Driving standards/ stewarding

[Taxi645]

Why the consequences of an avoidable contact should be taking into account when determining the severity of the penalty.

At the moment the consequences of an action are not taken into consideration when determining the severity of a penalty. Now in principal this sounds sound; the same error should be punished the same. In this post, however, I would like to call into question if it is the same error in the first place. I do not think one error is necessarily the same as a similar one given context for two reasons:

1 A safety offence vs. a sporting offense. If you leave another driver no room at a 40mph hearpin that’s a sporting offense; I don’t like it, but safety is generally not an issue. If you cause an avoidable contact at 180mph, then it IS a safety offense. I think it is completely logical to punish a safety offense harder than a sporting offense.

2 A similar offense is not as similar when the consequences are foreseeable. If you squeeze of a competitor when there is a gravel trap on the outside, the driver committing the foul can foresee that the consequences for his competitor will be more severe than when there is a tarmac run-off. For me then, it is a similar but not identical foul.
In the cost reward consideration it makes a difference if you can take out a competitor with only a small penalty or if you have to consider the consequences for the other driver.


In general I wouldn’t object a scheme that would roughly go like this:
- 5-second penalty: Small offence where the other party only lost position for instance.
- 10-second penalty: The consequences for the other driver were more severe and were foreseeable.
- Drive through (with 0 to 10s stopping time): An offence with foreseeable and (potentially) severe sporting and safety implications.

I reckon such a scheme would be completely defendable. Yes it leaves room for interpretation, but that’s what stewards are for, otherwise we’d have computers deciding penalties.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Passing off such collisions as "racing incidents" is not good enough anymore. It'll just make things harder down the road. Dare I say, there would be a variety of interpretations if all of you were asked what a "racing incident" was?

Well of course there would. Do you seriously think it's possible to define every potential 'racing incident'. I don't care whether you consider my view lax or not, the reality is that most of us recognise when there is a racing incident. Defining to the nth degree what is or isn't a racing incident instead of allowing stewards to use their common sense and experience will make things a hell of a lot 'harder down the road' than trying to fit every incident in a race into a set category.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Dare I say, there would be a variety of interpretations if all of you were asked what a "racing incident" was?

Or one simple definition - 'Any incident that occurs between two cars on the track, that is not deemed to be a breach of Chapter IV of Appendix L'

[E.B]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Or one simple definition - 'Any incident that occurs between two cars on the track, that is not deemed to be a breach of Chapter IV of Appendix L'

I'll pay that one.

Edit: Just realised none Aussie dwellers might not understand that comment, so a translation....

"Used by Australians to positively affirm a statement/opinion someone makes/has. The saying originates from Australian Rules Football, where an umpire "pays" a free kick, a mark (catch from a kick), etc....."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...l%20pay%20that

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, of course there would. Do you seriously think it's possible to define every potential 'racing incident'.

Yes, it is. By taking away the considerations that make it seen as "racing incidents.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I don't care whether you consider my view lax or not, the reality is that most of us recognise when there is a racing incident.

I would say that most of you recognise a lack of cynicism and the merit of Hamilton's attempt. I would agree with this view.

What I would disagree with, to the point of saying that it's blatantly wrong, is the notion that Hamilton didn't mean it is sufficient to exonerate him. Unlike almost the rest of you, a higher level of accountability is necessary nowadays.

Hamilton got punished during the race for it, but it was inconsequential regarding the championship, and that is the big issue here. The merit of the title standings is more important than holding on to the outdated notions of the past.

Unless you are immensely confident Verstappen will win the championship with 3 races to go anyway, I don't know how any of you can be satisfied with the outcome?

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Defining to the nth degree what is or isn't a racing incident instead of allowing stewards to use their common sense and experience will make things a hell of a lot 'harder down the road' than trying to fit every incident in a race into a set category.

It's not about the nth degree, It's all the same, fast corner, slow corner, left, right, lined with walls or plenty of runoff. It's all car positioning, who has the right of way, and the margin of error.

The intent of the passing attempt doesn't matter anymore. An understandable attempt or a bonehead move, it's all the same nowadays.

It will make things harder down the road for everyone. How will a distinction be made if later in the season Verstappen does a "Senna Suzuka 1990" for example?

Verstappen might not do anything. But what are the stewards going to do if Perez "innocently" collides with Hamilton in a race later in the season?

The effect is huge.

[chillibowl]

Cant have another 1990!

In video games they have a mode where the cars basically become ghosts on the track and there are never any collisions....rather never any racing incidents.

Even if two cars find themselves on the same piece of tarmac at the same time as their competitor, you just go through their ghost and carry on with your race.

Virtual races competed within perfectly simulated paradises.

A couple of lines of computer code and driving standards can be whatever you need them to be.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Hamilton got punished during the race for it, but it was inconsequential regarding the championship, and that is the big issue here. The merit of the title standings is more important than holding on to the outdated notions of the past.

You would appear to be arguing that penalties should only be decided after the race, in order to adjust the race result to give the "desired" result.



In reality a penalty is given, based on the stewards assessment of the incident, and all the participants conduct themselves for the rest of the race to achieve the best result they can........as it should be.

[Adam43]

I’ll bring up rugby again. If there is a yellow or red the team penalised still has a chance to win. Perhaps they shouldn’t and just stop the game there and then. Or allow the result to be overturned.

Not a perfect analogy, but part of it is very relevant. It’s a sport and we don’t want that. Although for many it depends on the result I guess.

[Taxi645]

I reckon championship consequences should absolutely not influence stewarding decisions. That would be just completely random.

That said, why should FORESEEABLE consequences of an action not influence the severity of a penalty. Why should an inherently very dangerous and illegal move not be punished harder than a similar illegal move at much slower speed where the consequences for the position and safety are foreseeably much more severe? Why should someone squeezing a competitor off on a tarmac run off be punished the same as squeezing someone into the wall in the tunnel of Monaco?

I would be interested for someone to challenge that logic.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I’ll bring up rugby again. If there is a yellow or red the team penalised still has a chance to win. Perhaps they shouldn’t and just stop the game there and then. Or allow the result to be overturned.

Not a perfect analogy, but part of it is very relevant. It’s a sport and we don’t want that. Although for many it depends on the result I guess.

In rugby you may be red carded out of the game in question, but you will also get to see the game commissioner in a formal review of the decision and you could be excluded from the rest of the series or possibly receive a life ban on top of the referees sanction.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

You would appear to be arguing that penalties should only be decided after the race, in order to adjust the race result to give the "desired" result.



In reality a penalty is given, based on the stewards assessment of the incident, and all the participants conduct themselves for the rest of the race to achieve the best result they can........as it should be.

Penalties should be reviewed after the race to ensure that they are fair and equitable. Having to prove the information was not available to stewards as the only way to have a penalty reviewed would seem unfair.
The stewards may well have reached an incorrect decision on the spur of the moment that is inconsistent with the information available to them.

Perhaps penalties should be expressed in terms of championship points after the rabe.

There is no reason to assume post race adjustment of points would be any more achieving a desired result than dishing out a completely insufficient penalty for an offence on the spur of the moment. The other intersting point at Silverstone was why was the race red flagged so quickly and a safety car not used? Max was out the car and it was well off the circuit.

[Alan52]

The Hamilton hit on Verstappen wasn’t premeditated or even out of control compared to some F1 incidents.It was the effect of it on the race result and quite probably the championship combined with Hamilton’s triumphalism after the race that upset a lot of people.Come to think of it his energy after the race today was a big contrast to Silverstone.Long Covid exacerbated by relentless booing?
The principle that the penalties are based on the incident itself rather than any effect caused by the incident is probably correct but the dichotomy in this case causes a lot of ill will.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by wnut

Penalties should be reviewed after the race to ensure that they are fair and equitable. Having to prove the information was not available to stewards as the only way to have a penalty reviewed would seem unfair.
The stewards may well have reached an incorrect decision on the spur of the moment that is inconsistent with the information available to them.

Perhaps penalties should be expressed in terms of championship points after the rabe.

There is no reason to assume post race adjustment of points would be any more achieving a desired result than dishing out a completely insufficient penalty for an offence on the spur of the moment. The other intersting point at Silverstone was why was the race red flagged so quickly and a safety car not used? Max was out the car and it was well off the circuit.

Whats to stop a rival from retiring their car on purpose to get a bigger penalty for the driver 'causing' the accident.

Your system wouldnt work.

You have to punish the action not the outcome.

By punishing the outcome you are relying on luck, physics of a car breaking up, track conditions, driver input in the car hit etc etc etc.

Too many variable and would lead to utterly inconsistant penalties being applied.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Whats to stop a rival from retiring their car on purpose to get a bigger penalty for the driver 'causing' the accident.

Your system wouldnt work.

You have to punish the action not the outcome.

By punishing the outcome you are relying on luck, physics of a car breaking up, track conditions, driver input in the car hit etc etc etc.

Too many variable and would lead to utterly inconsistant penalties being applied.

Agreed. Just take the incident yesterday as an example.
Multiple cars affected, various degrees of damage. So many variables contributed to that, it would be impossible to allocate equitably.

[wnut]

No Ascari, this from Taxi below is more what I am driving at. The sanction should fit the crime and the severity of the incident, and the stewards penalties should be reviewed together with the available data to see that the right conclusion was reached.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I reckon championship consequences should absolutely not influence stewarding decisions. That would be just completely random.

That said, why should FORESEEABLE consequences of an action not influence the severity of a penalty. Why should an inherently very dangerous and illegal move not be punished harder than a similar illegal move at much slower speed where the consequences for the position and safety are foreseeably much more severe? Why should someone squeezing a competitor off on a tarmac run off be punished the same as squeezing someone into the wall in the tunnel of Monaco?

I would be interested for someone to challenge that logic.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by wnut

The sanction should fit the crime and the severity of the incident.

The ‘crime’ and the severity of the incident are often poorly correlated. Hamilton’s crime at Silverstone was not especially serious, but the consequences were extreme, thanks to pure luck and random chance. A millimetre either way and the trajectory of Verstappen’s crash might have been different, or much worse for Hamilton. It’s just too random.

On the other hand, to pick one example, a few years ago Vettel deliberately turned his car in to hit Hamilton. To me that was a much more serious ‘crime’ but there were no consequences because of low speed and luck.

The oddity of connecting punishment to outcome is that a slightly miscalculated high-speed touch will be punished more severely than a deliberate low-speed hit. To get around this would require a formula combining action and outcome which would be so complicated that its application would essentially be arbitrary.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

The ‘crime’ and the severity of the incident are often poorly correlated. Hamilton’s crime at Silverstone was not especially serious, but the consequences were extreme, thanks to pure luck and random chance. A millimetre either way and the trajectory of Verstappen’s crash might have been different, or much worse for Hamilton. It’s just too random.

On the other hand, to pick one example, a few years ago Vettel deliberately turned his car in to hit Hamilton. To me that was a much more serious ‘crime’ but there were no consequences because of low speed and luck.

The oddity of connecting punishment to outcome is that a slightly miscalculated high-speed touch will be punished more severely than a deliberate low-speed hit. To get around this would require a formula combining action and outcome which would be so complicated that its application would essentially be arbitrary.

Well sometimes things in life are a bit more complicated and not everyone will understand. So be it.


In your example Vettel drove DELIBERATELY into Hamilton. Although it was low speed, the deliberate nature SHOULD be severely punished, for instance drive through (can't remember what the actual punishment was).


In case of the Silverstone accident, because of the high speed nature of the incident and the potential safety consequences, more care should've been taken to make the corner safely. I reckon a drive through would have been in order for the driver predominantly at fault.


If the stewards considered the other driver to have meaningful blame as well they could have given a symbolic 5s penalty, which in this case would've been immaterial, but would've signalled that extra caution should have been taking in such a high speed corner.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Well sometimes things in life are a bit more complicated and not everyone will understand. So be it.


In your example Vettel drove DELIBERATELY into Hamilton. Although it was low speed, the deliberate nature SHOULD be severely punished, for instance drive through (can't remember what the actual punishment was).


In case of the Silverstone accident, because of the high speed nature of the incident and the potential safety consequences, more care should've been taken to make the corner safely. I reckon a drive through would have been in order for the driver predominantly at fault.


If the stewards considered the other driver to have meaningful blame as well they could have given a symbolic 5s penalty, which in this case would've been immaterial, but would've signalled that extra caution should have been taking in such a high speed corner.

I confess I'm struggling to disagree with this () even though I'm dead against making life for the stewards any more difficult than it already is. The one thing I really don't want to see is races and positions regularly decided after the event in the stewards room or worse still by appeals and reviews. That would seriously damage F1.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

In case of the Silverstone accident, because of the high speed nature of the incident and the potential safety consequences, more care should've been taken to make the corner safely. I reckon a drive through would have been in order for the driver predominantly at fault.

I believe you are making a slightly different point to the one I replied to.

If I understand you correctly, you’re making the case that the penalties for infractions like causing a collision should vary depending on the nature of the corner. So Hamilton would have got a more severe penalty because Copse is such a high-speed corner.

I read wnut to be making the case for penalties to take into account the outcome of the incident. So Hamilton would have got a more severe penalty because Verstappen ended up in the barriers.

It’s the latter I think is unworkable. The former seems like something the stewards would already consider, albeit that such considerations are not explicit in the rules and presumably you believe they should be.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I confess I'm struggling to disagree with this (

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/cspro/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]) even though I'm dead against making life for the stewards any more difficult than it already is. The one thing I really don't want to see is races and positions regularly decided after the event in the stewards room or worse still by appeals and reviews. That would seriously damage F1.

Fully agreed.

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

I believe you are making a slightly different point to the one I replied to.

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

If I understand you correctly, you’re making the case that the penalties for infractions like causing a collision should vary depending on the nature of the corner. So Hamilton would have got a more severe penalty because Copse is such a high-speed corner.

I read wnut to be making the case for penalties to take into account the outcome of the incident. So Hamilton would have got a more severe penalty because Verstappen ended up in the barriers.
It’s the latter I think is unworkable. The former seems like something the stewards would already consider, albeit that such considerations are not explicit in the rules and presumably you believe they should be.

Yes, that would be indeed be unworkable.

For me it's indeed a) the nature/safety concern of the corner/situation and b) the foreseeability of the consequences.

So indeed, rule infringements in a more dangerous situation should have more severe punishment.

About the consequences, of course you can’t foresee a 51G impact, a car write-off, let alone championship consequences, so one should indeed not retroactively apply penalties based on that. However you can foresee a serious safety concern if you do not leave enough room in a high speed corner. Similarly if you force another driver off into a gravel trap it is not as if the consequences of that action will be a complete surprise. No, you can foresee that it will have significant consequences for the race of the other driver and therefore a stronger penalty is in order in my view.

If you want to change the risk vs. reward balance in the drivers head how he will approach a fight in relation to the other driver and the rules I think it is only logical to have drivers know beforehand that foreseeable consequences for the other driver will be considered for the height of a potential penalty.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

In rugby you may be red carded out of the game in question, but you will also get to see the game commissioner in a formal review of the decision and you could be excluded from the rest of the series or possibly receive a life ban on top of the referees sanction.

That’s all very true.

But, of course, the point I was making with the rugby example was that it was still possible for the team that was penalised to still win. I did point out this and that it wasn’t exactly the same.

Love the example of a life ban. I presume that is not where we are here

No matter what the review is afterwards the result of the previous match is not overturned. Although there are some examples of retrospective action in F1, none really relevant to here.

And the further review is instigated by the referees not the other team. And that is because, unlike in F1, there is less time to make a full decision. The match stops until resolved. When the other team bleats too much about it they tend to get a fine or penalty. Like banning the coach from the sideline. Perhaps a good idea with Horner?

So actually, you make a good point that there is more to my comparison and it supports how things went.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

The other intersting point at Silverstone was why was the race red flagged so quickly and a safety car not used? Max was out the car and it was well off the circuit.

It was the time required to fix the barrier. A lot of the race would have been lost. Same in Hungary.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

To get around this would require a formula combining action and outcome which would be so complicated that its application would essentially be arbitrary.

Matrixes exist for many situations that cover this exact scenario. Designing a similar matrix for formula one incidents which correlate the action and outcome would not be easy but certainly not impossible.

[billy bleach]

So let me get this right. A driver eliminates several cars and untold damage cost to innocent parties gets a 5 place grid drop. A driver that races to 2nd and is a few cl short of a fuel sample ( but supplied enough to allow a check) gets disqualified. ?……

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

So let me get this right. A driver eliminates several cars and untold damage cost to innocent parties gets a 5 place grid drop. A driver that races to 2nd and is a few cl short of a fuel sample ( but supplied enough to allow a check) gets disqualified. ?……

Yep, I agree it is ridiculous, add in drivers getting a grid penalty for having to repalce bits on their car that are out of their 'quota'.

The contradiction in many of the rules has been amplified by some poor steward decisions this year. IMO.