Do you agree with Schumacher being penalised?

[Famine]

If that's the case, I doubt it happened during the race - the teams would not have been able to ask Whiting, get an answer and relate it to Hamilton in the tme it took for Hamilton to pass Raikkonen, concede the place and then pass him again.

But I don't want to talk about Belgium 2008. That's a whole different conversation.

That's exactly what Dennis said. Hamilton passed, then gave up the place. He asked Dennis if he was okay, Dennis hit the "Charlie Whiting" button (they all have one) and asked if Hamilton was okay, Charlie said "I think so", Dennis relayed that to Hamilton and Hamilton repassed.

Of course Charlie isn't a steward - he's Race Director - so his answer shouldn't ever be taken as advice from stewards. Whatever he says is pretty irrelevant to what the stewards decide - so it doesn't matter what team asked him what about Monaco. But if all the teams did ask him about Monaco and he gave different answers... there's a huge problem of impartiality.


Nonetheless, the issue with Monaco isn't Schumacher's. It's either the marshalls', Charlie's or the stewards' - either the marshalls displayed the wrong thing on their own, Charlie told them to display the wrong thing or the stewards got it wrong. Schumacher passed under green flags and circuit lights and race conditions and should not be penalised.

 

[dxm8975]

Hopefully I don't wanna agree with him being penalized for his move, but he actually breached the rule of F1 championship, so I guess he must be... I can never appeal to the FIA not to do it to him..

 

[Famine]

he actually breached the rule of F1 championship

No he didn't. He passed under race conditions (green flags).

 

[Sonzilla]

The full statement from the FIA:

The problems identified during the final lap of the Monaco Grand Prix, counting for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship, showed a lack of clarity in the application of the rule prohibiting overtaking behind the Safety Car.

Adjustments to the regulations are necessary to clarify the procedure that cars must meet when the last lap is controlled by the Safety Car whilst also ensuring that the signalling for teams and drivers is made more clear.

These adjustments will help to avoid the problem which occurred during the Monaco Grand Prix from happening in the future.

The Formula One Commission, upon a proposal of the F1 Sporting Working Group will submit an amendment to the Sporting Regulations to address this issue. These amendments will be considered by the World Motor Sport Council at its next meeting in Geneva on June 23.

So they admitted their was a mishap in relaying the proper message/rules oon the track and to the teams on that final lap yet they still issue out the penalty. WTF!

 

[lalaurentide]

Bernie is corporatism 🤬, the FIA is conservatism 🤬, they limit every aspect of performance to even out the playing field, wich is good, yet they do nothing about aerodynamic turbulence and overtaking 🤬. But, to acknowledge their mistake and still enforce a penalty, now that, is 🤬

We are lucky that RBR have had so much reliability issues last year and so far this season or it would be the Williams-Renault and Ferrari years all over again and, even with Alonso's entertaining come backs, that would be redbull:censored:.

 

[Ardius]

^I might respond to that post properly if it followed the AUP:
https://www.gtplanet.net/aup/

You will not use profanity in the forums, nor link to content which contains offensive language without sufficient warning.

Attempting to get around the swear filter is not clever.

 

[peterjford]

So they admitted their was a mishap in relaying the proper message/rules oon the track and to the teams on that final lap yet they still issue out the penalty. WTF!

Schumacher's 20 second penalty was technically a drive through penalty, but since it happened on the last lap, he can't drive through so they add the 20 seconds. According to the rules, a drive through penalty can't be overturned, so Schumacher's drive through penalty that was actually a 20 second penalty stands.

 

[lalaurentide]

I'm sorry, but I didn't insult anyone, sure those two words can be profanities but not in the context of my post. I used one as an adjective to emphasis the first one, 🤬 as in "big" to an extent even "huge" cannot express. As for 🤬, being french Canadian I lack the knowledge to know better, either a synonym or expression, that could suit my thoughts without looking aggressive, even though I'm not, I must admit. I'll take the critism, though I see the forum rules and swear filter as means to prevent abuse and keep the place mature and respectable for everyone, as opposed to an absolute. Therefore I replied, but I see it as somewhat a troll attempt .

 

[Ardius]

Swearing is totally unnecessary, there is no excuse in my opinion. 👎
There are far lesser words you can use in place of those, it just comes across to me as a rather unintelligent post.
And profanity is still profanity no matter who it is aimed at. It is not just about being mature and respectable, its also about keeping the forum in decent order and bearing in mind the younger people who read it. I don't even see why you feel the need, swearing is never necessary.
Also this smilie: 🤬 exists for a reason.

Anyway, I was only warning you. I'm not a moderator so I'm not going to stop you.

As for what you said, Bernie has nothing to do with this incident firstly. Secondly, once a penalty has been applied, it cannot be un-applied. In my opinion the FIA reacted perfectly - they stood by the stewards decision while also clarifying the rules so it doesn't happen again. The FIA has to show faith in the stewards decisions and stewards have to uphold the rules otherwise they will lose the respect of the competitors and people will just break rules thinking they can just convince the stewards they were wrong or hoping the FIA over-rules them.
The stewards couldn't have done much else different, as it was fairly confusing and there was a clear rule with a clear penalty next to it. The situation with the green flags, etc didn't help but in terms of the rule, it doesn't matter - as the FIA have now clarified.
Schumacher broke a rule, ok, a confusing one in the scenario, but the rule was still broken. Do we really want to open the door to mass-interpretation of rules due to "confusing" scenarios? Interestingly, I feel that minor infringements should be more lenient regarding penalties, such as worn ride height planks. I don't think this was a major infringement but I can't really think of a better, more lenient penalty being given. As I discussed earlier, there is no "place-swap" penalty (due to the confusion and complexity this could get into in certain scenarios) and a fine doesn't really do justice to the advantage gained. Maybe a grid place penalty at the following race, but again, this isn't really penalising them enough or penalising them too harshly.

 

[Famine]

sure those two words can be profanities

You will not use profanity in the forums

So. Where's the disconnect again?

 

[chromatic9]

Yes. The rules are clear.

 

[Peter]

He did break the rules, but it didn't deserve to get placed all the way at the back, maybe just reverse the positions, and a fine.

 

[Hun200kmh]

This picture was posted in the autosport forum

And - unless it has been altered, something I'm unable to find out - it clearly shows that the race marshalls were in fact totally wrong. At that point (because before the SC line) not even Brawn would tell Schumi to have a go.

 

[Seismica]

This picture was posted in the autosport forum

*pic*

And - unless it has been altered, something I'm unable to find out - it clearly shows that the race marshalls were in fact totally wrong. At that point (because before the SC line) not even Brawn would tell Schumi to have a go.

They need to give the marshalls a penalty!

 

[peterjford]

He did break the rules, but it didn't deserve to get placed all the way at the back, maybe just reverse the positions, and a fine.

The problem is that there is not "reverse the positions" penalty available for the stewards to give. Basically the only option that fit was a drive-thru penalty, which turns into a 20 second penalty on the last lap.

 

[lbsf1]

The problem is that there is not "reverse the positions" penalty available for the stewards to give. Basically the only option that fit was a drive-thru penalty, which turns into a 20 second penalty on the last lap.

In my mind that itself is another problem with f1. The fia should be able to give whatever penalty they want because there will always be an exception where the rules arn't fitting what actually happened.

 

[Ardius]

In my mind that itself is another problem with f1. The fia should be able to give whatever penalty they want because there will always be an exception where the rules arn't fitting what actually happened.

In my opinion that just opens more doors to complaints than closes. You also have to keep in mind that punishments should try to dissuade people breaking the rules. If in this scenario, Schumacher had broken the rules under yellow flags, would it have been a severe enough punishment just to swap the places? Whats to stop them doing it again if the only consequence is a simple place swap? It just invites them to keep doing it without much punishment at all.

I realise that wasn't quite the scenario in this case, its just an example.

I think there is a clause in the rulebook which allows the stewards to issue any punishment they want, its just this particular article only allowed specific punishments.

 

[lbsf1]

In my opinion that just opens more doors to complaints than closes. You also have to keep in mind that punishments should try to dissuade people breaking the rules. If in this scenario, Schumacher had broken the rules under yellow flags, would it have been a severe enough punishment just to swap the places? Whats to stop them doing it again if the only consequence is a simple place swap? It just invites them to keep doing it without much punishment at all.

I realise that wasn't quite the scenario in this case, its just an example.

I think there is a clause in the rulebook which allows the stewards to issue any punishment they want, its just this particular article only allowed specific punishments.

It wasn't under yellow flags though. See picture above. On tv in britain they said before the end that all they would have to do is race the last corner. However a decision the fia made to allow overtaking from the 1st saftey car line caused all this controversy because the fia didn't think of this situation of the safety car coming in on the last lap. I think in my personal opinon that the fia are bias (always have after the hamilton) towards ferrari.

 

[Ardius]

It wasn't under yellow flags though. See picture above. On tv in britain they said before the end that all they would have to do is race the last corner. However a decision the fia made to allow overtaking from the 1st saftey car line caused all this controversy because the fia didn't think of this situation of the safety car coming in on the last lap. I think in my personal opinon that the fia are bias (always have after the hamilton) towards ferrari.

I know, I was using Schumacher's scenario as an example if it had been yellow flags and the stewards just gave a penalty which wasn't exactly punishment. In this instance, ok, it would have been fairer and better. But would it in all scenarios? Is it really worth having small punishment for small exceptions? What happens when a team or driver tries something then all they incur is a place swap? This is a very rare instance, I don't think it warrants writing in new punishments just for a small exception, we want clear, consistent rules, not exceptional rules.
What they have done is fine in my opinion, because it won't happen again now. Case closed.

@ "bias towards Ferrari". This will never die will it?

 

[FishforRent]

Question: Is it the intention from FIA to NOT have the SC lead the field across the finish line at the end of races? Example: Two laps remaining in the race, a back marker slams a barrier wall on the back side of the track, has a yard-sale of debris covering the racing surface. No way the track can be cleaned in time. Will the SC still enter the pits on the final lap and allow the field to cross the line to finish the race? Or will the SC lead the field across the line?

Is it an 'appearance' philosophy?

 

[Ardius]

Question: Is it the intention from FIA to NOT have the SC lead the field across the finish line at the end of races? Example: Two laps remaining in the race, a back marker slams a barrier wall on the back side of the track, has a yard-sale of debris covering the racing surface. No way the track can be cleaned in time. Will the SC still enter the pits on the final lap and allow the field to cross the line to finish the race? Or will the SC lead the field across the line?

Is it an 'appearance' philosophy? It just baffles me that they would even invite this type of situation.

Its just for appearances, this is why in the rules it states there will be no overtaking on the final lap under safety car even though it comes in - as its still dangerous to go racing if the safety car is still out then.
So yes, it will always enter the pits on the final lap, thats the rules. This is why I don't really support Schumacher's side of the story so much, although it is confusing rules and the marshals and race control acted wrongly, the rulebook clearly stated this.
The question is, should they follow the letter of the rules or the people controlling the race? Ideally, both should be in line with each other but in this case it wasn't. Mercedes/Schumacher didn't do anything wrong, they are just unfortunate victims of confusion. But, for the interests of being fair and considering Mercedes were the only team to decide to act against this rule, I think a punishment was inevitable.

I agree its fairly silly for appearances sake, but it was never a problem before. Hopefully now the rule has been clarified it shouldn't happen again. It should also be noted that Mercedes have decided to work with the FIA to fix the rules rather than complain about it.