I think Russell has a point when he says that questions can't be answered because the guys present would have to blame somebody who isn't there. I can imagine this is the case, and they need a solution for that.
Otherwise, however, I think rotating race directors as well as two race directors are very good ideas. (In the following, I'll ignore the fact that some decisions are made by stewards, and some are made by race directors). To begin with, the rules will always have subjective elements. You can try to leave as little room for interpretation as possible by adding more detail to the rules, but that will cause another can of worms to open. Generally speaking, there's lots of subjectivity whenever people make rules:
- Isolated rules may look clear in the rule book, but are rarely binary when applied to reality (black or white, 0 or 1,...), because reality is messy.
- If you have a rule book, rules may conflict, so you need somebody who subjectively decides what rule or combination of rules are applicable.
- Often times, it's not clear from the data if a rule may apply or not (over the line? in front of the other car? enough room?...). Somebody has to make a subjective decision.
- Rules that are justified in theory or that have always worked before may suddenly lead to very wrong results when applied to a new case, typically a case the rule maker hasn't thought of. Common sense requires a creative application of the rules in these instances.
These subjective factors (there's many more of them, to be sure) are the very reason people need judges, or race directors, in the first place. Now, why would you dissolve the given subjectivity with the perspective of a single person? Why would it be a good idea to say: "decisions in F1 = the rule book + whatever one guy sees in the data + whatever the same guy thinks the rules mean"? Sure, there's the promise of consistency, but persons are subjective and inconsistent in themselves. Masi and even Whiting surely weren't consistent. Let's not forget consistency will eventually lead to very questionable decisions, because cases rarely are the same.
Crucially, a single person's judgement will also deny the subjetivity in the rules. Therefore, I'd rather have multiple race directors, each giving their input, having a little debate and deciding together, and thereby representing the full subjective realm of the rules. It's a good thing to force, say, a "let them race" guy and a "safety first" guy to come to a decision they can both agree with. Let them exchange good reasons! Lastly, let's say Russell has been given two or three penalties he disagrees with. It'll be easier for him to accept if he knows those penalties have been given by multiple race directors instead of a single guy. In the latter situation, Russell could have reason to believe that single race director simply doesn't like him.
The worst part of race day is waiting for the race 
Edited by renzmann, 10 July 2022 - 06:33.
