FIA Interpreting FIA rules and the consistent application of them

[Jen]

This is not tennis or cricket - both sports that attract a certain type of individual, as does FI. However, I think the mindset is different.

For a start you would be hard pressed to meet your end playing either tennis or cricket, barring a fluke accident. Your bat or racket isn't a lethal weapon (in the same way that a fast car can be) and you're not pitched against at least another 20+ individuals at one time.

In all three sports, all participants are there to win, but the racing driver has more opposition and, by definition, can cause more mayhem if he gets it wrong. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean that their "enthusiasm" should be curbed to the point of negating the whole point of racing - yes, pull up the truly dangerous ones and let the others get on with what they are paid to do (and love).

Neither cheap nor nasty

 

[Pyrope]

Not sure what you are arguing now, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Yes, dying while playing cricket is rare (not as rare as in motorsport in the last 10 years though...) but that should mean that dangerous tactics are more frowned upon in F1, surely? What Vettel did at the start of the last GP could easily have forced another driver onto the grass (and from there... anywhere) or made someone have to touch the brakes. Either could have been catastrophic, and Seb's fault just as surely as if he had been a moron on the motorway who pulled across in front of you. Does he have to kill someone with these 'kleines Schumi' tactics before anyone tells him to back off?

Cricket, tennis and F1 are all sports. Not international diplomacy or war, despite what some people like to believe, nor are they fundamentally a business, that is only a veneer. To be sports they must be sporting. Winning at all costs may be a common way of thinking, but it fundamentally isn't sporting. Pushed to an extreme it is termed 'cheating', but even at lesser levels it deserves opprobrium.

My Corinthian approach to sports makes me think 'cheap'; my sanity says 'nasty'. Both are fully deserved for what he did.

 

[Quintessentially]

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.

That one move to defend rule is pretty clear IMO and removing it will simply open the flood gates. We know the real issue with inconsistent stewarding is rule misapplication by race authorities who don’t appear to be au fait with procedures, haven’t been briefed properly or simply make up the rules as they go along like Charlie Whiting often does. He now has full power but isn’t making the best of it; no wonder Max sent Donnelly to do his dirty work for him as he couldn’t rely on Charlie.

There are also provisions in the sporting regs that allow stewards to freely punish a blatant block without even having to invoke this one move directive. The only area of concern I see is this ongoing debate about whether the defending driver changing lanes again to take the racing line constitutes a double block. However this often happens when the driver behind hasn’t been able to complete the overtaking manoeuvre. If the stewards are clear and consistent in their rule application, this shouldn’t be too much of an issue.

 

[Muddytalker]

Not sure if my comments are relevant to this thread, or another, but anyways -

For me, the whole instance of mid-race penalties for what are, to all intents and purposes misjudgements in the heat of action (y'know, doing what they are paid very handsomely to do, with all the pressures and expectations that go along with the pay cheque) something of a fallacy. For one thing, a drive through penalty on lap 4 of Monaco can be a lot more costly than the same penalty on lap 4 of Monza. Similarly, a drive through 3 laps from the end at one track, where cars are likely to be spaced out, can be less of a penalty to another where the cars may still be circulating quite closely, So already, we can establish that the same 'sentence' dished out has a different effect at each track.
Secondly, a penalty (whether a reprimand or grid drop) given out to a car that has already retired is clearly not the same as a drive through mid-race. So the whole premise, as things stand is blatantly never going to be 'fair'.

Leaving aside the argument of whether there should be penalties (we managed fairly well for 50yrs+ of racing without headmaster Whiting's minions dishing out the cane), if there has to be punishments, then (when I'm king) I would propose a points system, not unlike what we have in the UK.

There may be some work involved to define the levels, but why not have something along the lines of:
1 point for a free practice collision/misdemeanor, where the driver is deemed to have made the error (not necessarily an accusation of intent, but one where it is clear that they were the one causing the incident),
3 points for a 'standard' collision (the type that currently invokes a drive through), and
6 points for a major collision (e.g. de Cesaris style brain fade).
You can also implement the 1 pt (or 3pts) fine for blocking, weaving etc, missing chicanes more than once, but that would be up for debate.

Each decision can be made within a day or two post-race, so is in effect for the next. The driver or drivers in question also then have the opportunity to defend the charge, with appropriate evidence.

The points are then on your 'record' for 53 weeks (which should cover the same race the following year, or at least the same numerical round), and hitting a mark, for example 12 points, leaves the driver suspended for 1 race.

I know there is the argument that no penalty in the race means a driver 'gets away with it', well, if the reason these penalties exist in the first place are to "penalise driver B for ruining driver A's race", as explained at the top of this post, the effects of a penalty vary from race to race., and besides, giving a drive through for driver B doesn't move driver A back up through the field either, in the current situation. It might make driver B a little more cautious next time though.

 

[Clinton]

From the Schumacher thread:

Liuzzi crashed out at Monza. But he got a penalty. Why shouldn't Schumacher?

As I mentioned, Liuzzi's infringement was of an extent that demanded more severe punishment - perhaps a stop and go, rather than a drive-through. Therefore what I said above (which deals with your average clumsy coming-together such as we saw with Lewis and Schumi yesterday) does not conflict with approval of the stewards' decision to give Liuzzi a grid drop.

In addition, Perez wasn't the only driver who suffered as a result of Schumacher's clumsy attempt. Both Ferrari drivers and Rosberg - according to Alonso, Pat Fry, Ross Brawn and Norbert Haug - lost out as a result of Schumacher's clumsy attempt (the Safety Car ruined their races).

A sensible stewarding concept takes into account harm resulting from car damage due to contact and time lost due to being pushed off the track or otherwise forced into a large deviation from ordinary driving due to unreasonable contact. It does not take into account indirect harm to drivers' racing strategy as a consequence of the safety car being brought out. Otherwise it would be normal to punish a driver for having crashed on his own without making contact with anybody.

Interpret the post you quoted in this light.

I am not advocating penalties per se', Clinton.

I'm advocating consistency and the impression inconsistency leaves of the Stewarding or of the FIA isn't a very good one.

I imagine it (the inconsistency) is making Lewis paranoid...and it's sending a the wrong signal to some young drivers who are looking at how Schumacher drove and continues to drive.

I explained why I don't think the stewards were inconsistent in this case. I agree that the stewards are often inconsistent, although the state of the rule book and the fact that stewards change between races partly explains this. I also agree that this season Lewis has been on the receiving end of harsh stewarding decisions that are not consistent with the other stewarding decisions in general, and this is bad for the sport.

Regarding Schumacher's driving in Monza, personally I think that he does what he expects he can get away with, and he has a lot of leeway to do this because the rules regarding fair defensive driving are too vague. He won't gain any respect for sportsmanship this way, but can he be blamed for pushing the rules to their limit - after all, Schumacher's tendency to find the limit in everything is a characteristic that has a great positive side both for him in allowing him to be so successful, and for the viewers because it often makes for intense racing and exciting rivalries.

 

[Brogan]

It should be pointed out that after Monza, Derek Daly admitted the stewards had got it wrong and Schumacher should have been penalised.

Which probably makes it worse than deeming the incident not worthy of a penalty in the first place.

He only escaped penalty because they were too busy reviewing an earlier incident from lap 5 when the lap 20 incident happened.

Presumably they also missed the chop on lap 16, as well as the numerous replays?

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Not sure if my comments are relevant to this thread, or another, but anyways -

I haven't quoted the full post for the length of it but that is the best suggestion and reasoning I have heard in a very long time. Great idea!

 

[Clinton]

It should be pointed out that after Monza, Derek Daly admitted the stewards had got it wrong and Schumacher should have been penalised.

Which probably makes it worse than deeming the incident not worthy of a penalty in the first place.

He only escaped penalty because they were too busy reviewing an earlier incident from lap 5 when the lap 20 incident happened.

Presumably they also missed the chop on lap 16, as well as the numerous replays?

Part of the problem with the rules as they stand is that the difference between a "chop" and a "defensive move" is not clearly defined. The difference between a fair and unfair defensive change of line depends on whether the following driver is occupying that space already, or whether the defending driver has driven as though he was going to leave room there("opening the door"), the abruptness of the change of line and so forth. I may be wrong but I don't think any of these criteria are expounded upon in any depth in the rule book. Which is a problem, because although any system of laws requires judicial interpretation (since human values are extremely complex and almost impossible to condense into a set of verbal statements), these are complex concepts that seem like they would benefit from more precise definition than they presently enjoy.

This is part of the reason why opinions differ on whether Michael deserved a penalty for his chop on lap 16. Actually in general I think this lack of elaboration in the rules is why the stewards' judgements are often controversial.

My proposal for improving the rules in this area would be for:
a) More precise verbal definitions of different aspects of defensive driving to be codified.
b) A video bank of examples of fair vs unfair defensive driving to prepared (preferably covering unique sections of different circuits visited by F1). For example the Lap 16 incident could be recorded as "unfair" and thereafter drivers would know what to expect if they defend in this manner. This will help to clear up any remaining problem surrounding leaky generalisations in the written rules.

On the other hand, we wouldn't want the racing to become formulaic. To prevent drivers becoming complacent about the variety of racing options that exist, another stipulation might be that incidences of unfair defending that do not result in contact or crashes should be dealt with at first only by giving the offending driver a warning over the radio. A second offence in the same race then results in an appropriate penalty. For example Schumacher could have been warned by the stewards after lap 16 that any further blocking will result in a drive-through.

What I'm not comfortable with is the idea that Schumacher or any other driver could be dealt a penalty without first receiving such a warning, given the vagueness of the existing rules governing defending. Both on grounds of fairness and in the interests of entertaining racing (since predictable sorting of cars by pace in free air and excessively easy passing have been a greater problem than lack of overtaking this year).

 

[Brogan]

One thing I've always maintained about the stewarding is that it's consistently inconsistent.

Always has been, always will be.

 

[Slyboogy]

One thing I've always maintained about the stewarding is that it's consistently inconsistent.

Always has been, always will be.

Obviously, it's not perfect in any sport, referees get several decisions wrong in football as do umpires in cricket and tennis, and neither I would go as far and say is "consistent".

 

[Slyboogy]

There may be some work involved to define the levels, but why not have something along the lines of:
1 point for a free practice collision/misdemeanor, where the driver is deemed to have made the error (not necessarily an accusation of intent, but one where it is clear that they were the one causing the incident),
3 points for a 'standard' collision (the type that currently invokes a drive through), and
6 points for a major collision (e.g. de Cesaris style brain fade).
You can also implement the 1 pt (or 3pts) fine for blocking, weaving etc, missing chicanes more than once, but that would be up for debate.

Each decision can be made within a day or two post-race, so is in effect for the next. The driver or drivers in question also then have the opportunity to defend the charge, with appropriate evidence.

The points are then on your 'record' for 53 weeks (which should cover the same race the following year, or at least the same numerical round), and hitting a mark, for example 12 points, leaves the driver suspended for 1 race.

I know there is the argument that no penalty in the race means a driver 'gets away with it', well, if the reason these penalties exist in the first place are to "penalise driver B for ruining driver A's race", as explained at the top of this post, the effects of a penalty vary from race to race., and besides, giving a drive through for driver B doesn't move driver A back up through the field either, in the current situation. It might make driver B a little more cautious next time though.

As much as I like your idea, there is one flaw I can point out, let's say driver A collides with driver B and ruins Driver B's race, so driver B is a lap down but then when driver A is lapping him he causes a collision on purpose and gets 3 points but does nothing else for the rest of the season, he's then let off scot free...

It isn't the best of example I could give, it's nearly 3:30am so forgive me, but I do hope you see my point.

 

[Muddytalker]

As much as I like your idea, there is one flaw I can point out, let's say driver A collides with driver B and ruins Driver B's race, so driver B is a lap down but then when driver A is lapping him he causes a collision on purpose and gets 3 points but does nothing else for the rest of the season, he's then let off scot free...

It isn't the best of example I could give, it's nearly 3:30am so forgive me, but I do hope you see my point.

Yep, there is the potential for that, (and it happens already in NASCAR), so it is then up to the stewards to decide if that is a more than 3 point offence. Driving a full 12 months with half of your 'naughty boy points' over your head can't be too easy. Besides, retaliation can happen already, even with the drive throughs.

 

[Quintessentially]

Part of the problem with the rules as they stand is that the difference between a "chop" and a "defensive move" is not clearly defined. The difference between a fair and unfair defensive change of line depends on whether the following driver is occupying that space already, or whether the defending driver has driven as though he was going to leave room there("opening the door"), the abruptness of the change of line and so forth. I may be wrong but I don't think any of these criteria are expounded upon in any depth in the rule book. Which is a problem, because although any system of laws requires judicial interpretation (since human values are extremely complex and almost impossible to condense into a set of verbal statements), these are complex concepts that seem like they would benefit from more precise definition than they presently enjoy.

The one move to defend rule is pretty clear and it is something the drivers pretty much subscribe to, obviously apart from Schumacher at Monza. You choose your line whether after a corner or on a straight and stick to it. Pretty simple and any further changes in direction consitutes a rule violation.There are at least 3 very clear critera listed under Article 16 of the Sporting regs to which the stewards can freely invoke and penalise offending drivers. Schumacher was guilty of at least two - from illegitimately impeding another driver during overtaking, to forcing a driver off the track. Don't forget the regs themsleves are supplemented by several directives from Whiting and regular safety briefings to remove any ambiguity and we don't always have access to these. As i said above, the only grey area is when the defending driver changes direction again (for example at the end of a straight) to take the racing line but this generally only happens when the overtaking move is 'incomplete' and the driver under attack hasn't completely lost the lead.

 

[Dario Resta]

The one move to defend rule is pretty clear and it is something the drivers pretty much subscribe to, obviously apart from Schumacher at Monza. You choose your line whether after a corner or on a straight and stick to it. Pretty simple and any further changes in direction consitutes a rule violation.There are at least 3 very clear critera listed under Article 16 of the Sporting regs to which the stewards can freely invoke and penalise offending drivers. Schumacher was guilty of at least two - from illegitimately impeding another driver during overtaking, to forcing a driver off the track. Don't forget the regs themsleves are supplemented by several directives from Whiting and regular safety briefings to remove any ambiguity and we don't always have access to these. As i said above, the only grey area is when the defending driver changes direction again (for example at the end of a straight) to take the racing line but this generally only happens when the overtaking move is 'incomplete' and the driver under attack hasn't completely lost the lead.

Everything is open to interpretation. Let's take two examples: Lewis on Kamui at Spa, And Schuey on Lewis at Monza (the one before the first Lesmo). I thought that was the only really questionable move Schumacher made. The Curva Grande block was OK - Lewis was never going to get past Schuey there. If you're going to use the "one move" rule, both moves were fair, or both were unfair. Lewis got past Kobayashi before Kemmel - a long straight, but still felt the need to defend by pulling towards the middle of the track. The collision occurred as he pulled back left to take the racing line into Les Combes. Schumacher, having got a poor exit from the Roggia chicane, pulled right to defend, then back onto the racing line for the right hander of the first Lesmo. What's the difference? Either you can move to defend and then take the racing line, or you can't.

 

[Brogan]

Derek Daly (steward) has already admitted that Schumacher should have been penalised.

 

[The Pits]

If it was transparent as to exactly what was looked at, how much detail etc, and every event was evaluated, i think it would be a little easier to follow, however, some incidents are either not looked at, or seem to attract different punishments based on the outcome.

I believe that this are needs to be looked at. Every incident should be rigorously investigated, in order to provide a sanction which is commensurate with the incident, and above all, stands up to external scrutiny.

punishment for me should be either time penalties, or a card system, both of which are open to appeal, and also allow for investigation after the race with the pressure of time reduced. During the race, the panel can focus on watching the race, and notifying all the incidents which will be investigated. Obvious calls like pit lane speeding etc could almost be done without human intervention.

Also, those who are allowed to pass judgement should be accepted by all teams, or the teams should have good reasons for not accepting, so McLaren could veto Nigel mansell.

Above all, the guidellines should be completely unambiguous, so everyone knows who does what, when and who should be informed of what. None of this we spoke to charlie nonsense.

 

[Fenderman]

Noble suggestions, The Pits, but no-one likes post race decisions, whether right or wrong. They leave a bad taste in the mouth. Unfortunately, all the dissection in the world will not remove bias - perceived or actual.

 

[Slyboogy]

Isn't post race decisions what moto gp do? There have been lots of concerns about that system, I wouldn't welcome it into F1 myself...

 

[Fenderman]

Isn't post race decisions what moto gp do? There have been lots of consumes concerns about that system, I wouldn't welcome it into F1 myself...

There, fixed that for you.

Actually, relatively speaking, penalties are quite rare in MotoGP compared to F1. Some folk's grumble but in truth the stewards are much more hands off and generally fair. The difference with bike racing is that death is still a real and present danger (and occurrence) so riders (generally) have a lot more respect for each others space. Racing incidents are usually seen as just that. Blatantly aggressive or downright stupid moves attract the Stewards attention as they rightly should.

I think the most common misdemeanour's that attract penalties (drive through's normally) are jump starts and speeding in pit lane.

 

[Slyboogy]

There, fixed that for you.

Actually, relatively speaking, penalties are quite rare in MotoGP compared to F1. Some folk's grumble but in truth the stewards are much more hands off and generally fair. The difference with bike racing is that death is still a real and present danger (and occurrence) so riders (generally) have a lot more respect for each others space. Racing incidents are usually seen as just that. Blatantly aggressive or downright stupid moves attract the Stewards attention as they rightly should.

I think the most common misdemeanour's that attract penalties (drive through's normally) are jump starts and speeding in pit lane.

Damn iPod and it's autocorrect

Last time I was watching a Moto GP race which was one of the first of this season they brought up this issue and the commentators seemed really annoyed by it and wanted an F1 like system where penaltys where handed out during a race, rather than time penalties after the race.