116 replies to this topic

[Eff One 2002]

Even Mark Webber said during the Bahrain coverage that "it's not like it used to be, you've got to be careful". I'm paraphrasing somewhat but the general gist was you are far more likely to be handed out these grid-place penalties and the like for attempting overtaking manouvres that don't come off and would have simply in the past been classified as racing incidents. The stewards are far too over-zealous now with the issuing of penalties for such moves. Sure, if a driver commits a move that is really idiotic and blatantly barges another driver off the track or something equally bone-headed then fine a penalty is warranted but they are handed out so much now that some of them must be afraid to have a go because if it doesn't come off and you make contact you're often slapped with a penalty.

Thoughts?

Edited by Eff One 2002, 05 May 2013 - 00:34.

[boldhakka]

They've actually gone much easier on drivers this season than in the past. Plenty of contacts where one party was clearly at fault have been overlooked with no penalty handed out.

[Brother Fox]

If the stewards, after viewing multiple video replays, at multiple angles with access to telemetry can't make a decision quickly and have to delay it till after the race, it's probably a racing incident

[SpaMaster]

A little while back, I felt they were trying to find fault with someone or other even if it was a racing incident. But now, I think they have struck a balance. The rule book says a driver can be penalized for avoidable accident. So you cannot get away with 'Ah, I tried, it didn't work out' kind of stuff. That's how it should be. It's a risk. Be prepared to be punished if weigh your risks wrongly. I think it is fine. I don't think think drivers should get away just because it is not a mega-stupid move and only a medium mistake move. I think they should be punished for medium-type mistakes as well.

[Sakae]

Even Mark Webber said during the Bahrain coverage that "it's not like it used to be, you've got to be careful". I'm paraphrasing somewhat but the general gist was you are far more likely to be handed out these grid-place penalties and the like for attempting overtaking manouvres that don't come off and would have simply in the past been classified as racing incidents. The stewards are far too over-zealous now with the issuing of penalties for such moves. Sure, if a driver commits a move that is really idiotic and blatantly barges another driver off the track or something equally bone-headed then fine a penalty is warranted but they are handed out so much now that some of them must be afraid to have a go because if it doesn't come off and you make contact you're often slapped with a penalty.

Thoughts?

Close proximity racing is prone to result in vehicle contacts, and as long as I am observing races, I don't think Race Stewards have ever taken enough care to investigate causes due to setting they are asked to operate. They aren’t furnished to investigate such incidents in forensic manner, nor there is time for it.
In some instances incidents were in the past investigated (IMO) under media driven, highly charged atmosphere, and at the end I suspected political motivation, rather than a decision based on facts alone, mainly because no one ever saw them perform data collection by set of physical measurements which are necessary. I fear this is never going to change, perhaps for pragmatic reasons, unless they find way how economically they can monitor whole track with overhead and on the car mounted cameras one can find already in geosystems, and other fields. Complemented by feedback data provided by a team, perhaps more accuracy in decisions could be rendered, but at the end, despite having all that gear, human element will be always involved. For now I would advise them to stay away from consultants of the past, such as ex-drivers.

I might get probably crucified for this, but I don’t believe there was (or will be) ever blatantly clear case of anything on the track, thus any penalties for altercations should be considered very carefully. Cars get damaged, and I am sure that the team will talk to their driver. That’s one corrective measure already, because driver’s next contract with the team might be in stake. Sole exception I would reserve for repeated cases like Grosjean had, and I do not want to pick just on him, but I would not let him to pull seven of them. They should have jumped on him much sooner.

Some other cases – the incident between Button and Vettel, who went off track, will eat me for rest of my days. One thing is to say, a driver has to stay with all four wheels on the track, and he wasn’t, another is to prove, that driver deliberately went off, rather than he went off in evasive maneuver. One can only conclude that stewards’ is not an easy job, thus do not get involved in complex decisions, if you do not know all facts.

Meanwhile, rules could be augmented by adding clarity and removing any ambiguity that might exist. Right now for example one of the more contentious I would see is differentiation for judging overtaking position for the following car. Whilst it is clear (re: Whiting’ definition), that front wheel must be aligned with rear wheel of the leading car for it to be considered a point where lead must yield, it matters where such situation is located; in the corner, or outside of it. Corner negates that maneuver, and following car is on his own, no yielding should be expected, problem however is, where the entry point of the corner is defined, and are both drivers aware of their relative positions on the track? Plenty space for arguments, and contentious penalties.

Edited by Sakae, 05 May 2013 - 08:27.

[KnucklesAgain]

Coming to think of it, are there still ex-drivers as advisors to the stewards? I don't think I've seen or heard them being mentioned this year.

[sennafan]

Some other cases – the incident between Button and Vettel, who went off track, will eat me for rest of my days. One thing is to say, a driver has to stay with all four wheels on the track, and he wasn’t, another is to prove, that driver deliberately went off, rather than he went off in evasive maneuver. One can only conclude that stewards’ is not an easy job, thus do not get involved in complex decisions, if you do not know all facts.

Meanwhile, rules could be augmented by adding clarity and removing any ambiguity that might exist. Right now for example one of the more contentious I would see is differentiation for judging overtaking position for the following car. Whilst it is clear (re: Whiting’ definition), that front wheel must be aligned with rear wheel of the leading car for it to be considered a point where lead must yield, it matters where such situation is located; in the corner, or outside of it. Corner negates that maneuver, and following car is on his own, no yielding should be expected, problem however is, where the entry point of the corner is defined, and are both drivers aware of their relative positions on the track? Plenty space for arguments, and contentious penalties.

Maybe they should do like indycar did in the 90's if you cut a chicane or leave the track with all 4 tyres you have to come to a full stop before rejoining to prove you didn't gain an advantage.

[Skinnyguy]

Au contraire. Stewarding is much more rational and makes much more sense than 10 years ago. It might still be inconsistent, but at least they don´t punish the wrong guy anymore.

I still remember Montoya and Schumacher in Malaysia 2002 start

[PayasYouRace]

I'd forgotten about that joke of a penalty. Bourdais getting a penalty for being hit by Massa in Japan 08 was similar.

[Raziel]

I'd forgotten about that joke of a penalty. Bourdais getting a penalty for being hit by Massa in Japan 08 was similar.

Hamilton for being the first driver with penalty for not hitting anyone at the start of the race in Japan 08! That was hilarious! They've made some new rules for that guy just like at Spa 08 oh "the good old days" with Mosley as president

[Sakae]

Au contraire. Stewarding is much more rational and makes much more sense than 10 years ago. It might still be inconsistent, but at least they don´t punish the wrong guy anymore.

I seriously doubt that.

[Eff One 2002]

I still remember Montoya and Schumacher in Malaysia 2002 start

Oh yes I remember that all too well. I was yelling at the TV at that ludicrous decision when it happened. That seemed to be the exception to the rule though and such idiotic penalties for contact didn't seem to be handed out then as much as they are now. These days it just seems to happen A LOT more.

[Skinnyguy]

I seriously doubt that.

I can´t think of any in last... let´s say 5 years, can you?

[Skinnyguy]

Oh yes I remember that all too well. I was yelling at the TV at that ludicrous decision when it happened. That seemed to be the exception to the rule though and such idiotic penalties for contact didn't seem to be handed out then as much as they are now. These days it just seems to happen A LOT more.

No way. They were way worse, and harder to understand back then. Today they´re more trigger happy, they take action for lesser contact, but at least they shoot in the right direction. Also if you read their reasons they seem to understand what is being judged.

Also some of the pieces of ettiquete that achived the "rule" status recently (not comming FULLY back to the racing line after covering, not covering by pushing someone off if he´s already alongside...) make perfect sense and leave less room for stupidity in the decission making process.

[Eff One 2002]

Today they´re more trigger happy, they take action for lesser contact.

That's the problem though. They are way too trigger-happy. A manouvre that doesn't come off and a driver is often slapped with a 5-place grid penalty for the next race.

[Sakae]

Cyber-stewarding explained

Interesting piece thanks to FiA.

[seahawk]

This year the stewards have been decent imho. Although I think it is a joke that we do not have a professional team of stewarts that remains the same for every race.

[BullHead]

I think 2008 onwards is when it all started getting a bit bad. Notwithstanding oddities like Malaysia 02 of course.

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

I might get probably crucified for this, but I don’t believe there was (or will be) ever blatantly clear case of anything on the track, thus any penalties for altercations should be considered very carefully.

There's have been some and there will be others in the future. Brake testing is an obvious one, and I'd say Schumacher in Monaco 2006 is another (although that was in qualifying and didn't involve contact with another car). Plus didn't Schumacher (I think) say in later years that Villeneuve at Jerez 97 was done deliberately (apologies if I've got confused on that).

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

I think 2008 onwards is when it all started getting a bit bad. Notwithstanding oddities like Malaysia 02 of course.

That really was 1 of the most bizarre penalties I've seen handed out in any series, let alone F1. Not sure how completely unintentionally understeering into another car and damaging your own car as part of that can result in a penalty (even if Montoya hadn't damaged his front wing, it was still a truly shocking penalty).

[matthair]

The joke is that there are penalties for racing driver mistakes at all. Their job is to race not follow road rules like the rest of us. There should should be penalties for deliberate fouls, and nothing else but sadly like with any form of regulation its just gotten out of hand as the years go by, to the joke it now is.

[prty]

Cyber-stewarding explained

Interesting piece thanks to FiA.

Just by looking at the name, the first thought was that the penalties are applied or not depending on the uproar caused in the internet. Ironically, it's probably not far from the truth.

[Sakae]

There's have been some and there will be others in the future. Brake testing is an obvious one, and I'd say Schumacher in Monaco 2006 is another (although that was in qualifying and didn't involve contact with another car). Plus didn't Schumacher (I think) say in later years that Villeneuve at Jerez 97 was done deliberately (apologies if I've got confused on that).

It is part of German culture (and most EU countries) to apologize for being involved in something without intent to address culpability. Vettel has issued similar apology to his team for being involved in incident with Kubica, despite that neither Vettel or Horner has accepted responsibility for the altercation. Kobayashi has conducted himself in the same manner.

____________

If you are referring to incident between JPM and Schumacher in the tunnel, than you are addressing a wrong guy. My recollection is, that car camera video was fuzzy, and inconclusive, but paddock media were hot on anti-Schumacher streak, thus atmosphere was not really supportive of a blatantly clear cut case, was it? In fact when Schumacher emerged from tunnel with damaged vehicle, media burst in applause. It was later said, that J. Todt characterize them as imbeciles for that.

Edited by Sakae, 05 June 2013 - 08:23.

[ExFlagMan]

Recently read an interesting in article in a magazine, may have been 'Top Gear Magazine', whilst in a waiting room recently, where they went inside Silverstone Race Control. According to the article for the GP they have a data search system that can collect/extract all the video evidence from all the relavent cameras including FOM's TV footage, for a given incident together in a very short time span to present to the stewards.
It didn't say how long it has been in use but I assume it is fairly new. Seems a lot better than the last time I was in Donington Race Control watching Steve attempting to select appropriate bits from the video tapes from all the circuit cameras by hand.

Edit - prty beat me to it - must improve my typing speed

Edited by ExFlagMan, 05 June 2013 - 08:27.

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

If you are referring to incident between JPM and Schumacher in the tunnel, than you are addressing a wrong guy. My recollection is, that car camera video was fuzzy, and inconclusive, but paddock media were hot on anti-Schumacher streak, thus atmosphere was not really supportive of a blatantly clear cut case, was it? In fact when Schumacher emerged from tunnel with damaged vehicle, media burst in applause. It was later said, that J. Todt characterize them as imbeciles for that.

No, I mean quali in 2006 at Monaco (I know we're talking about penalties for contact and that didn't result in contact, but it did affect other drivers quali laps)

[Sakae]

Just by looking at the name, the first thought was that the penalties are applied or not depending on the uproar caused in the internet. Ironically, it's probably not far from the truth.

I cannot prove it, but my suspicion for many years was, that FiA' judgments in three of most contentious Schumacher's cases (Hill, JV, and parking in Monaco) were influenced by paddock politics, with media leading the attack. How a commentator with a microphone in his hand can (or even should) declare driver's culpability in an incident just literally seconds after event, not having courtesy to wait for stewards, while he has an ear of world wide audience is just sickening. But, that's what we have.

Edited by Sakae, 05 June 2013 - 08:32.

[prty]

I cannot prove it, but my suspicion for many years was, that FiA' judgments in three of most contentious Schumacher's cases (Hill, JV, and parking in Monaco) were influenced by paddock politics, with media leading the attack. How a commentator with a microphone in his hand can (or even should) declare driver's culpability in an incident just literally seconds after event, not having courtesy to wait for stewards, while he has an ear of world wide audience is just sickening. But, that's what we have.

Of course it's highly influenced, and as weird as it sounds, the British media has huge sporting power actually. After all, this is more a show business than anything else. But I wouldn't pick those examples as unfair penalties.

[boldhakka]

I actually think penalties should be more common. This is a sport where a competitors mistake can eliminate you from the game. This is very unusual. Kobayashi might have had a very different career if he had scored a win or podium in Spa 2012. There are no other sports where other competitors can have such a large influence. Penalties for poor driving standards should be draconian, IMO. Right now, especially this season, the balance has shifted towards allowing GP2 driving with no penalties.

[Clatter]

I cannot prove it, but my suspicion for many years was, that FiA' judgments in three of most contentious Schumacher's cases (Hill, JV, and parking in Monaco) were influenced by paddock politics, with media leading the attack. How a commentator with a microphone in his hand can (or even should) declare driver's culpability in an incident just literally seconds after event, not having courtesy to wait for stewards, while he has an ear of world wide audience is just sickening. But, that's what we have.

Why shouldn't the commentator express their opinion.? I find those sitting on the fence unwilling to say anything far worse. I don't believe the stewards are influenced by it so see no problem.

[Sakae]

@Clatter: I do however see fertile ground for potential problems; lets leave it at that.

[Zippel]

I cannot prove it, but my suspicion for many years was, that FiA' judgments in three of most contentious Schumacher's cases (Hill, JV, and parking in Monaco) were influenced by paddock politics, with media leading the attack. How a commentator with a microphone in his hand can (or even should) declare driver's culpability in an incident just literally seconds after event, not having courtesy to wait for stewards, while he has an ear of world wide audience is just sickening. But, that's what we have.

There was no penalty with Hill so don't get how you think the media played a part. The stewards did rule initially the incident with JV as a racing incident, hence the outcry later on (and rightly so). Unfortunately for Schumi with Monaco, like with Jerez, there is a camera showing what he's doing in the cockpit so its not like the stewards can't see it for themselves.

[Sakae]

There was no penalty with Hill so don't get how you think the media played a part. The stewards did rule initially the incident with JV as a racing incident, hence the outcry later on (and rightly so). Unfortunately for Schumi with Monaco, like with Jerez, there is a camera showing what he's doing in the cockpit so its not like the stewards can't see it for themselves.

Our eyesight could be actually very deceiving sensor, which needs help, like data study, scene analysis, also known as facts finding activity, just in case no one told you yet, I assure you. With some trepidation I actually raised from my chair after hearing that a commentator has "done" all this due diligence on behalf of FiA of course, within seconds after car stopped. I am not sure why we need those (FiA) slackers then when TV people "can do" the same.

________________

BTW, I thought that "Everyone can see it" argument died with Spanish inquisition, but I might be wrong apparently.

[Eff One 2002]

Maldonado's overly-harsh penalty in Canada further backs up the truth to the title of this thread.

[Baddoer]

Stewarding has been a joke since I started watching F1 back in 90s, nothing new here.

[wingwalker]

My 'favourite' penalty was Heidfeld getting a grid drop for going into the pits in Singapore on the first GP there, like it was his fault pit entry was designed by a blind monkey there (I think it was redesigned later). All in all I think the stewarding in last few years was way batter than 5-6 years ago.

[pingu666]

I think the stewards in other series do better.
imo I don't like how some stuff that's unsporting or dangerous but doesn't result in some action

[Vesuvius]

Penalties to easy today? Yes sometimes they are but what's more worrying is that they are not same from race to race...sometimes you can attack to the rear of other car etc and not to get penalty and next race some other will do the same even with less impact and will get penalty (examples monaco-montreal and there is lots of others):s

[Eff One 2002]

Stewarding has been a joke since I started watching F1 back in 90s, nothing new here.

Nope, there's plenty new here actually. If you have really been watching F1 since the 90's then you would know that if the same incident with Maldonado and Sutil just as an example happened then, it would have been classified as a racing incident. Now, if a driver sneezes during a race it gets investigated. They need to back off and just let them race. Blatant recklessness should not be tolerated and penalised of course but not the sort of incident that happened at Canada with Maldonado and Sutil.

[Music Lover]

Even Mark Webber said during the Bahrain coverage that "it's not like it used to be, you've got to be careful". I'm paraphrasing somewhat but the general gist was you are far more likely to be handed out these grid-place penalties and the like for attempting overtaking manouvres that don't come off and would have simply in the past been classified as racing incidents. The stewards are far too over-zealous now with the issuing of penalties for such moves. Sure, if a driver commits a move that is really idiotic and blatantly barges another driver off the track or something equally bone-headed then fine a penalty is warranted but they are handed out so much now that some of them must be afraid to have a go because if it doesn't come off and you make contact you're often slapped with a penalty.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that BAD BEHAVIOR that create risks for other drivers or destroy others race should be punished harder than today.
Some drivers are clearly reckless and it will sooner or later end up in serious injuries!
In interviews after the incidents many also have an attitude that isn't going to lead to reduced risk taking.

These drivers have to STOP driving over their abilities. And as it continues, I see no other alternative than giving them harder/longer punishment.

[karne]

One thing that really confuses me is this:

Mark Webber goes to overtake Jean-Eric Vergne in China. Collision. Webber gets a grid penalty for the next race.

Mark Webber comes up on Giedo van der Garde to lap him in Montreal. Van der Garde slams across. Collision extremely similar to the China incident. van der Garde gets a slap on the wrist. BZUH?!?!?!?!?!?

IMO the situation with van der Garde was far worse - a lapped car slamming the door on a lapping car, directly impacting the lapping car's race (in this case, Webber's loss of downforce cost him possibly 2nd place). Yet, van der Garde escapes with a ten second stop/go, hardly a harsh penalty when you consider his overall position.

[johnmhinds]

One thing that really confuses me is this:

Mark Webber goes to overtake Jean-Eric Vergne in China. Collision. Webber gets a grid penalty for the next race.

Mark Webber comes up on Giedo van der Garde to lap him in Montreal. Van der Garde slams across. Collision extremely similar to the China incident. van der Garde gets a slap on the wrist. BZUH?!?!?!?!?!?

IMO the situation with van der Garde was far worse - a lapped car slamming the door on a lapping car, directly impacting the lapping car's race (in this case, Webber's loss of downforce cost him possibly 2nd place). Yet, van der Garde escapes with a ten second stop/go, hardly a harsh penalty when you consider his overall position.

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't Webber only get the grid penalty because he retired from the race before they could give him any other penalty?

[g1n]

The problem is that today in F1 you are penalised for honest mistakes, imho stewards should penalise drivers for persistent mistakes (e.g. RoGro and Maldonado), rather than for just an odd one here and there...

[Velocifer]

Even Mark Webber said during the Bahrain coverage that "it's not like it used to be, you've got to be careful". I'm paraphrasing somewhat but the general gist was you are far more likely to be handed out these grid-place penalties and the like for attempting overtaking manouvres that don't come off and would have simply in the past been classified as racing incidents. The stewards are far too over-zealous now with the issuing of penalties for such moves. Sure, if a driver commits a move that is really idiotic and blatantly barges another driver off the track or something equally bone-headed then fine a penalty is warranted but they are handed out so much now that some of them must be afraid to have a go because if it doesn't come off and you make contact you're often slapped with a penalty.

Thoughts?

Yeah who wants it where drivers have to be careful for being punished for rule breaks eh? The comment from Webber was because he admittedly "weaved like crazy" (paraphrasing) to block a pass.

I'm totally happy to see the end of the era where the dirtiest driving won out, and want this strict enforcement to continue. Some of the most exciting battles I have ever seen have been last years where cars can be side by side for a long time and not end in a push-off or other red mist moves. And the banzai "having a go" moves should anyway be rooted out long time ago.

Still a way to go with the judging as the consistency is frankly atrocious, as is the time it takes to judge incidents, but I believe it will get better every year. Stewards should also have more integrity and guts to not pick on easy targets like Grosjean and Maldonado for nothing, but dish out penalties where they are due, even if it means interfering with the title contenders.

[Zoe]

Still a way to go with the judging as the consistency is frankly atrocious, as is the time it takes to judge incidents, but I believe it will get better every year. Stewards should also have more integrity and guts to not pick on easy targets like Grosjean and Maldonado for nothing, but dish out penalties where they are due, even if it means interfering with the title contenders.

As long as stewards are humans, they will make human mistakes and follow human preferences.

Anyone remember Monaco (two years ago? my memory fails me), where the stweards were so obsessed in discussing a penalty for a certain M. Schumacher for overtaking after the safety car line, that they totally missed Barichello throwing his steering wheel on to the race track?

Zoe

[Disgrace]

The problem is that today in F1 you are penalised for honest mistakes, imho stewards should penalise drivers for persistent mistakes (e.g. RoGro and Maldonado), rather than for just an odd one here and there...

Persistent mistakes punish a driver already though, you know, with the championship standings?

[karne]

The problem is that today in F1 you are penalised for honest mistakes, imho stewards should penalise drivers for persistent mistakes (e.g. RoGro and Maldonado), rather than for just an odd one here and there...

Yeah...as much as RoGro was an idiot, I still can't believe he got banned and Maldonado didn't last year.

[Eff One 2002]

And here we go another case in point of over-zelous stewarding with the overly-harsh, unwarranted and unjustified penalty handed to Perez just before at Spa.....

Edited by Eff One 2002, 25 August 2013 - 12:42.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Actually I reckon that was the sort of penalty they should be handing out. That crowding was the sort of necessary move that actually hurts racing.

[DanardiF1]

Actually I reckon that was the sort of penalty they should be handing out. That crowding was the sort of necessary move that actually hurts racing.

+1

 

Where was Grosjean to go? Perez had jinked and pushed him onto the kerb, which is technically off the track.

[Collective]

... And then Vergne did exactly the same vs Hulkenberg but no penalty... Ridiculous stewarding.