Mostly Hamilton, but others too, have generated a fair bit of discussion in relation to 'incidents' in recent races. In some cases people have disagreed with the stewards' decisions, either by claiming the stewards have penalised the wrong driver or by seeking to apportion blame when the stewards have decided there is none in a racing incident that requires no action. The introduction of ex-drivers into the stewards' office was intended to improve the decision making process, taking any overriding FIA influence out of the equation. I think it's had a hugely positive effect in limiting the more ludicrous decisions. With no continuity among appointed stewards there isn't a lot of scope to improve consistency race to race but precedents should, over time, aim to deliver that benefit. Yet some commentators have criticised the consistency of decisions even within a race, made by the same group of stewards. With the flexibility of the new three-strikes ruling I would expect a further, potentially significant, improvement in consistency as leniency is afforded to drivers involved in incidents that may be ambiguous or uncertain. We'll hopefully see reprimands handed out instead of drive-throughs except for more clear-cut incidents. Or will we? We don't know how clear cut the stewards may have considered their recent decisions. Can we always read into a post-race investigation the likelihood that the stewards aren't entirely sure and want to speak to the drivers to clarify matters, or are they simply applying due process to ensure they can't be criticised for not having considered all the appropriate evidence? How well have the stewards performed this season? I've posted below what I think is a comprehensive list of investigations and/or penalties applied this year, to which I can add race by race, in order to consider how good the stewards are and whether things change significantly from Silverstone onwards. please log in to view this image Stewards: Emerson Fittipaldi, Garry Connelly, Tim Mayer, Roger Peart
please log in to view this image Stewards: Johnny Herbert, Steve Chopping, Paul Gutjahr, Steve Stringwell please log in to view this image Stewards: Emanuele Pirro, Garry Connelly, Vincenzo Spano, Allen Oh please log in to view this image Stewards: Emanuele Pirro, Garry Connelly, Vincenzo Spano please log in to view this image Stewards: Derek Warwick, Lars Ãsterlind, Silvia Bellot please log in to view this image Stewards: Mark Blundell, Paul Gutjahr, Radovan Novak please log in to view this image Stewards: Allan McNish, Lars Ãsterlind, José Abed
Or, we could just slag Hamilton off. That list obviously doesn't include the abandoned investigations into the collision with Webber and exceeding the lap delta behind the safety car. Seriously, though, there is a degree of disgruntlement with the stewarding and I thought it should have it's own focus. Obviously that will depend on having an opinion of drivers' behaviour but, for example, does eight infringements in seven races tell us anything about the stewarding up to now, or are we expecting anything to change after Silverstone? Is there anyone who accepts that, whatever their own opinions, the stewards' decisions are a factual record of what happened or will there always be a doubt over whether the ball crossed the line?
Nothing sounds better than a driver thinking he's going to get a slap on the wrist but instead gets a drive through.
and 5 for button.which makes him the second highest after hamilton eventhough button is supposed to have great race craft.
Interesting stuff, I think it is very hard to gain high level consistency especially when they are changing the 'judges' every race you just want a good level of consistency with no aberrations particularly if they are in suspicious circumstances.
Is absolute consistency necessary? You don't get that in the highest levels of any other sport. Isn't it more important to eradicate the AlanDonnellies? You know, penalising a driver for breaking an as yet unwritten rule? In that respect I think they're doing a good job.
I would say it is not necessary but if you aim for perfection then hopefully you will still achieve a high standard which I think this season they have achieved 90% of the time.
I wonder if that might be what's slowing them down, too, then: aiming for a very high level of consistency by considering precedents set in previous races.
I was sticking up for HRT!!! The pit lane speed limit is 80kph (is it, then 120 for the race?) and there is no way the HRT can go that fast. It was an unfair punishment
I know it's nitpicking but I can only count 6 infringements for Lewis and 3 for Button; an investigation isn't an infringement in itself. Still, at least Lewis has stopped that annoying habit he had of pretending not to know of anything he'd allegedly been involved in: "Sorry, I don't remember the incident you're talking about..."
It does reveal something about our attitudes to stewards' activities though. After Monaco Hamilton complained about having been hauled up in front of the stewards five times in six races. Is it necessarily a negative thing that the stewards want a driver's input to an investigation?
I think Lewis currently feels the victim of discrimination so he will probably feel that it's all negative. I don't think it's negative, it's thorough; it would be negative if they didn't get the drivers' input. There seems to be a degree of hype attached to the inquiries now, though. TV makes more of these investigations than they did: what were discreet, behind-closed-doors affairs, are now flashing on our screens, then prejudged by the commentators, whose opinions, correct or not, influence how we see the race. While the commentators' insight is often interesting, I don't think we really know any more than we did before of what actually goes on in a stewards' inquiry; we're just that much more conscious of their happening.
Hamilton has been let off by the stewards more times than he has been penalised by them, so you could argue that he has been treated leniently by the stewards.
To be honest when the incidents have been investigatd I think the punishment has been correct on most occasions. What annoys me are the incidents that are not investigated because they did not result in contant. At Monaco in particular there were 3 or 4 other incidents (notably at the hairpin) of drivers doing exactly what Hamilton and de Resta did by diving down the inside. However because the other driver decided to run wide to avoid contact there was no investigation. Surely the offence here should be the same regardless of whether or not contact was made. After all you or I would get arrested and charged with speeding or dangerous driving regardless of whether it caused an accident or not. I know this would be a problem for any overtaking move then but the current situation is no better really.
