Japanese GP penalties

[andy666]

Hello everybody i am new here and i have a problem and i hope someone can help me out. I have been a part time watcher of F1 since the early 90 s but in the last 3 years i have really been gripped by the sport i love and never miss a second of any coverage . My mates do not understand why i enjoy the sport so much and i constantly find myself defending F1 . So here ladies and gents lies my problem , there seems to be no consistency with penalties given out by stewards (does anybody else think this ? ) How can Petrov recieve a five place grid penalty for causing an avoidable accident and Massa gets away with wiping out Liuzzi . The Force India was on the outside of turn one giving everybody space trying to get on with his own race when the prancing horse comes across the track and takes him off . I just think that if Petrov got a penalty then surely Felipe should have aswell . PLEASE CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN WHY ?

[Ralf's Girl]

Welcome to 10 Tenths, Andy. You'll probably find that inconsistency of stewards' decisions is one of the biggest bugbears around this place!

I can only assume that the stewards felt that Petrov's accident was more easily avoidable and therefore deserving of a penalty. Massa reached a point where he was essentially a passenger and couldn't do anything about running into Liuzzi. However - and I say this without an absolutely clear recollection of the accident - he could probably have avoided getting into that situation in the first place, so I think a penalty would have been fair.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Summed up pretty perfectly there, Ralf's Girl.

Selby

[phoenix]

I've just watched the start again....

Rosberg was slow away and Massa went up the inside (right hand side) of him - there was plenty of room. As they approcahed turn 1, Rosberg moved right to avoid one of the Force India's - Sutil I think - cutting across his nose and Massa had no choice but to take to the grass to avoid a collision with Rosberg. I guess it was an instinctive reaction by Massa. From then on he was a passenger, unable to slow the car on the grass.

I guess the view of the stewards would be that it was simply a racing accident.

[andy666]

Having just watched the start again 8 times in slow mo and normal speed , yes i do see what you mean and i think you are right its just a racing incident, thankyou for your replies . I am not a big Ferrari fan ( Mclaren and JB for me ) but i do feel sorry for Massa i dont think he has been the same man since his accident last year and i think he has been put in the shadows a bit since the arrival of Alonso .

[Born Racer]

Welcome to Ten Tenths, Andy.

One thing we ought to take into account with the stewards' inconsistency is a comparison with football. During the World Cup, people were given cards when nothing wrong had been done and not given them when something quite blatantly had. So at least F1 is not alone on that score.

My take on Massa's incident was that he seemed to over-react to the Mercedes (although it did look like it might eventually hit him). By moving to the grass the way he did, maybe he guaranteed an accident, which might not have been the case had he stayed on track.

I can understand penalising Petrov more because he just moved left and made quite an error of misjudgement by moving the way he did so soon when it turned out there was a car within range behind him. I don't buy his account about having to move left because of a car doing likewise to his right. I watched replays and can't see anything. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of penalising drivers for errors. It's an odd precedent and quite new within F1. It goes under the "causing an avoidable incident" rule I think, but what incident isn't avoidable if we're going to be pedantic? We want drivers to go for moves.

This sort of penalty was at its worst in 2008 in Fuji when Hamilton got one for out-braking himself and going off WITHOUT even having hit anyone, and Bourdais got a ridiculous one for colliding with Massa when Massa turned in on him. Anyway, there were a lot of judgements not going McLaren's way that year (Belgium for instance). So maybe I shouldn't compare it to the nadir of stewarding that was 2008.

Petrov went too early with that move as drastic as he made it, but again, it's an error and they all lose out due to unfortunate circumstances at times. It's not a reason to penalise someone.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I think alot of the inconsistency lies with the FIA/Stewards being seen to do 'something', amidst the crticism it has received for doing nothing. So now you are seeing a knee-jerk reaction rather than a proper analysis of what actually happens.

Massa was a passenger but to penalise Petrov was somewhat unfair; racing accidents do occur at the start of a race and it seems the stewards have ignored that.

[TrapezeArtist]

It would be helpful if there were some clear rules on what a driver can and can't do on the track. Then there would be some proper criterion for the stewards to judge an incident against. In the meantime, I think any penalties for incidents at the start or in the first couple of corners are pretty harsh: there is so much going on so quickly that accidents are bound to happen.

[bella]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

It would be helpful if there were some clear rules on what a driver can and can't do on the track.

i'm interested to know how you'd define that exactly though. every single situation is different - we saw that with the epic drama over the webber/hamilton incident...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bella

i'm interested to know how you'd define that exactly though. every single situation is different - we saw that with the epic drama over the webber/hamilton incident...

The stewards should be required to release a summary of what they saw and the reasons for the penalty and how they arrived at the penalty.
This way there would be clear precedents and the decisions would hopefully become clearer and less subject to accusations of bias and prejudice or race and championship fixing!

This is a billion dollar sport and the stewarding should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

[Aysedasi]

I definitely agree there. I assume those who transgress get the full reasoning, but in the interest of openness and clarity, the full explanations should be freely available.

[Greem]

...and that was something M. Todt announced would be the case this year, with decisions released via the FIA website. I haven't looked, but I don't think they have been, have they?

[Ralf's Girl]

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre.../on_event.aspx - not much explanation to go with the decisions though...

[Aysedasi]

No, pretty brief - no explanations whatsoever to justify the findings, nor the penalty imposed.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

No, pretty brief - no explanations whatsoever to justify the findings, nor the penalty imposed.

That's not good enough for the governing body of a sport, there needs to some accountability, or we have the current situation where penalties seem arbitrary.

[Adam43]

Well F1 has been more 'transparent' that pretty much any other area of motorsport for years. Still not satisfactory. Oh well.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by bella

i'm interested to know how you'd define that exactly though. every single situation is different - we saw that with the epic drama over the webber/hamilton incident...

My fundamental rule would be that if there is an overlap of two cars, each driver must give the other driver room. So Hamilton didn't give Webber enough room in Singapore. Kobayashi did give Algersuari enough room in Suzuka. At the moment most drivers who get the inside line just run out to the outside kerb and either barge the other driver off the road or force him to drop back. They would have to change their attitude.

Of course at the moment it is difficult to define where the edge of the track is, given that most kerbs are so flat that they are habitually driven over. In my Brave New F1 World, kerbs would be a proper obstacle that keeps drivers within the bounds of the track.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Well F1 has been more 'transparent' that pretty much any other area of motorsport for years. Still not satisfactory. Oh well.

I don't think transparency is the issue, it's the lack of consistency and the arbitrary nature of the penalties.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think transparency is the issue, it's the lack of consistency and the arbitrary nature of the penalties.

If the reasoning was transparent then the penalties could no longer be arbitrary or inconsistent - without making the decision maker look bad anyway - perhaps this just does not suit the FIA?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

If the reasoning was transparent then the penalties could no longer be arbitrary or inconsistent - without making the decision maker look bad anyway - perhaps this just does not suit the FIA?

If the reasoning were consistent, then the penalties would no longer be seen to be arbitrary. I don't think it's anything to do with tranparency, F1 isn't deliberately trying to confuse the situation, ex-drivers have been brought in this season to help with decision making process, when it comes to penalties. The problem is there is no consistency when penalties are meeted out and that's what needs to be addressed.

[wnut]

Sorry BJ, I am being a bit slow here. How can there be any tranparency when nobody knows the reasoning behind decisions? If the FIA released the full transcript as they have on occcasion then its transparent.

We don't know why they reach the decisions they do, or where they get the penalties from, how is that transparent?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Sorry BJ, I am being a bit slow here. How can there be any tranparency when nobody knows the reasoning behind decisions? If the FIA released the full transcript as they have on occcasion then its transparent.

We don't know why they reach the decisions they do, or where they get the penalties from, how is that transparent?

You're not being slow at all. What I'm calling consistency you are calling transparency; i.e we are arguing the same thing.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't think transparency is the issue, it's the lack of consistency and the arbitrary nature of the penalties.

Maybe it would help if all the incidents were consistent?

As time goes on I have less and less of a problem with all this. I watch rugby and these kind of decisions are made every minute of the game. I suppose it helps because the frequency averages them out.

One thing that is way more inconsistent than the decisions are fans views of them.
Consistency ranking:
1. Race stewards.
2. FIA.
3. Fans.
4. Webber fans.

(ACO and many other series not even in the top five)

[Adam43]

Oh, in case you were wondering:

5. Biased British Hamilton fans.

[andy666]

I am so glad i posted this question , seems to have provoked an interesting discussion . Thankyou for all your thoughts and i hope to be reading some more. I agree that the stewards should release some kind of reasoning behind any penalties, just a few lines just so the fans could understand why . Perhaps this would help in stopping all this rumour about favouritism towards certain teams and orchestration of the championship ?