the future and i said 'yes yes of course' but thought 'you can stick that where the sun doesn't shine'. There is a certain psychological element in the whole incident. The drivers are humans, not robots.

The 'Fernando is faster than you' was a code. To understand a code, you have to know its a code. And to know its a code, its something you have been informed about before the situation arises. I still say its a grey area; a mixture between strategy and order. The stewards interpreted it as an order; Ferrari says it wasn't, it was strategy.

We can discuss this from out points of view but what counts in the end is the FIA's point of view.

[mad_ani]

internally it may have been a strategy by Ferrari to get alonso into the WDC fight...but the race stewards and FIA saw it as an order...i dont think they are concerned who leads the championship etc..
and Ferrari did not appeal the fine imposed on them...althogh SD was 100% sure that it was not a team order...

[Hermann]

internally it may have been a strategy by Ferrari to get alonso into the WDC fight...but the race stewards and FIA saw it as an order...i dont think they are concerned who leads the championship etc..
and Ferrari did not appeal the fine imposed on them...althogh SD was 100% sure that it was not a team order...

That is how i see it as well. They saw this as an order. Probably with being inside that 'grey area', Ferrari chose not to appeal because it was already decided to be fowarded to the WMSC. So to appeal the fine would not make much sense, they might have thought of rather waiting for the WMSC meeting to get it sorted out one or the other way.

When you are operating in a grey area very small things can decide the scales to go down on one or the other side. It could be that for the stewards, Massa's 'not immediate reaction' triggered that scale to go into the 'team order' direction. Like 'he didn't want to follow the team strategy so they somehow had to give him an order'. For the stewards, a good reason to apply a fine and for sorting this out definitely, forward it to the WMSC. Because the stewards do not decide if their 'interpretation' had been correct. They have to leave this to the next higher sporting authority.

[Anni]

The 'Fernando is faster than you' was a code. To understand a code, you have to know its a code. And to know its a code, its something you have been informed about before the situation arises. I still say its a grey area; a mixture between strategy and order. The stewards interpreted it as an order; Ferrari says it wasn't, it was strategy.

The whole world understood what Rob Smedley was saying! So, where is the code? If 'Fernando is faster than you' was a code they had talked about before, why did Massa obey the fourth time, if he refused the previous three codes? The fourth time was very explicit, but what did that change for Massa? He couldn´t have talked himself out for refusing by saying ´I didn´t know you wanted to tell me to move over´if it was a code.

[justjesper]

The rules say Team orders are not allowed. We can discuss if we like team orders or not. Ferrari blew it as they didn't do it in a smart way.
There has been a lot of incidents where they did it smarter. Like when Kimi won in Brazil.

The problem is at the top. Massa did what they asked him too. It was the way they announced it to him and I agree that there explanation doesn't hold water.
Why was Vettel more dangerous to Alonso then he was to Massa.
Is Massa a better defensive driver ?

[NJB13]

Why was Vettel more dangerous to Alonso then he was to Massa.
Is Massa a better defensive driver ?

Alonso could maintain a gap on Vettel - he could lap at least as fast as him. Massa was holding Alonso up and, therefore, allowing Vettel to catch them both.

[justjesper]

Alonso could maintain a gap on Vettel - he could lap at least as fast as him. Massa was holding Alonso up and, therefore, allowing Vettel to catch them both.

Well My point is going back to what Ferrari said. To make most points to the team, and if Massa was much slower then Vettel, well then Vettle would get past massa. Giving us a 1 - 3.
That did not happen.
I'm affright to say this but the whole thing has been handled in the worst way possible from Ferrari.

[mad_ani]

Well My point is going back to what Ferrari said. To make most points to the team, and if Massa was much slower then Vettel, well then Vettle would get past massa. Giving us a 1 - 3.
That did not happen.
I'm affright to say this but the whole thing has been handled in the worst way possible from Ferrari.

but Alonso knew that he would be stuck behind Massa in that situation (Australia, China) and well he did put himself ahead of the team IMO...he could have fended off Vettel and securea a 1-2 for the team with Massa...instead he did comment by saying it was ridiculous causing a chain of events which finally led to the swap..

I find it stange inspite of what Luca di M had said in Nov 2009

“They will drive for Ferrari and not for themselves, otherwise there are plenty of other teams out there. Massa is motivated, hungry and ready. Alonso is the best driver in the world, along with Massa.”

[Julie B]

Ferrari want WDC so Luca's words are still true

[Hermann]

but Alonso knew that he would be stuck behind Massa in that situation (Australia, China) and well he did put himself ahead of the team IMO...he could have fended off Vettel and securea a 1-2 for the team with Massa...instead he did comment by saying it was ridiculous causing a chain of events which finally led to the swap..

I find it stange inspite of what Luca di M had said in Nov 2009

Fernando had a lot more points already in german GP, and he was faster, why should he has been the one to defend againts Vettel to help Massa? He did that before, he defended Massa against Hamilton and Vettel, i don't think the team expected the better driver to do that for the rest of the season. Maybe you read too much in forums where Fernando is looked at as the devil in persona and responsible for every single poop in China.

I'm sure if the team had asked Fernando to do that, he would have, but i'm also still sure there was an agreement before the race about speed/gap between the drivers.

[justjesper]

It's interesting that even we are split on this matter, no wonder that Ferrari is called in front of the FIA to explain the matter.

I think Ferrari need to look at them selfs and work on there leadership. The whole thing could had been avoided by good leadership.
a bit embarrassing actually

[Fiondella]

It's interesting that even we are split on this matter, no wonder that Ferrari is called in front of the FIA to explain the matter.

I think Ferrari need to look at them selfs and work on there leadership. The whole thing could had been avoided by good leadership.
a bit embarrassing actually

So what would you have done? At least it wasn't a blatant cover up. Hardly embarrassing, its called a team order and probably called because the team didn't think that the scenario of Massa leading Alonso was likely to happen. So would you tell Luca D to do one?

[Tifosi]

So what would you have done? At least it wasn't a blatant cover up. Hardly embarrassing, its called a team order and probably called because the team didn't think that the scenario of Massa leading Alonso was likely to happen. So would you tell Luca D to do one?

What is a more blatant cover-up than implementing a team order blatantly and then blatantly lying about it in front of the media?

[Fiondella]

What is a more blatant cover-up than implementing a team order blatantly and then blatantly lying about it in front of the media?

Yeah right with Domenicali telling eddie JawDrop, tongue routed firmly in his cheek, "Eddie 1 and 2 is mine" So what exactly did he lie about? Alonso was faster than Massa. He showed that in two ocassions during the race where he pulled back and then caught up. So presumably it will be sad occasion for you if Alonso lifts the WDC, which may just be down to the decision taken in Germany. IMO the Ham But order in Turkey was more blatant because of the insult to conoscenti intelligence

[ferrari4life]

maybe it was as simple as it sounds.. alonso was faster and was going to have a crack at massa. ferrari wanted to avoid a crash and they informed Massa to that effect..

[Tifosi]

Yeah right with Domenicali telling eddie JawDrop, tongue routed firmly in his cheek, "Eddie 1 and 2 is mine" So what exactly did he lie about? Alonso was faster than Massa. He showed that in two ocassions during the race where he pulled back and then caught up. So presumably it will be sad occasion for you if Alonso lifts the WDC, which may just be down to the decision taken in Germany. IMO the Ham But order in Turkey was more blatant because of the insult to conoscenti intelligence

You presume wrong. Thanks for that though

They lied about it not being team orders obviously - as you yourself admit.

Also, the point was that we were blatant, not about anything else to do with Team Orders or their prevailance in F1 (a subject already agreed and done to death!)

[Anni]

Stefano Domenicali said after the race there was no team order, didn´t he? That was definitly not the truth, but I am not sure if it was the entire untruth. I think it´s a question of definition.
order implies there is a punishment for disobeying, it means the one receiving the order has not the least bit chance to refuse. In this case it would mean Massa obeyed because he knew if he didn´t, he would loose his job.
Has it been an order, or was it maybe an team demand?
Demand would mean there is a chance to refuse without grave punishment. In this case it would mean Massa heard the team demand and decided to give in to it against his will. He would have known if he refused he would do no good to his position in the team, but there would be no consequences for refusing.

So, was it team order or team demand? If it was team demand Stefano Domenicali did not really lie, but he didn´t tell the truth either.
I absolutly don´t want to defend him. I hate what Ferrari did and still cannot forgive them for doing it, but if I want to keep on beeing a Ferrari fan I have to believe Felipe had a choice. If he didn´t it would mean Ferrari is a dictatorship and I couldn´t cheer for them anymore.
I like to think Felipe had a choice (not really a choice, but he didn´t do it out of fear) and he was a teamplayer and indeed magnanimous! This is the only way I can still be Ferrari fan.

[Tifoso]

It was a Team Suggestion

[justjesper]

It was a Team Suggestion

A Suggestion

it's getting better and better

Suggestion is the psychological process by which one person guides the thoughts, feelings, or behaviour of another.

[Fiondella]

You presume wrong. Thanks for that though

They lied about it not being team orders obviously - as you yourself admit.

Also, the point was that we were blatant, not about anything else to do with Team Orders or their prevailance in F1 (a subject already agreed and done to death!)

So if Nando wins the WDC by a small margin will you be happy and concede (no yield ) that the decision in Germany was the right call? Or will you still be bitter at the thought of the balance being tilted because of the decision taken in Germany?

[Tifosi]

So if Nando wins the WDC by a small margin will you be happy and concede (no yield ) that the decision in Germany was the right call? Or will you still be bitter at the thought of the balance being tilted because of the decision taken in Germany?

Why you are even asking me that question is beyond me, given my reply to you that you "presumed wrong" and also that it wasn't even part of the point being discussed - which was about blatancy and the embarassment felt by certain posters by the unconvincing way in which we carried out our team orders and then lied about it.

You seem to want to turn it into a "means justifies the ends" debate about team orders when people were actually discussing the manner in which they were undertaken by our team.

I get that you personally dont have a problem with how we did it but why do you think that we should all feel the same? The number of points we have or haven't got at the end of the season has nothing to do with the discussion about how we implemented and attempted to cover our team orders in that race, which is where i joined the thread.

[Stormsearcher]

Why was Vettel more dangerous to Alonso then he was to Massa.
Is Massa a better defensive driver ?

Lol.. are u suggesting that everytime Massa is slower than alonso, FA has to tuck in behind him and protect his rear just because he is a better defensive driver?
What if vettel caught them both and in the melee that followed over an overtaking move, both our drivers take each other out and vettel won? Will make the team look like a bunch of fools. No?

[Agron]

Lol.. are u suggesting that everytime Massa is slower than alonso, FA has to tuck in behind him and protect his rear just because he is a better defensive driver?
What if vettel caught them both and in the melee that followed over an overtaking move, both our drivers take each other out and vettel won? Will make the team look like a bunch of fools. No?

I think that it's got more to do with the fact that some feel it's perfectly ok for their drivers (Hamilton, Schumi, Raikkonen, Massa, ...) to benefit from team orders, but when it's the most hated combination of team & driver (Ferrari&Fernando), that's where the problems start.
For haters and people with an agenda, first comes "who", and then they start to consider the "what".

[Anni]

I think that it's got more to do with the fact that some feel it's perfectly ok for their drivers (Hamilton, Schumi, Raikkonen, Massa, ...) to benefit from team orders, but when it's the most hated combination of team & driver (Ferrari&Fernando), that's where the problems start.
For haters and people with an agenda, first comes "who", and then they start to consider the "what".

The "who" doesn´t matter here, it´s about the circumstances! This win would have been something very special for Massa. The team knew that and yet he was denied that win. Ferrari always claims to be a family. They didn´t behave like that at Hockenheim.
Many people may say it is an "The end justfies the means" situation, but in my opinion Ferrari should be greater than that!

[mad_ani]

I think that it's got more to do with the fact that some feel it's perfectly ok for their drivers (Hamilton, Schumi, Raikkonen, Massa, ...) to benefit from team orders, but when it's the most hated combination of team & driver (Ferrari&Fernando), that's where the problems start.
For haters and people with an agenda, first comes "who", and then they start to consider the "what".

I hope you do realize that Ferrari were reprimanded for Austria 2003....So it was not ok then... Many others including Massa and Kimi have benefited (mainly when the other was out of contention) from team orders

We all know who benefited from a team order at Singapore 2008...maybe that skips your mind...That team were also punished for their actions...

Ferrari made it obvious through radio communications and it brought the attention of stewards for which they have been called to WMSC...nothing about haters or a hated team