FIA Interpreting FIA rules and the consistent application of them

[Dario Resta]

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

This is true, and it was questionable. The examples I gave above were to (hopefully) illustrate how easy it is to come to two different conclusions. Both moved to the middle of the track, then back on line for the corner. Schumacher's was in a shorter distance, but the rules don't differentiate based on distance travelled.

 

[Quintessentially]

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.

The Schumacher move(s) has already been clarified by Daly as rule violation that merited punishment so I think we should leave that discussion there. I also have to point out that the stewards considered giving Hamilton a penalty for the incident with Kobayashi and the main reason they didn't was because Hamilton crashed out. Nonetheless, it's hard to compare both incidents as they both followed different sequences. The grey area about moving back to take the racing line as I said generally only happens when the overtaking move is incomplete and Hamilton did not recognise this when he clashed with Kobayashi. The Buemi/Heidfield incident was similar and the former was penalised so there is some consistency here. Remember that the Regulations do not specifically mention 'one move to block' and this came out of one of Charlie's many crib sheets so we don't know what clarification was given at the time. I do think there are some subtle differences between moving to defend position and blocking. It's also hard to argue that everything is open to interpretation when we are not privy to the many briefings that go on behind the scenes. I think this is one area they've really got covered and the drivers are fully aware of what is and isn't allowed. These may not be immediately obvious in the Sporting Regs.

 

[The Artist.....]

Maybe it's time for the FIA to adopt a football style yellow and red card system....

Yellow card for first small offence, red card (And disqualification) for second offence...

A large offence leads to a straight red card.

Each card received leads to penalty points.

Points can then be used to hand out 1 race bans.....

 

[Brogan]

That wouldn't resolve the problem of them not awarding cards when they should, or awarding them when they shouldn't.

 

[Clinton]

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.

What about when the racing line crosses the track diagonally? How soon in meters after the corner or on the straight does the driver have to settle into his line? What degree of movement constitutes a change of line - 50cm, half a car width, a car width?

"No changes in direction" can only apply literally on a perfectly straight straight, and even then there is a grey area regarding what happens at the end of the straight.

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.

To clarify, here are the written regulations that cover racing conduct:

Article 16.1
“Incident” means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by
any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to
the race director for investigation) which :
- necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 ;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code ;
- caused a false start by one or more cars ;
- caused a collision ;
- forced a driver off the track ;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver ;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless in the opinion of the race director it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the
above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race

Article 20.2
Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position,
deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are
not permitted.

You mentioned "illegitimately impeding another driver". However, to cite this regulation begs the question; Schumacher's moves were illegitimate because they were illegitimate. This is not your fault but instead I would regard this regulation as rather unhelpful (it might be more helpful if it were the prologue to a detailed exposition of what constitutes an illegitimate defending manoeuvre).

Forcing another driver off the track is also unclear. OK, it makes pretty clear that if drivers are already side-by-side on a wide section of track, they can't push each other off the edge - but the rule obviously has a much wider application. For example the driver in front might change his line - his one defensive move - causing the overtaking driver, who was lining up a pass on that line to take to the grass to avoid him. But how far behind does the overtaking driver have to be before it's OK to change lines? Surely the speed differential plays its part too? How much responsibility should the overtaking driver take for ensuring that he is able to safely back out of the move at any point?

And what about situations where the track (e.g. the chicane at Canada) narrows? Raikkonen forced Lewis off the track at Spa in 2008, but that was OK because Lewis had "entered a wedge that was always going to disappear".

The point I'm making is that these rules are far from self-explanatory. Whiting's directives evidently haven't removed much of the ambiguity, otherwise the stewarding decisions would be consistent enough that there would be no problem to discuss. If I was in charge of the F1 rule book, I would attempt to rectify this both by writing more detailed rules covering racing conduct, and by having a video bank addendum containing actual live examples of racing (because whilst spectators could probably reach a consensus on what constitutes a fair defensive move - or at least understand what the consensus is - by looking at video footage, to state with reasonable precision what happened in each case in words might be an unduly lengthy business).

 

[Quintessentially]

I’m trying not to get into the debate of theorising with scenarios on where and how the rules may be applied, what constitutes a rule break, who’s at fault etc etc because it’s hard to attain a true picture without having all the facts available from telemetry to video angles and any mitigating circumstances. In the end, it comes down to personal opinion. My main gripe with the regulations is really not how the rules are written but the protocol for administering them. It is an open secret that Whiting generally has a very heavy workload on Grand Prix weekends and there’s a tendency bypass protocol and also procrastinate when investigating contentious race incidents. If you don’t have a robust system for investigating and punishing offending drivers, the rules will always be misapplied. This the real issue. The system in its current form is not good enough to slot in key officials without compromising the quality of stewarding and having different stewarding personnel only exacerbates the issue. Derek Daly said the reason they missed the Schumacher blocking incident was because they’d been asked to investigate another incident that had happened 15laps earlier yet at the same time Charlie was on the phone offering Mercedes a personal service. How on earth do they justify not investigating an incident that necessitated the deployment of the safety car? On another day, he (Charlie refers the matter to the stewards and the proper action is taken. I think most fans would have more confidence in the system if Charlie and his minions are consistent in the way they go about doing their job. This will not eradicate inconsistent decisions and to be frank I don’t think you can ever legislate for this, but at least we know that the correct procedures are being followed.

You mentioned "illegitimately impeding another driver". However, to cite this regulation begs the question; Schumacher's moves were illegitimate because they were illegitimate. This is not your fault but instead I would regard this regulation as rather unhelpful (it might be more helpful if it were the prologue to a detailed exposition of what constitutes an illegitimate defending manoeuvre).

Sorry I don't understand this point.

I think forcing another driver off the track would’ve been an appropriate rule in the Schumacher/Hamilton incident where the latter ended on the grass. Schumacher did not really apply the one defensive one steering movement rule when Hamilton ended up on the grass but actually veered across the track gradually to close the gap like the incident with Barichello last year. It’s like going from the outer lane to the inner lane on the M25. If this isn’t blocking then I’m not sure what is.

 

[Clinton]

I’m trying not to get into the debate of theorising with scenarios on where and how the rules may be applied, what constitutes a rule break, who’s at fault etc etc because it’s hard to attain a true picture without having all the facts available from telemetry to video angles and any mitigating circumstances. In the end, it comes down to personal opinion.
My main gripe with the regulations is really not how the rules are written but the protocol for administering them. It is an open secret that Whiting generally has a very heavy workload on Grand Prix weekends and there’s a tendency bypass protocol and also procrastinate when investigating contentious race incidents. If you don’t have a robust system for investigating and punishing offending drivers, the rules will always be misapplied. This the real issue. The system in its current form is not good enough to slot in key officials without compromising the quality of stewarding and having different stewarding personnel only exacerbates the issue. Derek Daly said the reason they missed the Schumacher blocking incident was because they’d been asked to investigate another incident that had happened 15laps earlier yet at the same time Charlie was on the phone offering Mercedes a personal service. How on earth do they justify not investigating an incident that necessitated the deployment of the safety car? On another day, he (Charlie refers the matter to the stewards and the proper action is taken. I think most fans will have more confidence in the system if Charlie and his minions are consistent in the way they go about doing their job. This will eradicate inconsistent decisions and to be frank I don’t think you can ever legislate for this, but at least we know that the correct procedures are being followed.

The system by which the rules are enforced could certainly be improved. However, I'm not sure that this problem is so easily separable from the problem of having an insufficient set of rules.

Take the video bank idea for example. If Massa and Webber crash on lap 5, the stewards can call up a set of footage of racing incidents that have occurred at that chicane in the past. If the database is cleverly designed, they might also be able to access linked footage from similar sections of different circuits to supplement this set. These will be tagged with decisions such as "defending driver awarded drive through", "no action taken" etc. based on the conclusions of a rule-making forum that convened previously (rather than the decisions that were given at the time). Although every situation is slightly different, the steward assigned to investigate this incident should be able to extrapolate and find this a useful source of (consistent) precedent to inform his judgement.

The stewarding panel should be of sufficient size such that there is a steward available to take several minutes to investigate every significant incident in the race and form a judgement. A head steward can be in charge of assigning stewards to incidents, and briefly review their decisions before passing them on to the race director who exectues them (I don't know how the stewards work in reality - this is just how I'd organise things). I don't see why all of the stewards at once should be distracted from the live feed to investigate something that happened earlier in the race; the stewarding process should be formalised such that at least one steward is always available to watch for new incidents.

Sorry I don't understand this point.

You referred to the regulation prohibiting "illegitimately impeding another driver during overtaking". My point was that you cannot cite this regulation as evidence that Schumacher made illegal defensive manoeuvres, because it begs the question. That is to say, you would already have to assume that Michael "illegitimately" impeded Lewis in order for that regulation to be applicable. Your confusion is forgivable however, since it does seem a rather pointless and tautological regulation unless it were to serve as a point of departure for further explanation.

I think forcing another driver off the track would’ve been an appropriate rule in the Schumacher/Hamilton incident where the latter ended on the grass. Schumacher did not really apply the one defensive one steering movement rule when Hamilton ended up on the grass but actually veered across the track gradually to close the gap like the incident with Barichello last year. It’s like going from the outer lane to the inner lane on the M25. If this isn’t blocking then I’m not sure what is.

I don't disagree that Michael's defending might have deserved a penalty (or at least a warning, with a penalty to follow soon after if he continued in the same vein). My point was that the rules as they exist are so unclear that it is difficult to discuss whether the stewards should have made this or that decision without first disclaiming the soundness of the current regulations. We all have our own ideas, which often harmonise, about what fair defending ought to entail, but to complain that the stewards enforced the regulations incorrectly is another claim entirely.

 

[Quintessentially]

I still don't get your point about Schumacher and the illegitimate rule. I was specifically referring to the incident out of Curve Grande where Schumacher had a poor exit, stayed left and only moved to block when Hamilton got out of his slipstream to overtake. That looked like illegally impeding another driver to me even though some would argue he used up his one move to defend allowance. But as i said, he veered across the track to impede the driver behind from passing. The main issue with the whole incident is that we cannot even complain that they enforced the regulations incorrectly because the incident was not invesitaged let alone any regulations enforced. An off the record agreement was reached with Charlie and it was back to racing. He has a habit of doing this and teams have fallen foul of the stewards when they've been told one thing only for the decision to be overruled, especially when Alan Donnelly was around. No stewards report was produced on the Schumacher incident as a result of the non investigation so nothing was captured on record. The stewards could certainly do with a bank of video footage for reference from circuit to circuit so I'm all for it. It won't be an easy task to put together and drawing parallels with past events can open a can of worms. Even when you look back on all the racing incidents this year, almost every one of them is unique.

 

[Bill Boddy]

....
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.

My recollection of possibly another race was that the commentators were in favour of a time penalty rather than a drive through. Their reasoning was that if a time penalty was given during the race it would still be possible to reverse it on appeal whereas with a drive through could not be corrected. The downside to this is that messing around with results is not satisfactory and should be avoided whenever possible.

 

[racecub]

Has anyone seen martin Brundle's comments on the race concerning Hamilton's punishemen? Here's a couple of quotes
"There's no doubt in my mind he has alienated somebody in the past because these circumstances always seem to go against him."
"Jenson slid into Alonso in Canada and spun him out before going on to a magnificent victory. I can't tell you why that was deemed less serious than Lewis's contact with Massa at the weekend."
he doesnt say Lewis is faultless but argues the unfairness of the punishments. It comes form the BBC and points to other related articles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/15078376.stm

 

[Brogan]

More than a few have made the same point over the last few weeks and months.

Similar incidents seem to attract wildly different responses from the stewards, depending on who the offending driver is.

Button was extremely lucky to escape without sanction at Canada.
Would it have been any different if it was Hamilton and not Button?
Unless we can watch a replay of the race from an alternative universe, we'll never know.

 

[Dario Resta]

More than a few have made the same point over the last few weeks and months.

Similar incidents seem to attract wildly different responses from the stewards, depending on who the offending driver is.

Button was extremely lucky to escape without sanction at Canada.
Would it have been any different if it was Hamilton and not Button?
Unless we can watch a replay of the race from an alternative universe, we'll never know.

I thought Jenson was at fault in Montreal, but The stewards decided Alonso hadn't given him room, so it was his fault instead. Either way, I would have called that a racing incident, Alonso was just unlucky to end up out of the race. I like to think the outcome would have been the same regardless of who the drivers involved were - no penalties.

 

[Slyboogy]

Has anyone seen martin Brundle's comments on the race concerning Hamilton's punishemen? Here's a couple of quotes
"There's no doubt in my mind he has alienated somebody in the past because these circumstances always seem to go against him."
"Jenson slid into Alonso in Canada and spun him out before going on to a magnificent victory. I can't tell you why that was deemed less serious than Lewis's contact with Massa at the weekend."
he doesnt say Lewis is faultless but argues the unfairness of the punishments. It comes form the BBC and points to other related articles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/15078376.stm

I remember Brundle saying that Alonso was more at fault for that incident, strange how he has changed his tune.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

I think while Alonso was risky with the positioning of his car Button really should have been more patient...

 

[racecub]

I thought Jenson was at fault in Montreal, but The stewards decided Alonso hadn't given him room, so it was his fault instead. Either way, I would have called that a racing incident, Alonso was just unlucky to end up out of the race. I like to think the outcome would have been the same regardless of who the drivers involved were - no penalties.

I think it should have been a racing incident and think the outcomes should be the same rgardless of who the drivers are, but in reality that is not what happens.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

I remember Brundle saying that Alonso was more at fault for that incident, strange how he has changed his tune.

More patient? Alonso was going past Button. Maybe Alonso should have been more patient.

 

[Brogan]

I appreciated the topics are linked, but if we could keep this thread focussed on general stewarding then that would be great.

If was tit-for-tat arguing about specific incidents and which driver was to blame which resulted in the other thread being closed.

 

[Andy Karter]

I make no apologies that the FIA rulebook is one of my biggest problems with modern Formula One.

For a start it's too restricting, stifling innovation and genius, reducing F1 to little more than a spec series.

But it's also deliberately worded in such an ambiguous way as to allow teams to get away with "bending" the rules.
All well and good you might say, considering how much designers are restricted these days.
Well no I say, as it means cars are now being designed by lawyers, not designers or engineers.

Let's take the issue of Red Bull's front wing.
However they've done it, Red Bull have managed to engineer a wing which passes the static load tests but, as everyone has seen since the start of the 2010 season, is way outside the limits set in the rules.
I don't want to get into that issue specifically as there is another thread for that, but it does call into question the way the rules have been written, as well as the testing regime.
The FIA had all winter to tighten this up but chose not to. Why not?

Then there is the issue of team orders.
Ferrari as we all know were fined $100,000 for making Massa move over for Alonso at Germany last season. After that race, Jean Todt announced that the practice would be 'regulated', rather than banned or allowed outright.
The FIA though have also increased the fine which stewards can award to $250,000 for any team using coded instructions, 'as such messages would be used to deceive spectators and would require teams and drivers to lie to stewards in order to substantiate the claims made in the message'.
Team orders aren't banned, yet they aren't allowed. They're just not talked about, like some sort of F1 car-shaped elephant in the room?
Confused? I am.
I'm fairly sure we saw at least two instances of team orders today, but as they weren't done using coded messages, it's perfectly OK apparently.
Madness.

Lastly there is the issue of drivers going off the circuit to complete a manoeuvre,
In the past we have seen Hamilton penalised for cutting the white line, yet Kimi somehow managed to use the huge run off area at Eau Rouge almost every lap during one race.
And again at Turkey.
With impunity.
This year the FIA have clamped down on that hard, stating that at least one wheel must be on the circuit at all times.
I guess Melbourne mustn't count then as I saw both Vettel and Buemi complete overtaking moves whilst completely off the circuit. Not just a little bit off, but several car widths off.

Does no-one else care about this continuing ambiguity, obfuscation and inconsistency?

I agree totally with just about all you've said. The FIA for me are over complicating things and trying to out smart some very clever and innovative people, they'll never do it! If the rules are simple they can be easily applied, something the sports governing body appears to struggle with at times.

The introduction of drivers to deliberate over race incidents has improved things but we still see inconsistencies on an all too regular basis, possibly because those doing the deliberating change so frequently but that doesn't excuse inconsistent application of the rules in the same race!

The move towards the minute scrutiny in ever detail of every incident with penalties dished out like sweets at a kids party has also got to be curtailed in some way otherwise we'll discourage drivers attempting overtakes and others looking for the professional foul.

 

[racecub]

I find the inconsistent stewarding and over regulating of F1 is really starting to spoil the sport for me. Ok Im a Hamilton fan and he always comes of worse,which maybe makes me notices these problems more. But I'd still be disasisfied if Alonso(who I dont like) kept getting decisions go against him for inexplicable reasons. I dont want lewis to beat Alonso because of incompetent stewarding, I want him to beat him becuse he's raced better. And I imagine lewis feels much the same. What I am really against is unfairnes. And thats what the stewards are perpetrating.

 

[KekeTheKing]

-----------WARNING-----------​

Belgium 2008 Footage Below​

----- For Reference Only -----​

​

​

Don't want to debate this, but I had to post this stuff after watching ITV's broadcast of Quali at Italy 2008 today. I remember watching that session on American TV which is why I never saw these interviews with Stewart and Lauda.