Is that racing we see? PENALTY!
by Craig Normansell with others, on Apr 13th, 2011The Scrutineering Bay is Badger's way of taking a hot topic of Grand Prix racing and getting people from the Sett involved to get their opinions across. From predicting races, arguing stewards decisions to just deciding who was/is/will be the best, anything is fair game!
Welcome to this week's edition of the Scrutineering Bay, Badger GP's breakdown of all things divisible and down right debatable. After the Malaysian Grand Prix, there was only one way this article was going;
"Was any penalty required for Lewis and/or Fernando?"
The Badgers who piped up and wanted a crack at this are Benson Jammichello, Adam Millenueve and first to go (with an opinion we weren't expecting) is Runoff Area's own Red Andy;
For virtually all F1 fans, one of the most frustrating things to happen is to log onto your favourite F1 site a few hours after the race has finished, only to discover that the finishing order has changed thanks to some action in the stewards’ room. It happened again at Sepang, with penalties levelled against Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso, pushing the British driver down the order.
But with this temporary frustration should come the realisation that the stewards are doing an important and necessary job in upholding the regulations. If a driver is judged to have fallen foul of the rules, it is only right that he is penalised, even if (unfortunately) sometimes that can’t happen during the race itself.
Hamilton in particular has been warned about his conduct during the races before. In this very race last year, he attracted criticism (and a stern warning from the stewards) for weaving in front of Vitaly Petrov. When questioning why Hamilton’s blocking manoeuvres on Sunday earned him a penalty when others, like Sebastian Vettel at the start, appeared to have similar moves go unpunished, it is worth remembering that Hamilton has form for this sort of behaviour.
The drivers are there to race, and to entertain, but they also have a responsibility to do so safely and fairly. When a driver oversteps the mark, and does so repeatedly, sometimes something more than a gentle slap on the wrist is needed.
Well, Andy certainly raises a point that many have missed; the stewards are there for a reason. Plus, Lewis has been a naughty boy before, was it just deserts?
Next up is Hot Rod or Hot Dog writer Benson;
I don't think that it's a coincidence that there's been an improvement in the consistency of decisions since the revamp of stewarding under Jean Todt.
We've seen a marked reduction in the number of "what?! whose idea was that?!" stewarding decisions in the last couple of years, but every so often one slips through the net.
This is one of those times.
Never have I spent so long looking at such an unremarkable F1 accident. It looks as though Alonso just misjudged his line of attack.Of course, if Hamilton braked, then that would be a different matter,but why would Alonso have been penalised? All very odd.
It just looks like a racing incident. Obviously we don't have all of the data and telemetry available to the stewards but, still, from the TV pictures it doesn't seem that strange.
I'm not angry, I'm not even particularly disappointed, I'm just bewildered.
Short and sweet from Benson. Just an innocuous collision that drew the ire of the stewards, no matter how many times you look at it. And he did. A lot. We missed the BBC Forum becuase of it!
Last, but of course no means least, is Adam's point of view:
The definition of Formula 1 racing is:
"Formula One, officially known as the FIA Formula One World Championship, is the highest class of single seater racing sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA). Racing is a motorsport involving the racing of cars for competition. It is one of the world's most watched televised sports."
Ok, so nothing new there and for the purpose of clarity, the term 'Formula' refers to the set of rules that competitors (teams and drivers) need to adhere to in order to compete. The '1' bit just denotes that it's the highest form of racing, as mentioned above.
With all this in mind it's not surprising that, following the stewards decision on the Hamilton/Alonso battle, we're here now in the Scrutineering Bay asking this question - it made no sense and still doesn't.
Yes Alonso crashed into Hamilton while attempting to overtake, but for that move, the Spaniard should be praised for having a go, not handed a penalty. Earlier on in the battle between the two, Hamilton is said to have weaved too many times, whether he did or not is up for debate as well, but really - it wasn't dangerous and it was racing - just as Alonso was racing when trying to duck from under Lewis and take position. Fact.
What makes this even more of a joke is that the FIA (yes that lot) embraced the introduction of the drag reduction system (DRS) and the re-introduction of KERS, primarily to enhance the racing. Yes, 'enhance the racing' - it's this fact that makes a mockery of the ruling on Sunday which just contradicts their gimmicky efforts.
Part of me thinks that the FIA would rather have F1 as large Scalextric setup, with cars in dedicated lanes, overtaking only possible when they press the button to allow it. also, such a setup would be ideal for Bernie and his sprinklers - maybe he'll even have a cross over section and a hump back bridge.
Strong words from Adam there, comparing F1 to Scalextric and also referencing Bernie's ridiculous sprinkler idea.
There we have it guys, more scrutineering completed and throughly inspected. As always, we want to know, what do you think?
Comments and Discussion
i think the penalties are wrong personally, neither driver should have got them. so i can only assume "racing" as we know it from Karting and Rallycross etc is now banned in F1
Agreed - If we're going to have gimmicks to make overtaking easier (DRS) then it is only right that the driver should be given some leeway in defending their position.
Hammy wasn't dangerously blocking, although he did make more than his prescribed 1 move to block the racing line. Alonso was clearly the faster car at that point in the race, and he is purported to be the best overtaker in the business - I was enjoying what looked to be building to a classic encounter between the former team mates.
As for Alonso's penalty, that is even more ridiculous - he'd already penalised himself by knocking the front wing endplate off, and the other driver (Hammy) was not unduly affected by Alonso's misjudgement, so why penalise Alonso (which ultimately had no effect on his net result)?
I suppose it is simply a case of having to live and die by the letter of the rulebook. Alonso was involved in an "avoidable" incident - therefore he must be punished to set a precedent.
On the other hand, had he not been penalised, and Hammy got a puncture, I'm sure many people would be screaming about Ferrari International Assistance... but that is all hearsay.
At the end of it all, neither should have been penalised.
I don't think 'form' is how a driver should be judged but instead on the incident in hand. (In law, you can't have info of a criminal's previous crimes when judging if they're innocent or guilty - although the judges do have it in sentencing IF found guilty!)
Alonso's knock was a racing incident and only ultimately penalised him in the race. There are many much worse incidents at the start of most races!
There is also much worse weaving at the start of every race. Watching Hamilton's defence, it didn't actualy look like a weave to me (say compared to the incident with Petrov). Instead of just moving to his chosen side of the track in one move, he did it in small steps. This made Alonso pause for thought which I presume was what Hamilton was trying to achieve. Each move was in the same direction across the track however.
As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, the one drawback with the DRS is that the driver in front has no defence against it. I thought Hamilton came up with an effective but also legal solution. Since Alonso was still totally on his case and very close to overtaking (even without his DRS), because Hamilton was suffering so badly with his tyres, so to punish both or either of them seems crazy to me.
I hope they continue to race hard and I have confidence that they will. I think however, the race being decided in the stewards room is a bad idea and must be resisted at all costs because not all drivers will be so confident. Punish for clear infringements only.
Maybe the stewards could be given a 'yellow card' system if they feel there is a need to point out 'persistent' rule breakers. IE your behaviour didn't affect the outcome of the race and/or was borderline rule breaking so no penalty will be given but a written warning to go on record.
I'd still like to see weaving from the front of the grid, backing up the faster cars behind, taken a look at. Seems much more significant as an overall game changer.
xLaura
I think that Laura has hit the nail on the head....
Why, thank you!
xL
This is silly, they want more overtaking but they don't want a driver to be able to defend, if a driver can't defend a passing manoeuvre then why doesn't Bernie just get on the radio and tell a driver to move over and let the guy behind through rather than waste everyone's time developing overtaking solutions?
We (well I) want to see a battle for position not just a clean sweep heading down to a turn on at the end of a long straight! I'm not against KERS or DRS i think with proper use they can be valuable aids in a drivers arsenal creating the opportunity to get a little bit closer, apply that little bit more pressure, open up the possibility to pass but the guy in front should be able to defend. Weaving i can see as being a bit dangerous but the odd dummy move would hurt anyone would it?
I thought both penalties were wrong, personally. I thought Hamilton was penalised based on his actions last year, which is an unfair way of judging events in my book. Alonso's move was a racing incident, but even if you do think he was at fault, it's stupid to give him a penalty because he already was penalised by having to come back to the pits to change his front wing. Therefore it's like he got penalised twice for the same thing.
I do hope the Malaysian Grand Prix was a blip in the otherwise great stewarding system we have had since last year. Also that the FIA haven't decided that the only place cars should try and pass is in the DRS Zone...
I find the whole "one move" thing ridiculous. It should be about whether it was a safe move rather than one move. It was introduced after Schuie's insistance his start line chops were ok because they were "one move" and everyone seemed to go along with it even when he nearly put his brother in the wall in (I think) Austria one year. One dangerous move is still dangerous and weaving when the other car isn't alongside (a la Hamilton last year) is safe if the car isn't alongside.
It's also an inconsistent message - "we want more racing from drivers with DRS, but wait, if you race each other too hard we'll give you penalties".
The most telling fact was that neither driver made much of a fuss to the cameras after the race.
I am at a loss to see why those penalties were dished out. Hamilton, OK - maybe, borderline, but Alonso being penalised seems far too harsh. As mentioned here already, he was effectively penalised twice - coming in for a new nose and then the post-race time penalty. By the same token - shouldn't Mark Webber have received a post-race penalty last year after running in to the back of Kovalainen in Valencia?
We've just seem drive through's at Monaco for God's sake where any chance to overtake is a chance worth taking. It used to be called racing, now we're in danger of sanitising the whole sport. If they don't allow drivers to chance it at Monaco these days there really is no point incoming here.