Should F1 have professional stewards?
Poll: Should F1 have professional stewards?
Total Members Polled: 53
Discussion
If I had been making the decision yesterday I would not have penalised Hamilton (even though I was rooting for Massa) He clearly tried to go around the outside at the first part of the chicane, was left with no room so had to take to the escape route. Then he clearly conceeded the lead, which would have involved backing off. Then he proceeded to outbrake Raikkonen at the hairpin. There was absolutely nothing wrong with any of his actions.
You could say he gained momentum buy skipping the chicane but the fact that he backed off and conceeded the place again I believe negates that. Besides Raikkonen put himself out of the race soon afterwards so it had no real impact on the outcome.
F1 is rapidly becoming a farse, the newsreader last night read it with a wry smile on his face (in this F1 lark is a bit of a joke these days isn't it fashion). Our sport is being made to look silly by the idiots who are meant to be running it. If the FIA want to orchestrate a close championship finish (which I believe is the case) then I think talk of a breakaway series needs to be rekindled. Obviously the FIA simply isn't up to the job.
You could say he gained momentum buy skipping the chicane but the fact that he backed off and conceeded the place again I believe negates that. Besides Raikkonen put himself out of the race soon afterwards so it had no real impact on the outcome.
F1 is rapidly becoming a farse, the newsreader last night read it with a wry smile on his face (in this F1 lark is a bit of a joke these days isn't it fashion). Our sport is being made to look silly by the idiots who are meant to be running it. If the FIA want to orchestrate a close championship finish (which I believe is the case) then I think talk of a breakaway series needs to be rekindled. Obviously the FIA simply isn't up to the job.
I would personnally say that I think Charlie should be the lead in all this as race director.
there should be a team of stewards, picked on rotation for each race, they should have raced at an international level at some point, and must also currently hold senior COC licences.
No Steward can be in the employ (directly or in-directly) of *any* team or it's sponsors.
there should be a team of stewards, picked on rotation for each race, they should have raced at an international level at some point, and must also currently hold senior COC licences.
No Steward can be in the employ (directly or in-directly) of *any* team or it's sponsors.
The chief steward is Allan Donnelly whose remuneration for such an exacting position has not been disclosed but my guess is that it will not be insignificant. The problem with him, apart from being employed by Ferrari for PR purposes, is that he has never had anything to do with F1.
The problem with experience is that it has to be with one team or another. Any possible applicant for the post will have enjoyed the hospitality tent of one team or another in the past so pristine cedentials is an imposibility. The only hope is that whoever has such a responsible position should have the support of the whole of the pitlane. One team objecting should be enough for the chap to be barred. Donnelly might be able to put behind him the fact that he receives 30 pieces of silver from ferrari on a regular basis and approach such decisions as yesterday's with a clear, fair and independent mind. However, what he cannot do is give the appearance of being unbiased so that must, surely, bar him from the post.
In a sport that has been beset with accusation of prejudice, favouratism and corruption the only way forward is to have the substance and the appearance of fairness. I accept that there are arguments as to whether the substance of fairness is a qualative judgement but the appearance is certainly missing.
When well respected F1 journalists call into doubt the impartiality of Mosley/the FiA, the imposition of someone like Donnelly on the sport in a position of authority is to be abhored.
The problem with experience is that it has to be with one team or another. Any possible applicant for the post will have enjoyed the hospitality tent of one team or another in the past so pristine cedentials is an imposibility. The only hope is that whoever has such a responsible position should have the support of the whole of the pitlane. One team objecting should be enough for the chap to be barred. Donnelly might be able to put behind him the fact that he receives 30 pieces of silver from ferrari on a regular basis and approach such decisions as yesterday's with a clear, fair and independent mind. However, what he cannot do is give the appearance of being unbiased so that must, surely, bar him from the post.
In a sport that has been beset with accusation of prejudice, favouratism and corruption the only way forward is to have the substance and the appearance of fairness. I accept that there are arguments as to whether the substance of fairness is a qualative judgement but the appearance is certainly missing.
When well respected F1 journalists call into doubt the impartiality of Mosley/the FiA, the imposition of someone like Donnelly on the sport in a position of authority is to be abhored.
The problem with professional stewards is that they would inevitably be under the thumb of the FIA, who employed them.
What do we have now - local stewards who may or may not be honest, but who are being "led" and overseen by a Mosley crony - and a crony who doesn't even know anything about motor sport.
You're a steward. The GP assignment is the absolute plum of your year, maybe even of your career.
There's an incident in the race. Perhaps it's a potentially unsafe release in the pit lane, perhaps someone may have been held up in Q2, perhaps it's a question of whether an unfair advantage was gained when a car left the circuit. It's in a grey area, maybe light grey, but a touch of grey. You're inclined to let it ride, because no harm was intended, no harm was done, and the fans don't want a race decided off the circuit. It's racing.
Then the overseer chimes in: "What did you think about that move? Should we look at it?"
Steward: "Well, it looked okay at the time, but I suppose we could have a second look on the tape."
Overseer: "Good idea. Let's look again, to be sure."
Tape is played...
Overseer: "Wow, I didn't see that the first time. Look at how close Hamilton is right after the chicane."
Steward: "Do you really think that it was an unfair advantage? And didn't Raikkonen force Hamilton onto the chicane to start with?"
Overseer (sucking his teeth): "Oh, I'm not so sure. I think that may have been an unfair advantage. Do you see what I mean?"
It takes a strong person to tell his boss, who was hand-picked by the world ruler of motor sport, that the boss doesn't know what he's talking about. It's clear what the boss wants, and it feels like, if you should go against him, he's going to make things uncomfortable for you at some future point. In situations such as these, a lot of people will cave.
What do we have now - local stewards who may or may not be honest, but who are being "led" and overseen by a Mosley crony - and a crony who doesn't even know anything about motor sport.
You're a steward. The GP assignment is the absolute plum of your year, maybe even of your career.
There's an incident in the race. Perhaps it's a potentially unsafe release in the pit lane, perhaps someone may have been held up in Q2, perhaps it's a question of whether an unfair advantage was gained when a car left the circuit. It's in a grey area, maybe light grey, but a touch of grey. You're inclined to let it ride, because no harm was intended, no harm was done, and the fans don't want a race decided off the circuit. It's racing.
Then the overseer chimes in: "What did you think about that move? Should we look at it?"
Steward: "Well, it looked okay at the time, but I suppose we could have a second look on the tape."
Overseer: "Good idea. Let's look again, to be sure."
Tape is played...
Overseer: "Wow, I didn't see that the first time. Look at how close Hamilton is right after the chicane."
Steward: "Do you really think that it was an unfair advantage? And didn't Raikkonen force Hamilton onto the chicane to start with?"
Overseer (sucking his teeth): "Oh, I'm not so sure. I think that may have been an unfair advantage. Do you see what I mean?"
It takes a strong person to tell his boss, who was hand-picked by the world ruler of motor sport, that the boss doesn't know what he's talking about. It's clear what the boss wants, and it feels like, if you should go against him, he's going to make things uncomfortable for you at some future point. In situations such as these, a lot of people will cave.
The thing is Mossley {and I understand Donnelly is his chief henchman} operates such a Stalinist attitude to criticisim that most of the specialist mags now hardly dare say anything about the obvious bias. Nigel Roebuck who now writes for Motor Sport did a piece about Mossley and said talking to the teams they all hate him but won't say so in public because they fear a McLaren style backlash. The only people who will talk about him openly are those like Jackie Stewart and Paul Stoddard who are no longer involved plus Martin Brundell { who Mossley has issued writs against and told ITV to sack} who refuses to be intimidated.
Mossley got his job through corruption of minor 3rd world motoring organisations and kept it after the NOW story the same way. He's about as democratic as Mugabe and really the big organisations like the RAC, US, Germany should all pull out and start a new organisation.
Mossley got his job through corruption of minor 3rd world motoring organisations and kept it after the NOW story the same way. He's about as democratic as Mugabe and really the big organisations like the RAC, US, Germany should all pull out and start a new organisation.
WJM said:
The thing is Mossley {and I understand Donnelly is his chief henchman} operates such a Stalinist attitude to criticisim that most of the specialist mags now hardly dare say anything about the obvious bias. Nigel Roebuck who now writes for Motor Sport did a piece about Mossley and said talking to the teams they all hate him but won't say so in public because they fear a McLaren style backlash. The only people who will talk about him openly are those like Jackie Stewart and Paul Stoddard who are no longer involved plus Martin Brundell { who Mossley has issued writs against and told ITV to sack} who refuses to be intimidated.
Mossley got his job through corruption of minor 3rd world motoring organisations and kept it after the NOW story the same way. He's about as democratic as Mugabe and really the big organisations like the RAC, US, Germany should all pull out and start a new organisation.
Well said..Mossley got his job through corruption of minor 3rd world motoring organisations and kept it after the NOW story the same way. He's about as democratic as Mugabe and really the big organisations like the RAC, US, Germany should all pull out and start a new organisation.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff