Paid marshalls a good thing?

[LaSarthe+Back]

Reading on Autosport that Di Montezemolo would like to see professional stewards employed at race meetings instead of "amateurs at large". Would you think this is a good thing, in that they know what they are doing/looking for, and how to do it.

Or is it a bad thing because the unpaid amateur will have passion for the sport and is not susceptible to unscrupulous behaviour from certain parties.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63587

[tinman0]

if the marshals were paid, then impartiality really would be destroyed.

[lord summerisle]

i do it because i enjoy it, not because i get a can of beer at the end of it.

[flemke]

Let's see...

Di Montezemolo would like the FIA to be totally in charge of local rulings at the races.

I can't imagine why he would want that...

[LaSarthe+Back]

Well, yes, that's what I was hinting at, but given that Autosport had not made any such angle of it, I wondered if there was something I'd not considered.

[bluesatin]

flemke

I think you got that wrong. Di Montezemolo wants to run the FIA (if he is not already!)

[flemke]

LaSarthe+Back said:

Well, yes, that's what I was hinting at, but given that Autosport had not made any such angle of it, I wondered if there was something I'd not considered.

In the article, he is quoted as using the word "stewards". Do you think he meant "marshals"?

[mgv8dave]

After the sham that is the Fia enquiery after the GP this weekend and generally the way F1 has come over in the Press
this year to me it looks like the guys govening F1 look like a bunch of amateurs. To be honest, they would be better of at Essex Lakeside spending there weekend going round in muddy fields in a group of old Austin Morris Marinas and Montegos

LaSarthe+Back said:

Reading on Autosport that Di Montezemolo would like to see professional stewards employed at race meetings instead of "amateurs at large". Would you think this is a good thing, in that they know what they are doing/looking for, and how to do it.

Or is it a bad thing because the unpaid amateur will have passion for the sport and is not susceptible to unscrupulous behaviour from certain parties.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63587

[AndrewW-G]

I think what Luca M actually meant was that he'd like to see professional scrutineers and observers at each race so there would be some consistency in the decisions made following an incident be it a technical infringement or a racing incident.
Sounds like a good idea in theory, no doubt the tinfoil hat brigade will dream up endless conspiracy theories if it was put in place, but as they would presumably be FIA employees there would be impartiality.

[LaSarthe+Back]

flemke said:

LaSarthe+Back said:

Well, yes, that's what I was hinting at, but given that Autosport had not made any such angle of it, I wondered if there was something I'd not considered.

In the article, he is quoted as using the word "stewards". Do you think he meant "marshals"?

Sorry, my mistake. I meant the people who make race (and championship) deciding calls.

Again, sorry.

[flemke]

AndrewW-G said:

I think what Luca M actually meant was that he'd like to see professional scrutineers and observers at each race so there would be some consistency in the decisions made following an incident be it a technical infringement or a racing incident.
Sounds like a good idea in theory, no doubt the tinfoil hat brigade will dream up endless conspiracy theories if it was put in place, but as they would presumably be FIA employees there would be impartiality.

There are supposed to be three stewards at each GP.
Under rules that were written within the last couple of years, one of the three is the permanent, roving chief steward, Tony Scott Andrews.
The second will be chosen from within the FIA pool of international stewards.
The third will be a local.

In light of any number of decisions this year that were either made directly by, or made under the auspices of, the FIA, the thought that that organisation should have even more control over the sport will send a chill down the spine of any fair-minded fan of motorsports.
We can agree to disagree about the $100M fine and points, about the flexible floor, and about the chilled fuel. We can agree to disagree about mass dampers and barge boards and a second set of wet tyres.
I have heard no argument anywhere, by anyone, that seeks to justify the FIA's penalising both McLaren and Alonso for his delay in leaving his pitbox in Hungary. More than any other example, that particular miscarriage of justice simply boggles the mind.

The question isn't whether we need stewards who are more professional. The question is whether we need a more professionally-run regulator, and the answer to that is painfully obvious.

[Riverside]

flemke said:

I have heard no argument anywhere, by anyone, that seeks to justify the FIA's penalising both McLaren and Alonso for his delay in leaving his pitbox in Hungary. More than any other example, that particular miscarriage of justice simply boggles the mind.

I thought it was fairly clear at the time that the penalty to McLaren was because the FIA didn't believe Ron's initial story to explain why Alonso had been delayed in the pits for so long. I can entirely understand that Ron wanted to play down it's significance & that what a team does to it's own drivers really should be of no concern to the governing body but it was rumoured that Hamilton registered a complaint about Alonso's delaying tactics & essentially dragged the FIA into it (and I'm sure they jumped at the excuse to stick their oar in) and allowed them the chance to penalise Alonso. They felt that Ron attempted to mislead them as he attempted to play down Alonso's poor behaviour and penalised the team.

I think the FIA should have had the good sense to let Ron deal with it within his own team, but probably couldn't resist the chance to try to make themselves look 'tough'.

[flemke]

Riverside said:

flemke said:

I have heard no argument anywhere, by anyone, that seeks to justify the FIA's penalising both McLaren and Alonso for his delay in leaving his pitbox in Hungary. More than any other example, that particular miscarriage of justice simply boggles the mind.

I thought it was fairly clear at the time that the penalty to McLaren was because the FIA didn't believe Ron's initial story to explain why Alonso had been delayed in the pits for so long. I can entirely understand that Ron wanted to play down it's significance & that what a team does to it's own drivers really should be of no concern to the governing body but it was rumoured that Hamilton registered a complaint about Alonso's delaying tactics & essentially dragged the FIA into it (and I'm sure they jumped at the excuse to stick their oar in) and allowed them the chance to penalise Alonso. They felt that Ron attempted to mislead them as he attempted to play down Alonso's poor behaviour and penalised the team.

I think the FIA should have had the good sense to let Ron deal with it within his own team, but probably couldn't resist the chance to try to make themselves look 'tough'.

I agree with what you say, with the exception that, IIRC, Hamilton denied that he had initiated a visit to the stewards.

The FIA were always going to contrive a feeble defence of what they had done. It's what people do when they're scrambling around for a fig leaf.

What I have not heard is anyone else apart from the people who took the decision who has attempted to justify that penalty, because it was absurd.

[Riverside]

flemke said:

I agree with what you say, with the exception that, IIRC, Hamilton denied that he had initiated a visit to the stewards.

Well that's hardly a surprise It could have been any do-gooder (Lewis' dad, someone in the press even) thinking they were doing the right thing.

flemke said:

The FIA were always going to contrive a feeble defence of what they had done. It's what people do when they're scrambling around for a fig leaf.

What I have not heard is anyone else apart from the people who took the decision who has attempted to justify that penalty, because it was absurd.

I think you're right, neither the complainant nor the stewards were looking at the bigger picture when they made this decision. In fairness to the FIA and taking 'being lied to' in isolation I think the team penalty is hard to argue against. Hamilton apparently created the problem, Alonso responded poorly & Ron tried to smooth things over. Had Ron hung his drivers out to dry the press would have had a field day but imo Alonso wouldn't have gained the courage to threaten Ron over the e-mails.

I think it's safe to say that Ron normally plays hardball but that day appeared to go against his normal behaviour & was soft on his drivers. With hindsight it was probably the worst mistake of his career.

[flemke]

Riverside said:

In fairness to the FIA and taking 'being lied to' in isolation I think the team penalty is hard to argue against.

You are saying that the FIA were correct to take away from the team the fifteen points that they had scored (which without the other penalty would have been eighteen points) because Dennis argued his case?

[Riverside]

flemke said:

Riverside said:

In fairness to the FIA and taking 'being lied to' in isolation I think the team penalty is hard to argue against.

You are saying that the FIA were correct to take away from the team the fifteen points that they had scored (which without the other penalty would have been eighteen points) because Dennis argued his case?

I don't think the FIA should have stuck their oar in at all, but once they have stuck their oar in if they feel the team has been dismissive of their authority then clearly they have to show who is boss to maintain that authority.

McLaren changed it's story & even if they'd stuck to the original one it was pretty clear that they were playing it down. The Stewards and both McLaren drivers acted foolishly imo, but so did Ron.

[flemke]

Riverside said:

flemke said:

Riverside said:

In fairness to the FIA and taking 'being lied to' in isolation I think the team penalty is hard to argue against.

You are saying that the FIA were correct to take away from the team the fifteen points that they had scored (which without the other penalty would have been eighteen points) because Dennis argued his case?

I don't think the FIA should have stuck their oar in at all, but once they have stuck their oar in if they feel the team has been dismissive of their authority then clearly they have to show who is boss to maintain that authority.

McLaren changed it's story & even if they'd stuck to the original one it was pretty clear that they were playing it down. The Stewards and both McLaren drivers acted foolishly imo, but so did Ron.

Riverside,

Playing it down to the FIA is exactly what they should have done, as it was none of the FIA's business.
The FIA's job is to ensure fair competition amongst teams and their representatives. The actions of members of a single team vis a vis each other should not be subject to the political interference of the regulator. That is a commercial and ethical matter within a team, whose members always have recourse to civil courts, as well as to the commercial market.
If the FIA were entitled to probe how a team treats its drivers relative to each another, they could stick their nose into whether the test driver should be given a chance to race, or which driver gets the better race director, or who has to do more testing miles, or the hundreds of other things that could potentially be subject to negotiation within the team.
Should the FIA have a view on whether intra-team driver parity should be enforced, or whether a driver hierarchy is acceptable? A view on which driver gets the better fuel strategy, or is more likely to seize the extra fuel-burning lap?
I didn't see the FIA stepping in to ensure a fair competition at Ferrari when Michael was unapologetically given number one status at every race, and his lieutenant invariably had to do the donkey work.

It's a bit crazy. McLaren chose to discipline one of their drivers for harming the other. That is to say, they acted with the purpose of enhancing the competition. For them to end up being docked fifteen points because the FIA did not think that the team's explanation to them was good enough was a pathetic over-reaction.

You don't try to show who's boss by handing out disproportionate, arbitrary penalties that are undeserved. That behaviour doesn't show who is boss - it shows who is a self-important ass.

[Riverside]

I don't disagree with what you're saying flemke, but you are describing how it should be, I'm just describing what happened as I see it and the possible justification behind the odd behaviour.

The FIA have behaved poorly and inconsistently in many instances this year imo, and while I don't particularly subscribe to the Ferrari International Assistance theories (I see it more as incompetence on the FIA's part & dogged Ferrari lawyers rather than any planned conspiriacy), I certainly do think an extreme amount of attention has been paid to McLaren where if the circumstances really were to warrant such attention (and I don't believe they did) it should have been be applied evenhandedly to all teams (ie inspecting the 2008 McLaren for Ferrari IP).

The issue of the McLaren scrutineer ensuring equality at Brazil was down to the FIA needing to be seen to uphold their earlier promise that the McLaren drivers would not be penalised for giving evidence. I think this issue may still stand over the winter and could make it near impossible for Ron to break Alonso's contract. Alonso can leave of course, if someone offers to buys him out I'm sure Ron would be prepared to negotiate.

The actions of the FIA this year have the appearance of attempting to create close racing, with each botched move attempting to fix the damage caused by the last but creating unexpected problems further down the line as random events unfold, and it seems clear that they should have stayed well out of it just as they did with the Toyota/Ferrari IP saga.

Personally I really glad Alonso didn't have any bad luck over the last couple of races and I'll bet many at Mclaren feel the same way. The engineers working on Alonso's car were under enormous pressure with the consequenses of any mistake far worse than simply losing the championship. I'm not convinced there is another team on the grid that wouldn't have folded under that kind of pressure, it's an extraordinary achievement.

Dragging this back on-topic for a moment, anything that promotes consistency from the stewards is a good thing, I think Di Montezemolo's idea is worth a shot but that doesn't solve the ego problem higher up.

[flemke]

Riverside said:

I don't disagree with what you're saying flemke, but you are describing how it should be, I'm just describing what happened as I see it and the possible justification behind the odd behaviour.

I quite agree that that was the FIA's claimed justification. My point was just that it holds no water, and I am aware of no serious person who thinks that it does.

Riverside said:

Dragging this back on-topic for a moment, anything that promotes consistency from the stewards is a good thing, I think Di Montezemolo's idea is worth a shot but that doesn't solve the ego problem higher up.

The problem with the proposal (apart from the fact that Luca di Montezemolo could assert that the sun was going to rise in the morning and I wouldn't believe him; IMO he, not Todt, is the true cancer at Ferrari) is that it further concentrates power within the small circle that have demonstrated over and over in recent years that they cannot be relied upon for even-handed regulation without fear or favour. To the contrary, not a recent season has gone by when they have failed to spark a bitter controversy not between the competitors, but with regard to their own wisdom and integrity.

Yes, one is uncomfortable having a "local yokel" amongst the three stewards, who make decisions that can crucially influence someone's career, not to mention serving justice, or violating it.
On the other hand, and in the light of the many dubious judgments for which the FIA has been responsible, one is perhaps relieved to have one of the three stewards be - in theory - outside of the orbit of Maxanello.