After the flood of multi-directional criticism that swept over him over the course of the season, Michael Masi found himself in the worst possible role at the worst possible moment. A sort of white button and red button: by pressing the first he delivered the eighth title to Lewis Hamilton – for example, leaving the Safety Car on the track until the finish line -, pressing the second one allowed Max Verstappen to attack his rival – not on equal terms – and to take off for his first world championship. A gigantic power in the hands of a single man, moreover continuously pulled by the jacket by Toto Wolff and Christian Horner at the moment of the decisive choice. Masi had initially opted for an intermediate solution, proposing five lapped to act as a buffer between the two rivals, forbidding the intermediate cars to recover full laps, but subsequently only allowed these drivers to split, snubbing – probably for reasons of time – all the others. In this way he created a kind of norm ad personam to concede the last duel between Hamilton and Verstappen on the last lap of the last race, substantially preventing – for example – Sainz from following the Dutchman. At that point it was clear that the victory had been handed over to the Dutchman from Red Bull, in a situation of enormous advantage in terms of tires (new Soft versus old Hard of more than 40 laps).
A God-given power of racing, later legitimized by article 15.3 which essentially put the FIA and Red Bull away from the Mercedes complaint. “The Clerk of the Course has supreme authority over: […] e) The use of the Safety Car “. A rule that – in practice – overrides all the previous and detailed articles that describe the procedures to be carried out behind the safety car. Michael Masi could have decided practically anything at that time, legitimized by that investiture of the sporting regulations. Regulation which – as usual – is already quite bizarre: Article 48.12 for example says that the SC must return at the end of the lap following the split of the drivers, but the 48.13 overcomes it by saying that the SC returns once exposed the message “Safety Car in this lap“. And so also the “If the Clerk of the Course […] sends the message “the lapped cars can now overtake” to all participants through the official system, “any” car that has been lapped by the leader will be able to overtake the leader of the group and the Safety Car “ (art.48.12) is dismantled by the Commissioners underlining that “any” (which can mean ‘any’, but also ‘some’) does not mean “all”. There is always a way out that saves the Commissioners.
There is always an interpretation on a gray background, good for motivating almost any decision. Sometimes the border is particularly unstable, so it may happen that in October 2020 the article in question is given, by Michael Masi, an overturned vision. Scenario: 2020 Eifel GP. On lap 44/60 Lando Norris stops at the escape route of the Dunlop Curve. The Safety Car enters the next lap, to stay on track for five laps. At the end of the race Max Verstappen argued with the Race Direction, claiming that the SC only entered the track to create more show, since a VSC would have been more than enough. Another line of criticism had questioned Michael Masi about the duration of the neutralization, which many considered excessive. The Australian’s response was clear and straight to the point: “There is a requirement in the sporting regulations, to let them all pass (pronounced “all”, ed) the dubbed cars. Ten or eleven cars had to split and therefore the Safety Car lasted longer than normal ”.
Clearly it is not known whether this interpretation has changed in the past 14 months, but certainly at that moment “any” had become “all” in its application.
In any case, article 15.3 gives Michael Masi complete freedom. A sort of modern racing god, who at the end of the race, thanks to his 15.3 invincibility cloak, can exclaim: “It’s called motor racing” (“They are called racing“, Ed).
#God #Racing #FormulaPassionit