Stewards Reprimand both drivers. - Page 14

neiltb · 13 Jul 2010, 01:40 (Ref:2725851)

the decision for Alonsos drive through was, for me, the straw that broke the camels back. I switched off the GP while the SC was still on track and I don't think I will watch another.

I am by no means a fan of Alonso but do have a soft spot for the guys in red. The penalty was extreme (in my opinion). With that and all the other garbage in the background, I'll enjoy my lie ins.

**Born Racer** · 13 Jul 2010, 10:33 (Ref:2726002)

It's strange that you would choose to switch off on the basis of Alonso's deserved penalty. To use a comparison, something like after Spa 2008 would have been a far better time to do so.

Joe Taylor · 13 Jul 2010, 12:21 (Ref:2726060)

I was feeling sympathetic towards Alonso given how harsh the penalty appeared, but now it appears that they ignored Charlie when he told them to let Kubica back past. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85258 If this is the case, they deserve everything they got.

steve_r · 13 Jul 2010, 12:35 (Ref:2726070)

To get uniformity of stewarding, why dont they appoint an ex-driver as a permenant member of the stewards - ie to cover all the races. What Frentzen thinks will not be the same as Mansell, Wurz, Hill, Herbert etc etc.

If that Autosport report is correct about Ferrari ignoring Charlie Whitings advice, then they have no-one to blame other than themselves.

**Born Racer** · 13 Jul 2010, 13:05 (Ref:2726080)

What twonks Ferrari are being.

Charlie Whiting says they were told to let him back through immediately. Stefano Domenicali has been saying otherwise (I think that Domenicali quote may have come before this Charlie Whiting clarification).

Quote:

"You can have a situation where immediately there is a possibility to give back the position to a driver if you feel that there is really an advantage that you gain. On our side we felt that was not the case otherwise we would have done it."

Typical Ferrari arrogance. It's news to me that gaining a position isn't gaining an advantage.

pannenmann · 13 Jul 2010, 13:17 (Ref:2726084)

Even without Charlie's advice it would still be entirely their own fault. The situation was rather clear from a neutral point of view. And even from the subjective Ferrari pit kind of view it has to seem at least ambigous to them. So if you're in doubt, you better let the other guy pass again. If you don't, you're gambling. If you're gambling, there's the fair chance that you will lose. Ferrari gambled, they lost. Instead of just taking responsibility and moving on, they ***** and cry and complain like they always do in recent times. Alonso and Ferrari seem like the perfect driver/team match. Tbh looking at this season, I would be quite happy seeing both Alonso and Ferrari fold as they contribute nothing but stupid egocentric off-track drama.

But I agree on wnut's proposal that the stewards should publish their decisions in a decent manner where you can actually see why they punished somebody and why they chose the punishment they did. Wonder what they had written for the European GP...

old man · 13 Jul 2010, 13:53 (Ref:2726103)

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_r

To get uniformity of stewarding, why dont they appoint an ex-driver as a permenant member of the stewards - ie to cover all the races. What Frentzen thinks will not be the same as Mansell, Wurz, Hill, Herbert etc etc.

Exactly my point in #320

dsg · 13 Jul 2010, 14:04 (Ref:2726107)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

I was feeling sympathetic towards Alonso given how harsh the penalty appeared, but now it appears that they ignored Charlie when he told them to let Kubica back past. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85258 If this is the case, they deserve everything they got.

My thoughts exactly. I thought it was unlucky but there is a saying which from memory goes something like "Good luck has a way of favoring the intelligent and showing its back to the stupid."

pannenmann · 13 Jul 2010, 14:59 (Ref:2726138)

I just noticed the following:
Canadian GP:
Felipe Massa (Ferrari) Speeding in the pitlane during the race 105.4 km/h, 20 seconds added to race time
European GP:
Pedro de la Rosa (Sauber) Speeding in the pitlane during the race 120.3 km/h fined €4,200

Funny that they cite 30.12 where it states that during the race, you can only apply drive-throughs or a 10sec stop and go penalty. Yet DLR gets just a fine. Are they completely retarded not being able to jump from one paragraph of their own regulations to the referenced one???

Teretonga · 14 Jul 2010, 00:34 (Ref:2726364)

By Born racer

"What twonks Ferrari are being.

Charlie Whiting says they were told to let him back through immediately. Stefano Domenicali has been saying otherwise (I think that Domenicali quote may have come before this Charlie Whiting clarification).

Quote:
"You can have a situation where immediately there is a possibility to give back the position to a driver if you feel that there is really an advantage that you gain. On our side we felt that was not the case otherwise we would have done it."

Typical Ferrari arrogance. It's news to me that gaining a position isn't gaining an advantage."' End of quote

True
Gaining a position is gaining an advantage... That is absolute. Any other sort of reasoning is twaddle. Gaining a time advantage isn't regarded as an serious advantage because under a safety car everyone behind the leader gains a time advantage.....
Domenicali is kidding himself. An advantage is when you gain a position or a place. If you have performed an illegal manouvre to get that advantage you may/should be penalised. How hard is that?

paddy · 14 Jul 2010, 08:06 (Ref:2726427)

This is the same team who supported the penalty against Hamilton at Spa when he did let Raikkonen past and then mugged him at the next corner isn't it? I'm really fed up with them to be honest. Anyone with even the the slightest knowledge of F1 knows they should have radioed Alonso immediately to give the place back. He would have soon been in a position to repass and be on his way. Unfortunately the arrogance of the team and the driver meant that this was never going to happen.

**bjohnsonsmith** · 14 Jul 2010, 22:08 (Ref:2726823)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paddy

This is the same team who supported the penalty against Hamilton at Spa when he did let Raikkonen past and then mugged him at the next corner isn't it? I'm really fed up with them to be honest. Anyone with even the the slightest knowledge of F1 knows they should have radioed Alonso immediately to give the place back. He would have soon been in a position to repass and be on his way. Unfortunately the arrogance of the team and the driver meant that this was never going to happen.

Pride comes before a fall, as the saying goes and it fell pretty hard for Ferrari and particularly Alonso.

old man · 21 Jul 2010, 15:26 (Ref:2730196)

For next race Danny Sullivan is the Driver's Steward

Lots of recent experience there then

**bjohnsonsmith** · 21 Jul 2010, 15:27 (Ref:2730197)

Quote:

Originally Posted by old man

For next race Danny Sullivan is the Driver's Steward

Lots of recent experience there then

I will certainly be different.

VIVA GT · 21 Jul 2010, 15:38 (Ref:2730203)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I will certainly be different.

Will you?

**bjohnsonsmith** · 21 Jul 2010, 16:01 (Ref:2730215)

Quote:

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Will you?

I'm not following you, could you rephrase that please?

E.B · 21 Jul 2010, 19:23 (Ref:2730296)

Does anyone other than I believe that Alonso seems to be taking over the management role as well, and he decided he wasnt go to redress the situation and Domencali was too weak to overule him, so went along with Alonso's poor judgement?

Lancsbreaker · 21 Jul 2010, 19:39 (Ref:2730305)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm not following you, could you rephrase that please?

I suspect it was a joke, based on your typo where you put "I will" rather than "it will".........

tblincoe · 21 Jul 2010, 19:55 (Ref:2730316)

I've done my best to try and wrap-up my view of the Alonso/Kubica controversy here: http://bprf1.com/2010/07/21/comment-...-prix-penalty/

Like others have said, Ferrari gambled and lost big time. Desperate times call for desperate measures...

**bjohnsonsmith** · 21 Jul 2010, 22:32 (Ref:2730379)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

I suspect it was a joke, based on your typo where you put "I will" rather than "it will".........

I'm glad to see my typo's provided some good entertainment.

wnut · 22 Jul 2010, 00:46 (Ref:2730403)

Amazing Whiting can give Alonso advice immediately and the stewards dish out a penalty almost immediately 13:31:05 - 13:35:30, yet it takes Whiting and the Stewards 17 laps to assess whether Hamilton has passed the safety car!

**bjohnsonsmith** · 22 Jul 2010, 01:07 (Ref:2730408)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnut

Amazing Whiting can give Alonso advice immediately and the stewards dish out a penalty almost immediately 13:31:05 - 13:35:30, yet it takes Whiting and the Stewards 17 laps to assess whether Hamilton has passed the safety car!

Seems like they could be basing their information on the TV broadcast.

wnut · 22 Jul 2010, 02:22 (Ref:2730426)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Seems like they could be basing their information on the TV broadcast.

They certainly base their decisions on repays where they are available.
You wuld expect them to take all info into consideration.

Hamilton's safety car pass was on video and immediately available, so hy the delay? It was shown live on national TV.

The delay was not good enough.

**bjohnsonsmith** · 22 Jul 2010, 02:35 (Ref:2730427)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnut

They certainly base their decisions on repays where they are available.
You wuld expect them to take all info into consideration.

Hamilton's safety car pass was on video and immediately available, so hy the delay? It was shown live on national TV.

The delay was not good enough.

Well as they are watching the broadcast, they slowly realise they have to supervise the race they are watching.

6157 · 22 Jul 2010, 03:14 (Ref:2730439)

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_r

To get uniformity of stewarding, why dont they appoint an ex-driver as a permenant member of the stewards - ie to cover all the races. What Frentzen thinks will not be the same as Mansell, Wurz, Hill, Herbert etc etc.

If that Autosport report is correct about Ferrari ignoring Charlie Whitings advice, then they have no-one to blame other than themselves.

To get uniformity with the stewards they need to have the same group of stewards LED by, not advised by, Whiting. Until you get the same officials at each GP, you're always going to have inconsistent calls.

The quotes by Domenicali in Autosport have me raging. There should be NO "discussion" about the call, you ACCEPT the call and take the penalty. It's not race control's problem, you cried and complained so long that Alonso was able to gap Kubica. Give back the position and shut the hell up.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[Rules] Drivers as stewards!	Fox89	Formula One	8	12 Dec 2009 15:05
Stewards	skaife2	Australasian Touring Cars.	18	16 Jul 2009 13:38
The IPO and STEWARDS have to GO !~ !	Matt H	Australasian Touring Cars.	58	29 Aug 2005 22:18
Stewards = God	Archer	Australasian Touring Cars.	21	15 Nov 2003 03:37
Stewards are a terrible	Scott75	Australasian Touring Cars.	55	28 May 2003 12:52