Is F1 too soft with penalties (compared to MotoGP)?

Bautista takes out Lorenzo, Bautista will start last in the next race. Take note that it was an incident just at the start of the race and Lorenzo was fighting for the title (first in fact).

Well penalties should be about deterrence, surely, and Bautista took out his own silly self as well, so I don't see a penalty in that case.

I'd rather both series made sure bad behaviour is penalised rather than 'a crash we didn't like'.

It is simply not possible to make a comparison with MotoGP concerning penalties. Incidents are very clear-cut in MotoGP, whereas in F1, it is usually very subjective. In F1,at the moment I see the contrary. Penalties handed out are inconsistent, too frequent, and prone to reflect the actual steward's take on a given situation.

Surely him DNFing was penalty enough.
Yes it was a bad mistake and looked a touch reckless with how late he left his braking but i don't think he should be moved to the back.

F1, MotoGP or whatever series, there's always someone at fault nowadays, why can't they see things as an unfortunate racing incident. Penalise the reckless stuff (Vergne on Kovalainen) but don't penalise mistakes.

I would have made the thread the other way arround

"Is Moto GP too harsh with penalties (compared to F1)?"

Another thing to consider is that this was the first race for Lorenzo with a new engine that thanks to Bautista is now destroyed, so its more than just one race affected.

F1 penalties are much harsher due to their unnecessary and incompetent nature. A huge majority of the time, stewarding intervention is not required.

Would have to see Lewis on a bike before voting.

Would have to see Lewis on a bike before voting.

why?

Another thing to consider is that this was the first race for Lorenzo with a new engine that thanks to Bautista is now destroyed, so its more than just one race affected.

Should the result of the incident really alter the penalty though? Surely just the riding/driving concerned should be judged, not the outcome, which can be pretty random.

In answer to the question, I have a strong dislike of penalties. Sometimes **** happens in racing. If someone is particularly stupid or dangerous then some sort of sanction is in order, but I get so frustrated after every race on this board seeing people say - such and such clipped this car, PENALTY!, such and such did this PENALTY!

Where possible please just let them race.

why?

ISJOKE

Penalties are handed round like confetti now a days in F1

The grid spot you start from is not as important in Moto GP.

ISJOKE

No **** Sherlock, not a funny thread. Try harder for funny.

No **** Sherlock, not a funny thread. Try harder for funny.

I laughed

Are jokes only allowed on funny threads?

I laughed

Are jokes only allowed on funny threads?

I retreat. . If you laughed, the post is justified. I think I am biased by a bad day.

A crash in MotoGP is more life-endangering than an F1 crash, it's normal to see such a harsh penalty in a sport with several recent casaulties.

Problem is, if you don't have penalties and just go with the view that retiring is enough of a penalty, then you end up with something like BTCC where slamming people off is seen as a perfectly acceptable overtaking manoeuvre. You have to enforce proper driving standards.

I think F1 gets it about right with penalties, if everyone took of their biased caps then it would seem like the stewards get it right most of the time.

I think F1 gets it about right with penalties, if everyone took of their biased caps then it would seem like the stewards get it right most of the time.

I cannot agree with that, especially with the biased cap part. Stewards do not get get it right, if you look at the penalties handed out throughout the past 2 seasons.

I cannot agree with that, especially with the biased cap part. Stewards do not get get it right, if you look at the penalties handed out throughout the past 2 seasons.

What I was getting at is that there are many situations where fans on these forums say 'omg that penalty is so unfair waa waa waa' just because it's their favourite driver who has been penalised. They don't realise that the stewards have almost infinite amounts of camera angles, telemetry etc to make their decision - something fans watching on tv don't get to see. The judgement of the stewards is always better than that of the fans. It didn't used it be that way, but fortunately it is now.

By the way, give me a few examples of incorrect penalties from the last two seasons.

If anyone missed a braking point during a F1 start and t-boned people 5 places in front he would get into trouble too.

What I was getting at is that there are many situations where fans on these forums say 'omg that penalty is so unfair waa waa waa' just because it's their favourite driver who has been penalised.

That's usually the case, but not always. Driver preference is ultimately irrelevant to justice of a penalty, to me that is obvious.

They don't realise that the stewards have almost infinite amounts of camera angles, telemetry etc to make their decision - something fans watching on tv don't get to see. The judgement of the stewards is always better than that of the fans. It didn't used it be that way, but fortunately it is now.

I utterly disagree. They do have more tools as their disposal, but that doesn't qualify them for the job. Being a successful racing driver, past or present, qualifies stewards. As it stands, there is only one such person per race meeting, thus he is only a minority in the stewards room.

By the way, give me a few examples of incorrect penalties from the last two seasons.

This risks starting an endless debate that has already been done, but I will bite. Incorrect penalties, IMO, from last year include Alonso on Hamilton in Malaysia and both Hamilton incidents in Monaco.

In Malaysia, Alonso was the sole party to receive damage, so a penalty was not required. At Monaco, on both occasions the overtaken driver simply turned in and in Massas case, went off the racing line to do so. In that same race, Schumacher and Hamilton both overtook each other at very the same corners, but the difference was that room was made and respect given.

I also think the stewards incorrectly penalised Senna in Valencia this last weekend, but then as you say I don't have the tools to be more sure than I am now.

Edited by Disgrace, 30 June 2012 - 19:41.

Stewards are in a no win situation.

Handing out a penalty =pissing people off.
Not handing out a penalty = pissing people off.

It's hopeless.

Stewards are in a no win situation.

Handing out a penalty =pissing people off.
Not handing out a penalty = pissing people off.

It's hopeless.

Unless they get it right. Fanboys can argue if they think driver preference has some authority on their decisions. Perhaps some people would say the stewards usually get it right, but I think they have a track record of hideously wrong decisions ever since they penalised Montoya for being driven into by Schumacher at Sepang in '02. I don't think it's a no-win situation.

Edited by Disgrace, 30 June 2012 - 19:44.

Unless they get it right. Perhaps some people would say that, but I think they have a track record of hideously wrong decisions ever since they penalised Montoya for being driven into by Schumacher at Sepang in '02.

Even if they get it "right", you'll have legions claiming it was the wrong decision.

I utterly disagree. They do have more tools as their disposal, but that doesn't qualify them for the job. Being a successful racing driver, past or present, qualifies stewards. As it stands, there is only one such person per race meeting, thus he is only a minority in the stewards room.

They are infinitely more qualified for the job than fans sitting at home.

This risks starting an endless debate that has already been done, but I will bite. Incorrect penalties, IMO, from last year include Alonso on Hamilton in Malaysia and both Hamilton incidents in Monaco.

In Malaysia, Alonso was the sole party to receive damage, so a penalty was not required. At Monaco, on both occasions the overtaken driver simply turned in and in Massas case, went off the racing line to do so. In that same race, Schumacher and Hamilton both overtook each other at very the same corners, but the difference was that room was made and respect given.

In Malaysia, Alonso was very clumsy, and also the FIA stewards would have had telemetry to look at to see if Alonso could have avoided the contact. Obviously they decided he could have. In my mind it's right to give somebody a penalty for an avoidable collision even if it didn't harm the other car, and that seems to be the FIA's policy most of the time as well.

In Monaco, Hamilton went for a gap that wasn't there against Massa, and against Maldonado he came from off the track and hit him in what was in many ways a copy of the incident in Valencia last week, only with the roles reversed. Again, I think the penalties are right and are being applied more consistently than in the past, which is good.

Even if they get it "right", you'll have legions claiming it was the wrong decision.

If they get it "right" then the races aren't so readily ruined at least in my eyes. Let fanboys be fanboys, they can be ignored.

Edited by Disgrace, 30 June 2012 - 20:18.

What I was getting at is that there are many situations where fans on these forums say 'omg that penalty is so unfair waa waa waa' just because it's their favourite driver who has been penalised. They don't realise that the stewards have almost infinite amounts of camera angles, telemetry etc to make their decision - something fans watching on tv don't get to see. The judgement of the stewards is always better than that of the fans. It didn't used it be that way, but fortunately it is now.

By the way, give me a few examples of incorrect penalties from the last two seasons.

No, mate, I will not give you an example. That is the core of the problem, IMHO. If you look at penalties handed out, you will find that the majority of them, if looked at individually, stand to reason, and they could be, or are, justified. My problem is with inconsistency. Some incidents are penalized, similar ones are not. Again, similar ones are penalized, some are not. One solution could be more than one ex-F1 stewards/race, but the same ones for the whole season. This 'we invite you to steward a race' system is just not working, which is sad, because it is a pretty good idea to have race-experienced staff at the races.

In Malaysia, Alonso was very clumsy, and also the FIA stewards would have had telemetry to look at to see if Alonso could have avoided the contact. Obviously they decided he could have.

Just to clarify I'm not interested in debating individual incidents (not that you are, just a general point) rather your rationale behind your conclusions. I can't see how it's right for stewards to microanalyse Alonsos inputs with 20/20 hindsight, and have a say on his result. Incidents like that are over too quickly. In effect the stewards have more to say about Alonsos race than even he does. He could have avoided contact by not making the move at all overall.

We can debate it safely with hindsight, that's the fun of the forum, but that shouldn't have a say in an incident that is over in a flash.

In my mind it's right to give somebody a penalty for an avoidable collision even if it didn't harm the other car, and that seems to be the FIA's policy most of the time as well.

Even if there was no damage to either driver? Even when the damage was exclusively sustained to the offending driver, then you believe additional third-party justice needs to come raining upon the race result? As far as I can see, justice has already been served in a racing incident. Further meddling is surely just artificial messing with the overall result.

It was a clumsy move, sure, but not malicious at all. This is also Alonso, double world champion, he will have learnt his lesson the moment of contact. A bit of common sense should be applied. They're not toddlers in a playground. Penalising trivial racing incidents also means there is not enough disparity between that and malicious moves like what Maldonado has done to Hamilton at Spa and Perez in Monaco.

In Monaco, Hamilton went for a gap that wasn't there against Massa, and against Maldonado he came from off the track and hit him in what was in many ways a copy of the incident in Valencia last week, only with the roles reversed. Again, I think the penalties are right and are being applied more consistently than in the past, which is good.

This is why I say some common sense should be applied. I referred to the previous moves in which drivers gave room because that's the only way anyone can overtake in Monaco. Such risky moves that are dependant on the overtaken driver are not usually on, but Monaco is very much the exception.

Surely then the failing lies with the drivers refusing to accept this. Both of them scored nil points after they inevitably crashed. By contrast, Schumacher giving room to Hamilton meant he was otherwise on for points before the car broke. The incidents should be taken individually, but when Massa then tried to hold on around the outside of Hamilton in the tunnel, then it's very difficult to take seriously the idea that Hamilton was solely at fault for that incident.

Edited by Disgrace, 30 June 2012 - 20:16.

Just to clarify I'm not interested in debating individual incidents (not that you are, just a general point) rather your rationale behind your conclusions. I can't see how it's right for stewards to microanalyse Alonsos inputs with 20/20 hindsight, and have a say on his result. Incidents like that are over too quickly. In effect the stewards have more to say about Alonsos race than even he does. He could have avoided contact by not making the move at all overall.

We can debate it safely with hindsight, that's the fun of the forum, but that shouldn't have a say in an incident that is over in a flash.

Even if there was no damage to either driver? Even when the damage was exclusively sustained to the offending driver, then you believe additional third-party justice needs to come raining upon the race result? As far as I can see, justice has already been served in a racing incident. Further meddling is surely just artificial messing with the overall result.

It was a clumsy move, sure, but not malicious at all. This is also Alonso, double world champion, he will have learnt his lesson the moment of contact. A bit of common sense should be applied. They're not toddlers in a playground. Penalising trivial racing incidents also means there is not enough disparity between that and malicious moves like what Maldonado has done to Hamilton at Spa and Perez in Monaco.

I think the method of operating for the stewards should be to think 'what could this bad bit of driving have caused?' instead of 'what did it actually cause?'. In another instance, Alonso's misjudgement could have ended up with a massive aerial crash, or a puncture for Hamilton, or other nasty things. If you penalise bad driving even when the bad driving has not harmed anyone, then surely that is a positive move towards improving standards? Not just to set an example for Alonso - as you said, he probably didn't need it - but also to other drivers in F1 and those hoping to move up in the near future.

This is why I say some common sense should be applied. I referred to the previous moves in which drivers gave room because that's the only way anyone can overtake in Monaco. Such risky moves that are dependant on the overtaken driver are not usually on, but Monaco is very much the exception.

Surely then the failing lies with the drivers refusing to accept this. Both of them scored nil points after they inevitably crashed. By contrast, Schumacher giving room to Hamilton meant he was otherwise on for points before the car broke. The incidents should be taken individually, but when Massa then tried to hold on around the outside of Hamilton in the tunnel, then it's very difficult to take seriously the idea that Hamilton was solely at fault for that incident.

Well, I agree with what you've said mostly. But I accept that the FIA has decided to take a particular course, which is the 'driver that made contact is always at fault' course. While I don't approve of that, I do appreciate that the stewards apply penalties for that with consistency. By the way - in Monaco I don't think Massa's crash in the tunnel was a part of the steward's decision, Hamilton was penalised solely for the collision at the hairpin.

I think the method of operating for the stewards should be to think 'what could this bad bit of driving have caused?' instead of 'what did it actually cause?'. In another instance, Alonso's misjudgement could have ended up with a massive aerial crash, or a puncture for Hamilton, or other nasty things. If you penalise bad driving even when the bad driving has not harmed anyone, then surely that is a positive move towards improving standards? Not just to set an example for Alonso - as you said, he probably didn't need it - but also to other drivers in F1 and those hoping to move up in the near future.

A balance clearly needs to be struck with the bolded, but in an era of car park run offs and unprecedented safety, I think the balance is slightly off. It would be absolutely wrong to rest on safety laurels though. Driving standards are rightly the issue, but I disagree with the idea of penalising bad driving even when the bad driving has not harmed anyone. There are simple misjudgments like that Alonso incident, which is useless to penalise as any precedent set can't overcome errors that come with being human under pressure.

Penalties have use when there are massive brain farts like what JEV did to Kovalainen in Valencia, but he got the the same penalty as Alonso, which is fundamentally wrong IMO.

It's been going for years. They penalised Sato at Indy in '07 for overtaking under yellows. He spun out so didn't serve the penalty. The stewards gave him a 10-place grid penalty for the next round instead. That's the same penalty stewards gave Maldonado for deliberately ramming Perez (the suspension that took the hit then failed and caused a crash) and more severe yet than when he did it to Hamilton last year. That can't be right, nor help improve standards.

A less interventionist approach is needed. Drop penalties for trivial incidents, thus giving them real meaning again when they're actually needed.

Edited by Disgrace, 30 June 2012 - 20:55.

Penalties have use when there are massive brain farts like what JEV did to Kovalainen in Valencia, but he got the the same penalty as Alonso, which is fundamentally wrong IMO.

It's been going for years. They penalised Sato at Indy in '07 for overtaking under yellows. He spun out so didn't serve the penalty. The stewards gave him a 10-place grid penalty for the next round instead. That's the same penalty stewards gave Maldonado for deliberately ramming Perez (the suspension that took the hit then failed and caused a crash) and more severe yet than when he did it to Hamilton last year. That can't be right, nor help improve standards.

Didn't Vergne get fined as well? And a grid drop for the next race? That's the harshest penalty I've seen for a while, but I'm not surprised because it did look very deliberate. But if that is the penalty for a deliberate crash, then why didn't they also fine Maldonado in Monaco? I can understand why Maldonado was not punished so harshly in Spa, because the stewards clearly felt Hamilton was partly to blame and gave him a reprimand. But you mentioning those incidents has made me doubt my previous statement that penalties nowadays are always right. Clearly they are not.

I still maintain though that on the whole, the situation regarding penalties in F1 is acceptable and not as bad as some complaining fanboys would have you believe.

Sometimes drivers in F1 have some luck and "get away" with things.. but alot of times they are penalised.. sometimes even minor things, like Vettel in Spain. Over the course of a few seasons it usually evens out.

I can't even remember the last time I was "trully outraged" by something the stewards did. Yeah people will complain, but they ALWAYS will. The stewards have a tough job. Usually I agree with them and even if I don't, it's not worth getting upset about. It's easy to note inconsistancies and compare something to something else but that is just the nature of F1 stewarding and it was always be like that.

There haven't been any "blatant" bad penalties or witch-hunts in a long time IMO. More or less ever since Max has been gone from FIA it's been good. Hated Todt as a Ferrari guy, but as a FIA guy he seems ok. The stewards these days seem to have the right idea.

In another instance, Alonso's misjudgement could have ended up with a massive aerial crash, or a puncture for Hamilton, or other nasty things. If you penalise bad driving even when the bad driving has not harmed anyone, then surely that is a positive move towards improving standards?

Edited your quote. In that case why didn't Webber get a penalty for his huge mistake in Valencia against Kova a few years ago ? If the stewarding had any consistency then he really should have done so.

Even if they get it "right", you'll have legions of fanboys claiming it was the wrong decision.

Fixed that.

Fixed that.

I wish it was that simple.
Look at Seb and Marco complaining about the safety car in Valencia. Even though there clearly was debris on track, they maintain that the safety car came out to spice up the show or something similair.

(Marco also claims that the safety car was the cause for Sebs DNF despite Renault claiming the opposite...)

It's not always only the fanboys that complain.

Yes, F1 is way too lenient. The point of a penalty is to discourage that bad or harmful behavior. If some drivers do stupid things then they need to learn. Ruining other drivers' races for no reason is not OK.

I voted 'other', for normal racing incidents, F1 stewards are too quick to apportion blame. But then on the other hand they don't seem authoritative enough to properly deal with severe offences, e.g. Schumacher at Hungary 2010 (Derrick Warwick was the driver steward and upon seeing it he immediately called for Schumacher to be black flagged, but the other stewards didn't want to) Maldonado at Spa 2011 and Monaco 2012. These incidents should have had more serious penalties applied. It reeks a little bit of a bad teacher who doesn't know how to control the classroom.

Yes, F1 is way too lenient. The point of a penalty is to discourage that bad or harmful behavior. If some drivers do stupid things then they need to learn. Ruining other drivers' races for no reason is not OK.

That is quite rare though, much rarer than the occurrence of penalties, which are readily dished out for "causing a collision." In fact, when it did actually happen when JEV drove into the side of Kovalainen, they needed to penalise him twice with a grid penalty and a fine.

A simple misjudgement, or a genuine error is not "no reason". They penalise themselves, which makes the idea of a penalty or any sort of additional artificial justice wrong. Penalties should not be a replacement for the danger of decades past, i.e, what drivers will actually be afraid of when contact is made because F1 is exceptionally safe (never too safe).

Edited by Disgrace, 01 July 2012 - 09:09.

I've alwasy believed that penalties should be given only if it was dangerous or deliberate or "continued clumsy driving." Perhaps the lack of anything invested in the sport helps, but I'm happy enough to accept that these things happen and occasionally someone will end up in the fence.

Interesting topic - i voted 'other'

On the whole this kind of penalty against Bautista should, for me, be considered in the following way: Had Lorenzo ran into Bautista in a reversal of this accident, would Lorenzo get sent to the back of the next grid? If the answer is yes then all's fair and above board (although it is unduly harsh, given that it was a first corner incident that happened on fairly cold tyres.....) - if the answer is no then there are other influences here under consideration that appear to be colouring the discussion....if it is because Yamaha wanted a bigger sanction because Lorenzo has destroyed an engine, or because Lorenzo is a front-runner in the title race, then that is completely fcuked-up by Dorna, in the same way that they appear to be being pressured by HRC with regard to the upcoming schedule of regulation changes.
The punishment should fit the crime, but you should be able to reverse the protagonists in any incident and look at the decision and agree that it is still 'just' - if it is not then you're making decisions to favour one party over another, and that's a crime in itself.....

What you're talking about in your post wrighty is very reminiscent of what's happing in Scottish football this summer. Rules and regulations are in place with how to deal with clubs that go out of business, the problem being that those in power weren't expecting Rangers to be the ones that went out of business and so have been trying, unsuccessfully, to find a way that appears to get NewRangers in the SPL as quickly as possible. But, thankfully, the fans have shown that if things seem like a fix or biased then they won't stand for it.

We're lucky IMO that F1 has become more lenient (and consistent) with penalties since the demise of Max. Overall I think they get it right mainly while in MotoGP they are if anything a bit lenient.