The Formula One stewarding system

There was controversy following the Malaysian Grand Prix this week after two highly contentious decisions were made by race officials. Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso were both given surprisingly harsh penalties once the race had finished for what seemed to be minor indiscretions. After a relatively quiet 2010, the FIA stewards are back in the spotlight.

Jean Todt made several improvements to Formula One officialdom when he took over as FIA President, but further controversy may drive calls for a revised stewarding system in the future.

Who are the FIA stewards?

At every Grand Prix there are four stewards and these are regularly changed throughout the season. Two of them are senior officials appointed by the FIA. One of them is an ex driver, also appointed by the FIA, and the fourth is a member of the local FIA member organisation responsible for the Grand Prix. At Sepang, this was a representative of the Automobile Association of Malaysia.  The four stewards must each hold an FIA Super Licence, and once chosen, will elect their chairman.

The stewards are asked to adjudicate on issues as they arise over the course of a Grand Prix weekend. They can be referred issues by the FIA Technical Delegate (Jo Bauer) when the scrutineers raise concerns over the legality of a car, and they can be referred issues by Race Control (Charlie Whiting) during or immediately after a Grand Prix.

When the stewards are presented with an incident for review they will make use of video replays, timing information, and telemetry that is beyond that available to the general public. They will then cast a vote to determine their final decision regarding any penalties. If the vote is split, their chairman will have the final say.

At last weekend’s Malaysian Grand Prix, the four stewards were Emanuele Pirro, Garry Connelly, Vincenzo Spano, and Allen Oh.

Emanuele Pirro was the ex driver chosen by the FIA having previously held the role in Abu Dhabi last year.

Garry Connelly who was one of the FIA appointees and has been involved in motorsport since the seventies. Connelly used to compete in various rally events before joining the FIA where he has been a steward since 1989, and is now a member of the World Council. Vincenzo Spano was the other FIA official and is a qualified attorney at law. He has been with the FIA for ten years and is also a member of the World Council.

Allen Oh was the representative of the Automobile Association of Malaysia. He had a successful career as a rally co-driver, winning the Asia Pacific Championship in 2004, before assuming his role with the AAM.

Concerns with the F1 stewarding system

The FIA has not been able to implement the perfect stewarding system, but no governing body for any sport ever will.

One of the main concerns is the FIA use different stewards at most Grands Prix. The advantage of this is the removal of any bias over the course of a season. No team or driver can suggest the officials are consistently prejudiced because the stewards change on a regular basis.

The disadvantage of rotating stewards is that it can lead to inconsistent penalties.

The FIA addressed this concern specifically in 2006 when they appointed Tony Scott Andrews as a permanent steward who attended every Grand Prix. His role was to act as chairman for the other stewards and to ensure their decisions were consistent. In 2008 this role was scrapped and a new position was created for Alan Donnelly. He did not act as a permanent steward, but as a non-voting stewards’ advisor.

Donnelly was a very controversial figure in Formula One and had numerous interests in the sport outside of his role with the stewards. His position was abandoned at the start of 2010 when the FIA was restructured.

Positive changes to stewarding system

The FIA made a number of positive steps when Jean Todt took control at the end of 2009.

Firstly, Todt reduced the number of officials eligible to become Grand Prix stewards. Whilst most of the stewards have been highly competent, there were stories in the past of some officiating at a Grand Prix before they had ever seen one. Todt has now removed these individuals from the system, and has also ensured those involved receive more consistent training.

Todt also introduced an ex-driver onto the steward’s panel. This addressed the notion that officials were out of touch with the competitors in Formula One, and would make better informed decisions if they had the experienced opinion of a driver.

Although most of the FIA stewards have had an active racing background of some kind, few have competed at Grand Prix level. The FIA made a popular move introducing ex-drivers in 2010.

These recent changes have improved the standard of officialdom in Formula One, but the system still contains a number of flaws. This was evident following last year’s Monaco Grand Prix.

The 2010 Monaco Grand Prix

The stewards at Monaco were asked to evaluate a controversial incident involving Michael Schumacher. The Mercedes driver had overtaken Fernando Alonso in the final corner of the race whilst it was still being run under Safety Car conditions. Two of the Sporting Regulations, in conjunction with messages on the FIA timing screens and the green flags waved by marshals, indicated that Schumacher had not broken the rules. A separate regulation indicated that Michael had acted incorrectly, and the FIA later admitted there was a “lack of clarity”. The stewards had to make a tough decision, and declared that Schumacher was guilty of an illegal overtaking manoeuvre. He was given a 20 second penalty.

Damon Hill was the ex-driver appointed as a steward at Monaco, and noted that he wasn’t at ease with his part in the process. Hill said “I was uncomfortable being put in that position of being a full FIA representative. My expertise is as a driver rather than a lawmaker or interpreter of regulations. Partly my discomfort was because I was called on to make a ruling on an incident involving Michael. I know most people will believe me when I say I acted entirely properly and correctly, but perhaps it might be more appropriate for drivers to act as consultants to the stewards rather than as stewards.”

Hill raises some interesting points. As well as questioning the value of ex-drivers on the panel, his comments indicate there is some ambiguity regarding the roles of each steward and how they relate to each other.

The incident in Monaco also suggested that stewards might not always have a complete grasp of the regulations. On this occasion they gave Schumacher a 20 second penalty which dropped him to last of the finishers, instead of a more lenient penalty that would have simply readdressed the situation. This was viewed as particularly harsh given the ambiguity in the rules, and a statement from Mercedes said the FIA had agreed to discuss the range of penalties available to stewards in the future as the one handed to Schumacher was “disproportionate”.

This implies that FIA stewards might have given Schumacher a more lenient penalty had one been available to them. Although a 20 second penalty was the smallest they could impose under the Formula One Sporting Regulations, they would have been allowed to enforce a more lenient penalty by using the International Sporting Code that governs all FIA Championships. It is unclear if the stewards had discussed this option, but they would have been negligent had they ignored it.

The process for delivering smaller time penalties was evidenced during the 2006 Hungarian Grand Prix when Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso were both given 2 second penalties in qualifying.

If the stewards don’t have a complete knowledge of the rules at their disposal, and the ex-drivers feel out of their depth as FIA officials, it does suggest the system could be improved.

Formula One versus MotoGP

With that in mind, it is very interesting to compare the Formula One system with that used in MotoGP. Other international championships run by the FIA use the same stewarding process as F1, but MotoGP is governed by the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme and their set-up is different.

There are a few similarities to Formula One. The FIM appoints four stewards at every Grand Prix and they are different at each race. However, rather than impose the penalties themselves, the stewards merely present their findings to the ‘Race Direction’ team.

The Race Direction team in MotoGP consists of four members and they are the same at every event. One of those is an official from the FIM. Another is a representative of Dorna, the commercial rights holder, and another represents the teams as part of the International Road Racing Teams Association. The final member is a representative of the riders and is also as part of the IRTA.

Those four Race Direction team members are responsible for enforcing any penalties.

Although the MotoGP stewards will provide judgement on an incident, they merely notify the Race Direction team of an infringement and do not hand down any penalties. This is significantly different to the F1 system where all incidents are referred to the stewards for a final decision.

Comparing MotoGP to F1 isn’t entirely fair because the demands placed on officials are completely different. However, the comparison does offer a glimpse into a possible alternative for the FIA should they look at restructuring the F1 stewarding system at some point in the future.

Moving forward

The referee in any sport has a difficult job and this is especially true in the complex environment of Formula One. However, the FIA has made positive steps in recent years to improve the stewarding procedures that are in place, and would be wise to continue this development into the future.

Post a comment