Can political steward decisions be good for the sport

Hi,

after yesterday we can begin to discuss political motives in the decisions of the stewards, again.

whilst button was involved in two accidents that caused two drivers to retire, at least for one of them he should have been penalised.
but he wasnt.
AND to make it clear, as an Alonso-fan, i can live with it, cause he has beaten vettel.

i believe that without winning this race there is no way, that button would have ended without no further sanctions, but as he has won, he was pardoned.
so there were political motives to pardon him.

But are politcal motives per se bad or good for the sport.

i know that my position is not very obejctive in that subject, escpecially after button forced alonso off, but at least he has beaten vettel (the driver who is leading by a big margin the championship).

what is your opinion, are political stewards decisions good or bad for the sport?

Edited by YellowHelmet, 13 June 2011 - 07:41.

I think the Stewards got the call right - therefore there was no political decision.

It wasn't political.

whilst button was involved in two accidents that caused two drivers to retire, at least for one of them he should have been penalised.
but he wasnt.

Which one?

Which one?

alonso case (especially after he has alreday been involved in an other crash yesterday)

Edited by YellowHelmet, 13 June 2011 - 07:44.

alonso case (especially after he has alreday been involved in an other crash yesterday)

Is Alonso saying that?
Or Stefano?
They were level, then Alonso outbraked jb but not enough to be fully in front and take the line. JB had nowhere to go. Racing incident.

Edit: And what has a different incident got to do with it exactly?

Edited by trogggy, 13 June 2011 - 07:47.

Is Alonso saying that?
Or Stefano?
They were level, then Alonso outbraked jb but not enough to be fully in front and take the line. JB had nowhere to go. Racing incident.

that is also a point that can be discussed.
would they have said the same if button was the main competitor in the championship?

Edit: And what has a different incident got to do with it exactly?

continuity in dangerous driving

Edited by YellowHelmet, 13 June 2011 - 07:47.

Which one?

Hamilton and Alonso. While Hamilton incident was Hamilton's fault, the Alonso one is debateable. Not sure though that the decissions were political. I'm not sure who (if any) was at fault so I trust that the stewards know better than me.

But to answer the poll, NO, political decissions are bad for sport. Obviously.

Have you thought about taking up a different sport? There are plenty of others you can idolise Spanish male participants in.

that is also a point that can be discussed.
would they have said the same if button was the main competitor in the championship?

If you want to have a discussion about political decisions then fine. If you start by calling a specific racing incident a political decision then you should expect to be called on that.
It wasn't a driver coming from behind hitting another one. They were level, wheel-to-wheel going in.

Hamilton and Alonso. While Hamilton incident was Hamilton's fault, the Alonso one is debateable.

Funny. I'd say Button had more responsibility for the Hamilton crash than Alonso's parking..

If you want to have a discussion about political decisions then fine. If you start by calling a specific racing incident a political decision then you should expect to be called on that.
It wasn't a driver coming from behind hitting another one. They were level, wheel-to-wheel going in.

still there were chances for button to avoid it, and that is crucial.
no way he wouldnt have been penailsed, if he hasnt won the race, or if that race was a title decider race between those two.

Edited by YellowHelmet, 13 June 2011 - 07:52.

The stewards decisions during the races has now become far beyond a joke. Di resta, fair enough made a mistake and payed for it by loosing his front wing. Then they decide to bring him in for a penalty! WTF.

Also Charlie Whiting needs to just get out of the sport. The saftey car use was just absolutely pathetic. Why not just say we wont race in the wet anymore and be done with it?

still there were chances for button to avoid it, and that is crucial.
no way he wouldnt have been penailsed, if he hasnt won the race, or if that race was a title decider race between those two.

Button could have avoided it.
Alonso could have avoided it.
They both wanted to beat the other.
HTH.

Both were Racing incident in the wet and both were 50/50%

racing incidents in difficult conditions.

Button could have avoided it.
Alonso could have avoided it.
They both wanted to beat the other.
HTH.

alonso couldnt have avoided it coz his line was already at maximum outside and he was in front, button could have avoided it through going more inside or driving more slowly

look here

Hi,

after yesterday we can begin to discuss political motives in the decisions of the stewards, again.

whilst button was involved in two accidents that caused two drivers to retire, at least for one of them he should have been penalised.
but he wasnt.
AND to make it clear, as an Alonso-fan, i can live with it, cause he has beaten vettel.

i believe that without winning this race there is no way, that button would have ended without no further sanctions, but as he has won, he was pardoned.
so there were political motives to pardon him.

But are politcal motives per se bad or good for the sport.

i know that my position is not very obejctive in that subject, escpecially after button forced alonso off, but at least he has beaten vettel (the driver who is leading by a big margin the championship).

what is your opinion, are political stewards decisions good or bad for the sport?

Your premise is flawed. You assume the decision was political without adequate evidence. It appears that you have done so because your favourite driver was involved.

So I suggest the poll be changed to:

Are political polls good for the forum?

alonso couldnt have avoided it coz his line was already at maximum outside and he was in front, button could have avoided it through going more inside or driving more slowly

look here

Funny. I'd say Button had more responsibility for the Hamilton crash than Alonso's parking..

*shrugs* Something like that did Button say as well, during the press conference. I guess he was being polite. I for one can't see how Button was at fault in Hamilton incident; obviously he could see nothing in his spray covered little mirrors, Hamilton should have known that Button could see nothing yet he went for it anyway. Hence Button's "What is he doing!!!1one!" on the radio.

Your premise is flawed. You assume the decision was political without adequate evidence. It appears that you have done so because your favourite driver was involved.

So I suggest the poll be changed to:

Are political polls good for the forum?

no, actually i can live with the decision.

the question is, would the stewards decide same if that was a title decider between those two?

Edited by YellowHelmet, 13 June 2011 - 08:02.

i believe that without winning this race there is no way, that button would have ended without no further sanctions, but as he has won, he was pardoned.
so there were political motives to pardon him.

But are politcal motives per se bad or good for the sport.

I am a Button fan as well as a Hamilton fan and frankly if it was Hamilton I bet we'd be listening to more talk of bans or penalties. Anyway, yes I think he would have got further penalties but having won the race there was no way they could take it off him for being agressive (or careless with Lewis because he knew bloody rightly that Lewis as behind him and he knew he was slow out of that corner).

So, if penalties are forgotten because you put up a good show then the penalties must not be worth much in real terms so why don't the FIA wise up and stop this nonsense. It's a race for gods sake and boy are those guys good at what they do. End stupid penalties now!

If you are going to have a poll dont base teh choicesd on a biased opinion - the poll decides that.

No political decision. Ferrair/Alonso have not blamed Button - stewards got it right.

If you are going to have a poll dont base teh choicesd on a biased opinion - the poll decides that.

the poll can decide it for the others, still it doesnt mean that i must have the same opinion.
but i want to know how others see, where is the problem?

Oh shut up and cry me a river. Political mu a...

There's no way Button deserved penalty for Hamilton incident - they wouldn't give it even to Di Resta
Same for Alonso colision - Button more at fault but some risky move from Alonso, too. They simply don't give penalties for that, never and to no one. End of story. Why don't you make a poll and vote 2+2=5 to console yourself.
About speeding/safety car/whatever it was - I have no idea.

And I don't really like Button and out of top drivers prefer Ferrari ones at the moment.

It's the same mentality, regardless of the driver/fanboys involved. Create stupid threads with bogus explanations. Boo hoo.

can anybody define what a race incident is?

can anybody define what a race incident is?

You can't do yourself?
Why then did you start this troll poll?

1) it wasn't political. close this thread because it is wrong from the beginning. and please at least TRY to learn more about racing.

I don't think political stewarding is good for the sport. But I don't think fans who blame political stewarding every time their driver fails to win is good for their blood pressure. The average fan's perfect stewarding is:
1) Every time my driver suffers from an incident, the other driver must be disqualified and banned for a race
2) Every time my driver causes another driver to suffer, it was a racing incident.

It can't work both ways. Either the stewards crack down on incidents, in which case there's a good chance that your driver will be penalised. Or they don't crack down on incidents, in which case there's a good chance that your driver will be taken out and the other driver won't be penalised. Them's the breaks unfortunately.

Stewarding in racing is like refereeing in rugby/football or umpiring in cricket. Occasionally the officials may miss something or may have a different interpretation from yours. If you can't live with that, then I'd suggest not watching the sport.

The penalty culture has gone too far.

If someone has done something that is illegal according to the regulations, then disqualify them. If someone is dangerous then black flag them. Otherwise, let them get on with it.

The penalty culture has gone too far.

If someone has done something that is illegal according to the regulations, then disqualify them. If someone is dangerous then black flag them. Otherwise, let them get on with it.

is that culture politicaly motivated?

is that culture politicaly motivated?

I don't know. It's possible. But whatever motivation was responsible, it's here now, unfortunately.

I am a Button fan as well as a Hamilton fan and frankly if it was Hamilton I bet we'd be listening to more talk of bans or penalties. Anyway, yes I think he would have got further penalties but having won the race there was no way they could take it off him for being agressive (or careless with Lewis because he knew bloody rightly that Lewis as behind him and he knew he was slow out of that corner).

So, if penalties are forgotten because you put up a good show then the penalties must not be worth much in real terms so why don't the FIA wise up and stop this nonsense. It's a race for gods sake and boy are those guys good at what they do. End stupid penalties now!

ok, you see also political motives behind the penalties.

in other words, vettels mistake let button come out of the race unpenalised
and
therefore destroyed ms chances to be on podium.

I don't know. It's possible. But whatever motivation was responsible, it's here now, unfortunately.

i am still not sure whether it is good or bad for the sport.
sticking to the rules, or the way the rules were applied till now in the season, there is no way that button can get out of it without a penalty,
but
somehow i dont feel mad, coz he has beaten vettel, even if he kicked out alonso.
very ambivalent thing, this is.

to the OP I wont attack you, obviously you had to use an example as a basis for your post.

For the sake of consistency given that 90% of televised contacts this year have been penalised then yes button should have been for consistency, if there is no consistency then the sport is in disrepute.

Under normal circumstances I would call it a racing incident, however that goes for all of PDR's and lewis's as well. Since penalties have been dished out like candy this year button should have got the same treatment.

For some reason unexplained button's decision was deffered until after the race, once that happened and he won the chance of a penalty was reduced as they didnt want the bad PR for the result been changed, however there seemed to be already motive to drop it when the decision got deffered.

I think governing bodies in all sorts of sports have an understandable reluctance to make result(s)-altering decisions after the fact. Is that political? Maybe, but it's not personal. People who watch a race want to see the winner cross the finish line in first place, they don't want to learn a couple of hours later that the guy who came in third actually won. The powers that be are very aware of that and will not want to mess with a race result unless they absolutely have to, i.e. a rules violation is so clear cut that there's absolutely no debate. I happen to think that's a common-sense approach.

In the specific case of Jenson yesterday, he didn't necessarily look like the eventual winner when either of his 'incidents' took place so it's unlikely that stewards let him off the hook simply because they were giddy with the anticipation of someone beating Vettel. And once they made the decision not to penalise him mid-race, frankly, I think any post-race penalties would've been bad form.

So the excuses as to why Hamilton is being beaten by Button includes conspiracy theories of sabotage within McLaren and political conspiracy within the WMSC.

I guess the problem with supporting someone just because you think they're going to win all the time, is that its very difficult for you to be humble in defeat. I guess that explains the lunacy of the excuses.

Depends what it meant by politicial, does the OP means manipulative? There is no place in F1 for stewards manipulating results under any circumstances.

It happened frequently under Max, but I don't believe it is happening now.

The stewards do seem to be making a lot of mistakes at the moment - perfect example DR yesterday - but IMO they are not deliberate manipulations.

no, actually i can live with the decision.

the question is, would the stewards decide same if that was a title decider between those two?

That isn't the same question rephrased.

"Would the stewards decide same if that was a title decider between those two?" Is completely different to "Are political steward decisions good for the sport?"

Stupid question. A political decision can never be good for the sport.
Why? Because at the next race there will always be the danger of another political situation.
Because at the next race, Nick Heidfeld could clip off the wing of a driver and he will get no punishment.
Because at the next race, Paul di Resta could clip off the wing of a driver and he will get a punishment.
Because at the next race, Michael Schumacher could crowd a driver of the race trace and he will get a punishment.
Because at the next race, Jenson Button could crowd a driver of the race trace and he will get no punishment.

This is what yesterday confirmed and it is certainly not good for the sport.

That isn't the same question rephrased.

"Would the stewards decide same if that was a title decider between those two?" Is completely different to "Are political steward decisions good for the sport?"

the first implicates the second.
as i dont want to just debate the first (in the special matter of button-alonso) i posted a general question.
i hope now it is clear!?

Edited by YellowHelmet, 13 June 2011 - 09:14.

to the OP I wont attack you, obviously you had to use an example as a basis for your post.

For the sake of consistency given that 90% of televised contacts this year have been penalised then yes button should have been for consistency, if there is no consistency then the sport is in disrepute.

Under normal circumstances I would call it a racing incident, however that goes for all of PDR's and lewis's as well. Since penalties have been dished out like candy this year button should have got the same treatment.

For some reason unexplained button's decision was deffered until after the race, once that happened and he won the chance of a penalty was reduced as they didnt want the bad PR for the result been changed, however there seemed to be already motive to drop it when the decision got deffered.

I think governing bodies in all sorts of sports have an understandable reluctance to make result(s)-altering decisions after the fact. Is that political? Maybe, but it's not personal. People who watch a race want to see the winner cross the finish line in first place, they don't want to learn a couple of hours later that the guy who came in third actually won. The powers that be are very aware of that and will not want to mess with a race result unless they absolutely have to, i.e. a rules violation is so clear cut that there's absolutely no debate. I happen to think that's a common-sense approach.

In the specific case of Jenson yesterday, he didn't necessarily look like the eventual winner when either of his 'incidents' took place so it's unlikely that stewards let him off the hook simply because they were giddy with the anticipation of someone beating Vettel. And once they made the decision not to penalise him mid-race, frankly, I think any post-race penalties would've been bad form.

but somehow that implicates, that under given circumstances political decisions can be good for the sport.

Edited by YellowHelmet, 13 June 2011 - 09:15.

It wasn't a political decision, but a normal stewards decision, and therefore this thread is entirely superfluous and in my opinion ought to be closed.

Wrong assumption, biased poll based on it. 0/10

Of course political decisions are bad for the sport but we didn't get any political decision, we had a lot of racing incidents that were 60/40 at worst and most pretty much blameless

Lousy poll--asks a foolish question (the obvious answer is "no"), but presumes that yesterday's decisions, or some of them, were "political."

Why do people put up such silliness?

the first implicates the second.
as i dont want to just debate the first (in the special matter of button-alonso) i posted a general question.
i hope now it is clear!?

No, the first question does not imply the second. The reasoning behind one's answer might.

You have obviously decided that the stewards made a "political decision", so let's consider some possible answers to your question(s):

"Are political steward decisions good for the sport?"
Yes. Keeping interest in the championship alive is vital to the continuing financial welfare of the sport. Sometimes the good of the sport is best served by being pragmatic rather than being pedantic. Overturning the on-track result after the race is over and the trophies awarded turns the sport into a farce.
No. It is a sport, that means everyone has to abide by the rules. If the offending driver happened to be the first to finish then that's tough, he only has himself to blame. Relegating the enforcement of the rules to secondary status after commecial/feelgood factors turns the sport into a farce.

"Would the stewards decide same if that was a title decider between those two?"
Yes. There are other factors outside the enforcement of the rules that mean the stewards are favouring one driver over another. Bernie wants Button to be WDC. Todt wants to make sure he can't be accused of favouring Ferrari so is actively trying to prevent Alonso winning. There would be no point in penalising Alonso as he screwed his own race and any punishment would only look vindictive.
No. The WDC is more important than one race win, so they would consider the implications of allowing McLaren to beat Ferrari more carefully and penalise Button. There is no way they would let a second-rate driver like Button become WDC by bullying his way past the anointed one. They would have to penalise Alonso if it was for the WDC just as they did with Schumacher in '97.
Yes. There is no reason why they should come to a different conclusion.
No. The greater importance of the decision would mean they consider the issue more deeply and realise the truth that Alonso/Button/both drivers should be penalised after all.

It is possible for one person two answer the two questions with: yes/yes; yes/no; no/yes; no/no.

Your premise is flawed. You assume the decision was political without adequate evidence. It appears that you have done so because your favourite driver was involved.

So I suggest the poll be changed to:

Are political polls good for the forum?

I disagree, becasue question is legitimate. Had Button escaped penalty because he won the race, and all s*** would hit the fan if stewards rulled against him? Mr. Whitmarsh rates the race "greatest in history of sport", oblivious to mockery safety car did out of this race, and also to the fact, that both of his drives are now talk of the town from race to race, and not always for right reasons.

McLaren is on decline, and its getting to them.

Edited by Sakae, 13 June 2011 - 13:24.

Every stewards decision is a political decision.

There are very few FIA rules governing wheel to wheel racing. What few mentions there are of racing conduct are more guidelines that cannot be implemented as a rule, but instead must be interpreted by appointed stewards who must then decide if a move is "illegal" even though they have no specific definition of an illegal move to determine that by.

The vast majority of stewards decisions are therefore by definition as arbitrary as the inconsistencies in their judgements seem to be.

This is the kind of scenario that will always lead to political decisions. How can a panel of judges be expected to deliver unbiased and unpolitical decisions when they are employed by the FIA to enforce a code of conduct that is not defined anywhere? They are enforcing a rulebook that has no real rules.

Where this gets really dubious is when they decide to investigate certain incidents after the race. How can any reasonable person be expected to make an unbiased decision, free from any political interference, when their decision, and the punishment they choose to implement will have a serious and quantifiable effect on a championship where billions of dollars are at stake?

It is impossible. Throughout the world, in legal systems and business regulations, great lengths are gone to to ensure transparency and procedural accountability, because history has demonstrated time and time again when important decisions are made on an arbitrary basis, decisions will be influenced by the agendas of those who have the most influence on the decision makers.

The FIA seem to actively encourage this grey area of vaguely written rules enforced by unaccountable but not independent stewards.

Given the frequency of the statistically improbable, but financially lucrative final round cliff hangers we have, a cynic would conclude that the FIA's position is not accidental.

McLaren is on decline, and its getting to them.

McLaren are not a team in decline unless you are looking at a timescale inclusing the nineties. Williams are a team in decline. McLaren have finished in the top three of the WDC for quite a few years now.