FIA Interpreting FIA rules and the consistent application of them

[KekeTheKing]

Adding insult to injury for Bourdais, that was his best ever finish in Formula One wiped away.

Oh, and did everybody see that we've got the same Stewarding panel in China that we had last weekend.

 

[Galahad]

I'd like to set a competition for someone on this site to write a set of detailed regulations on driver conduct that are clear, easy to understand and follow, apply to every situation that has arisen in, say, the last 5 years, and as far as possible covering every situation that could ever arise.

If someone could do that, and I couldn't come up with a situation where they wouldn't work, I'd give them a prize. But as I haven't got a prize, I won't do that.

 

[KekeTheKing]

Are you suggesting my Good Sir Galahad that it's impossible to appease everyone that may feel aggrieved in every racing incident that may or may not occur throughout a given season's worth of racing?

 

[teabagyokel]

Adding insult to injury for Bourdais, that was his best ever finish in Formula One wiped away.

Off topic; Seb B1 was unfortunate when he was in F1. He stalled on the grid on Toro Rosso's day-of-days at Monza from a handy 4th position!

The 2008 Japanese Grand Prix was a chance for everyone with Lewis buggering up half the field at the start!

 

[Galahad]

Are you suggesting my Good Sir Galahad that it's impossible to appease everyone that may feel aggrieved in every racing incident that may or may not occur throughout a given season's worth of racing?

I pretty much take that as read. But I would go further, and state: a more rigidly defined set of regulations would create just as much disquiet and at least as many (probably more) miscarriages of justice, through inappropriate and ill-considered application.

 

[Brogan]

Perhaps if the stewards just started applying the existing rules fairly and consistently that might be a start?

Vettel weaves while defending, no-one complains, no penalty.
Hamilton weaves while defending, Ferrari/Alonso complain, penalty.

The stewards have a duty and an obligation to apply all of the rules all of the time.
Not just some of the rules, some of the time, to some drivers.

 

[KekeTheKing]

a more rigidly defined set of regulations would create just as much disquiet and at least as many (probably more) miscarriages of justice, through inappropriate and ill-considered application.

Couldn't agree more, and I think most people want less Stewards inquiries.

Last year in the Indy Racing League they had some nonsensical rule (maybe still do?) about blocking on the racing line in the corners. It was so convoluted that most people had no idea how it was going to be fairly applied, and sure enough, Helio Castroneves went nuts when he was penalized for this offense, costing him a win in Edmonton.

Fans and drivers want to see things settled on the circuit.

 

[Galahad]

Vettel weaving at the start of the race, you mean? If we penalise him for that, we either have half-a-dozen penalties to dish out on lap 1 of every race, or drivers don't bother trying any more. This is what I mean about taking a balanced view and being able to apply the rules flexibly. Lots of rules are conveniently overlooked in certain circumstances and this is healthy, in my view.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Adding insult to injury for Bourdais, that was his best ever finish in Formula One wiped away.
Oh, and did everybody see that we've got the same Stewarding panel in China that we had last weekend.

At least they should be consistent in their inconsistency.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Vettel weaving at the start of the race, you mean? If we penalise him for that, we either have half-a-dozen penalties to dish out on lap 1 of every race, or drivers don't bother trying any more. This is what I mean about taking a balanced view and being able to apply the rules flexibly. Lots of rules are conveniently overlooked in certain circumstances and this is healthy, in my view.

It's a fair argument, but what Hamilton did in the middle of the race was not really dangerous, and safety is what the rule is supposed to be there for is it not?
And I seem to remember that it was Michael Schumacher's antics, frequently off the start (and far more violent than anything we've seen recently by others, I might add) that were pretty much directly responsible for the introduction of the rule in the first place. Which would suggest to me that the charge into the first corner is not exempt.

The FIA should be much clearer about their intent; are they attempting to stop drivers preventing other drivers from overtaking, or are they trying to prevent dangerous incidents? If the latter, one could make an argument that what Vettel did in Sepang was more dangerous than what Hamilton did.

Personally I'd be in favour of removing the rule completely about the number of defensive moves, and leave it to the stewards to decide if any particular incident was dangerous or overly aggressive. Otherwise, and especially with the advent of KERS and the DRS, F1 might soon find itself in the position where once a driver fighting for position is within a second or two of his target, the marshals might as well show the leading driver the blue flag.

 

[Pyrope]

Vettel weaving at the start of the race, you mean? If we penalise him for that, we either have half-a-dozen penalties to dish out on lap 1 of every race, or drivers don't bother trying any more. This is what I mean about taking a balanced view and being able to apply the rules flexibly. Lots of rules are conveniently overlooked in certain circumstances and this is healthy, in my view.

I'd take the opposite side. What Hamilton did, while still against the rules and deeply unsporting, wasn't dangerous. Vettel's violent chopping off the start line could have resulted in a huge pile-up. It is one thing to be jockying for position within the pack while trying to work out positions down to the first corner, quite another to be driving at the front wheels of your opponents when the road in front of you is clear. I'm with Brogan on this, if Hamilton was docked 20s, Vettel was extremely lucky.

 

[teabagyokel]

I've mentioned before, and I'll mention again, I don't think punishing half the field would be healthy, and if you punish Vettel you must punish half the field.

I don't want to see 23 drivers coming down the pit-lane.

Strict enforcement of the rules caused Indy 2005. Edifying spectacle that that was. There must be leeway!

 

[Pyrope]

Most of the moves on the first lap, and certainly in the first 500m, are about avoidance, not blocking. There's the difference. Vettel was blocking, pure and simple.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Most of the moves on the first lap, and certainly in the first 500m, are about avoidance, not blocking. There's the difference. Vettel was blocking, pure and simple.

Hear hear!

 

[teabagyokel]

This is what happens when rules are too inflexible!

 

[Jen]

Personally I'd be in favour of removing the rule completely about the number of defensive moves, and leave it to the stewards to decide if any particular incident was dangerous or overly aggressive. Otherwise, and especially with the advent of KERS and the DRS, F1 might soon find itself in the position where once a driver fighting for position is within a second or two of his target, the marshals might as well show the leading driver the blue flag.

As I have said before, in all races (of whatever kind) the point is to keep the other guys behind you and if you have to weave to do it, then so be it - the same with "aggression" and "dangerous" which have a totally different meaning in today's language than it did a few years ago.

Rules shackle and there are few stewards who will go against rules.

As an aside, I have never understood the Geneva Convention when it comes to warfare - racing is a sanitised version of warfare and, as such, should be fairly unregulated.

 

[Galahad]

I think drivers are allowed to block. The leader can choose his line into the first turn, I don't think there's any question of that? Or perhaps we need to draw some lanes down the straights...

Senna and Schumacher established the basic principle of positioning their cars in such as way as the other driver can move to avoid an accident. Whether we like that or not, that's the new reality and we have to deal with it. Drivers can defend aggressively without it being any more dangerous than running in close quarters in high-powered single-seaters is ever going to be.

Of course, there are moves that are dangerous, and penalties need to be issued to discourage this. Some of them do occur off the starting grid. But I hope that neither the Vettel nor Hamilton nor Alonso incidents fall into this category. Guilty of dangerous driving? Absolutely not. Guilty of racing? Yes, on all counts.

 

[Pyrope]

As I have said before, in all races (of whatever kind) the point is to keep the other guys behind you and if you have to weave to do it, then so be it - the same with "aggression" and "dangerous" which have a totally different meaning in today's language than it did a few years ago

That's like saying it is fair and sporting for a tennis player to gratuitously shout when their opponent is lining up a shot, after all, in professional sport winning is all that counts. The ATP and the WTA would never stand for tha.... oh, hang on. Bad example.

 

[Jen]

How do you block 10 or 15 guys behind you off the start grid - you can't take just one line because that won't hinder enough of them, so you have to weave to keep as many as possible behind you.

If the guys behind all pile into each other, who's fault is that? Surely not the chap in front?

 

[Pyrope]

Um... yes.

Why aren't cricketers allowed bats two feet wide, adhesive pads on their palms, and enough soil in their pockets to make sure that the ball swings as much as possible? Because it isn't sporting. In those examples it just lacks class. In Vettel's example he's going to end up killing someone.

Cheap, and nasty.