Clear, consistent rules are necessary for sports and sports bettors

In the British Grand Prix on Sunday, July 6th, many fans and bettors were left perplexed when Oscar Piastri, who dominated the race early on, was assessed a 10-second penalty which effectively gave the race to his teammate Lando Norris. On a day that saw periods of sun mixed with drizzle and a short period of heavy rain, the safety car was deployed when visibility was near zero. After the safety car was called in with Piastri leading, Max Verstappen 2nd and Lando Norris 3rd, Piastri brake checked the others to try and build a small gap and was assigned a 10 second time penalty. In the end, Norris beat Piastri by just under 6 seconds, so without the time penalty Piastri would have won. This wouldn’t have been as contentious an issue except in the Canadian Grand Prix, George Russell did the same thing and received no penalty.

After that race, the stewards said that that Russell applied the brake at 30psi which is ok and after the British Grand Prix they said Piastri applied the brake at 60psi which was “excessive” warranting the penalty. The problem, as is often the case, is there is no rule in F1 that addresses this situation at all, it’s completely arbitrary and at the hands of one or two race stewards who make a decision that really can’t be overturned. In a world where sportsbooks always point to “the rules” to justify decisions on how and why they grade a race it is incredibly upsetting when one loses a bet for a rule that doesn’t exist. And what makes it more frustrating is that a lot of bettors on Piastri are left with a losing ticket that the books can only say were “based on the final result of the series” without any acknowledgement whether the decision was right or wrong.

Naturally, with the two situations occurring within weeks of each other it would be logical for F1 to now put in a rule that says that after a safety car, if the leader applies 30 psi of brake or less there will be no penalty, if the leader applies 60 psi of brake or more there is a 10 second penalty, and then apply a rule for brake pressures in-between. Everyone knows this will not occur, however, because Formula1 will not put down hard and steady rules like that to allow the stewards to have discretion and that is where the problem lies.

Many observers believe that the reason F1 did nothing to Russell in Canada is because they didn’t want to upset the Mercedes team, which is one of their meal tickets, along with Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren, whereas the penalty in Britain had no effect on team results since the McLaren drivers still finished 1-2. And this is not a unique concern with F1 since similar incidents in different races almost always lead to different penalties - all based on the whims of the stewards.

For example, when there is an accident, the stewards determine whether it was just a racing incident with no real fault or if it was a case of avoidable contact. If it’s deemed unavoidable contact there is no penalty as it should be, but if there is avoidable contact, the penalties range from nothing to a 5 second penalty, to a 10 second penalty, to a drive-through penalty, to a grid penalty in the next race, all the way to a suspension. Again, there is no set rule in place nor any real rhyme or reason to how penalties are assessed so viewers and teams have no way of knowing how the steward of the day is going to react or why and sportsbooks are left with the unwelcome task of justifying the grading to angry bettors.

I spoke to someone who writes about F1 and I suggested that for the case of avoidable contact, F1 should put in a rule similar to how North American horse racing applies penalties when the stewards deem there was interference. If a horse causes interference with another horse, then the rule clearly states that the horse that caused the interference would be placed behind the horse, he/she interfered with and if the interference affected other horses as well that horse would be placed last. In Europe and Australia the rule is that stewards will determine if the horse’s interference affected the final result and if it didn’t the results stand, and this has caused much consternation with many horse bettors overseas who for years have said that the arbitrary decision is ridiculous since there is no way of knowing for certain if the interference affected the result. Consequently, there have  been lobbyists in the industry requesting that rule be changed to one like in North America, where it is cut and dried as to what would happen if there is interference in a race and the only job of the race stewards is to determine if there was interference or not.

NASCAR controversy

On the same day as the British Grand Prix, the NASCAR race in Chicago ended in controversy due to a non-call by race officials at the end. Shane van Gisbergen was dominating the race. although Tyler Reddick on fresh tires seemed geared to beat him if there was a caution and overtime. About a half track before van Gisbergen was to take the white flag which would end the race, another driver was in the tire barrier at turn 6 of the road course and with the car completely demolished it was clear that car wouldn’t get going again. The generally accepted rule is that in these situations the caution would be thrown and overtime would occur with 2 more laps added. Instead, NASCAR chose not to throw the caution flag until after van Gisbergen took the white flag so there wouldn’t be overtime and not surprisingly this infuriated Reddick’s team, viewers and anyone who bet on Reddick. While NASCAR wouldn’t provide a reason why they didn’t throw the caution flag, the consensus on social media was that NASCAR didn’t want to affect the result by taking away the win from the most dominant car (van Gisbergen), plus they were probably concerned there could be chaos on the restart as cars vied for position. But was that really NASCAR’s call? If there was a specific rule in place which said the caution flag would be waved if there was a car that was damaged and in the way then there would have been no option. But because there is no steadfast rule in place, the race officials can do what they want. There was also some who believe that had it been anyone other than Reddick or Bubba Wallace that were in third place, the caution flag would have been thrown. But, since their team owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin are in the middle of a lawsuit with NASCAR, that the series didn’t want to give them any concessions and if that was true it would be a real slap in the face of bettors who have the right to know their bets were graded fairly. Again, if there was a definitive rule in place regarding how those situations are handled, there would not be any room for speculation or reason for complaint. Leaving everything to the discretion of race officials just causes confusion and leaves sportsbooks having to explain the reason they graded the races the way they did.

Ambiguity in other sports

Of course, this applies to other sports as well. Whenever there is a serious incident in the NHL such as a dangerous hit or a spearing incident using the stick, the rule says there is a 5-minute penalty and game misconduct, as well as subsequent penalties levied by the director of player safety. But officials never call it the same way and often apply penalties based on the popularity of the player. So, if it’s something done by say Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid, there will usually be a completely different penalty and/or suspension assigned than if it’s say a Ryan Reaves, who is known as a goon. And worse, it seems that some teams get far harsher action levied against them than other teams, leaving fans and analysts believing there is bias in how the leagues apply penalties and suspensions. This is true for football, basketball, baseball, soccer and even some individual sports and it rightly leaves bettors furious because of the bets that sportsbooks now have. With the popularity of prop bets and same game parlays, a decision by officials to assign a game misconduct in hockey or to eject a player in pro or college football is very significant to the outcome of those bets. Not to mention future bets on things like total points by Sidney Crosby for the season would be massively affected if the league were to suspend him for 10 games, and bettors deserve the right to know that their bet lost in a fair manner and not just because a referee or league official has it out for a player.

No doubt every sport will argue that they have the right to use discretion in how they apply the rules but as stated, with leagues now in bed with top sports betting sites, they must consider betting in these decisions. It’s incumbent for leagues to put in rules that are crystal clear about what specifically happens in a situation.

One sport that has rules very specifically set out with no real room for interpretation is golf. The penalty for violations is clear. For example, if a golfer touches the sand during a bunker shot before hitting the ball it’s a one stroke penalty. If the golfer has too many clubs in his bag it’s a 2-stroke penalty. If the golfer signs the golf card wrong, it’s a disqualification, etc. There is no ambiguity in the rules and the only thing officials need to determine is whether the infraction occurred or not. This would be ideal for other leagues to follow.

Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen because while the leagues want the revenue from sports betting they don’t believe it’s important enough to take away their discretion. It’s not their problem if furious Oscar Piastri bettors want their money back or if Tyler Reddick bettors are upset. It’s just another issue that they can pass the buck on.

Read insights from Hartley Henderson every week here at OSGA and check out Hartley's RUMOR MILL!