The_Times__6_March_2020

66 1GM Friday March 6 2020 | the times

Sport

Ferrari engine

‘too complex

to investigate’

Formula One

Rebecca Clancy Motor Racing Reporter

Formula One’s governing body has said

that it was not “fully satisfied” that

Ferrari’s engine was always legal last

year but decided it was too complex to

investigate fully.

The FIA’s investigation began last

year when teams — in particular Red

Bull — raised suspicions about Ferrari’s

engines and whether they were

circumventing fuel flow sensors to gain

a power advantage. Last Friday, on the

last day of pre-season testing in Barce-

lona, the governing body announced

that it had reached a confidential

settlement with the Italian team.

The timing of the statement angered

the seven teams not powered by Ferrari

— with personnel due to arrive in

Australia for the first race of the season

in a week’s time — and the opaqueness

of it upset many, with some accusing

the FIA of living up to its nickname of

“Ferrari International Assistance”.

It is understood that the seven teams

immediately took steps to combine

forces, involving lawyers from each

team and making their “strong objec-

tions” clear. That resulted in a joint

statement on Wednesday in which they

made clear they could take legal action

against the FIA.

The FIA put out a further statement

yesterday to clarify its position. “The

extensive and thorough investigations

undertaken during the 2019 season

raised suspicions that the Scuderia

Ferrari PU (power unit) could be

considered as not operating within the

limits of the FIA regulations at all

times,” it said. “The Scuderia Ferrari

firmly opposed the suspicions and

reiterated that its PU always operated

in compliance with the regulations.

“The FIA was not fully satisfied but

decided that further action would not

necessarily result in a conclusive case

due to the complexity of the matter and

the material impossibility to provide

the unequivocal evidence of a breach.”

It added that its confidential

statement was within the sport’s

judicial and disciplinary rules and that

the settlement with Ferrari was

“effective and dissuasive”. It did not

provide any further details about the

settlement.

J

ofra Archer is

hopeful of taking

part in this year’s

Indian Premier

League as his

fractured elbow is

healing faster than

expected (Elizabeth

Ammon writes).

England had said

that Archer, 24, would

miss the tournament

to be fit for England’s

international summer,

which starts in June

against West Indies.

He was ruled out of

England’s tour to Sri

Lanka this month

after picking up the

injury in South Africa

two months ago.

“The elbow is fine,”

Archer said. “I haven’t

felt it for the last few

weeks now so it is

making good

progress. I’ve played a

lot of cricket so I don’t

think I’ll forget how

to play even if I don’t

do anything for the

next couple of

months.”

Asked whether he

could play in the IPL,

which starts at the

end of this month,

Archer said: “You

never know, fingers

crossed.”

Archer has an

£800,000 deal with

Rajasthan Royals,

who will be keen for

him to take part in

the IPL. He is on an

England central

contract for red and

white-ball cricket,

however, and the ECB

will have the final say

over his participation.

This is a busy year for

England, culminating

in the T20 World Cup

in October.

Archer

‘fine’ and

aiming for

IPL return

PHILIP BROWN/POPPERFOTO/GETTY I MAGES

T

he lack of a reserve day after

England’s Women’s T20

World Cup semi-final

against India was washed

out has, understandably,

caused an outcry. With no recourse to

rearrange the game, Heather Knight’s

team were booted out of the

tournament on the ground of having

an inferior record to their opponents

in the group stage.

Was this yet another example of

cricket shooting itself in the foot? An

illustration of the inflexibility of

cricket administrators? An

inexplicable set of tournament rules?

The answer to all those questions is

probably yes. It’s a deeply

unsatisfactory way to decide the fate

of teams in the knockout stage of a

global tournament, especially one

that is pivotal in helping to boost the

profile of the women’s game.

It must, though, be noted that this

is not the ICC underselling the

women’s game. The playing

regulations for the men’s T20 World

Cup are the same — there are no

reserve days except for the final. It is

different from the 50-over World

Cups, which have reserve days for the

semi-finals. New Zealand needed two

days to beat India last summer.

It should also be acknowledged that

every team at the Women’s T20

World Cup signed up to the

playing regulations —

whether governing

bodies read them is

another matter. It’s not

unlike last year’s

World Cup final being

decided by boundary

countback. Everyone

had agreed to that

Women’s ‘defeat’

is absurd but fans’

anger is progress

although, given the furore afterwards,

it seemed that not many people had

taken it on board.

In this instance, though, you

wonder, despite evidence that Sydney

has a lot of rain in March, whether

anyone thought the weather would

affect the semi-finals. I have some

sympathy with the ICC. The T20

World Cup is a short tournament,

purposefully designed to last about

three weeks. That’s a good

tournament because, although there

is little room for manoeuvre, the

50-over World Cup goes on for what

feels like 100 years.

It isn’t easy to move games at short

notice or to put in an extra playing

day. There are all sorts of issues to

consider: is it feasible for broadcasters?

Can travel arrangements for the teams

be altered?

However, this sells the game short

after a fantastic tournament with

high-quality cricket, decent crowds

and good TV ratings.

I am sure that England would have

preferred the game to be rearranged

for today in Melbourne — it is only a

two-hour flight from Sydney and it

would have left them handily situated

for a final, should they have beaten

India, at the MCG. Alternatively the

organisers could have looked at the

forecast earlier in the week and taken

all four teams to Melbourne.

I am not saying that would have

been logistically easy — far from it —

but it surely would have been better

than the outcome of a match being

decided on group-stage

results.

Sadly we have ended

up with women’s cricket

as a major talking

point for the wrong

reasons. That said, the

fact that people are

angry about it is

encouraging because it

shows that they care

about the fortunes of the

England side.

Elizabeth Ammon

Comment

Sophie Ecclestone looks

anguished as the rain falls

the decided o

result

Sa

up

as

p

re

fa

an

en

sho

about

ls EEEngland