An analysis of the stewards' decisions

Not a good record, is it? Four consecutive grands prix, and (at least) seven controversial stewarding decisions. Add in Lewis Hamilton's escape after blatantly weaving - for whatever stated reason - in Malaysia, and the number spirals up to eight or more. However, worse than these bare statistics are the seeming consistencies in the handling and judging of incidents, with a distinct lack of explanations for the decisions - despite the FIA having undertaken to provide same - further compounding the situation.

The most recent run of controversial decisions started in Monaco after Michael Schumacher nipped past Fernando Alonso under a safety car. This resulted in the FIA first issuing a clarification, then forwarding an amendment to the regulations to its World Motor Sport Council for ratification.

Then, in Turkey, Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber collided in what could arguably have been deemed to be an 'avoidable accident' of the type regularly investigated - and punished - by the stewards.

The decision in Istanbul? No penalty - in itself a decision - with a source in the know subsequently suggesting that conclusion had been reached on the basis that the high-speed incident involved team-mates, and no outsiders. Maybe, but surely the drivers concerned were (and still are) embroiled in their own battle for motor racing's greatest prize, are targeting the absolute pinnacle of their careers, and, if one jeopardised the other's title chances, surely that should not go unsanctioned.

Come Canada, first Hamilton's ultra-low fuel qualifying antics enabled him to claim victory from a controversial pole position, while Schumacher's overly robust behaviour, including ignominiously punting Felipe Massa, attracted no sanction. In the recent past such deeds would have attracted more than merely a token fine for exceeding the time allowed for a 'slowing' down lap, or, as in Schumacher's case, a polite talking to.

Then onto Valencia, where Hamilton not only effectively escaped unpunished after overtaking a safety car speeding on its way to the aftermath of a high-speed accident, while no less than nine drivers received five-second penalties for exceeding the stipulated 'delta' times in the final sector. Of a total of eleven penalties handed down in Spain a fortnight ago, only one - against Timo Glock for not respecting blue flags - could be said to have been uncontroversial.

The resultant dissatisfaction amongst drivers, teams, the media and fans has resulted in a special meeting of Formula 1's Sporting Working Group today (Thursday) ahead of the weekend's British Grand Prix at Silverstone. On the agenda are clarifications of various rules, regulations and protocols - somewhat ironic, for this is the first year under the driver steward system, whereby former F1 drivers consult to the stewards on (fundamentally) driving-related issues.

Their role, while welcomed after various paddock sages have for years pushed for such a system, would, however, appear to require clarification before even the regulations per se can be clarified, for post-Monaco Damon Hill, who provided input on the Schumacher/Alonso incident, admitted he had been surprised at being called upon to judge - as opposed to providing input about - the incident.

"It was a fascinating experience, but I wonder whether it is right that drivers are put in the position of interpreting the regulations," said 1996 world champion Hill, probably one of the most lucid of all recent champions. "I imagined I would be there as a consultant providing driver insight to the stewards, who would then make the decisions. My expertise is as a driver rather than a lawmaker or interpreter of regulations."

All of which begs the questions: how much input are drivers required to give, and whether they are de facto voting members of the stewards' committee. If so, what weight do their votes carry, for, with three appointed stewards (one international, one national, and one appointed by the FIA), such a (fourth) voice could so easily result in a hung decision over an issue. What then?

Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Monaco GP © Sutton

Equally, there are questions about ethics. While there exists absolutely no doubt amongst those who know the man that Hill, who was all too often at the receiving end of Schumacher's questionable antics, acted totally ethically and absolutely correctly in his deliberations in Monaco - something one would like to believe has been the case in every enquiry this year - one wonders whether that will always be the case. There exists a lot of malice between drivers for obvious (and not so obvious) reasons, so surely the day will come when personal issues get in the way of a good decision.

Then there is the issue of eligibility for the role. With the exception of Canadian Grand Prix driver consultant Emerson Fittipaldi, every one of the ten stewards called up so far this year has 'previous' with at least one driver on the current grid, leading to suggestions that, in order to be eligible, no driver steward should have competed against the present crop - but that would exclude any driver whose F1 career ended after September 1991, when Schumacher made his debut.

Going back much beyond that and the risk is run that driver stewards are not au fait with present driving and safety standards, both of which changed drastically in the wake of the 1994 Ayrton Senna tragedy. In fact, in Canada it was suggested Schumacher had got away with bullying Massa because Fittipaldi, who received his big break through Jochen Rindt's tragic accident in 1970 and who suffered more serious injuries during his career than virtually the entire current grid combined, is vastly more 'battle hardened' than the likes of Tom Kristensen (who, incidentally, stewarded despite having no F1 starts to his name), Alex Wurz or Heinz-Harald Frentzen.

Thus, what is interpreted as little more than a light tap by the 1972/4 world champion could be deemed a serious incident by younger drivers. Ditto Niki Lauda: while on the same subject in Canada, one cynical scribe suggested the Austrian would hardly consider an incident worth investigating unless a fireball had erupted.

All that said, the driver consultant scheme, introduced by Todt after some seemingly fuddy-duddy decisions taken by blazers with no experience of driving powerful competition cars on some of the most daunting circuits on earth, is a vast improvement on what reigned in the recent past. However, as is the norm with any new concept, it requires fine-tuning - particularly eligibility and duties - and, with half the 2010 season done and dusted, the summer break presents the ideal opportunity of revisiting it.

Given the nature of the incidents in Valencia, it is unlikely Frentzen was called upon to provide much input, for overtaking of a safety car with medical car in tow on their way to an accident requires little contemplation once it had been established beyond all doubt that the a grand prix car has, in fact, overtaken the silver Mercedes SLS. Equally, there should be no need for long-winded discussion about 'delta' penalties - save that in all instances drivers should not benefit from breaches, which in Valencia they universally did.

Lewis Hamilton, McLaren, Valencia 2010 © LAT

Both sets of breach instances are akin to running a red light: if a car is even one millimetre over the line when the lights switch from amber to red, an offence has been committed. Full stop, end of argument. At that level, as with all road safety matters, there should be no excuses.

It has been said that a lack of equipment (for which read funding) led to checking, rechecking and referencing of cars at various points on the track resulted in delays in handing down decisions - for example, a full half hour elapsed before Hamilton took his drive-thru penalty - but given that the sport turns over a billion bucks (in virtually any currency) per annum, that explanation simply does not hold water. Far from it, in fact, for it merely suggests that the sale of the sport's 113-year commercial rights for a third of the present annual turnover should be re-examined...

While Alonso subsequently withdrew his (serious) allegations that the stewards 'manipulated' the result of the race - his particular beef being with the Hamilton SC matter and five-second penalties, both of which the Spaniard hoped to benefit from after adhering to the letter and spirit of the rules - the fact is that suspicions remain in the minds of many fans simply as no explanations were handed down by the stewards - despite the FIA having announced precisely that a little over a year ago after continual criticism of stewarding decisions, which came to a head during the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix.

In an interview published on 29 March 2009 in the FIA's online magazine automotive, the FIA's then-chairman of the stewards - a post since discontinued - Alan Donnelly, who simultaneously acted as then-president Max Mosley's personal representative at grands prix, outlined the revised stewarding procedure.

The procedure as outlined made enormous sense, and was widely welcomed.

At the time, Donnelly promised that short, written explanations of each stewards' decision would be published on the FIA website, and be accompanied by a CV of each of the stewards making those decisions.

The changes sought, he said, to give greater transparency to decisions, to give more experience to participating stewards and to speed up the decision-making process. In addition, film or audio evidence (if available) that may not have been seen by the public but reviewed by the stewards, would be made available on the web and used for training purposes.

Having been sparked off by the furore surrounding Hamilton's 25-second penalty in Spa the previous September after the stewards found the driver had cut a chicane in his quest to take the lead of the race, the concept of stewarding transparency got off to a flying start: within a week of the Donnelly interview the FIA published, complete with audio tracks and radio transcripts, their reasons for punishing Hamilton in Melbourne.

FIA logo © LAT

However, a search of the FIA website suggests that was the first and last time the governing body published such decisions, and given the universal criticisms which invariably accompany stewards' decisions, that is simply astonishing, particularly after the FIA pledged greater transparency.

While the Sporting Working Group cannot take such decisions - as outlined here the group's recommendations are forwarded to the F1 Commission, which in turn submits its recommendations to the WMSC for ratification - the body should at least push for the immediate reinstatement of published decisions, accompanied where possible by additional material salient to the incident.

That, coupled with a definition of the roles, duties and eligibility of driver stewards, would surely provide immediate relief from widespread accusations that races are 'manipulated'.