Formula 1 licence penalty points system set for green light I'm pretty for this idea as it punishes the repeat offenders more than it punishes someone who makes the occasional racing mistake. All drivers slip up from time to time and punishments should be related both to the misdemeanour and how regularly its committed. Plans for Formula 1 to introduce a licence penalty points system for drivers have been approved by the teams. The matter now only needs to be rubber-stamped by a meeting of the FIA's World Council Meeting in June before being implemented in the 2014 regulations. AUTOSPORT understands that the four outfits that were not in favour were Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Williams and Lotus. The system will give stewards the right to impose points on top of more regular punishments for a host of driving infringements. Stewards will be free to choose the level of points doled out for rules breaches, but will be given an advisory level for numerous infractions - such as three points for causing a dangerous collision and one point for failing to maintain the correct distance from the safety car. Any driver that tots up 12 points over a 12-month calendar period will be handed a one-race ban. Points will stay on a driver's licence for 12 months, but will drop off once that time period is up. F1 drivers have generally been in favour of the idea of penalty points, although the resistance from teams like Lotus and Williams may well stem from the fact that their respective drivers Romain Grosjean and Pastor Maldonado have a history with race stewards. As a little aside a second idea was rejected (probably because it would cause more problems than it solves) F1 teams also discussed the idea of introducing 'penalty laps' in Formula 1 as an alternative option to be given drive-through punishments in races. They would have been used for offences where it was felt a drive-through was too much - and would require a driver to complete a lap five-seconds slower than his previous tour. However, the matter did not receive the necessary majority support from the teams and has been dropped.
I don't like this. The stewards are there to make officiate a race subjectively, so do it. I hate this bureaucratic approach to everything. Why can't the stewards just make the call without trying to justify themselves with penalty points and all this other crap? If someone's a repeat offender take that into account when deciding a punishment, like they did with Grosjean last year.
It already takes them a lifetime to make a decision on penalties in a race weekend. Now this is a joke. Have they lost the effort to make decisions for themselves? Or have politics and political correctness got involved.
I think in principle it could work, but th key ingredient of consistency is something F1 has regularily got wrong - IMO. In relation to regular offenders being punished for regular errors there would need to be a regular stewards team who could retrospectively take previous driver actions into account based on their previous discussions with the said driver. Like I say, in principle it sounds OK but there would need to be significant changes.
It's a good idea and it will be an improvement on what we currently have. Although as AG says, race stewards are ultimately subjective, a penalty points system should be an aid to consistency over the longer term. What has been and is currently still the case is that not only are penalties subjective (they always will be), but the taking account of previous infringements has also been subjective! With the new system, the latter will be improved upon in a big way â which surely can't be a bad thing?
It will be an improvement on no penalty points. However, according to the BBC, even if this system had been in place last year, neither Grosjean nor Maldonado would have accumulated enough points to incur a ban...
The point is that it will make a driver feel more accountable for his actions. This is definitely a good thing.
That makes it pretty much pointless. Surely no one is ever going to crash more than Grosjean last year.
I'm sure I posted on this thread before... The implementation is weird, what does it matter if points stay on your license for 12 months, if you have to get 12 points in a calendar year anyway? If you're awful at the end of one season, and awful at the beginning of the next, it doesn't matter.
Would also potentially allow a driver who has not incurred any points to be very aggressive in the later stages of a season?
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, DHC; the beginning of one season is well within 12 months of the end of the previous one. Is it possible you have interpreted the 12 calendar month period (which simply means 12 consecutive months) as a "calendar year"? They are not the same thing. This is the best argument against it, Smithers. There is a tendency for some to push and bend every rule as far as possible. Some drivers may deliberately capitalise on battles against others under threat because of points already on their licence. However, despite what I've just acknowledged, I still believe it will be better than what we presently have, which, in terms of repeat 'offences' being taken account of, is pretty random because there is no such system in place. Formula 1 sets an example to other motor sport, sport in general, and a gigantic public audience who drive on public roads, most of whom will make better understanding of a clear rule. Every driver should therefore be accountable in an obvious and tangible way so that the wider public understand it easily. Furthermore, we should remember that F1 needs to be seen to be relevant to the real world. Appearing to tolerate recklessness (by having no systematic punishment) when priding itself on high safety margins would seem fickle, if not downright hypocritical! It may be somewhat political, but believe me, these things are very important to a sport which regards itself head and shoulders above all others in its genre.
Not sure if it's my interpretation that's wrong then. I'm seeing it as you pick up points, and they stay with you for 12 months. But, you have to get 12 points within a "12 month calendar period" to get a ban. I thought a 12 month calendar period generally meant a year, Ie 1st January - 31st December. It could be me interpreting things wrong though.
See above. I realised that that was what you must have been thinking. You have responded while I was editing my previous post to clarify precisely that!
Yeah it's confusing because they use the term "12 month calendar period" which doesn't make any sense. It should be a 12 month period, a 12 calendar month period, or a calendar year. I'm guessing they mean if you get a point on the 10th of May 2013, it stays on your licence until the 10th of May 2014.
Presumably yes, and, IMO, this is just typical of the paucity of ideas that Jean Todt has vis-Ã -vis promoting motor safety through the medium of Formula One.
I agree. Surely "12 month period" is as simple as it can be. However, I know that this is what is meant by "12 calendar months" despite it being slightly more ambiguous. Even "12 consecutive calendar months" would be better than what they've said. But I must say, it took me a few moments to see where DHC's confusion sprang from. It is an unfortunate possibility; although as I've said, I think (and certainly hope!) the benefits are more than enough to outweigh it. Isn't it a shame we have to try to trust people's integrity as sportsmen? What a shame that we can be thinking of such cynicism. What a shame also that one or two individuals capitalised upon and exploited this sort of thinking long ago, which tended to somehow legitimise such despicable thinking in their quest to win. Then again, perhaps that's why they've waited until after he's gone… Yeah, OK EMSC; it's a cheap shot. I say it with a wink, so take it on the chin; but I'm sure you'd agree, he really would be the first to see the potential!
The merit of this system will be determined by it's application. If it would not have stopped the Grosjean debacle then it doesn't have enough teeth. The objective has to be clear and rules/judgements fair. Then it can work, maybe.
It is erroneous to consider whether or not it would have affected Grosjean, since the system was not in place at the time. We should remember that the whole idea is to act as a deterrent; and that the idea of this deterrent is to reduce recklessness. Furthermore, those claiming that Grosjean would not have been affected are not, and will not be those in a position to award penalty points or assess the severity of any incident; and have obviously applied what they personally consider to be the minimum number of points for their judgement on the severity of an infringement which in fact, they are in no position to judge. To put it bluntly, journalists who make statements such as this do so to try to make their own point; ultimately to get people like us to discuss it. Discussion is provoked by controversy, so a controversial claim helps nurture the market for what the journalist sells. As Justjazz says, "the merit of this system will be determined by its application". Journalistic conjecture seeks to influence opinion; and from reading some of the posts in this thread, it has clearly worked! But we should remember that any such pre-judgement can be nothing more than a guess because these subtleties have not yet been applied. And it is these subtleties which will be the proof of the pudding.
