This is getting silly

Next we'll have Stewards giving out penalties for loud helmet colour schemes.


Any time stewards get involved there's controversy, and it risks killing the "sport": don't we all want the race to be won on the track, and not in either the stewards room, or a court?

So shouldn't the FIA/FOM decree that:
- Stewards can only look at incidents where a driver's safety was at risk,
unless...
- Teams may protest on their drivers' behalf, and ask Stewards to review an incident
- the Stewards working presumption should be that in racing, drivers are responsible for their own actions until they put the life of a fellow competitor at risk.

On that basis, of Japan's incidents, none would have been penalised - they were all racing incidents.
Would any of the teams have asked Stewards to look at any of the other incidents?

But the stewards would have warned Webber & Massa for creating a high speed move into the pit lane exit

All of them.

Definitely McLaren would have objected to being pirouetted. I have a feeling that Toro Rosso might have asked the stewards to look at the Bourdais incident rather than Ferrari, and been disappointed

Indeed.


Yeah, let's have endless discussions whether or not....

I think it's simple.
There is a rulebook.
A rulebook doesn't make sense if it can't be enforced.

Basically, the discussion should be about
- is the rulebook OK?
- how can it be enforced?
- do the stewards follow the rulebook or are they doing something else?

This just about sums it up:

Alonso welcomes Hamilton punishment - despite not knowing what he did wrong

http://www.sport.co.uk/news/Motorsport/825..._did_wrong.aspx

Wrong thread, old news

yep

the trouble is that Article 16 of the Sporting Code describes an Incident:
"INCIDENTS
16.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by
any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to
the race director for investigation) which :
- necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 ;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code ;
- caused a false start by one or more cars ;
- caused a collision ;
- forced a driver off the track ;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver ;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving
more than one car will normally be investigated after the race. "

Translation: "anybody caught behaving like a racing driver is liable to investigation by the stewards"

To create excitement.

I suspect that the three stewards are there just to sign the decisions made by the unofficial 'fourth' steward. Except that famous Spanish guy who was speaking to the press after Schumacher's incident in Monaco'06, I can't remember any other steward who elaborated his position publicly. And if you're completely free of obligations other than to sign papers why would you do more than that?

I think you need to seperate that they don't tell you their logic with the idea that they don't have any.

To piss off the fanboys of Saint Hamilton, of course.

This could be a serious discussion of an important issue if the children stayed out of the room...

i always hated that ridiculous football discussions about referee's actions and their good and bad's on the outcome of the match.

and now we have just that in f1...

with f1 so much in the safety side these days drivers can pull extravaganza moves because there's no major risk compared with old good days.

this penaltys can prevent chaos at the track but obviously will always be a matter of great discussion between fans.

i personaly did'nt understand alonso's 2006 monza penalty (w/massa demoted in the grid) or the same alonso hungary 2007 penalty (w/mclaren) also demoted in the grid.

but i understand as fair and plain justice this year's hamilton spa penalty and the 3 penaltys at fuji.

go figure.

It's little known that there is a Stewards World Championship underway this season, with points awarded for the most ridiculous penalty.

Apparently the geezer who decided that Bourdais should be punished at the weekend initially romped into a seemingly unassailable lead, but an appeal halved his award when it was pointed out the STR has a Ferrari engine.

The next two races see the Mclaren 'joker' played, with double points for penalties awarded to a McLaren driven by an Englishman.

I'm not sure what they are for, but the more they appear the more they up. The idea of stewards is a good and necessary one, but the way it is now obviously isn't working.

And this is one of the reasons why...

"At the moment the stewards are largely members of the World Council and the job is seen as one of the perks of the job. ...indeed there have been stewards in recent years who have never seen an F1 race before officiating at one."
Link

If I was dictator of the FIA, I'd set up a scheme like many other sports, where one has to show a history of good stewarding in lower formulae before being allowed to the higher levels, and only then on a probationary basis. There would be, in effect a 'superlicense' for stewards.
The humble game of cricket has a far better umpiring system than F1.

I have no problems with the stewards' decisions.

If someone plays dirty, cheats or breaches the rules (only the latter being a technical term), we have to accepts that it comes with a penalty. Even if we want someone to win so badly that we can accept him breaching the rules, we can't really cry foul when he gets caught.

But we're talking about some incidents where drivers are NOT breaching the rules.

I have not seen a single penalty without giving the exact part of the rules that was breached.

Enlighten me please.

What about incidents which deserved penalties but had none served? Do you take note of those as well?

Hamilton missed his braking and pushed Raikkonen wide an Fuji. And some can argue it was the direct cause of the entire mess to happen behind.
Bourdais missed his braking and punted Trulli from behind at Spa, breaking his own front wing in the process. And some car argue it was the direct cause of the entire mess to happen behind.


That is only one example of how the stewards ruling seems absolutely incoherent and opportunistic, manufacturing a given and desired result.

\



Its obvious, the stewards are there to make sure ferrari wins the wdc and the wcc. They have won the last 50 wdcs and the last 50 wccs.

As far as im concerned the Stewards have only made one bad decision and thats giving Bourdais a penalty at Fuji.
As far as this thread is concerned, it's a nice place to see some crybaby posts.

I rather hoped you would enlighten me:

Please, explain the 'exact part of the rules breached' in the following:

Hamilton at the start in Japan
Massa in the chicane in Japan
Bourdais leaving the pits in Japan
Hamilton at the chicane in Spa

This is perfect.
One the one hand (Spanish hand) you have Alonso talking smack.

on another (British hand) you have Hamilton hellbent to make a name for himself and driving for the championship.

then on another (yes in F1 you have more than two hands) you have slap-happy Max trying like hell to KF1W.

of course don't leave out Bernie looking for the revenue off any of this....or that....or that.....etc

This is true WWF stuff. Hopefully someone will setup a Ham vs Alonso MMA match....Max can be the master of ceremonies

FIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHT

that was the idea... thanks for noticing Smudger!

Well, for a start, I think that this release by the FIA is informative:

Press Release

Also evident, if you look at the links to other articles on that page is the 'cult of Max' - no snide aside, but look at the praise heaped upon him by his organisation. It tastes bad...

The subtext of the article was clearly that the stewards were going to be more 'consistent' (not really much sign of that, to be honest) and proactive. There has been a lot of evidence of that.

Prior to these changes my understanding had always been that unless there was serious danger to a competitor due to the actions of another, a blatant breach of the rules (like a jumped start, for example) or a protest from another team, the stewards stayed out of the running of the race. I don't know, to be honest, if there was an increase in protests in recent years, but I think there may have been. What has been the difference has been this degree of proactivity.

I think there may also be links with the increasing globalisation of the sport, and the changing demographic of supporters, and the braindead nationalism which has been fostered to increase the appeal amongst that changed demographic. Whereas to us oldies the sport was a pretty rugged sharkfest it now has to have a very specific rulebook. That appeals to a - how to put it - less mature audience. As seen by some of the frankly ludicrous arguing and posturing seen on this and other forums.

In the 2008 Sporting Regulations on the FIA website. Section 16. Incidents.

Hamilton at the start in Japan - forced a driver off the track
Massa in the chicane in Japan - caused a collision
Bourdais leaving the pits in Japan - caused a collision
Hamilton at the chicane in Spa - constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code

Now. We may not have given penalties for these incidents. One may not even call these events incidents. But luckily we are not the ones deciding on these things.

Sorry, TC, I tried...

Hamilton Fuji
Massa Fuji
Bourdais Fuji
Hamilton Spa

Each document tells you exactly which rule they consider has been breached. What you don't have is the reasoning.

I agree with alfa1. Stewards should be required to cut their teeth in lower formula and earn the right to adjudicate at the top level.

Thanks, and that's the point i'm trying to get across - badly.

One can't simply penalise a driver for 'causing a collision' without further consideration.

And they should have a deal of knowledge of what they're watching....

It wasn't put in as news, but as an example of attitude "Punishment fully deserved - By the way, what did he do?"

I.E. Punish Hamilton THEN think of with the reason.................................

What are stewards for?

What kind of stupid question is that? Everyone knows that they are the random factor in F1 race results! lol

Once upon a time stewards had to have a superlicence, I believe. Not since 2006, though. Is that correct? If so, it would assume that they had some experience of international motorsport. But the stories we heard at Spa suggested that the stewards there had very limited experience of international competition, if any.

OK my bad Bloggs, didn't make that (imo far fetched) connection, apologies