[Getty Images]

I will admit to being spoiled rotten at the weekend. I was co-commentating at the Everton v Chelsea game on radio, but I was also there as a guest in the Everton boardroom pre-match and post-match.

Everton are a very classy club that treats their former players with stunning kindness and respect. Tim Cahill and Yakubu were also at that sumptuous dining table, though they did not have my split loyalties and were both delighted with Everton's rout of Chelsea. We did share our surprise, however, at Chelsea's performance - or lack of!

Visit newsbetsport.bond for more information.

Last week, I wrote about the lack of experienced leaders in the Chelsea side and this was a comment repeated by just about every ex-player I met. I was down at Stamford Bridge for the 3-0 (8-2 on aggregate) hammering by Paris St-Germain during the week and another bunch of former stars voiced their concerns about the same problem. When there is a lack of team spirit, desire and cohesion, you need leaders.

That may not be the entire problem though - you do not know for sure unless you are in the dressing room. It could simply be exhaustion because of too many games and facing an Everton side who had not faced the European champions during the week, or indeed anyone.

There is the long-term fatigue we all predicted from playing in the Fifa Club World Cup with two tough Premier League seasons either side of it.

Some others did suggest that maybe a few of the players just were not "having" the new manager, Liam Rosenior. David Moyes' Everton certainly fought harder man for man than Liam's Chelsea, but this is little more than guesswork. Could it be just down the catalogue of injured players? That would tie in with overworked theory.

Maybe too many of those young Chelsea players bought at a huge cost and given mightily long contracts are not improving in the way they were expected to. This can, and regularly does, happen in football.

The club's fans and owners will hope and pray that the cause of their problems is not all of the above.

Sign up to read more from Pat Nevin in his Football Extra newsletter

Read full story at source

We’re all holding our breath as the FIA investigates what might be the most brilliant engineering loophole of the 2026 season so far. As Motor Biscuit previously reported, Mercedes is suspected of using a two-phase closing mechanism on the W17’s active aero front wing. By snapping the wing partially shut within the legal 400-millisecond window to satisfy the FIA’s sensors, and then slowly settling into its final position over 800ms, Mercedes has allegedly unlocked a massive braking stability advantage.

It is a masterclass in manipulating a potential loophole in the rulebook. But following a formal inquiry from Ferrari after a dominant Mercedes 1-2 finish in China, the FIA is officially looking into the trick. So, what happens if the governing body decides the Silver Arrows crossed the line?

Visit casino-promo.biz for more information.

The Technical Directive

If the FIA investigates the W17 and decides that the two-phase mechanism violates the intent of the active aero regulations, the most likely outcome is the immediate issuance of a Technical Directive. In F1, a TD is essentially the FIA closing a loophole mid-season by clarifying exactly how a rule will be enforced going forward.

If a TD is issued ahead of the Japanese Grand Prix, Mercedes will be forced to physically alter their hydraulic actuators or remap their software to ensure the wing fully closes within the strict 400ms window.

This could be a big blow to the team who have dominated so far this season. Without that delayed, smooth reduction in front downforce, the W17 could suffer from sudden, snappy weight transfers in the heavy braking zones. Drivers Kimi Antonelli and George Russell would have to completely adjust their braking markers and deal with increased front tire wear, possibly neutralizing the advantage they had in Shanghai.

Chinese Grand Prix, Sunday, Jiri Krenek during the Formula 1 Heineken Chinese Grand Prix 2026, 2nd round of the 2026 Formula One World Championship from March 13 to 15, 2026 on the Shanghai International Circuit, in Shanghai, China – Photo Jiri Krenek / ACTIVEPICTURES

Disqualification and Points Loss

While a Technical Directive simply bans the trick moving forward, things could get much worse for Mercedes if the FIA decides the mechanism wasn’t a clever loophole, but a blatantly illegal device designed to cheat the Standard ECU sensors.

If the FIA classifies the wing as a direct breach of the technical regulations rather than an exploitation of a gray area, the penalties become retrospective. Mercedes could face a disqualification from the Chinese Grand Prix, entirely wiping out their spectacular 1-2 finish. Losing those 43 World Championship points would be a devastating, potentially season-ruining blow to the team’s title hopes.

The Spirit of the Rules?

Knowing the genius of the engineers at Brackley, Mercedes will not go down without a fierce legal and technical fight. Their defense is likely already prepared: The car passed the tests.

Clause (q)(iii) of the regulations states that the movement must be measured by position sensors connected to the FIA Standard ECU. If the Mercedes sensors reported a successful, legal closure within 400ms, the team will argue that they perfectly complied with the exact letter of the law. In Formula 1, teams are not punished for violating the “spirit” of the rules if the physical test procedures deem the car legal at the time.

Historically, when a team finds a loophole that passes the mandated sensor tests (think of the flexible wing sagas of the 2010s and recent 2020s), the FIA usually avoids retrospective penalties. Instead, they rewrite the testing procedure for the next race.

Other Famous F1 Loophole Examples

Formula 1 is built on a foundation of brilliant engineers outsmarting the governing body’s rulebook. If Mercedes escapes punishment by proving their two-phase wing passed the mandatory tests, it will join a long list of similar examples.

• Mercedes’ Dual-Axis Steering (2020): The team invested DAS, a system that allowed Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas to pull the steering wheel toward them on the straights to change the toe angle of the front tires. Because the rules only stated that suspension couldn’t be adjusted while moving, but didn’t classify steering as suspension. It was deemed entirely legal for the season before being banned the following year.
• McLaren’s F-Duct (2010): McLaren figured out that if a driver used their knee or hand to cover a small hole in the cockpit on the straights, it routed air through the chassis and stalled the rear wing, instantly shedding drag for massive top speed. It perfectly bypassed the ban on “moveable aerodynamic parts” because the only moving part was the driver’s body. It was legal for the year and directly inspired the invention of DRS.
• Brawn GP’s Double Diffuser (2009): Brawn GP exploited a tiny gray area in the dimensional limits of the floor regulations to create a double diffuser, massively increasing downforce. Rival teams protested fiercely, but the FIA ruled that Brawn’s interpretation of the wording was technically correct. The loophole propelled Jenson Button to a World Championship.

The ball is in the FIA’s court. Let’s see what happens this weekend.

Read full story at source