Hi all! I know that some will disagree but I believe that the Stewards are a disgrace with some of their penalty decisions. The Maldonado/Di Resta incident was, for me, a clear racing incident. I do realise he steered into Di Resta in which he had to go off the track, but it was a mistake which could have been made from anybody. I know Maldonado has a reputation but the decision to give a Drive through was wrong. If that incident had have happened 5/6 year ago, the incident would not have been investigated. I understand that these are the finest drivers in the world, but it will get to a point where drivers are too scared to overtake - hence the criticism of not enough overtakes from some fans. They are becoming too harsh! Thoughts?
I agree mostly... I get sick of penalties for racing too. The penalty for Maldonado though was likely because he's been making a habit of it of late. On saying that, there have strange racing penalties in the past, so it's nothing new. They do need to let some of the smaller incidents slide though. It seems like every minor contact is punishable these days.
I was supsrised Pastor got a penalty for that considering it was almost a carbon copy of this move by Rosberg last year at Singapore. [video=youtube;w1OsvvRIzTM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1OsvvRIzTM[/video] No damage to the car or anything... I believed if you damaged the other guys car you would get a penalty, not if he nudged him off line slightly...
Agree with you sparky, I didn't think Maldonado did anything wrong at all, he saw the gap, went for it and I thought he made the pass, however the touch of opposite lock to straighten the car just as he hit Di Resta could've been the reason they penalised him, it was certainly no worse than his move on Grosjean in Aus.
For the first time, bearing in mind every single one of Maldonado's previous F1 incidents, I felt some real sympathy for him. This is not to suggest he was blameless. But that is really not my point. Maldonado is a very competitive person, who gives his all in every race and when it comes to overtaking, he commits himself 100%. Unfortunately, his appreciation of all of the big picture has tended to be less than 100%. Stewards are very much human beings, often put into difficult situations without parallel in other sport. Nonetheless, like any 'judge', they are there to make judgements. But one cannot ignore the human aspect of the tendency to be influenced by history and 'reputation'; just as a football referee may form an impression of a player before the game begins, give him a yellow card for a serious incident where we may judge he should have sent off, but then send him off for something comparatively minor! (again, in our opinion). In my opinion, (which is always 100% correct*) the incident being discussed was really a 'racing incident': Maldonado saw a small but realistic attack line. As usual, he committed fully to the overtake; but again, as usual this required his intended victim to be aware of him in order to leave sufficient space. di Resta did this but in doing so, ran wide. Then, just as successful completion of Maldo's move looked better than 50/50, di Resta's genuine attempt to stay on circuit resulted in a moment of oversteer with the result that his right rear went into Maldo's side-pod. I repeat: what I have just said is my opinion and is based on memory which is of course, 100% accurate! Racing incident? Yes, in my opinion. Reputation? Yes, in my opinion this may have played a part – perhaps a greater part than it should. Take your choice and place your bets… Like us, human stewards form opinions despite genuine attempts to be 100% objective in almost all cases. Usually, they get it right; but sooner or later, any referee or judge may make what to others may appear to be an error, affecting the outcome of those being judged – sometimes 'unfairly' in our opinion – despite all our efforts to be similarly objective.- - -o0o- - - *I do hope my attempt at sarcasm will not to be misjudged; but one never knows how others might see it…
Does it seem like incidents are being refereed to the stewards that might not have previously though? Sometimes it does to me.
I'm all for a 'hands-off' approach wherever possible. This is motor racing (i.e. it is highly competitive) and one should expect incidents to occur due to the nature of the game. Unfortunately, a few drivers have tended to have less regard for their fellow human than others, resulting in a situation where, in the absence of rules of engagement, they have exploited the tolerance and 'reasonableness' of others. Schumacher v Hill, Adelaide '94 is one such clear cut example (in my opinion). This has given rise for further regulation in an effort to define what is reasonable. Once such regulation is in place, it is immediately subject to interpretation – which may require sub-clauses which define the meaning of the regulation, which may in turn require further sub-clauses or changes in the regulation(s). It should be seen that eventually rules are inevitable. When cars were invented it soon became clear that the requirement for a walker to be ahead with a red flag was a bit over the top. Later, and still without a law requiring a driver to pass a test in the UK, there was no speed limit at the same time! Then a speed limit came in, in an effort to reduce deaths on our new motorways. This idea was extended to ordinary roads when it appeared to be of benefit. Then it became unreasonable again because it takes little or no account of the advances in technology which more than offset a vehicle's ability to achieve high speeds (in my opinion)… In my version of utopia, there is no need for any single law whatsoever because all people will interact responsibly and reasonably.
You namby-pamby liberal you. The problem I think lies partially in the disconnection between the FIA, who dish out superlicence-related penalties, and the stewards, who deal with one particular race at a time. Why should Maldonado's previous incidents affect the stewards' judgement of what is at hand? Clearly the incident in Valencia was disgraceful, but the incidents at Silverstone and Germany were clear racing incidents - yet they have been penalised based on his past actions, which is wrong. Yet at the same time, since they gave Maldonado a drive-through, or a time penalty, or a grid drop, the incident is "done" in the eyes of the FIA without any look at an overall pattern of his behaviour. (Why we have not seen a black flag for any driver for some time is beyond me) Perhaps an overhaul of the system is in order, and if a driver receives three driver-related penalties (i.e. crashes that are not racing incidents, dangerous driving with regards to maintaining a position, and so on) throughout a season they receive an instant race ban; twice and they are banned for two races; three times banned for the season's remainder or five races, whichever is longer. If they manage to receive 3 driver penalties for a fourth time in their career (allowing for the penalties slate to be wiped clean every season), then I would have no hesitation in revoking that driver's superlicence. At the same time, there needs to be a more lenient or at least consistent line on racing incidents. What say you about Maldonado's flick on Grosjean in Australia? It put Grosjean out of the race but was clearly a racing incident, Maldonado caught a little oversteer in the corner and caught Grosjean's wheel. Tl; dr: more tolerance for racing incidents, race bans for consistent dangerous driving.
Ha! Liberalism is an idealism just as is communism or capitalism. As I'm sure you know, my point was that if we all think the same, there is no need for rules. As for the second point, I hope you didn't misunderstand my previous post: I was not saying that previous incidents ABSOLUTELY DID affect the stewards' decision. Rather, I was acknowledging that it might be a possibility and offering my opinion that it may have played a part. Who knows?… It's a fair bet that the stewards themselves may not even be conscious of it! P.S. I generally agree with your thinking on this topic.
I can't say that I agree with anyone saying that Maldonardo should not have been penalised. It was pretty straight forward. I'm tired of drivers just barging their way past and trying to go in too hot and losing control, forcing people off, or passing off track and thinking that it's OK. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think a pass should be made: a) Without hitting another driver (this isn't Forza or Gran Tourismo); b) Without going off of the track. These guys are supposedly amongst the best drivers in the world, yet they don't seem to be able to follow these 2 pretty basic rules of racing. I for one am glad that the Stewards are clamping down on these lazy, slap-dash antics. If you want to see lots of passing and "excitement" like that, then there's probably a stock-car race near by where you live that you can go to. I don't think that PM's previous incidents made any difference either, as it wasn't a marginal case in any sense. He hit someone, forcing them off the road, causing an avoidable accident by trying to pass by going in too hot and breaking too late. I also get tired of these childish "but sir sir, [inset driver's name here] did the same thing in another race sir" arguments. That someone else may have done something wrong in the past and managed to get away with it somehow doesn't change anything when it comes to a case that is so clearly a breach of pretty fundamental and basic racing rules as this one was.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of full contact racing so long as they aren't punting each other out of the race. That's been in the sport as long as I can remember and it's exciting to see. It would be another level of sanitation if ALL contact was punishable. Let em race.
Aloonatron: I understand you point of view but I think we should bear in mind that there was a time when the rules we are discussing did not exist. Racing relied upon etiquette as defined by such out-moded notions as integrity and respect for one's fellow competitor. Thus, there was no perception of a need for such rules. Unfortunately (despite the inevitability as I attempted to explain above), once in place, the rules themselves change the nature of the game by attempting to define precisely what can and cannot be done. It is therefore not surprising that competitors push the boundaries of what has now become 'legality' (as opposed to the purer concept of 'etiquette'), although once again we arrive at a situation where some drivers will push the boundaries with less respect than their fellow competitor! I am not defending Maldonado as a driver. In general, he has overstepped the boundaries of both what I consider reasonable and what is now defined by rules previous not needed. However, my feeling is that one or two of his previous incidents should have been dealt with far more severely; and that this latest was closer to a '50/50' than any of his previously seen in F1. In this sense, I feel some sympathy for him because I feel he made a bigger effort to avoid a crash than before, even if his actions did go beyond the letter of the rules in the opinion of arbitrators. The closest other incident to a 50/50 in my opinion, was with Hamilton at Monaco, where I felt Maldonado was to blame. Yet Hamilton was penalised. Is it not natural to wonder at who was having incidents at the time, and that this may have attracted attention as a prelude to over-zealous scrutiny? … Perhaps this is the pattern alluded to by Sparky in his opening comment?
