FiA Stewarding Changes for 2009

[VladD]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44556

Could be interesting. Decisions and evidence to be posted on the web.

[Altrezia]

Jesus, the ITVf1 website has more ads than any other of the F1 sites.. why do people still visit?

[MM2200]

Uh... what?

FIA said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Is this a joke?

[Zhastaph]

Altrezia said:

Jesus, the ITVf1 website has more ads than any other of the F1 sites.. why do people still visit?

The content is on the whole v.good, but over the course of the last year the advertising on their site has gone way past the point where it's tolerable. It's got to the point where my pop up blocker has been confugred to block absolutely everything, just because of ITV! I understand that these things need to be paid for, but they go a little too far imo

itv-f1 said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Do you think that you can infer from that that up until now it's possible that some stewards hadn't even seen a GP ?

[flemke]

Zhastaph said:

itv-f1 said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Do you think that you can infer from that that up until now it's possible that some stewards hadn't even seen a GP ?

That's the way it has worked!

Also, please note that the officious snakes at the FIA have addressed the widespread call for a former F1 driver to be one of the stewards by saying that they'd allow it - provided that that driver had gone through the tedious, redundant process of getting steward's training, getting his book stamped by stewarding at local races, etc. In other words, if someone is a former Formula One driver, they most generously won't discriminate against him!

This thing is obviously a classic Mosley diversionary tactic. We didn't need any more camera angles or artful verbal "explanations" to know that the Massa/Bourdais ruling was an outrage. These pricks will make the same dishonest decisions as before, and the world will still have to accept them.
As long as the stewards are bossed by Mosley's stooge, their decisions will be tainted.

[VladD]

flemke said:

Zhastaph said:

itv-f1 said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Do you think that you can infer from that that up until now it's possible that some stewards hadn't even seen a GP ?

That's the way it has worked!

Also, please note that the officious snakes at the FIA have addressed the widespread call for a former F1 driver to be one of the stewards by saying that they'd allow it - provided that that driver had gone through the tedious, redundant process of getting steward's training, getting his book stamped by stewarding at local races, etc. In other words, if someone is a former Formula One driver, they most generously won't discriminate against him!

This thing is obviously a classic Mosley diversionary tactic. We didn't need any more camera angles or artful verbal "explanations" to know that the Massa/Bourdais ruling was an outrage. These pricks will make the same dishonest decisions as before, and the world will still have to accept them.
As long as the stewards are bossed by Mosley's stooge, their decisions will be tainted.

We should start a petition to get Stewart and Lauda in to replace Donnely.

[woof]

it's a step forward - they'll still be dodgy decisions no doubt - but at least we'll be able to understand what went on - and they will have to justify themselves.

[mikee boy]

Zhastaph said:

itv-f1 said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Do you think that you can infer from that that up until now it's possible that some stewards hadn't even seen a GP ?

I don't think so. While it was possible they didn't have to, I think they all would have. This is just an after-the-event story to allow the FIA to claim they are introducing procedures to make the decisions more transparent. It doesn't mean they won't be terrible decisions, we'll just have a better idea of the information used to make the decision.

For example, the Bourdais/Massa incident has to be one of the most incompetent officiating decisions ever made in the history of sport. I know what the officials saw to make the decision. They saw a driver hit by another driver, and blamed the one who was hit. No amount of transparency could make me change my mind.

[SamHH]

flemke said:

Zhastaph said:

itv-f1 said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Do you think that you can infer from that that up until now it's possible that some stewards hadn't even seen a GP ?

That's the way it has worked!

Flemke, are you saying that it's possible that stewards might not have seen a Grand Prix, or that there actually have been stewards who hadn't seen a Grand Prix?

flemke said:

This thing is obviously a classic Mosley diversionary tactic.

Weren't you calling for the video evidence used by the stewards to be broadcast in another thread. Are you not pleased about that?

Edited by SamHH on Thursday 6th November 11:23

[Thorburn]

SamHH said:

Flemke, are you saying that it's possible that stewards might not have seen a Grand Prix, or that there actually have been stewards who hadn't seen a Grand Prix?

I'd guess they mean they have to attend and observe the marshalling proceedures, as opposed to they must have watched one of the TV at some point?

[SamHH]

Thorburn said:

SamHH said:

Flemke, are you saying that it's possible that stewards might not have seen a Grand Prix, or that there actually have been stewards who hadn't seen a Grand Prix?

I'd guess they mean they have to attend and observe the marshalling proceedures, as opposed to they must have watched one of the TV at some point?

That's a possible interpretation of the new rules, but I was curious if Flemke knew what the situation had been until now.

[german tony]

About time the FIA were seen to be doing something. I'll take this as an admission that all has not been well with the current system & leave it at that.

[s3fella]

Apparently, Max Insisted on a judge in his Libel case that had never seen a trial before.......!!!LOL



Flipping truly unbeleiveable, isn't it! ?

The teams should be as outraged as the fans with having their performance scruitanised by total amateurs like this. I really hope they all get together and say "stuff you FIA" and go it alone sooner rather than later!

madness

[Zod]

Zhastaph said:

itv-f1 said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Do you think that you can infer from that that up until now it's possible that some stewards hadn't even seen a GP ?

From the evidence this year, I thought FIA required them never to have seen a GP.

[Bombjack]

german tony said:

About time the FIA were seen to be doing something. I'll take this as an admission that all has not been well with the current system & leave it at that.

"Seen to be doing something" is right. It's a recognition they've had bad press over their decisions, but not an admission that the decisions themselves were bad. Nor is it a substantive change in the decision making process. It's basically a PR exercise.

[flemke]

SamHH said:

Thorburn said:

SamHH said:

Flemke, are you saying that it's possible that stewards might not have seen a Grand Prix, or that there actually have been stewards who hadn't seen a Grand Prix?

I'd guess they mean they have to attend and observe the marshalling proceedures, as opposed to they must have watched one of the TV at some point?

That's a possible interpretation of the new rules, but I was curious if Flemke knew what the situation had been until now.

It has been quite difficult for us punters to find out even who would be stewarding the races, much less what the CV of each one was. About two months ago, I read someone who is generally authoritative (and, no, I cannot recall where) say that there have in recent years been stewards who were not only officiating at a GP for the first time, but who had never been to a GP before.

[flemke]

SamHH said:

flemke said:

This thing is obviously a classic Mosley diversionary tactic.

Weren't you calling for the video evidence used by the stewards to be broadcast in another thread. Are you not pleased about that?

Oh, yes, I'm glad that we'll be able to see all the evidence. My point was that the FIA were doing this not for the sake of integrity, but for the sake of PR. In the end, they'll rule however they feel like ruling. For an analogy, think about the verdict in Mosley's privacy trial. The judge looked at the same evidence that was available to the public. Most of us concluded something precisely opposite to what Eady concluded. Our access to that evidence was nice in that it confirmed what we had expected was the truth about Mosley. That did not, however, prevent Eady from making his bizarre ruling, and the ruling itself is what prevailed.

Wrt diversionary tactics, the FIA still resolutely refuse to have permanent stewards, or independent stewards. They can dress up the local yokels all they like, but so long as a Mosley stooge is overseeing them, they can never, ever be independent. For a steward (or motor club official), a GP is the ultimate reward, and with it paddock access, autographs for the grandsons, etc. How can we expect the stewards to be independent when there is an implied connection between whether they disagree with Donnelly and whether they'll ever be invited back?

What exactly is the point of:

It has long been argued that at least one former grand prix driver should be among the stewards and the FIA also confirmed that ex-racers are eligible to obtain their national stewarding licence and graduate to the super licence.?

What a total farce. Do we really think that Damon Hill needs to go the Stewarding College and then spend a few weekends in the rain at Snetterton in order to be qualified to make racing judgments?
Yet the FIA will now flip this around and use this as an excuse: "Of course, we would love for someone of Mr Hill's stature to contribute to the stewards' process, but we must expect him to familiarise himself with all the details and rules that have arisen since he was active, or that may apply to the technology and protocol rather than to what happens on the track."

My own rule is never to trust the FIA about anything, ever. It may turn out that what they do is right and fair, but they would not do it for that reason. That would just be a lucky coincidence.

[Scuffers]

I am tending to agree with you.....

[AlexS]

mikee boy said:

Zhastaph said:

itv-f1 said:

The FIA is also to introduce a different training system for stewards, announcing that "any national steward participating who is officiating for the first time will be required to ‘observe’ a minimum of one Grand Prix prior to their event."

Do you think that you can infer from that that up until now it's possible that some stewards hadn't even seen a GP ?

I don't think so. While it was possible they didn't have to, I think they all would have. This is just an after-the-event story to allow the FIA to claim they are introducing procedures to make the decisions more transparent. It doesn't mean they won't be terrible decisions, we'll just have a better idea of the information used to make the decision.

For example, the Bourdais/Massa incident has to be one of the most incompetent officiating decisions ever made in the history of sport. I know what the officials saw to make the decision. They saw a driver hit by another driver, and blamed the one who was hit. No amount of transparency could make me change my mind.

They did actually explain the Bourdais/Massa at the start of the following race weekend, and the reasons still made no sense. Apparently the corner was Massa's as he was clearly faster at some arbitrary point on the race track (the safety car line IIRC).

[SamHH]

flemke said:

It has been quite difficult for us punters to find out even who would be stewarding the races, much less what the CV of each one was. About two months ago, I read someone who is generally authoritative (and, no, I cannot recall where) say that there have in recent years been stewards who were not only officiating at a GP for the first time, but who had never been to a GP before.

I agree that these changes do not fundamentally resolve the problem with the stewarding in Formula One. I'm not sure why Mosley would feel the need to use, as you put it, diversionary tactics; he's in a pretty strong position and anyway, anyone who seriously takes issue with the stewarding of recent years is not likely to be appeased by these changes. Maybe he feels the need to get the press on his side, but again, I can't see any elements that have been seriously critical being convinced by this. I think your point about the irrelevancy of extra footage and better explanation of incidents is interesting; the reason people are so dissatisfied with the stewards is because of the decisions they make. We may criticise what we perceive to be the things that cause them to make those decisions, but if those causes didn't exist and they were still making bad decisions, we'd be no less dissatisfied (or at least I wouldn't).