Ferrari 1-2 swap, the right thing to do?

It may be a controversial view but I think Ferrari were right to swap their drivers, and I think the no team orders rule is completely unworkable and should be removed.

- why
Alonso has a much greater chance of winning the championship than Alonso; based on pace and greater number of points. And it is up to that team if they want to put all their eggs in one basket.

- what could happen at end of season
The trouble is, if they get any further punishment, what would happen at the end of the season, with exactly the same scenario and Massa out of the running, and a swap would win the drivers championship? - I could totally see the validity of doing it (though I'd be upset neither Button nor Lewis would then win it), but Ferrari would be silly not to do this, in fact a driver may offer this on their own without any prodding - a point I'll come back to.

- other examples
The rule is totally unworkable as team orders are so subjective, and hard to proove, and context sensitive. What about Jordan/Hill/Ralf 1998 Spa, the order was to hold station and let Hill win, when Ralf had the speed to get by. The correct decision as Hill was more deserving, plus in the conditions it could have risked a crash and loss of a 1-2 finish. Jerez 97 when McLaren agreed with Williams that Villeneuve wouldn't get in the way of Hakinnen and the team order was for Coultard to let Mika past. Completely the right decision, as Mika had been the faster driver, looked likely to easily win several races that year until outrageous unreliability struck, it was also important psycholically for Hakinnen to get his first win. And Mika Salo v Irvine Monza? 99, Salo was leading but was a stand in driver and so couldn't win the championship - of course they were right to give Irvine the win. All these scenarios would now be illegal.

- where it backfires
Eg 1999 with Schumacher and Irvine. It doesn't always pay for the team that employs these tactics eg in 1999 until Britain Ferrari had favoured Schuhmacher, only he broke his leg and so Irvine had to take over, loosing it by only a few points - maybe if Irvine hadn't been the number 2 earlier in the year he could have won it (though I'm glad he didn't)

- when its wrong
The example in Austria 2002 was plain wrong, Ferrari shouldn't have done that. It was due to this the rule was brought in, maybe instead there should be an understanding amongst teams that when you are that far ahead don't do it.

- Proving team orders - what if driver decision, agreement, or made to look like a proper ovettaking manaeover?

Then there is proving team orders, teams could get more savvy and agree the strategy beforehand and make it look less obvious - how would you proove? Or what if Massa had slowed down on his own account, would this have been allowed? Then there are gentleman's agreements, like the McLaren boys at Australia 98, in a move that proved to win Mika the championship, should that not have been allowed? There's more subtle one's like preferential equipment, preferential treatment and preferential pit or tyre strategy, or putting one driver on a risky rain strategy - how do you proove all this and what falls under team orders?

So overall when something like Sundays Ferrari driver swap happens its not the best thing for racing, but it is impossible to legislate against, and is actually the right thing for a team to do in that situation in my opinion.

Location:UK