Hamilton, Schumacher, and the FIA stewards

Text Size: Smaller - Bigger

Home » F1 Blog » September 21 2011 at 15:57 | posted by Martin Porter | 7 comments made so far - add one
Photo: Hamilton, Schumacher, and the FIA stewards

Hamilton, Schumacher, and the FIA stewards

A ferocious battle between Lewis Hamilton and Michael Schumacher during the Italian Grand Prix provided plenty of excitement, but also highlighted some areas of Formula One officialdom that could be significantly improved. Lewis and Michael are arguably the two most controversial drivers in F1, so it’s somewhat fitting they should both be involved in this most recent debate about driving standards.

Hamilton versus Schumacher

At the restart of the Italian Grand Prix on lap four, Michael Schumacher used the superior top speed of his Mercedes to draft past Lewis Hamilton on the run towards the first Rettifilio chicane. It eventually took Lewis 32 minutes to get the position back after fighting hard with Michael who, despite his straight-line advantage, had a distinctly slower car. Schumacher’s defence was incredibly robust and the German was even asked by the Mercedes Team Principal, Ross Brawn, to provide Hamilton with more racing room.

The general consensus in the F1 community was that Michael had pushed the boundaries of acceptable defensive driving, but hadn’t broken the rules. This may be true, but there is still enough ambiguity for the FIA to consider improvements to the regulations and their application.

The rules around defensive driving are vague and one of the stewards has since admitted they did not give this the appropriate level of attention.

The rule that governs defensive driving

Article 20.2 of the FIA Sporting Regulations state “Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position … are not permitted”. This would appear to suggest Schumacher’s defence at Monza was not within the rules, but this article is open to interpretation.

Many competitors (and stewards) believe that a driver can move once to defend his position before moving a second time to assume a faster entry into the next corner. The reasoning is the second move in this scenario is allowed because it isn’t a “defensive manoeuvre” and the driver is merely edging back towards the racing line.

Others feel that a driver who tries to reassume the racing line after moving to defend his position is breaching Article 20.2 of the regulations, and certainly isn’t acting within its spirit. After all, any change of direction a driver makes whilst under attack is a defensive move isn’t it? It’s certainly worth clarification.

The idea of this rule is to ensure a fair and safe battle between two drivers. The defending driver gets to choose where and when to place his car, whilst the attacking driver gets to respond. This allows the attacking driver the choice of pushing for an overtaking manoeuvre on the entry to a corner, or setting up another shot on the exit. When a driver moves twice to defend his position, he is removing the sense of fair play from the battle.

Importantly, this rule also means that an attacking driver can safely place his car in the knowledge that his rival will not change line halfway through a manoeuvre. The Hamilton/Kobayashi crash at Spa Francorchamps was a scary reminder of what can happen when a driver moves twice whilst defending his position.

My own personal opinion is that drivers should be allowed to make one move and that’s it, regardless of where that places them into the next corner. Commit to a line and stick with it.

It’s an area that should be cleared up so drivers and fans know exactly what’s right and wrong.

Even if Schumacher wasn’t breaking any rules, the FIA’s response to his driving suggested there are some judicial procedures that could be improved for the sake of consistency.

Schumacher given a warning

During his battle with Hamilton, Michael Schumacher was told by Ross Brawn to “leave room for the car when you move and change direction”. Brawn had to relay this message twice to his driver. It has since emerged that he did so because the FIA had warned Mercedes that Schumacher was heading towards a penalty for his vigorous defence.

This represents a huge inconsistency. Either Michael broke the rules or he didn’t. Lewis Hamilton did not receive a warning before he was penalised for making two defensive moves in the Malaysian Grand Prix. In that instance, Hamilton was judged to have broken the rules and was given a penalty front up. This was not the case in Monza. If Michael broke the rules he should also have been given a penalty, and if he wasn’t breaking the rules he shouldn’t have been warned. There would appear to be an inconsistency in the FIA procedures between Malaysia and Monza.

The F1 stewards are different at every Grand Prix and this removes any ongoing bias from the system. This is fundamentally a good idea and is adopted by many other motorsport categories around the world, but it can also lead to an inconsistent application of the rules. Although most governing bodies have some measures in place to ensure consistency in the judicial process, it would seem the FIA has not done enough.

Missing the action

Derek Daly was acting as the ex-driver steward at Monza and said after the race that he felt the stewards got it wrong. He now believes Michael Schumacher deserved a penalty for zig-zagging in front of Hamilton at the first Lesmo on lap 20.

Daly said “On lap 20, race director Charlie Whiting asked the stewards to look at an incident between Felipe Massa and Jarno Trulli at the second chicane. While looking at the slow motion video of this incident, I missed the Schumacher Hamilton incident that happened at that moment. When I looked at it again at home, I believe that Schumacher should have been given a drive though penalty … We as stewards probably let Charlie down with this one.”

That is simply inexcusable. An incident occurred on the track and the stewards did nothing about it because they were busy. At this level of the sport that is shockingly amateur. It isn’t Derek Daly’s fault, or any of the other stewards, but rather the procedures in place for dealing with such a situation. There would appear to be no clear distinction between those who simply identify incidents, and those who pass judgement on them. If the stewards were investigating another incident it is reasonable for them to miss something else, so there should be a separation of their duties to ensure that sort of oversight does not happen. The Moto GP system that uses two groups of four individuals with separate responsibilities would presumably have prevented this from occurring.

Improvements

As detailed previously on EnterF1.com, I would think Formula One would benefit from introducing something similar to the MotoGP stewarding system where half of those involved in the judicial process are permanent and have clearly defined responsibilities. F1 would also benefit from some firm rules around defensive driving (and how that relates to reassuming the racing line) so drivers and fans alike knew what was right and what was wrong.

Improving the rules and the stewarding procedures would prevent drivers from being unfairly defensive, and would prevent them from pushing the boundaries of the ambiguous regulations. It would also introduce more consistency into the stewarding process to prevent a one driver from receiving a warning whilst another driver receives a penalty for the same offence, and it would prevent stewards from missing a crucial incident on track.

There are always lessons to be learned.

Posted by Martin Porter. - Follow him on twitter @mpondaweb.

Fans of 'The Bite Point' say:

#1 Jimmy@enterF1 | 21 Sep 2011, 16:05 Reply »

Tend to agree with most of what you say and it was very frustrating being a Hamilton fan and waiting for 30 minutes for the pass to stick! Especially as Button did it in 5 corners.......

"Schumacher either broke the rules or he didn't" - I'm not sure if I agree or not! The majority said Michael was on the limit of the rules, and if the stewards thought so too then perhaps a message to Ross to tell him he was getting close to going over that limit was indeed appropriate.

But as you say, it's potentially inconsistent with what has happened to other drivers and previous GP.

I still believe Hamilton breaking the tow in Malaysia is fine, just for the record!!!

#2 terryshep | 21 Sep 2011, 17:16 Reply »

You definitely have a point about the stewarding inconsistencies, Martin, but I can't agree with your opinion about the degree of offence. I will accept that a driver might not be allowed more than one move in defence of his position, but moving back onto the racing line for the corner is entirely reasonable, to deny that right is to enforce a disadvantage on the leading driver - and we are trying to be fair, are we not? Is it not likely also, that the leader, valiantly defending his position from the 'wrong' line, is more likely to to be involved in a collision with a frustrated driver pushing to get by?

Is it permissible to express the opinion that defending your position is a perfectly legitimate tactic? When Fernando defended against Michael Schumacher at Imola, he did everything except build a wall across the track - and everybody applauded him for it. The skill; involved from both parties in such a battle of wits is true racing on display.

#3 RaceratHeart | 21 Sep 2011, 17:23 Reply »

Personally I feel that any passing done is up to the person behind, and if you can defend, you defend with whatever you have as long as you don't run your competition off track. If the rules that are in the sport says you're only allowed one move to defend, that's like saying you can't slide tackle in soccer. I feel that the sport is taking away from true skill and allowing mediocrity by enforcing more rules and punishing the larger teams with regulations about testing and improvements made to the cars.

#4 Jimmy@enterF1 | 21 Sep 2011, 17:29 Reply »

I can kinda see it from both points of view.

There's two scenarios to consider when a defending driver has made his move, then comes back onto the racing line:

1) The defender comes back onto the racing line before the passer can get along side him. So it's a straight forward block, albeit a second one in a row...

2) If the momentum of the passing car allows him to get side by side with the defender, if the defender comes back onto the racing line it's going to force the passing car either off the track or at least out the throttle - is that fair? Especially as it's a second move of defence!

#5 jonny king | 21 Sep 2011, 19:15 Reply »

Senna prost and mansell raced how ever they liked in the 80's and early 90's. And that was what made the overtakes so special back then. Let them race however they like I say. They got drs and kers now. We don't need over strict rules ruining it . Driver skill will shine through. Remember they used to have to overtake back markers without them moving over

#6 Cedric | 21 Sep 2011, 19:36 Reply »

it's a tough situation tho. if they let guys race however they want, some drivers will deliberately run people off the road. michael for example, has shown before that he isnt afraid of using his car to take out the competition. Senna and prost also did this as well. Stuff like that makes the sport look bush league imo so they have to have these rules in place. But it is ridiculous that FIA gave warnings to mercedes. A referee/judge should not interfere with proceedings, they are merely there to govern the event, not to influence it which is what they have clearly done by issuing warnings.

Also, what is the view of the fia on people causing accidents by mistake. For example, raikkonen at monaco when he took out sutil after losing control of his car, or hamilton taking out kobayashi at spa. Kimi and lewis are two of my favourite drivers of the past decade but I would say that in both situations they were at fault for the accident yet received no penalty. I realized kimi lost control of his car but that is his fault. It's his responsibility to remain in control of the car, if he loses it cuz he made a mistake and ends someone else's race then he should be penalized.

#7 Dhir | 22 Sep 2011, 00:43 Reply »

I do not agree with your opinions whatsoever. They come across as heavily biased towards Hamilton. I respect and even like Hamilton because of his determination, but the fact at Monza was that even with 2 DRS zones and KERS and chasing a slower car, Lewis couldnt overtake. The only iffy part was when Lewis was pushed onto the grass, which I believe happened because he wanted to take the inside line.

The inside line has ALWAYS been the right of the car being chased in any racing. Hence the need for DRS to allow the guy behind to get ahead BEFORE the corner. Lewis simply didnt have the pace to match the Merc on the straights.

All I can say is that there are two games in the market, F1 2010 and 2011. Buy them , get a group of legit fair racers , and try recreating the scenario. You will then agree with every single move MSC made.

The only reason the entire press is all over this is because its Michael and Lewis and it gets more hits/ratings for their websites. And the stewards have been a joke. Extremely inconsistent because usually none of the stewards are the same. How come FIA , such a big organisation that it is, cannot put together a steady panel of stewards is beyond me ........ but I wholeheartedly believe that MSC was in his right to defend the way he did.

And the matter of Ross coming on the horn with MSC is a reflection of the inconsistency of the stewards. Nowadays , lilke a previous poster mentioned , the skill level is being taken away from the hardcore drivers and the sport is softening up. F1 is supposed to be the best of the best. Let them duke it out. The drivers understand the risk better than you or I ever could.

Please post a new comment:

Your name*

Your email*

Comment*

Are you human? * We hate spam! Please enter the following number into the box below: 34

* Please complete all 4 fields to send a comment.
From James Wilson, the owner of enterF1.com:
EnterF1 Flag

"Thanks for visiting our website, enterF1.com. Have you got a suggestion? A potential improvement? Or if you would just like to get in touch with us then please do!"

"We listen to all our website fans and love to hear from you, so please leave some feedback or feel free to tweet me @enterF1."