81 replies to this topic

[Velocifer]

In my opinion there seems no end to the woeful inconsistency, judging and dawdle of race stewards, and yet there is little or no improvement for years in a sport that should be at the very forefront of excellence in all areas.

It ought to be very simple. The rules are straightforward and if they are not, they should be clarified for the following season or even the next race. Incidents are for the most part pretty clear cut as the parameters are not that many, but it still seems to overwhelm what seems a panel of amateurs and we get these constantly changing rulings or no rulings at all, even within the same race.

If the problem is an ever changing group of stewards, create a fixed group. Then create a quality control group to regularly evaluate the steward group. To me it's basic stuff.

To be honest my neighbor could probably sort out most races better than what you would expect to be the best group of race referees out there, and I'm not even saying that in jest, I mean it sincerely. Stewarding in F1 is frankly atrocious.

Do you agree?

[undersquare]

Yeah it's very amateur. Emotional and inconsistent. They decide on the outcome rather than the behaviour, and on the person too.

It's a legacy of Ballestre and Mosley's cronyism. Now I bet there's still no actual training.

[halifaxf1fan]

The stewards can be inconsistent but are generally pretty good considering it is a different group every race. A standard penalty booklet/handbook might be a simple solution. It may seem that certain drivers are singled out but maybe they deserve a stronger hand if the message isn't getting through ie Maldonado, Grosjean. The good news is that they seem to be improving!

Certainly having the race stewards rule over the Mercedes testing scandal would have been much better than the political decision produced by the 'independent' tribunal process. Anything would have been better than the 'no penalty' penalty that has resulted in skewing the championships this season.

Let the stewards rule on race day. Keep the politics, lawyers and backroom deals out.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 13 August 2013 - 22:24.

[alframsey]

Are the stewards the same at each race? If not then why not? I am under the impression that stewards are different at each even and I simply cannot understand this, just employ full time race stewards that steward each race.

If they are indeed the same people then I take it back, they just must be halfwits.

[PayasYouRace]

I'd say it is acceptable, but there's plenty of room for improvement. It has got better in recent years compared to some of the laughable decisions of circa 2008.

By the way the point of having different stewards at each race is that no bias can be carried from one event to another.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 13 August 2013 - 22:16.

[undersquare]

I'd say it is acceptable, but there's plenty of room for improvement. It has got better in recent years compared to some of the laughable decisions of circa 2008.

By the way the point of having different stewards at each race is that no bias can be carried from one event to another.

I'd say the reason for different stewards is historical - to share the favour out among the faithful lackeys. It is a big status thing obviously. We could say changing them keeps the events separate but it's pretty obvious that doesn't happen in practice as Grosjean found out last time. Likewise Maldonado in the past. And in many ways we do want stewards to spot trends and react to repeat offenders, I'd say.

[William Hunt]

after what they did to Grosjean in Hungary I would answer No

[pingu666]

i think there partly inconsistantcy to generate lots of press tbh, and 2008 was really bad.
i toted up the points that massa gained and lewis lost, it was like 24 points or something. the fia took more points away from hamilton (or helped massa) than kimi did all year.

but watch any other series, specialy alms, nascar, wec, and theres a big difference

[alframsey]

i think there partly inconsistantcy to generate lots of press tbh, and 2008 was really bad.
i toted up the points that massa gained and lewis lost, it was like 24 points or something. the fia took more points away from hamilton (or helped massa) than kimi did all year.

but watch any other series, specialy alms, nascar, wec, and theres a big difference

Better or worse?

Edited by alframsey, 13 August 2013 - 22:39.

[Disgrace]

It's bloody not acceptable.

Villeneuve hit the nail on the head when he said that they should penalise dangerous driving and not mistakes.

If you want true consistency and if you agree with the current stewarding stance, you can simply neuter many of your favourite classic moments in F1 history.

Stewarding on every level has been the single greatest problem in F1 since the 2002 Malaysian Grand Prix. The application of penalties reeks of pure incompetence from the very top, and previously, of corruption.

Poor decisions are often made with potentially significant championship implications: Malaysia 2002, Monza 2006 qualifying, Spa 2008. There is no such thing as a "precedent" as it changes between races and seasons, so the rules are obviously undefined. This has also led to a ridiculous situation where judgement calls are disputed between Charlie Whiting and the stewards (Monaco and Canada 2011).

Stewarding has also systematically worked against the driver attempting overtaking, and completely in favour of the defender. This led to hopeless racers such as Massa getting away with a whole season (2011) deliberately driving into whoever was overtaking him at the time in braking areas. Stewards punish racers having a legitimate go, which if fails, is part of racing. Artifical justice handed from above is not racing. It's effectively a gimmick to spice up a show which is no longer as truly dangerous as before, and it's only got worse since they've introduced penalties to fill the gap between nothing and the 10-second stop-and-go. They've been handing out endless, needless penalties for racing incidents in which more than a single party is to "blame" - and getting it wrong to boot.

The problems are really quite endless. The difference between malice and accidents is also completely undefined. Grosjean received a race ban for accidentally taking out title contenders in Spa last year, yet Maldonado has received an overall grid drop of 15 places for using his car as a weapon with malicious intent twice. Stewarding clearly is not about enforcing good driving, pure and simple.

Now for 2013, we have a new phenomenon: stewards are increasingly investigating some but not all straightforward incidents after the race and the fans are left in the dark as to why.

Stewarding in F1 gets a big fat 0/10.

Edited by Disgrace, 13 August 2013 - 22:46.

[Fastcake]

It's got somewhat better since the Mosley years, but while stewarding remains the preserve of amateur club members it's never going to become consistent.

[karne]

The problems are really quite endless. The difference between malice and accidents is also completely undefined. Grosjean received a race ban for accidentally taking out title contenders in Spa last year, yet Maldonado has received an overall grid drop of 15 places for using his car as a weapon with malicious intent twice. Stewarding clearly is not about enforcing good driving, pure and simple.

I still think it's a disgrace (pardon the pun, mate!) that Grosjean got a race ban but Maldonado didn't. At least Grosjean admitted his mistakes and remorse for them. Maldonado was just running around with his nose stuck in the air denying all fault, a much more dangerous position.


At any rate, if they are going to persist with the driver steward, then IMO it should be made a rule that the steward cannot have race with, against, or alongside any of the current grid. I mean, having Damon Hill as a driver steward when Michael Schumacher on the grid was a joke. You knew damn well at Monaco that he was going to headhunt Schumacher straight up. As soon as I found out it was Hill, I knew it would only end one way and that was a penalty for Schumacher. And I was right. I still feel that his penalty was far, far too harsh.

[TFLB]

No, it's mostly rubbish. They sometimes give absolutely stupid penalties. For example, when Hamilton took out Maldonado at Monaco 2011, he was given a post race time penalty, but because he was a lap ahead of the drivers behind him it didn't affect his position. Also I think the same happened to Grosjean at Hungary this year, with his penalty for hitting Button. What's the point of giving penalties which have no effect?

[jcbc3]

OT:

..., having Damon Hill as a driver steward when Michael Schumacher on the grid was a joke. You knew damn well at Monaco that he was going to headhunt Schumacher straight up. As soon as I found out it was Hill, I knew it would only end one way and that was a penalty for Schumacher. And I was right. I still feel that his penalty was far, far too harsh.

My recollection of Monaco is that Hill voted against a penalty to Schumacher but the other stewards overruled him. What was kind of shocking in the aftermath was that it turned out that Hill wasn't informed what his duties and responsibilities were before the race, so he only found out during the race.


On topic:
It has been much worse before. It is not perfect now, but as good as it gets. Take a look at any Premiership football game and see some really cringe worthy refereeing.

[redreni]

I voted "unacceptable" which is a strong word, especially seeing as the standard has improved somewhat since the introduction of the driver steward. I still think the standard of stewarding falls well below what should be accepted for such a high-stakes, elite sport. There is still far too much selectivity in which incidents are investigated in the first place, which is not the stewards' fault but Whiting's. Dealing only with the incidents they're given, the stewards do arrive at some mind-boggling decisions - Q2 in Montreal, for example, when they seemingly failed to understand the rules.

Looking back over the past decade there have been a number of totally unacceptable stewarding cock-ups or worse, notably Valencia 2010 which, together with Whiting's terrible decision to hold the pack from P3 (should have been P2 if Hamilton hadn't cheated) onwards behind the SC for a full lap while Vettel was running round on the SC deltas, was scandallous and had an impact on the championship. Is it too much to ask that the stewards will use their discretion to make sure penalties are sufficient to at least negate the advantage gained, so that you can't end up with a net gain of 40-odd seconds through illegally overtaking the SC? And is it too much to expect a decision within 5 or 10 minutes of the incident, rather than 50 minutes?

Monza 2006, the penalty for "blocking", was also a scandal. In both these cases the integrity of the sport was questionable.

Then there is the old chestnut - track limits. The sport as a whole has singularly failed to get to grips with the problem and the stewards are just making it up as they go along; the drivers have no idea what they can and can't get away with, and the penalties that are given out are therefore arbitrary in nature, and drivers often get away with far too much.

There's no consistency in whether decisions are reached during the race or afterwards, there's no consistency in how quickly decisions are reached, with drivers often being able to derive significant advantages from being able to run fast and in clear air for many laps while waiting for the penalty against them to be assessed. There is a dangerous tendency to simply dish out the standard penalty without considering whether discretion should be used to ensure the penalty fits the crime, so the stewards are happy to ruin somebody's race for putting a wheel on the white line at pit-out, but they give a driver a non-penalty which means he suffers no loss of position at all despite the fact that he's overtaken the SC and in so doing illegally gained a minute over his immediate rival.

And look at the Grosjean decision after Spa 2012. Wrong-headed isn't even the word. So apparently the accident "could have had serious consequences". Well, guess what, so could any collision when the pack is tightly bunched. The chain reaction that followed the collision was not predictable. Grosjean eliminated "leading championship contenders" - that's true and as a Ferrari fan I was pretty upset about it, but it makes no difference whatever to the crime or the way it should be judged. At the end of the day the only way the ban could be justified is if it was for persistently causing avoidable collisions i.e. not for the single incident, but for all the incidents he'd caused that season taken together. The rules didn't allow for that which is why a points system is coming in, but the stewards' justification for their decision was an object case of these guys making stuff up as they go along and considering irrelevant factors.

I think some of the suggestions above for improvement are very sensible, especially the one about training. It's effectively a quasi-judicial role and we need these people to have a much better understanding of how to consistently and fairly apply discretion to come up with punishments that are appropriate to individual cases.

Edited by redreni, 14 August 2013 - 12:47.

[undersquare]

No, it's mostly rubbish. They sometimes give absolutely stupid penalties. For example, when Hamilton took out Maldonado at Monaco 2011, he was given a post race time penalty, but because he was a lap ahead of the drivers behind him it didn't affect his position. Also I think the same happened to Grosjean at Hungary this year, with his penalty for hitting Button. What's the point of giving penalties which have no effect?

There have been other examples of a DT having no effect, like Webber at Nurb when he won, it's the correct thing for consistency though.

But Monaco 2011 is a fine example of bad, subjective stewarding: Hamilton is divebombed at the hairpin by Schumi, gives him room, no incident. Hamilton divebombs Massa at the hairpin, Massa closes the line, causes a collision, they both drive away undamaged, Massa falls off in the tunnel, penalty for Hamilton. Then Lewis gets inside Schumi at St Devote, Schumi gives room, no incident, people rave about the great pass. Lewis gets inside Maldonado in a carbon copy, Maldonado dives to the inside far too late and causes the collision, penalty for Hamilton.

It's far too emotional at the moment. They punish the person not the behaviour, and based on the outcome rather than the behaviour too.

[Fourjays]

It's bloody not acceptable.



Stewarding on every level has been the single greatest problem in F1 since the 2002 Malaysian Grand Prix. The application of penalties reeks of pure incompetence from the very top, and previously, of corruption.

Poor decisions are often made with potentially significant championship implications: Malaysia 2002, Monza 2006 qualifying, Spa 2008. There is no such thing as a "precedent" as it changes between races and seasons, so the rules are obviously undefined. This has also led to a ridiculous situation where judgement calls are disputed between Charlie Whiting and the stewards (Monaco and Canada 2011).

Stewarding has also systematically worked against the driver attempting overtaking, and completely in favour of the defender. This led to hopeless racers such as Massa getting away with a whole season (2011) deliberately driving into whoever was overtaking him at the time in braking areas. Stewards punish racers having a legitimate go, which if fails, is part of racing. Artifical justice handed from above is not racing. It's effectively a gimmick to spice up a show which is no longer as truly dangerous as before, and it's only got worse since they've introduced penalties to fill the gap between nothing and the 10-second stop-and-go. They've been handing out endless, needless penalties for racing incidents in which more than a single party is to "blame" - and getting it wrong to boot.

The problems are really quite endless. The difference between malice and accidents is also completely undefined. Grosjean received a race ban for accidentally taking out title contenders in Spa last year, yet Maldonado has received an overall grid drop of 15 places for using his car as a weapon with malicious intent twice. Stewarding clearly is not about enforcing good driving, pure and simple.

Now for 2013, we have a new phenomenon: stewards are increasingly investigating some but not all straightforward incidents after the race and the fans are left in the dark as to why.

Stewarding in F1 gets a big fat 0/10.

Hit the nail on the head. I've never understood why Maldonado basically got off for using his car as a weapon. Madness.

[Lucass]

This thread reminded me of an article I read about a young lady steward last year.

http://en.espnf1.com...tory/97528.html

Is seems FiA now have a training programme in place for stewards for some years.
If more stewards with similar experience and dedication as Silvia Bellot would graduate from this programme things are looking good.

voted acceptable but there's room for improvement

[pingu666]

Better or worse?

better. and massively quicker.

[karne]

There have been other examples of a DT having no effect, like Webber at Nurb when he won, it's the correct thing for consistency though.

Webber was given the DT in the race, though - on lap 10, I believe. He had to take it during the race - it wasn't added after. He was just so phenomenal that day that even with the drive-through no-one could touch him. Still one of the greatest moments of his career!

[Disgrace]

It's far too emotional at the moment. They punish the person not the behaviour, and based on the outcome rather than the behaviour too.

Even this isn't true anymore. The prime example of this is when di Resta lost his front wing against another driver in Canada '11. This was purely to his own deterrent as the other driver completely unaffected. Yet, the stewards felt they required to pile on a drive-thru for causing a collision on top of the just outcome on the race track.

It boils down to the point that the threat of rain has become worse than the arrival of the rain itself. As soon as anything remotely controversial happens on the circuit, the viewer must put up with the fact that the fate of those involved will be fed into a lottery machine.

Edited by Disgrace, 14 August 2013 - 14:36.

[halifaxf1fan]

There have been other examples of a DT having no effect, like Webber at Nurb when he won, it's the correct thing for consistency though.

But Monaco 2011 is a fine example of bad, subjective stewarding: Hamilton is divebombed at the hairpin by Schumi, gives him room, no incident. Hamilton divebombs Massa at the hairpin, Massa closes the line, causes a collision, they both drive away undamaged, Massa falls off in the tunnel, penalty for Hamilton. Then Lewis gets inside Schumi at St Devote, Schumi gives room, no incident, people rave about the great pass. Lewis gets inside Maldonado in a carbon copy, Maldonado dives to the inside far too late and causes the collision, penalty for Hamilton.

It's far too emotional at the moment. They punish the person not the behaviour, and based on the outcome rather than the behaviour too.

Just as Grosjean and Maldonado required extra attention and a firmer hand from the stewards recently, Hamilton was in need of their 'help' especially in 2011. The good news is that all three of these drivers have responded appropriately to the no nonsense response of the stewards for their at times out of control dangerous driving. These are examples of good stewarding which have made the track safer and probably helped the careers of the drivers involved.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 14 August 2013 - 19:03.

[P123]

Even this isn't true anymore. The prime example of this is when di Resta lost his front wing against another driver in Canada '11. This was purely to his own deterrent as the other driver completely unaffected. Yet, the stewards felt they required to pile on a drive-thru for causing a collision on top of the just outcome on the race track.

It boils down to the point that the threat of rain has become worse than the arrival of the rain itself. As soon as anything remotely controversial happens on the circuit, the viewer must put up with the fact that the fate of those involved will be fed into a lottery machine.

They did the same to di resta in Monaco '11, when he hit the back of a Marussia, damaging only his own car, and to Alonso too in Malaysia '11 when he hit the back of Hamilton, removing his own front wing in the process. Both resulted in drive throughs.

The problem with present day stewarding is that sometimes the letter of the law is strictly adhered to, whereas at other times a bit of common sense is injected into their decision making. More common sense would be welcome.

[Skinnyguy]

Yes, it´s got much better compared to the crap we had not that long ago. But it still has plenty of room for improvement. And this is both applied to sporting stewarding and technical rows stewarding.

[undersquare]

This thread reminded me of an article I read about a young lady steward last year.

http://en.espnf1.com...tory/97528.html

Is seems FiA now have a training programme in place for stewards for some years.
If more stewards with similar experience and dedication as Silvia Bellot would graduate from this programme things are looking good.

voted acceptable but there's room for improvement

Ah, training is what's needed. I wish they'd said it included training in objectivity though.

[Eff One 2002]

No, it's not acceptable. It's too inconsistent and often, overly harsh.

[TFLB]

There have been other examples of a DT having no effect, like Webber at Nurb when he won, it's the correct thing for consistency though.

But Monaco 2011 is a fine example of bad, subjective stewarding: Hamilton is divebombed at the hairpin by Schumi, gives him room, no incident. Hamilton divebombs Massa at the hairpin, Massa closes the line, causes a collision, they both drive away undamaged, Massa falls off in the tunnel, penalty for Hamilton. Then Lewis gets inside Schumi at St Devote, Schumi gives room, no incident, people rave about the great pass. Lewis gets inside Maldonado in a carbon copy, Maldonado dives to the inside far too late and causes the collision, penalty for Hamilton.

It's far too emotional at the moment. They punish the person not the behaviour, and based on the outcome rather than the behaviour too.

The Webber thing is not really relevant because it wasn't a post-race penalty - the stewards didn't know when they gave it that it would have no effect. I have to say I completely disagree with you on the Massa and Maldonado incidents - both of them were 100% Hamilton's fault and it annoyed me no end that Hamilton was allowed to keep all his points and got no penalty for the next race. The stewards were completely right to punish him - but it's stupid that the punishment ended up having no effect whatsoever.

Edited by TFLB, 14 August 2013 - 22:19.

[redreni]

The Webber thing is not really relevant because it wasn't a post-race penalty - the stewards didn't know when they gave it that it would have no effect. I have to say I completely disagree with you on the Massa and Maldonado incidents - both of them were 100% Hamilton's fault and it annoyed me no end that Hamilton was allowed to keep all his points and got no penalty for the next race. The stewards were completely right to punish him - but it's stupid that the punishment ended up having no effect whatsoever.

Agreed, particularly because the reason he had such a big gap behind him was because, rather than passing Maldonado cleanly, he'd had him off. That was the second car he'd done for in one afternoon and if it were me I'd have seriously considered black flagging him for the second incident.

[undersquare]

The Webber thing is not really relevant because it wasn't a post-race penalty - the stewards didn't know when they gave it that it would have no effect. I have to say I completely disagree with you on the Massa and Maldonado incidents - both of them were 100% Hamilton's fault and it annoyed me no end that Hamilton was allowed to keep all his points and got no penalty for the next race. The stewards were completely right to punish him - but it's stupid that the punishment ended up having no effect whatsoever.

Agreed, particularly because the reason he had such a big gap behind him was because, rather than passing Maldonado cleanly, he'd had him off. That was the second car he'd done for in one afternoon and if it were me I'd have seriously considered black flagging him for the second incident.

Webber is relevant because they can't give one size of penalty in the race and a different one just because it's afterwards.

And on Monaco 2011...way to ignore the inconvenient points. What about the passes by and on Schumi?

It took until India and Herbert for the stewards to slow down and look at the role of the driver being passed. Either driver can cause the collision. In 2011 the stewards got on a roll with Hamilton to the point the media were joking about it, and now they've done the same with Grosjean. It's a lack of objectivity, which is not good enough. F1 needs better selection, less cronyism, and better training.

[halifaxf1fan]

Webber is relevant because they can't give one size of penalty in the race and a different one just because it's afterwards.

And on Monaco 2011...way to ignore the inconvenient points. What about the passes by and on Schumi?

It took until India and Herbert for the stewards to slow down and look at the role of the driver being passed. Either driver can cause the collision. In 2011 the stewards got on a roll with Hamilton to the point the media were joking about it, and now they've done the same with Grosjean. It's a lack of objectivity, which is not good enough. F1 needs better selection, less cronyism, and better training.

With Grosjean and Hamilton and Maldonado isn't it a case of the stewards doing their job in a systematic/planned way? Focus on the problem drivers and help them see that improvement is required. Nobody wants to see 'bully' style driving as had been demonstrated by Hamilton and Maldonado nor the recklessness of a Grosjean and by objectively focusing on these problem drivers generally imo the racing has improved and it is much safer now.

[TFLB]

Webber is relevant because they can't give one size of penalty in the race and a different one just because it's afterwards.

And on Monaco 2011...way to ignore the inconvenient points. What about the passes by and on Schumi?

It took until India and Herbert for the stewards to slow down and look at the role of the driver being passed. Either driver can cause the collision. In 2011 the stewards got on a roll with Hamilton to the point the media were joking about it, and now they've done the same with Grosjean. It's a lack of objectivity, which is not good enough. F1 needs better selection, less cronyism, and better training.

It's completely different with Webber because in almost all other instances, it would have ruined his chance of winning. As it was it made it much harder. With Hamilton in Monaco and Grosjean in Hungary, they already knew that the punishment would have no effect - but they still gave it. That's just stupid. In that case they should give a grid penalty for the next race. The passes by and on Schumacher were good, yes, but in both cases the attacking driver was further alongside. With the Massa incident, Massa couldn't not turn in otherwise he wouldn't have made the corner, same with Maldonado. The driver in front has the right to choose his own line, as long as the other car is not reasonably alongside, without some lunatic coming charging over the kerbs into his sidepod.

[pingu666]

if your turning into someone/something thats there, guess what, its there and you turned into it!

interestingly at monaco, pastor closed off the space to the apex of turn 1, leaving no room for lewis, which wasnt that smart...

[George Costanza]

I still think it's a disgrace (pardon the pun, mate!) that Grosjean got a race ban but Maldonado didn't. At least Grosjean admitted his mistakes and remorse for them. Maldonado was just running around with his nose stuck in the air denying all fault, a much more dangerous position.


At any rate, if they are going to persist with the driver steward, then IMO it should be made a rule that the steward cannot have race with, against, or alongside any of the current grid. I mean, having Damon Hill as a driver steward when Michael Schumacher on the grid was a joke. You knew damn well at Monaco that he was going to headhunt Schumacher straight up. As soon as I found out it was Hill, I knew it would only end one way and that was a penalty for Schumacher. And I was right. I still feel that his penalty was far, far too harsh.

Damon just can't get over in 1994 and 1995, moreso 1995 when Schumacher beat him by a huge amount. Their 1995 accidents show that. But, you would think time has healed the "grudges" but, at the Monaco GP, it showed....

[HoldenRT]

after what they did to Grosjean in Hungary I would answer No

I didn't see a problem.

He was on the edge with Button but went unpunished. In that situation, he would have earned a warning. And then with Massa, that isolated incident was harsh but he was already on a warning.

If you look at the Massa incident alone it was harsh, but if you combine it with being lucky to avoid penalty with Button.. the sum of those two incidents.. it's more understandable IMO.

I'm surprised by the poll. I've thought they are pretty decent these days, but I don't follow F1 so closely as I did years ago. But if that Grosjean incident is the benchmark for bad stewarding, I don't think it's so bad. I can't remember any other major mistakes by the stewards this season.

Grey area is everything in motor racing, so it's hard to keep everyone happy.

[bourbon]

I still think it's a disgrace (pardon the pun, mate!) that Grosjean got a race ban but Maldonado didn't. At least Grosjean admitted his mistakes and remorse for them. Maldonado was just running around with his nose stuck in the air denying all fault, a much more dangerous position.

And Maldonado hasn't done it again - but Grosjean has continued to have avoidable incidents. His crash into Daniel in Monaco was really horrific and the way he jammed by Button in the last race shows that he is still having the spacial awareness problem (unless it is an "I don't care" problem). So the stewards got it right with these two. Grosjean must continue to be heavily penalized or banned from the sport if he cannot calm the heck down and stop crashing into everyone spoiling races and making an ass of himself on track. I think he can do it when he focuses intently, and that has to become his modus operandi or he's got to go.

At any rate, if they are going to persist with the driver steward, then IMO it should be made a rule that the steward cannot have race with, against, or alongside any of the current grid. I mean, having Damon Hill as a driver steward when Michael Schumacher on the grid was a joke. You knew damn well at Monaco that he was going to headhunt Schumacher straight up. As soon as I found out it was Hill, I knew it would only end one way and that was a penalty for Schumacher. And I was right. I still feel that his penalty was far, far too harsh.

Yup. Both hardship and favortism have been obvious and evident on occassion. You do have to take into account that they have more views and often more evidence from the drivers allowing them to understand what actually happened. We may not see something that totally mitigates something we did see, merely because the RD didn't catch it on film for us or it was too insignificant to catch with the viewing eye. But even with that, there are still many times where there is just no way out for the stewards to rationalize the horrible decisions taken.

On the other hand, credit where credit is due, there are some stewards that obviously work really hard to be fair and equitable - and it shows. Kudos to them. Too bad the bad apples are screwing it up. And I don't like the "little princes" attitude either - Hamilton should be able to call them out for prejudice if he is sincere in doing so, with out being threatened with a 6 race ban. That was jean todt behaving idiotically - foolishly protective when he should have used it as a warning to the stewards rather than as a weapon against Hamilton. But this is one of the many symptoms of a poor stewarding system.

Edited by bourbon, 16 August 2013 - 03:20.

[LB]

I would challenge anyone that thinks it is to watch the following...



think of the penalties now!!

[PayasYouRace]

I would challenge anyone that thinks it is to watch the following...



think of the penalties now!!

They didn't take each other off or cause damage. No penalties.

[PayasYouRace]

OT:



My recollection of Monaco is that Hill voted against a penalty to Schumacher but the other stewards overruled him. What was kind of shocking in the aftermath was that it turned out that Hill wasn't informed what his duties and responsibilities were before the race, so he only found out during the race.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/83714

[Gorma]

Way too damn inconsistent and sometimes ridiculous. In Malaysia they gave Kimi a grid penalty. The reason was that they didn't want to give him a warning because if he would were to get two more warnings later on in the season then he would get a grid penalty. WTF?

[alfa1]

I would challenge anyone that thinks it is to watch the following...



think of the penalties now!!

20 second post race penalty for Arnoux for leaving the track while overtaking.

[KWSN - DSM]

I voted Yes - Acceptable.

They are inconsistent, in the heat of the moment I will disagree with their decision and feel it either too harsh, to lenient or decry that nothing was being meted out. But they are what and who we have and I have many years ago decided to accept what ever they hand out, though sometimes grudgingly.

[travbrad]

I was going to vote in this poll, but then decided I should wait 90 minutes to decide after I know the outcome of the poll.

Edited by travbrad, 16 August 2013 - 09:42.

[TFLB]

if your turning into someone/something thats there, guess what, its there and you turned into it!

interestingly at monaco, pastor closed off the space to the apex of turn 1, leaving no room for lewis, which wasnt that smart...

You don't have to leave room if the driver behind is not reasonably enough alongside. And anyway, it's pretty obvious that anyone is going to turn into that corner. He was nowhere near alongside Maldonado, whereas he was alongside Schumacher. The stewards got it right to punish Hamilton; it's just a shame it had no effect.

[Lucass]

Agreed, particularly because the reason he had such a big gap behind him was because, rather than passing Maldonado cleanly, he'd had him off. That was the second car he'd done for in one afternoon and if it were me I'd have seriously considered black flagging him for the second incident.

I agree a black flag would have been justified after that second incident and with all his infractions in the races before in mind. Would have made the Ali G 'joke' a lot funnier too
As it was a rather tumultuous race and the incident nearly at the end I can see why the stewards didn't black flag him that day.

Focus on the problem drivers and help them see that improvement is required. Nobody wants to see 'bully' style driving as had been demonstrated by Hamilton and Maldonado nor the recklessness of a Grosjean and by objectively focusing on these problem drivers generally imo the racing has improved and it is much safer now.

Yes it's a good thing to focus on the drivers who systematically display problem behaviour and it seems to work too as both Lewis and Maldonado have cleaned up their act considerably

Way too damn inconsistent and sometimes ridiculous. In Malaysia they gave Kimi a grid penalty. The reason was that they didn't want to give him a warning because if he would were to get two more warnings later on in the season then he would get a grid penalty. WTF?

He got a 3 place grid penalty and 3 reprimands would give him a 10 place grid penalty later on.
Can't see the problem really?

[karne]

One penalty situation I've never agreed with is baulking in qualifying.

Giving the other guy a five place grid drop isn't going to help the poor bloke who lost out on Q2 because of the first guy, is it?

As well, they need to work out a better system for the small teams. Giving, say, Chilton a ten-place grid drop is worthless. He already starts from the back!

[apoka]

I was going to vote in this poll, but then decided I should wait 90 minutes to decide after I know the outcome of the poll.

That sums up some of the stewarding (non-)decisions we recently had.

[PayasYouRace]

One penalty situation I've never agreed with is baulking in qualifying.

Giving the other guy a five place grid drop isn't going to help the poor bloke who lost out on Q2 because of the first guy, is it?

As well, they need to work out a better system for the small teams. Giving, say, Chilton a ten-place grid drop is worthless. He already starts from the back!

In sailing, if another competitor screws your race, you can claim for redress. If your claim is successful, you can be awarded the position you were in at the time of the incident, or a position where you would have been expected to finish based on past performance. Perhaps that would work better in qualifying?

[Zoetrope]

In sailing, if another competitor screws your race, you can claim for redress. If your claim is successful, you can be awarded the position you were in at the time of the incident, or a position where you would have been expected to finish based on past performance. Perhaps that would work better in qualifying?

That would be unfair to other competitors. It's ok as it is. Sometimes life is harsh, but inventing more and more rules might make even bigger mess. Just make sure the punishment for such behaviour is significant.

[PayasYouRace]

That would be unfair to other competitors. It's ok as it is. Sometimes life is harsh, but inventing more and more rules might make even bigger mess. Just make sure the punishment for such behaviour is significant.

But it isn't unfair on other competitors as you're being put back where you should have been if not for someone else breaking the rules. I wouldn't suggest it for the races, just for qualifying. If you've been setting top 10 times all weekend, but someone blocks you and prevents you from getting through Q1, then I'd say you'd have a case that you should have been starting 10th at worst.

[Zoetrope]

But it isn't unfair on other competitors as you're being put back where you should have been if not for someone else breaking the rules. I wouldn't suggest it for the races, just for qualifying. If you've been setting top 10 times all weekend, but someone blocks you and prevents you from getting through Q1, then I'd say you'd have a case that you should have been starting 10th at worst.

Or you could bin the car the very next lap.