Double points isn't a big threat for F1

Double points are ridiculous, but amid the hullabaloo surrounding how they might influence Sunday's world championship decider, the threat they pose is overstated.

The most relevant empirical data set for evaluating the probability of double points being decisive - i.e. Nico Rosberg grabbing the title with a result that would not be enough under orthodox points - is the outcomes of races held to date this year.

And of those, only once has the race result thrown up a scenario that, if repeated on Sunday, would allow Rosberg to take a title that would not have been his without double points.

That happened in Germany, when Hamilton's brake problem during the first segment of qualifying resigned him to a 'burn from the stern', eventually finishing third in a race Rosberg won.

So based on that sample set, Rosberg would steal the title based on the idiocy of double points less than six per cent of the time.

That doesn't mean that it won't happen, just that hopefully F1 will get away with it and that the rule - which is in the 2015 sporting regulations at present - can then be dropped for good.

But double points, for all its flaws, is a rule that does get brandished around rather carelessly. Yes, it's wrong, but that doesn't mean it's responsible for all of the factors at play in Abu Dhabi this weekend.

A repeat of the German Grand Prix would cost Hamilton the 2014 title © LAT

Repeatedly, you hear people blaming it for the perceived injustice that Rosberg is in the championship hunt at all.

After all, they say, he has only won five races to Hamilton's 10 so far. At best, it can end up six against 10, so were he to grab the title, they would see it as grossly unfair.

Curiously, a large proportion of those critics must also have objected to the medals system that would award the title to whoever has the most wins.

That, too, is a poor way to decide a champion, accounting only for peaks of performance and not the troughs, but if you consider number of victories to be the only relevant metric for deciding the worthy champion, then medals should be your choice.

A points system needs to recognise all of the qualities that comprise a good season, and that doesn't only take into account the days when victory is on the cards.

In the case of Rosberg, his best race this year was probably Canada, where he finished an ERS-deprived second. It would be wrong for that not to contribute to his points tally.

If you do consider it ridiculous that Rosberg is still in the hunt - and it isn't because, because while Hamilton has over the balance of the year been the stronger driver, he has had a remarkable season - then look instead to the points system.

Any such structure is an artifice and there is no foolproof structure that ensures whoever is subjectively the best driver is also objectively so.

Ignoring the various weird and wonderful dropped points rules and including the current 25-points-for-a-win structure adopted in 2010, there have been five basic systems since 1950. This tally includes 10 points for a win (both with points to eighth and to sixth), then both nine and eight points for a win.

Disregarding dropped scores, and the rules that awarded the final point for fastest lap in the early years of the world championship, the title would still be open using all but the 1992-2002 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, under which Hamilton would already be crowned.

The 2003-09 points system would put Rosberg in a far stronger position, effectively making Abu Dhabi a winner-takes all affair. But both nine and eight points for a win give Hamilton a significant advantage.

Canada was one of Rosberg's top drives this season, but it wasn't a win © LAT

Given that four out of five systems used in F1 history give Rosberg at least a shot going into the final race, it's unreasonable to suggest that the current points structure is to 'blame' for him still being in contention.

It is nothing to do with double points, as contrived as that rule is.

What is interesting is that the myriad racing series in the world all have their own variations of points systems, some with similar contrivances that are more welcome.

Both IndyCar and Australia's V8 Supercars series offer individual races with extra points available. But these are not analogous to Abu Dhabi, because the IndyCar 500-milers, or V8s' Bathurst classic, are special cases worthy of the extra weighting. The extra points reflect extra demands.

The most extreme championship structure is in NASCAR. The end-of-season 'Chase for the NASCAR Sprint Cup' is well-established having been introduced in 2004.

This year, the format was dramatically altered to ensure a winner-takes-all final race shootout, which took place at Homestead on Sunday.

The 16-driver field for the 10-race end-of-the-season Chase comprises those who have won races, with the top points scorers taking any vacant slots if there are not that many winners in the first 26 events.

A trio of three-race blocks follows, with four drivers eliminated from contention after each based on points scored, with the caveat that anyone winning a race during the block automatically advances.

This set up a four-way shootout between Kevin Harvick, Joey Logano, Denny Hamlin and Ryan Newman.

The race was a great spectacle. All four ran near the sharp end for most of the race and although Logano was eliminated from contention by a disastrous pitstop, the three other contenders were right up there at the end.

Harvick won the race, and the title, from Newman with Hamlin down in seventh. By common consensus, the right man won as Harvick has been the standout driver in 2014

Kevin Harvick won this season's NASCAR 'Chase' © LAT

But this is in a country very familiar with the concept of end-of-season playoffs to the point where not doing so is anathema to the natural order of things.

Yet, it could have been very different. In spite of a points system designed to weight things in favour of winning races, Newman came very close to winning the Cup without a single victory.

It's also worth noting that applying the points conventionally over the whole year, the champion would have been Jeff Gordon. And using last year's Chase rules, Logano.

In these various cases, there is usually one driver who the majority will argue is the more worthy winner. And the effectiveness of the points structure will usually be judged by end result. It can only be after the fact.

Whether or not a points system is deemed right or wrong will be based on outcome, for there is no perfect objective way to reward achievement.

That's the nature of a season-long championship, it can swing based on one incident, a single piece of bad luck or outside intervention.

Fortunately, the double points distortion, which privileges one not particularly significant race on a so-so circuit above all others, is not as great a danger as it once threatened to be.

And if Rosberg clinches the championship with first or second place and Hamilton retiring, that is not the fault of double points. It's simply the capricious whim of the sporting gods.

Then again, championship finales have a habit of throwing up the unexpected.

If one of the scenarios where double points does make the difference, for example with Rosberg scoring 20 points for fifth and Hamilton retiring, it will be a disaster for F1.

And not because of who wins or who loses, but because it is only in this one race that this turn of events could make a disproportionate difference.

So good luck to Hamilton and Rosberg this weekend. May the best man win.

And may, as appears very likely, double points not distort the outcome.

If they do, it will be a bloody and self-inflicted wound for F1.