planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:09 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Should FIA stewards be sanctioned by FIA for lack of consistency, sluggishness and incompetence?
Yes, they should be disqualified from their work, with setting up of the new stewards crew 26%  26%  [ 10 ]
Yes, they should be banned for the rest of the season, with temporary stewards taking place 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
Yes, they should be banned for one race, with temporary stewards taking place 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Yes, they should receive the last warning from the FIA 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Yes, they should be fined 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Yes, they should receive an official warning 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
No, but they should get better guidelines with time frame 38%  38%  [ 15 ]
No 15%  15%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 39
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4225
Since Charlie Whiting and FIA stewards they do quite a mess with F1, why not talking about possibilities of them being sanctioned by the FIA governing body?

Should Charlie Whiting and FIA stewards be sanctioned by FIA for lack of consistency, sluggishness at work, incompetence, and randomly altering the results of F1 races?

_________________
The end is near


Last edited by Lt. Drebin on Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
This will not end well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6835
Location: Belgium
The title says more than the question, so the poll is incomplete. Whiting isn't a steward, though he did indeed create at least one problem.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8894
"Yes, they should be told to get their fairy cakes together"

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4225
Covalent wrote:
"Yes, they should be told to get their fairy cakes together"

I guess it's this: "Yes, they should receive the last warning from the FIA"

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8894
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Covalent wrote:
"Yes, they should be told to get their fairy cakes together"

I guess it's this: "Yes, they should receive the last warning from the FIA"

Yes that's the one I voted for although I don't think there's anything wrong with the persons themselves (they just need some better guidelines) and wouldn't give them an ultimatum just yet.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 1196
I’ve not voted as didn’t see a suitable option but it’s a reasonable point and I do think there should be more obvious oversight re both race control and the stewarding.

As a fan who has invested considerable time, money and effort to follow F1 I’ve been far more offended by some of the actions of race control and the stewards (and the FIA for that matter) than I’m likely to ever be by a driver shooting their mouth of in the heat of the moment (however inappropriate that might be).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1135
Whiting and the stewards are the FIA, and discipline must be internal, and as per respecting confidentiality, kept private.

No, you do nothing against your employees who are only (and I may add, competently) following the rules, guidelines, and procedures. And those guidelines are generated by committees, and like many Formula One regulations, can be a mess once put to paper. Who knows, maybe behind closed doors Whiting has advocated a more streamlined procedure to eliminate this very issue. And when the stewards are introduced and indoctrinated in their new function(s), they too are given procedures they must follow. Even if those procedures do not make sense and may be laborious, they cannot deviate from their instructions.

It's really a case of DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER

This post should not have been created because the problem is not the people who are performing their tasks, but the crazy rules.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
Whether it's the individuals themselves or the guidelines given, the current system of stewarding is deeply flawed and hopelessly amateurish. Sunday is like a case study. We had three incidents where a driver (nearly) caused a collision: Max on Nico, Sainz on Alonso and Vettel on Ricciardo. They did nothing to Max, despite the fact he nearly took out a WDC contender and went gung ho into the corner with no regard for others (and, as it turned out, caused damage to Nico's steering); they penalised Sainz by 5s after waiting so long everyone had pretty much forgotten about the incident in question, while Alonso's fishtailing could have caused major carnage; and they threw the book at Vettel with 10s, despite the fact that his was arguably the least dangerous move of the lot. Keystone Cops have nothing on these guys.

The stewards have major problems with both speed and consistency. To the observer, it often looks as though they are making it up as they go along, while I've lost count of the number of times Whiting has fluffed things and given advice which has subsequently proven to be incorrect. And he's supposed to be the expert! And nobody, but nobody, can understand why they take an aeon to decide on things which most people can identify pretty much instantaneously. And their inaction can and often does have major consequences for the race.

It needs a complete overhaul. Either establish a much better and rigorous training program, together with clear cut guidelines, or establish a body of professional stewards who are accountable for their actions. Amateur hour doesn't cut it any more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4225
Sorry everybody, the poll got reset when I added some new options to make it more complete. Please, vote now! :)

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8894
Cheers, voted " No, but they should get better guidelines with time frame "

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1778
The sooner Whiting has nothing to do with the sport the better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4225
I nearly regret putting "No, but they should get better guidelines with time frame" because it waters down their incompetence in judgment and sluggishness. If someone has to prescribe them these things, than they are already disqualified.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5874
Location: Nebraska, USA
As both Blinky and Covalent have quite ably pointed out, the problem lies not in the individual stewards, but in the FIA itself. For years we have seen ambiguous rules, vague consequences, and a lack of leadership when it comes to policing the near unpolicable.

I quite like the lack of a specific stewarding team, but in some ways it creates a problem as each race we have new stewards trying to figure out what the rule is and how to apply it. From what I can see, they get very little help from Whiting, which is another problem.

While inflexible rules, with no allowance for unanticipated situations, can be problematic.... vague rules without specified consequences don't work well either. I think for continuity sake their should be one full-time steward placed with the stewarding team so that each stewarding team does not have reinterpret the rules each race. That steward should be subject to review by Whiting after each race. Whiting, himself, should be held accountable for the way rules are implemented.

Like so many, I get frustrated with the "post race investigations" which allows on track actions to go on with consequences to other drivers or race integrity. Have a policy and enforce it during the race and don't be afraid to do so.. That can only happen when there are clear rules, defined consequences and leadership... all if which seems to be lacking in F1 at this time.

When one looks at the incidences of this past race, it is easy to see the fan's frustrations. Starting with Hamilton's unpunished "shortcut" at the start all the way through to Vettel's blocking in braking zones at the end... something that Max has been getting away with all year. So, in conclusion, I put this on the FIA and their appointed enforcer, Whiting... to be fair to Charlie though they need to give him the tools with which to do his job an they seem to be reluctant to do so.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: Miami, Florida
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Whiting and the stewards are the FIA, and discipline must be internal, and as per respecting confidentiality, kept private.

No, you do nothing against your employees who are only (and I may add, competently) following the rules, guidelines, and procedures. And those guidelines are generated by committees, and like many Formula One regulations, can be a mess once put to paper. Who knows, maybe behind closed doors Whiting has advocated a more streamlined procedure to eliminate this very issue. And when the stewards are introduced and indoctrinated in their new function(s), they too are given procedures they must follow. Even if those procedures do not make sense and may be laborious, they cannot deviate from their instructions.

It's really a case of DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER

This post should not have been created because the problem is not the people who are performing their tasks, but the crazy rules.

Sorry but I disagree a gazillion percent.

While the rules are difficult to navigate, they are written in hard black ink on white paper and the issue lies in how arbitrarily inconsistent they are enforced, or in some cases not at all, dependent on who it is that's committing the offense in unison with considering the equipment they are piloting. There are differences between incidents so exceptions can and should be made, but to penalize one driver for doing something another has never been penalized for, but has indeed done countless times is the joke here. And being as F1 is serious business, there's no room for funny stuff when it comes to the hard rules.

Charlie and Co. have made countless errors in how they rule on incidents and the punishments they dole out as well as allowing many obvious offenses to go unpunished. While their job is difficult, it's far more difficult to be a driver out there and suffer as a result of race control's incompetence. It's time to go IMPO.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 842
Location: Melbourne Australia
Max has been dangerous all year but not against the rules.
They finally have put a moving under braking rule in place.
Apart from that I didn't see anything wrong with the stewards actions in Mexico and agree with all of them.
Not sure why people expect race control to investigate an incident and impose a penalty in half a lap.
It took them about 4-5 minutes to apply a penalty to Max. That seems about right to me.

This might be news to lots of people but they didn't even look at Ham in turn 1 at the start. It seems none of the teams had a problem with it, and neither did the stewards.

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: Miami, Florida
^^^ Really?

I beg to differ. Only Whiting and the FIA feel Max hasn't broken the rules and if the rule everyone is referring to is in regards to moving under braking, that one I'll concede, but Max has made double moves all season long in order to fend off overtake attempts by several drivers dating back to when he was int he Toro Rosso. As for how long it takes for Whiting and Co. to impose a penalty, 4 minutes doesn't seem like a whole lot of time on its own, but when you factor in that F1 is decided be a mere minuscule few tenths, even thousands of a second, 4 minutes is far too long to wait for a decision. I appreciate and understand the difficulty in deciding on incidents WHEN it's a tough/tight call, but when it's as apparent and clear as the end of the Mexican GP, a decision can be made within 30 seconds. The delay in issuing the penalty wa sbad enough but when a case is as clear-cut as this was, the driver should have been forced to either give the position or face being DQ'd from the race altogether and that would have allowed Vettel to move past and prevented him being pushed back into thew clutches of Ricciardo. And besides going off-track, Verstappen went so far offline to give his teammate a better chance on the inside that when he cut back onto the racing line, he chop blocked Vettel.

So again, difficult Job, but not all decisions are so difficult to assess.

As for Hamilton not being investigated, there's a very simple reason, People came together behind him slowing one another down and he was already ahead. Rosberg went wide, Max went offline and everyone lost time as they swerved to avoid being collected.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 245
I agree with the majority of the posts in this thread.

Obviously something needs to be done about the stewarding team. One has to question their logic, especially that they failed with the majority of their decisions in the Mexican gp.

Can some one please give me some information about their qualifications or who they really are? , as I tried to look them up, but came up with minimum info.

Cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 138
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.


The punishment for directly ignoring an order from race control to move over after illegally gaining an advantage should be a black flag, not a 5 second time penalty. There is absolutely no excuse for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
optimisteprime wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.


The punishment for directly ignoring an order from race control to move over after illegally gaining an advantage should be a black flag, not a 5 second time penalty. There is absolutely no excuse for that.


Did the instruction come from race control?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.

Well that's what I meant about 5 second penalties not always being fair to the drivers that have been disadvantaged, their races are still being compromised with the guilty driver still being in front of them so I'm questioning the 5 second penalty itself and whether it is appropriate enough?

I didn't realise that race control told Red Bull that Verstappen had to move over I thought that was just Red Bull themselves, that being the case it just shows how haphazard the whole process is.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
optimisteprime wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.


The punishment for directly ignoring an order from race control to move over after illegally gaining an advantage should be a black flag, not a 5 second time penalty. There is absolutely no excuse for that.

You would think?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:17 pm
Posts: 438
Princess Charlie and his cronies should be banned from F1 and replaced by a group of sensible people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.

Well that's what I meant about 5 second penalties not always being fair to the drivers that have been disadvantaged, their races are still being compromised with the guilty driver still being in front of them so I'm questioning the 5 second penalty itself and whether it is appropriate enough?

I didn't realise that race control told Red Bull that Verstappen had to move over I thought that was just Red Bull themselves, that being the case it just shows how haphazard the whole process is.

Yes, if an instruction has come from Race Control to move over then ignoring this should result in far more than a 5s penalty. As I've argued many times, penalties should never be a strategic consideration, which is clearly what happened on Sunday. Red Bull determined that they had less to lose by ignoring Max' transgression than by observing the rules and so they gained significantly in this instance. That's clearly wrong and they should never have been allowed to profit from that. If - and it's still not clear to me that it was - Red Bull received an instruction for Race Control that was ignored then I think a DSQ would have been apt, or at least a very heavy sanction like a 1m penalty or 5 place position drop. It has to be strong enough that it would make a team think twice about ignoring it, and a 5s penalty is a bit of a joke under these circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.

Well that's what I meant about 5 second penalties not always being fair to the drivers that have been disadvantaged, their races are still being compromised with the guilty driver still being in front of them so I'm questioning the 5 second penalty itself and whether it is appropriate enough?

I didn't realise that race control told Red Bull that Verstappen had to move over I thought that was just Red Bull themselves, that being the case it just shows how haphazard the whole process is.

Yes, if an instruction has come from Race Control to move over then ignoring this should result in far more than a 5s penalty. As I've argued many times, penalties should never be a strategic consideration, which is clearly what happened on Sunday. Red Bull determined that they had less to lose by ignoring Max' transgression than by observing the rules and so they gained significantly in this instance. That's clearly wrong and they should never have been allowed to profit from that. If - and it's still not clear to me that it was - Red Bull received an instruction for Race Control that was ignored then I think a DSQ would have been apt, or at least a very heavy sanction like a 1m penalty or 5 place position drop. It has to be strong enough that it would make a team think twice about ignoring it, and a 5s penalty is a bit of a joke under these circumstances.


I don't think there was ever an order from race control. If there was, how long does the driver get to comply?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.

Well that's what I meant about 5 second penalties not always being fair to the drivers that have been disadvantaged, their races are still being compromised with the guilty driver still being in front of them so I'm questioning the 5 second penalty itself and whether it is appropriate enough?

I didn't realise that race control told Red Bull that Verstappen had to move over I thought that was just Red Bull themselves, that being the case it just shows how haphazard the whole process is.

Yes, if an instruction has come from Race Control to move over then ignoring this should result in far more than a 5s penalty. As I've argued many times, penalties should never be a strategic consideration, which is clearly what happened on Sunday. Red Bull determined that they had less to lose by ignoring Max' transgression than by observing the rules and so they gained significantly in this instance. That's clearly wrong and they should never have been allowed to profit from that. If - and it's still not clear to me that it was - Red Bull received an instruction for Race Control that was ignored then I think a DSQ would have been apt, or at least a very heavy sanction like a 1m penalty or 5 place position drop. It has to be strong enough that it would make a team think twice about ignoring it, and a 5s penalty is a bit of a joke under these circumstances.


I don't think there was ever an order from race control. If there was, how long does the driver get to comply?

There seems to be conflicting reports. That's why I said If!

If a driver is told by RC to move over then that's effectively the same as giving him a blue flag, so maybe treat it the same way and allow three corners? I can't think of another sport where competitors are allowed to mull over whether to accept an adjudicator's decision or not. If they do, then that raises the level of transgression and further sanctions should apply


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the main problem is that they take far too long to make a decision, I can only think that's because there are 4 of them and they might have different opinions that then have to be debated until they come to a majority decision, it would be far quicker if there was only 1 steward and ideally the same steward for each race so the decisions are consistent, this steward then has to work under the guidelines put down to him and not put his own personal take on things, decisions should be taken within 1 or 2 laps of the offence.

Going forward from this the 5 second penalty in some instances is not fair because alright the driver in front gets penalised but the driver behind doesn't always get the benefit of the penalty if he remains stuck behind that driver unable to progress further in the race and as we saw in Mexico even then becomes vulnerable to the driver behind.

In Mexico Alonso never got the benefit of the 5 second penalty given to Sainz and obviously neither did Vettei in respect to Verstappen's penalty.

What would have changed in Mexico if they had instantly handed out the 5 second penalty to Verstappen? Nothing.

Race control told Red Bull to tell Verstappen to move over and he didn't so they then referred it to the stewards. If the stewards had made their guilty decision instantaneously then exactly the same thing would have happened - it would have got applied at the end of the race and Vettel would have still been stuck behind him until the flag.

Well that's what I meant about 5 second penalties not always being fair to the drivers that have been disadvantaged, their races are still being compromised with the guilty driver still being in front of them so I'm questioning the 5 second penalty itself and whether it is appropriate enough?

I didn't realise that race control told Red Bull that Verstappen had to move over I thought that was just Red Bull themselves, that being the case it just shows how haphazard the whole process is.

Yes, if an instruction has come from Race Control to move over then ignoring this should result in far more than a 5s penalty. As I've argued many times, penalties should never be a strategic consideration, which is clearly what happened on Sunday. Red Bull determined that they had less to lose by ignoring Max' transgression than by observing the rules and so they gained significantly in this instance. That's clearly wrong and they should never have been allowed to profit from that. If - and it's still not clear to me that it was - Red Bull received an instruction for Race Control that was ignored then I think a DSQ would have been apt, or at least a very heavy sanction like a 1m penalty or 5 place position drop. It has to be strong enough that it would make a team think twice about ignoring it, and a 5s penalty is a bit of a joke under these circumstances.


I don't think there was ever an order from race control. If there was, how long does the driver get to comply?

You basically would have to move over straight away, no doubt that Verstappen would have argued about it first though.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 842
Location: Melbourne Australia
It is a good question re how long do they have to act.
It seems race control give the call to reverse a position, then if circumstances change it gets referred to the stewards to make a call on it.
If it gets referred to the stewards, you can't give the place back, you get a time penalty.

I remember seeing someone fighting for position earlier this year, then the guy they were fighting with pitted. So they couldn't give the place back.

In this case Race control didn't ask Red Bull to give up the position.
However as Ferrari kicked up a stink about it, they advised Red Bull with 2 laps to go that they would investigate after the race.

_________________
I support: Ricciardo
I also like: Perez, Hulk, Sainz, Button and Alonso
I respect: Ham, Vettel and Max


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well that's what I meant about 5 second penalties not always being fair to the drivers that have been disadvantaged, their races are still being compromised with the guilty driver still being in front of them so I'm questioning the 5 second penalty itself and whether it is appropriate enough?

I didn't realise that race control told Red Bull that Verstappen had to move over I thought that was just Red Bull themselves, that being the case it just shows how haphazard the whole process is.

Yes, if an instruction has come from Race Control to move over then ignoring this should result in far more than a 5s penalty. As I've argued many times, penalties should never be a strategic consideration, which is clearly what happened on Sunday. Red Bull determined that they had less to lose by ignoring Max' transgression than by observing the rules and so they gained significantly in this instance. That's clearly wrong and they should never have been allowed to profit from that. If - and it's still not clear to me that it was - Red Bull received an instruction for Race Control that was ignored then I think a DSQ would have been apt, or at least a very heavy sanction like a 1m penalty or 5 place position drop. It has to be strong enough that it would make a team think twice about ignoring it, and a 5s penalty is a bit of a joke under these circumstances.


I don't think there was ever an order from race control. If there was, how long does the driver get to comply?

You basically would have to move over straight away, no doubt that Verstappen would have argued about it first though.

Race control's instructions are advisory and if ignore they are passed over to the stewards, who will always rule in line with the advise given by race control. It should be that way to prevent a biased trade controller from unilaterally deciding race results. While Charlie Whiting is probably unbiased, he is human and could make an error in judgement, that's why it gets reviewed by a panel in detail from multiple camera angles with all the data. It would be far worse if the race controller gave an incorrect instruction to move Uber, it would be directly interfering with a race result and could be criminally prosecuted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well that's what I meant about 5 second penalties not always being fair to the drivers that have been disadvantaged, their races are still being compromised with the guilty driver still being in front of them so I'm questioning the 5 second penalty itself and whether it is appropriate enough?

I didn't realise that race control told Red Bull that Verstappen had to move over I thought that was just Red Bull themselves, that being the case it just shows how haphazard the whole process is.

Yes, if an instruction has come from Race Control to move over then ignoring this should result in far more than a 5s penalty. As I've argued many times, penalties should never be a strategic consideration, which is clearly what happened on Sunday. Red Bull determined that they had less to lose by ignoring Max' transgression than by observing the rules and so they gained significantly in this instance. That's clearly wrong and they should never have been allowed to profit from that. If - and it's still not clear to me that it was - Red Bull received an instruction for Race Control that was ignored then I think a DSQ would have been apt, or at least a very heavy sanction like a 1m penalty or 5 place position drop. It has to be strong enough that it would make a team think twice about ignoring it, and a 5s penalty is a bit of a joke under these circumstances.


I don't think there was ever an order from race control. If there was, how long does the driver get to comply?

You basically would have to move over straight away, no doubt that Verstappen would have argued about it first though.

Race control's instructions are advisory and if ignore they are passed over to the stewards, who will always rule in line with the advise given by race control. It should be that way to prevent a biased trade controller from unilaterally deciding race results. While Charlie Whiting is probably unbiased, he is human and could make an error in judgement, that's why it gets reviewed by a panel in detail from multiple camera angles with all the data. It would be far worse if the race controller gave an incorrect instruction to move Uber, it would be directly interfering with a race result and could be criminally prosecuted.

Once again this is over-complicating things. If anybody is worried that RC is biased, then the people in RC are the wrong ones for the job. To continue the football analogy that has been bandied about, you don't get refs being second guessed or teams worried that they are biased. The linesman is there to assist but the ref makes the call, often without them.

There is no valid reason why an instant judgement cannot be made for certain situations


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Zoue wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Yes, if an instruction has come from Race Control to move over then ignoring this should result in far more than a 5s penalty. As I've argued many times, penalties should never be a strategic consideration, which is clearly what happened on Sunday. Red Bull determined that they had less to lose by ignoring Max' transgression than by observing the rules and so they gained significantly in this instance. That's clearly wrong and they should never have been allowed to profit from that. If - and it's still not clear to me that it was - Red Bull received an instruction for Race Control that was ignored then I think a DSQ would have been apt, or at least a very heavy sanction like a 1m penalty or 5 place position drop. It has to be strong enough that it would make a team think twice about ignoring it, and a 5s penalty is a bit of a joke under these circumstances.


I don't think there was ever an order from race control. If there was, how long does the driver get to comply?

You basically would have to move over straight away, no doubt that Verstappen would have argued about it first though.

Race control's instructions are advisory and if ignore they are passed over to the stewards, who will always rule in line with the advise given by race control. It should be that way to prevent a biased trade controller from unilaterally deciding race results. While Charlie Whiting is probably unbiased, he is human and could make an error in judgement, that's why it gets reviewed by a panel in detail from multiple camera angles with all the data. It would be far worse if the race controller gave an incorrect instruction to move Uber, it would be directly interfering with a race result and could be criminally prosecuted.

Once again this is over-complicating things. If anybody is worried that RC is biased, then the people in RC are the wrong ones for the job. To continue the football analogy that has been bandied about, you don't get refs being second guessed or teams worried that they are biased. The linesman is there to assist but the ref makes the call, often without them.

There is no valid reason why an instant judgement cannot be made for certain situations

Yes and you never hear of football referees being criminally prosecuted for making the wrong decisions

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Once again this is over-complicating things. If anybody is worried that RC is biased, then the people in RC are the wrong ones for the job. To continue the football analogy that has been bandied about, you don't get refs being second guessed or teams worried that they are biased. The linesman is there to assist but the ref makes the call, often without them.

There is no valid reason why an instant judgement cannot be made for certain situations

Yes and you never hear of football referees being criminally prosecuted for making the wrong decisions

Referees cannot award goals when a foul is committed, they can only award a penalty. If they started awarding goals it is directly manipulating the result, and becomes match fixing. This is identical to Formula 1. The officials cannot change the finishing order or instruct cars to switch positions because of this reason, but they can apply penalties which have the same effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 392
Redundant! Remove with extreme prejudice.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3620
No.

After 3 days we can't come to anywhere near a consensus on any of the incidents in the race. Or any other race I've ever seen so what's the point.

As much as we don't like to admit it we all have our own varying degrees of bias,leniency,ideas,ideals and standards we would like the Race Control operators to adhere to and it doesn't matter who was filling the roles the same things would happen.

For example I don't have much of a problem with anything that happened. I thought they used common sense with the incidents at turn 1 at the start of the race, I thought they got the right punishment for Sainz but could have done it sooner, I thought Max deserved his time penalty(not enough laps left to tell him to hand it back according to Brundle) and I thought Seb moved under braking but considering the context 10s was sufficient over anything harsher(I don't know what kind of penalties they had in mind for moving under braking but would expect more than 10s penalty generally considering the furore around bringing in the rule).

And I didn't lose any sleep about Seb's radio outburst so was happy he faced no action.

So in general I thought they did ok on all the incidents but I'm obviously in the minority.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
Lotus49 wrote:
After 3 days we can't come to anywhere near a consensus on any of the incidents in the race. Or any other race I've ever seen so what's the point.

I think actually we're pretty close to a consensus on two of them; about 90% of the forum seems to believe that Max deserved his penalty, and even more than that thinks Rosberg did not deserve one for cutting the track at turn one. It's only Hamilton's track cutting (although there is a clear majority there, almost enough to constitute a supermajority if this was congress) and mostly the Vettel/Ricciardo incident that there's no consensus on.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3620
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
After 3 days we can't come to anywhere near a consensus on any of the incidents in the race. Or any other race I've ever seen so what's the point.

I think actually we're pretty close to a consensus on two of them; about 90% of the forum seems to believe that Max deserved his penalty, and even more than that thinks Rosberg did not deserve one for cutting the track at turn one. It's only Hamilton's track cutting (although there is a clear majority there, almost enough to constitute a supermajority if this was congress) and mostly the Vettel/Ricciardo incident that there's no consensus on.


I was more meaning everything around the incidents as well like with Max's we've got 90% agreeing he deserved his but I'm not sure we'd get near 90% agreeing what the penalty should be and when or how it should be handed down type of thing but it's not clear with what I've written there that I mean everything each incident entails yeah,sorry.

But your right that we can at least reach something near a consensus on what should or shouldn't be a penalty in most of the incidents from the weekend yeah. (Well half of the four we're talking about but I take the point)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23901
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Once again this is over-complicating things. If anybody is worried that RC is biased, then the people in RC are the wrong ones for the job. To continue the football analogy that has been bandied about, you don't get refs being second guessed or teams worried that they are biased. The linesman is there to assist but the ref makes the call, often without them.

There is no valid reason why an instant judgement cannot be made for certain situations

Yes and you never hear of football referees being criminally prosecuted for making the wrong decisions

Referees cannot award goals when a foul is committed, they can only award a penalty. If they started awarding goals it is directly manipulating the result, and becomes match fixing. This is identical to Formula 1. The officials cannot change the finishing order or instruct cars to switch positions because of this reason, but they can apply penalties which have the same effect.

Fair enough so in the past when the driver has been instructed by RC he could have ignored it but I guess what has happened recently is the level of the penalty metered out, I believe in the past it would have been a drive through penalty but now it's merely a 5 second penalty so the level of the penalty as been reduced to a level that a driver may now strategically ignore it, in the past a drive through penalty would basically wreck your race as would a 20/25 second penalty.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2501
^ Worth noting that Alien has clarified that RC issues advice, not instruction. The driver is not obliged to follow the advice and will not directly receive a penalty for not doing so. In this instance, Verstappen was advised to concede position to Vettel but chose not to do so. The matter was then passed to the stewards, who determined the penalty.
Vettel can tell Charlie Whiting to 'bog' off all he wants but Charlie can do no more than he did. Circumstances played out against Vettel on Sunday, which is a damned shame, but - unless the regulations are changed - there's little he can do about it.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group