Driving standards/ stewarding

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

But stewards still have the option to judge a collision to be an unfortunate racing incident. That's a judgement too.

Yes - agreed. The point I was making is that all collisions now require a Stewards' decision.

If you ask for a decision to be made for more incidents, then inevitably you will get more incidents that result in a penalty.

[Adam43]

Differences and decisions.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fi...e-one/6669014/

[wnut]

Alonso's short cut in turn one at Sochi

The F1 rule that Alonso cleverly exposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABlKWyxjOxM

Well done Fred! I agree with your frustration.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by wnut

Alonso's short cut in turn one at Sochi

The F1 rule that Alonso cleverly exposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABlKWyxjOxM

Well done Fred! I agree with your frustration.

That in car stuff of him scrapping with Ricciardo, Leclerc, Sainz etc when it was knife edge grip was fantastic!!

Sorry OT...

[Adam43]

Very off topic. It’s almost as if you enjoyed it. That’s just not F1.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Very off topic. It’s almost as if you enjoyed it. That’s just not F1.

I know, shocking!!

[Taxi645]

So much for "we don't consider the consequences" regarding penalties.


Hamilton forces Perez of the track at the pitlane. But just because Perez could escape on the wrong side the bollard, Perez did not loose position and probably thus no penalty.


Apart from if one views it should be a penalty or not, it does seem very much so that the consequences were again taking into account.

[Adam43]

There was no penalty because there was no problem.

Let’s hope we have no great racing in the future so this problem doesn’t worry the fans.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

So much for "we don't consider the consequences" regarding penalties.


Hamilton forces Perez of the track at the pitlane. But just because Perez could escape on the wrong side the bollard, Perez did not loose position and probably thus no penalty.


Apart from if one views it should be a penalty or not, it does seem very much so that the consequences were again taking into account.

Or vice versa, Perez knew he could also hang in there side by side because there was space to exit on his side.

Hard to know intent when both drivers (i would assume of course) know the landscape well enough to take advantage of it.

That said, i did think at the time that if there was contact how the internet would react (increasingly has become my first reaction to so many things), so glad it was clean in the end and ok with no penalty.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Hamilton forces Perez of the track at the pitlane.

The pitlane is part of the track. If the track is defined by the white lines, Hamilton never pushed Perez beyond the edge of the track.

The bollard is only relevant for drivers entering the pitlane.

What regulation do you think Hamilton is in breach of, that would even bring consequences into consideration?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Hard to know intent when both drivers...

The intent was to race hard. Good on them both.

They probably didn’t consider this at that exact moment, but maybe the intent is to entertain and make the sport fun to watch. Of course, the fans have no interest in this.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

There was no penalty because there was no problem.

Let’s hope we have no great racing in the future so this problem doesn’t worry the fans.

Shows how easy it is to misinterpret even the shortest of messages. It's not about if there was a problem, a need for a penalty or whatever. It's about the fact the FIA claims they don't consider the consequences if there is a breech of the rules, when this again proofs that they do.

[Adam43]

Cool, it was about the consistency. Didn’t see a problem there as the situation was different to other examples.

The only way to satisfy call of inconsistency would be to either call everything or nothing.

Of interest, and not from a consistency or not perspective, is the Gasly penalty. That seemed harsh.

[steve_r]

Gasly penalty was utterly ridiculous, as I mentioned on the race thread. Wet, 1st corner bunching, 3 cars alongside - nothing other than an unfortunate tap. Hey ho. Stewards have to do what they do. There would be absolute uproar if it was a penalty against Hamilton or Verstappen for that.

Gasly even got license points for that? It's pathetic.

The Perez and Hamilton battle was brilliant, wheel-to-wheel over 4 or 5 corners. Hats off to both drivers. I must have missed the reason why any fans would want stewards to consider getting involved in that?

[Adam43]

I’m worried that they feel they are backed into a corner and feel they need to act with every coming together in the name of consistency.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Cool, it was about the consistency. Didn’t see a problem there as the situation was different to other examples.

The only way to satisfy call of inconsistency would be to either call everything or nothing.

Of interest, and not from a consistency or not perspective, is the Gasly penalty. That seemed harsh.

I would prefer the FIA openly state that they in the future will weigh the foreseeable consequences of rules breeches when considering a/the penalty.


If I push someone on the side walk or off a building, exactly the same push, very different (foreseeable) consequences.

Similarly, Hamilton could foresee Perez still had some tarmac at pit entry. Yes he forced him off track, but it's not as if he forced him into a gravel trap. Both could continue, and no position was changed. So then no penalty could be considered ok. That said, the incident should definitely been noted in my opinion.

[chillibowl]

should penalties be harsher at Monaco because the closeness of barriers makes everything inherently more dangerous and thus less at tracks with more run off space?

Or how about races at the end of the season vs begining of the season.

I understand the sentiment of basing penalties on 'possible' consequences but surely this is just another can of worms waiting to be opened?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Gasly penalty was utterly ridiculous, as I mentioned on the race thread. Wet, 1st corner bunching, 3 cars alongside - nothing other than an unfortunate tap. Hey ho. Stewards have to do what they do. There would be absolute uproar if it was a penalty against Hamilton or Verstappen for that.

Gasly even got license points for that? It's pathetic.

The Perez and Hamilton battle was brilliant, wheel-to-wheel over 4 or 5 corners. Hats off to both drivers. I must have missed the reason why any fans would want stewards to consider getting involved in that?

Agree fully on the license point, that's nonsense. One could say that despite Perez being on the inside, Gasly could've done more to avoid contact with Alonso. His race was destroyed. THis sequences of photo's clearly shows how much room there was between Perez and Gasly from the apex onwards: https://www.racefans.net/2021/10/11/...e-with-alonso/

Penalty wise, there is a case for both sides, it was quite subtle.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

should penalties be harsher at Monaco because the closeness of barriers makes everything inherently more dangerous and thus less at tracks with more run off space?

Yes, if you drive somebody into the wall at Monaco the penalty in my book should definitely be harsher. Consequence 100% foreseeable and very severe. In fact even under the current regulations, I think it is highly unlikely the stewards wouldn't take that into consideration.

Or how about races at the end of the season vs begining of the season.

Nope, same direct consequence the same penalty. Championship outcome is an indirect consequence.

I understand the sentiment of basing penalties on 'possible' consequences but surely this is just another can of worms waiting to be opened?

Possible implies some degree of likelihood. Foreseeable implies a very high to 100% degree of likelihood. That's the difference.


Yes, it introduces yet another level of interpretation/judgement by the stewards, but that's what they are there for.

[crmalcolm]

I think we've strayed from the distinction between offence and penalty here.

In any incident:
Q1 - has an offence occurred?
Q2 - what penalty does the offence warrant.

For consistency, Q1 has to be asked first. In the Ham/Per incident, I'm not sure what offence is meant to have been committed?
Only if the answer to Q1 is yes, can there then be the potential to consider consequences in relation to the penalty.
If the answer to Q1 is no, it doesn't matter what the (potential) consequences were - no offence, no penalty.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Agree fully on the license point, that's nonsense. One could say that despite Perez being on the inside, Gasly could've done more to avoid contact with Alonso. His race was destroyed. THis sequences of photo's clearly shows how much room there was between Perez and Gasly from the apex onwards: https://www.racefans.net/2021/10/11/...e-with-alonso/

Penalty wise, there is a case for both sides, it was quite subtle.

I've watched back the Gasly incident. 3 cars were alongside. It happened n a split second. Freeze frames are not that helpful

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Yes, if you drive somebody into the wall at Monaco the penalty in my book should definitely be harsher. Consequence 100% foreseeable and very severe. In fact even under the current regulations, I think it is highly unlikely the stewards wouldn't take that into consideration.

If someone actually ends up into a barrier sure...but with how you phrased it there, you are moving, imo, between talking about potential consequences to actual consequences.

The ham perez incident there was no contact, just the potential for contact.

yet with my Monaco example you have taken it to include actual contact.

Moving of the goal posts a bit?

But overall i do agree...i have no problem with making the job harder for the stewards. That is, as you say, why they are there.

But given that their job is harder/getting harder then i suppose i am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt more because it is harder these days.

Ironic though that the job seems to have gotten harder as their access to technology and data has increased.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I've watched back the Gasly incident. 3 cars were alongside. It happened n a split second. Freeze frames are not that helpful

Well perhaps helpful, but not telling the complete story. As said, it was quite subtle and could be argued both ways.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

If someone actually ends up into a barrier sure...but with how you phrased it there, you are moving, imo, between talking about potential consequences to actual consequences.

The ham perez incident there was no contact, just the potential for contact.

yet with my Monaco example you have taken it to include actual contact.

Moving of the goal posts a bit?

But overall i do agree...i have no problem with making the job harder for the stewards. That is, as you say, why they are there.

But given that their job is harder/getting harder then i suppose i am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt more because it is harder these days.

Ironic though that the job seems to have gotten harder as their access to technology and data has increased.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think we've strayed from the distinction between offence and penalty here.

In any incident:
Q1 - has an offence occurred?
Q2 - what penalty does the offence warrant.

For consistency, Q1 has to be asked first. In the Ham/Per incident, I'm not sure what offence is meant to have been committed?
Only if the answer to Q1 is yes, can there then be the potential to consider consequences in relation to the penalty.
If the answer to Q1 is no, it doesn't matter what the (potential) consequences were - no offence, no penalty.

As argued in an earlier thread, I don't think a contact is or should be required for rules to be broken and for there to be an offence.

If that would be the case, then the victim should not avoid an incident otherwise the purpetrator would get off the hook. That not fair nor desirable for good racing.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

As argued in an earlier thread, I don't think a contact is or should be required for rules to be broken and for there to be an offence.

True, there are many offences that occur without contact. But those are incidents that contravene a regulation.

Which rule, or regulation, do you think Hamilton is 'guilty' of breaching? Pèrez was not pushed off the track (he was still inside the white line).
It could be argued that Pèrez was forced into the pitlane - but AFAIK, that isn't an offence as defined in the regulations.