Making The Rules Up

[hmmm - donuts]

Due to the vague way in which many of the rules governing F1 have been framed, and the inconsistent way in which they are applied, the sport has always laid itself open to accusations of favouritism and manipulation. Some obvious examples are MS serving a penalty AFTER crossing the finish line, and LH being craned back on to the track. Also the question of car components such as the Ferrari bargeboards, or the Renault mass damper which seem to be variously legal or illegal depending the stewards' or the FIA's mood on the day. Do you think (as I do) that there should be a scale of penalties laid out in black and white?...and what should they be?

[Dave B]

What's the penalty for overtaking under a yellow flag? The penalty for jumping the red light in the pit lane? What about using the wrong tyres in practice? Or having personnel on the grid after the 15-second lights? How about if you baulk your opponent in qualifying?

Nowhere are these penalties laid down in stone, rather the stewards rule on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes there's a fine, other times a drive-through penalty. Or they can discount qualifying times, move a driver back down the grid, or disqualify them altogether.

The big problem with this system is that it leads to the all-too-predictable cries of foul play. Supporters of the driver in question always reckon the penalty is too harsh, fans of their rivals moan that justice has not been served. When it involves Championship contenders, as frequently the case this year, the consipracy theorists have a field day.

So what to do?

Why doesn't the rule book stipulate the penalty for each and every transgression? I appreciate that there are hundreds - thousands probably - of rules, but I feel it would be worthwhile as it would at a stroke ensure that everybody knows what the consequences of their actions would be.

Of course, sometimes there are genuine mitigating circumstances and it could be argued that there's a case for a more lenient penalty. So what about a minimum and maximim punishment, again laid down in black and white in the rulebook.

For example, you block somebody in qualifying. The punishment is always a grid penalty, but the stewards have discretion to drop you back 4 to 10 places dependent on the circumstances.

It would need a HUGE amount of debate and work, but surely it's better then the current system of arbitary decisions taken behind closed doors and fuelling the conspiracies which surround our sport.

[Dave B]

Great minds, hey? I've just posted something similar! :)

[Valve Bounce]

Due to the vague way in which many of the rules governing F1 have been framed, and the inconsistent way in which they are applied, the sport has always laid itself open to accusations of favouritism and manipulation. Some obvious examples are MS serving a penalty AFTER crossing the finish line, and LH being craned back on to the track. Also the question of car components such as the Ferrari bargeboards, or the Renault mass damper which seem to be variously legal or illegal depending the stewards' or the FIA's mood on the day. Do you think (as I do) that there should be a scale of penalties laid out in black and white?...and what should they be?

I have posted this several years ago, that the rules in F1 are vague and often open to interpretation or even inaction. The FIA really need to get the assistance of the Royal Yachting Association to help them tidy up all the rules so that they are all watertight and not open to interpretation.

[BDunnell]

hmmm - donuts and Dave, I agree with everything you've posted. Anything to get rid of the absurd conspiracy theories.

[ioan]

Go ask Bernie why the rules are as they are.
Because when the rules are vague it ca be interpreted to better suit the financial side of the sport.

BTW, I was wondering if it's the same in WRC, I really think it isn't. Strange!

[BDunnell]

BTW, I was wondering if it's the same in WRC, I really think it isn't. Strange!

Interesting point. You may be right. Thinking about it, perhaps the Toyota ban in 1995-96 served as sufficient warning. Or maybe the stakes are lower, the WRC being relatively insignificant on the world stage compared to F1.

However, I don't buy into the argument that the vagueness in the rules is all part of the grand conspiracy.

[ioan]

Interesting point. You may be right. Thinking about it, perhaps the Toyota ban in 1995-96 served as sufficient warning. Or maybe the stakes are lower, the WRC being relatively insignificant on the world stage compared to F1.

However, I don't buy into the argument that the vagueness in the rules is all part of the grand conspiracy.

When I asked about WRC it was because I remember than many times there were pretty harsh punishments handed out by the stewards within a few minutes for things way less important than using more sets of tires than allowed in a session (sorry to bring it up again but this is what prompted this thread and it's a good example because it doesn't seem as a huge transgression of the rules).

I mean in WRC they know straight away what the punishment for that particular infraction is, if I'm not mistaken than it's usually a time penalty that will certainly be hard to overcome, and if appealed can still be changed after the race is over, which is a good thing.

In F1 it's the absolute opposite of this.

What I find strange is that both sports are governed by the FIA, and the rules are made and enforced by the FIA in both cases.

Than why this abnormal difference?!

Because the money involved it isn't the same and because the commercial rights holder isn't the same either.

People hail Bernie for making F1 a WorldWideKnown sport, but he made it for his own benefit and in the process he destroyed the sport.

What went on this year isn't the FIA's or Max's fault it's all Bernie's mess. The result of greed.

[janneppi]

There is one more difference between WRC and F1, I would be very suprised to see Nick Heidfeld stopping on the track to wedge a stone between two parts to stop them from falling off. :D

[Easy Drifter]

Interesting that in NAPCAR, the 2nd most successful series, the rules and penalties are just as open to interpretation and often strange calls usually well after the event. At least with NAPCAR the same people make the calls every race unlike F1 with different stewards at different races. It took many years before there was one race director (Clerk of the Course) in Charlie Whiting at very race. :)

[markabilly]

As I said in the thread involving tires and Hamilton investigation:

"There is only one way to avoid those "conspiracy theories" and that is to apply the rules uniformly across the entire grid without respect to who and what the team is or where they stand in points."

Do the crime, pay the time without exception

How that would be done is a very good question, but I see this thread has some decent starting points........ :D ........but will Benrie and company really let that happen? :confused:

[markabilly]

Interesting that in NAPCAR, the 2nd most successful series, the rules and penalties are just as open to interpretation and often strange calls usually well after the event. At least with NAPCAR the same people make the calls every race unlike F1 with different stewards at different races. It took many years before there was one race director (Clerk of the Course) in Charlie Whiting at very race. :)

Another series where entertainment is the means to generate revenue....but I know of nothing there that has reached this level, but perhaps it is because with Nastybumpcar, I am just one of the uneducated masses..... :D

[BDunnell]

When I asked about WRC it was because I remember than many times there were pretty harsh punishments handed out by the stewards within a few minutes for things way less important than using more sets of tires than allowed in a session (sorry to bring it up again but this is what prompted this thread and it's a good example because it doesn't seem as a huge transgression of the rules).

I mean in WRC they know straight away what the punishment for that particular infraction is, if I'm not mistaken than it's usually a time penalty that will certainly be hard to overcome, and if appealed can still be changed after the race is over, which is a good thing.

In F1 it's the absolute opposite of this.

What I find strange is that both sports are governed by the FIA, and the rules are made and enforced by the FIA in both cases.

Than why this abnormal difference?!

Because the money involved it isn't the same and because the commercial rights holder isn't the same either.

People hail Bernie for making F1 a WorldWideKnown sport, but he made it for his own benefit and in the process he destroyed the sport.

What went on this year isn't the FIA's or Max's fault it's all Bernie's mess. The result of greed.

I trust you would not have objected if Schumacher and Ferrari had been punished more often for various incidents as a result of complete uniformity?

[ioan]

I trust you would not have objected if Schumacher and Ferrari had been punished more often for various incidents as a result of complete uniformity?

Schumacher was punished plenty of times in F1. I don't think that we need to enumerate all of them, but the one when he got black flagged because he briefly passed DH in the warm up lap comes to mind first. I was not a minor but a microscopic offense which can give any advantage compared to using more sets of tires than allowed, still he was black flagged from the race. :rolleyes:

[slinkster]

I wouldn't fancy the job of writing down all the possible combinations of rule breaking and their consequences, but, the rules are meant to be there for a reason and their inconsistencies and loopholes make many of them laughable. I know it's a team's perogative to try and run as close to the rule boundaries as possible to get ahead, but the way in which the teams have treated them, particularly in the last few seasons has made a bit of a mockery of the whole system. And, it seems many get away with it. Naming no names of course. ;)

[Easy Drifter]

The more rules you have the easier it is to find a grey area or a different interpretation. You write a rule to cover one new thing and you might end up contradicting an earlier rule or lead to a different interpretation of said rule.
Back when I was involved with pro racing I would get the new rule book for the series and pore over it for grey areas. Then I would compare its' rules to the governing bodies and then to the FIA book. It took hours but I could often find discrepencies that might ( or might not) be useful later.
Just as an example, after I left pro racing, I was preparing a Honda BF Goodrich car. My driver was rather large in more than one respect. No matter how tight we did the belts up her breasts compressed and the seat also compressed and the belts got loose. We had to use stock seats and they could not be altered or changed, although I know some people took out some of the seat springs.
My answer was to bolt a piece of aluminum plate against one side of the seat. Then foam rubber was taped over the plate and also on the seat back and cushion. The seat itself was not altered! There was some muttering but the officials had to agree I had not modified the seat.
They fixed that rule for the next year. Racing seats were allowed! Should have been from the beginning for safety.
They have so many rules now in F1 that there have to be grey areas and then the stewards change from race to race leading to different interprtations of the rules. There is also the question of what falls under the tech inspectors, the stewards and Charlie Whiting. Who rules on what. A complete overhaul of the rules is probably required but before it could ever be finished there would be changes and additions so you would be back to square one quickly.
Things have changed but I remember being the #2 tech inspector at a F1 race and about half the cars were clearly illegal by the book. I had to tell Graham Hill his car was illegal. The mustache quivered and he said "So". Nobody protested and the rule was ignored as it was at the US GP the next week. :D

[hmmm - donuts]

So over 24 hours after the end of the last race, there is still theoretically a chance that Hamilton could end up as WDC. If there was a specific penalty for the fuel infraction, then at least we'd know the result by now. All this "will he - won't he" does not help the public's perceptions of F1, even if it does keep it in the news a little longer.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The problem that the FIA is that F1 is far more complicated than other sports such as Rugby and Football. It is incredibly difficult for F1 to be refereed because the technology changes so fast. The rules can't keep up with the cars .

[fandango]

The problem that the FIA is that F1 is far more complicated than other sports such as Rugby and Football. It is incredibly difficult for F1 to be refereed because the technology changes so fast. The rules can't keep up with the cars .


I don't think it's that complicated. Everyone goes round and round as quick as they can until the first one reaches the end. If the rules are broken, there should be a clear classification of weak, medium or serious infringements, with some kind of sliding scale of penalties. At least you can have a general framework. It would have saved at least some of the nonsense that's gone on in the last few years.

As it stands, the FIA can only impose its rulings with the aid of a rather dictatorial attitude towards being challenged. The stewards are mysterious beings who don't seem to follow any consistent line, and can't seem to make a single decision clearly.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

But you have got to remember that F1 is probably the only sport were teams look at the rules in such detail that they can see potential loopholes that would gain them a competitive advantage.

[wmcot]

At least with NAPCAR the same people make the calls every race unlike F1 with different stewards at different races. It took many years before there was one race director (Clerk of the Course) in Charlie Whiting at very race. :)

That's what I've been saying for a long time now. It's not that the rules are that bad in most cases, the interpretation of the rules and penalties for transgressions needs to be consistent. By having the same race stewards travel to all the races, you would get consistent enforcement and consistent penalties.

Once again, I'm speaking from common sense - and we all know how that works in F1! ;)

[racing59]

Sport? Who said it was a sport?

The stewards may re-visit the information they received from the technical delegate and decide to exclude the cars from the results. They may decide, as they are allowed to, to not move the lower cars "up" the results. That is in the book of "things you can do when you're the FIA".

LH has come out openly and said that he doesn't want to win the WDC in the court, and there will be plenty of chances to do it in the future.

It is just that there is far too much inconsistency with the way that penalties are handed out for differing "crimes". And I think McLaren's aim is to get the ICA to look at the stewards decision and offer a proper decision, without one that looks like a cop-out.

There has been much talk about issuing the cars with time penalties, though if applied correctly, that could put them behind LH "on the track", regardless of the issue that he had been lapped.

An exclusion of the cars, but allowing the drivers to retain their points, is possible (which removes the cars from the results, but doesn't move LH up from 7th to 4th).

This has been one cr@p season for politics, and I'm sure next year will be equally litigatious with customer cars on the cards.

Rob.

[spiritone]

The fia and max mosley have been using the rules to determine the winner of the constructor and drivers titles for years. Anyone who has watched the last 10 yrs or so can find lots of examples of max's meddeling. F1 has deteriorated into a no pass, political,win in the pits championship. The cars have become technological marvels that have changed the racing into parades.
Max mosley needs to step down and let someone else determine the future of F1

[ArrowsFA1]

...the one when he got black flagged because he briefly passed DH in the warm up lap comes to mind first...
Slight correction ioan, the black flag was not for passing during the warm up lap. The penalty for that offence was (IIRC) a drive-though. The black flag was shown, and Schumacher excluded from the race, because he and the team ignored the instruction to serve the drive-through penalty.

[Mark]

I don't think drive throughs had been thought of then, it was back in the days of 10 second stop-go's?

[ArrowsFA1]

I don't think drive throughs had been thought of then, it was back in the days of 10 second stop-go's?
:up: A quick check (http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr556.html) says he was penalised a 5sec stop/go penalty.

[ioan]

:up: A quick check (http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr556.html) says he was penalised a 5sec stop/go penalty.

For way less, almost nothing, than what we have seen this year without any punishment being handed out.

[ArrowsFA1]

For way less, almost nothing, than what we have seen this year without any punishment being handed out.
Well it was a breach of the regulations, but your point just goes to highlight a major problem with the application of the rules and penalties by the FIA which must be addressed. This is particularly important in the light of events we've seen this season. The credibility of the governing body, and the sport it governs, depends on it.

Rules exist. If they are broken there must be a penalty. What the penalty is should be known by everyone in advance, not made up on the spot according to circumstance or the agenda of certain individuals.

[Valve Bounce]

Well it was a breach of the regulations, but your point just goes to highlight a major problem with the application of the rules and penalties by the FIA which must be addressed. This is particularly important in the light of events we've seen this season. The credibility of the governing body, and the sport it governs, depends on it.

Rules exist. If they are broken there must be a penalty. What the penalty is should be known by everyone in advance, not made up on the spot according to circumstance or the agenda of certain individuals.


I fully concur. To make this even more confusing, penalties are then handed out sometimes for the next race. There should be consistance in applying clearcut rules, with set and clearcut penalties handed out clearly defined.

I favour penalties for the next race simply because cars which offend in a race sometimes do not finish that race and thus escape the penalty.

The fairest and simplest method seems to be set grid positions for the nest race. For serious infractions by a driver, (such as dangerous driving) suspend the guy for one race.

[Mark]

On the other hand you could end up with situations such as Hamilton winning the championship two weeks after the event because the rules say a specific punishment should be given. And nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Dennis) would like to see that.

[ioan]

Rules exist. If they are broken there must be a penalty. What the penalty is should be known by everyone in advance, not made up on the spot according to circumstance or the agenda of certain individuals.

That's exactly what Ferrari wanted after the WMSC found McLaren guilty but didn't punish them. Yet you didn't seem to hold the same opinion back then.

[ioan]

The fairest and simplest method seems to be set grid positions for the nest race. For serious infractions by a driver, (such as dangerous driving) suspend the guy for one race.

And Fuji 2007 springs to mind! :D

[BDunnell]

And Fuji 2007 springs to mind! :D

I'm sure others could name other incidents involving other drivers in other races in other seasons.

[ioan]

I'm sure others could name other incidents involving other drivers in other races in other seasons.

I have no doubt about that.

[Easy Drifter]

It is easier said than done. Things happen in motor racing at very high speeds. Camera angles do not always show things correctly as depth preception is lost. In every sport I can relate to the officials make mistakes, although they have to call the infraction on the spot.
Penalties for technical rule infractions can be set in stone.
Driving penalties are tougher because of circumstances. I have seen drivers get a penalty for passing under the yellow when they were committed to the pass or part way through it when the yellow came out. Another time no penalty. Try and decide if the driver could have backed out of the pass safely or not. One official will see it one way and another differently. Ex drivers have a better idea of what can be done but very few stewards are former drivers.
I concur that there should be a permanent body of stewards with one or two alternates and they would have to be well paid, eh Bernie. I believe currently that the host country provides one steward and the others are basically political apointments from the FIA. Many have no practical racing experience and may or may not be fully conversant with the rule book.