FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[scotty]

Formula 1's driver penalty system is set for an overhaul, after it emerged the FIA is discussing changes to the way punishments are handed out.

Derek Warwick, who has acted as an FIA drivers' steward, said the validity of the current regulations had been discussed during a recent meeting of the stewards' council in Paris, and that "a few changes might be coming" as a result.

"We had a council meeting in Paris which I headed with Charlie [Whiting] and came away with some good ideas," Warwick told AUTOSPORT at the FOTA Fans' Forum at the Williams factory on Tuesday night.

"Whether anything can come of them and they can be introduced, I don't know - this is all a new process, we didn't use to have these meetings. Charlie will go away, analyse it and make recommendations. There might be a few changes coming along in the next few months or year.

"There is a code out there but I don't always agree with it - a drive through is too harsh a penalty for some incidents and not harsh enough for others. There is still room for tweaking.

"There were a few ideas to come out of the meeting with all the permanent stewards which were quite interesting. Charlie will produce an agenda and give it to Jean [Todt], but whether they can be introduced next year I don't know yet. This is all new, we didn't used to have these meetings."

Although Warwick could not disclose the exact details of the rules in discussion, he used the example of a drive through equating to different time losses at different circuits as part of the reason the rules were being reviewed.

"There are penalties inherited over time. Is a drive through at Canada, where you lose about 15s, the same as one at somewhere like Abu Dhabi for example?," he said.

"They all average out eventually, but I think we are always looking at changes."

Warwick also defended having a rotating panel of stewards, saying that the impartiality of the panel is beyond question regardless of who is on it.

"I can look back this year and think certain penalties have been too strong or too weak," he admitted. "If I step back I don't agree with some decisions, but that's because I don't have all the facts.

"I thought Schumacher should have been banned [following his move on Rubens Barrichello at Hungary 2010] but that wasn't the vote of the stewards.

"We haven't got all the facts. In the stewards room we have. We have all the angles, all the data and can make a more correct judgement."

Any speculation on what these undisclosed potential changes may be?

[racechick]

Hmmm. Interesting. Lets hope it differentitaes more fron genuine accidents and deliberate foul play. I agree thgough it needs reforming

[What's Burning?]

Let's start off with consistency shall we?

[racechick]

Yes. Thats a good start WB!

[vaptin]

There does need to be a greater spread of penalties available, I agree.

[kerc]

Let's start off with consistency shall we?

[andrew]

The only change they need to make is to get rid of in race penalties. Apply all penalties after the race so their is an opportunity to appeal a decision. They could also get rid of the obsession with apportioning blame and bring back racing incidents.

Consistency comes down to individual opinion. What I may think is inconsistent will be another persons fair and just and vise-versa.

[cheekybru]

Hmmm. Interesting. Lets hope it differentitaes more fron genuine accidents and deliberate foul play. I agree thgough it needs reforming

Yup, i think there may be a lot of people highup that might have been influenced by a certain person recently

[What's Burning?]

The only change they need to make is to get rid of in race penalties. Apply all penalties after the race so their is an opportunity to appeal a decision. They could also get rid of the obsession with apportioning blame and bring back racing incidents.

Consistency comes down to individual opinion. What I may think is inconsistent will be another persons fair and just and vise-versa.

Consistency isn't open to interpretation. It doesn't mean you're going to consistently see it one way while someone else sees it another way. Consistency is an agreed upon rule set that isn't open to personal interpretation and an environment where rules are applied equally from race to race REGARDLESS of who is the in steward's role for that event. Consistancy is having a rule set that account for various degrees of an infraction or incident and also allow for the fact that it's racing and accidents are a part of the sport.

Personally I'm all for a review of the system and as I said, keeping consistency in the rulings handed down as consistent as possible from race to race.

[scotty]

True consistency is impossible given the sheer nature of racing incidents, and is therefore just a pipe dream. Andrew is correct in this instance to say the consistency is open to interpretation, because each decision is made with an element of interpretation - there is no way it couldn't be, because then all perspective and context would be lost, which would be ludicrous.

However if you appied black and white rulings in a bid to achieve consistency then it would in one sense, but in another you would gain inconsistency through punishments not fitting crimes - as we see on many occassions already. I would argue that perhaps the stewards are already falling foul of this mindset given some of the things we have seen, and should be able to use some common sense alongside their experience alongside the masses of data available to apply penalties that are more fluid and can be more appropriately applied to a specific incident.

[Jabberwocky]

For me I think the best way to do it would be to add time lost after the event.

eg 2 drivers tag, the driver who's not at fault needs to pit for a new wing. the time taken to return to the pits, and have the new wing fitted should be caulculated, doubled, and added to the guilty parties time post race.

if the innocent driver has to retire due to the incident the guilty driver is removed from the race and also starts at the back for the following race.

[What's Burning?]

Because you say is a pipe dream means it can't be improved or enhanced or at least try to achieve it? Let's give up on world peace and ending world hunger while we're at it.

I'm a supporter of letting people race and only passing out a penalty when it is nearer to black and white... there's an easier means to consistency right there. Let more things stand as a racing incidents and not get caught up in the 60/40 type of situation. The rules are being reviewed not because they're working but because they're not, so let's see what comes out of this, but whether achievable or not, consistency needs to be one of the goals. I'm sure things can be improved upon plenty.

[LewEngBridewell]

The only change they need to make is to get rid of in race penalties. Apply all penalties after the race so their is an opportunity to appeal a decision. They could also get rid of the obsession with apportioning blame and bring back racing incidents.

Consistency comes down to individual opinion. What I may think is inconsistent will be another persons fair and just and vise-versa.

To be honest, I prefer in-race penalties much more. There's nothing worse than having the result tampered with AFTER the race has finished, especially if it concerns the front-runners. Such practice is a sure-fire way of stirring up discontent and controversy.

Spa 2008 and Melbourne 2009 spring to mind in alarming detail.

[darwin dali]

Agreed, let's do away with drive-through penalties or grid demotions at the next race or time-added penalties and introduce lashes and paddle strokes, the number of which depends on the severity of the offense
I volunteer as the permanent paddle mistress to take care of the little F1 cherubs
There - we've got it sorted

[darwin dali]

The only change they need to make is to get rid of in race penalties. Apply all penalties after the race so their is an opportunity to appeal a decision. They could also get rid of the obsession with apportioning blame and bring back racing incidents.

Consistency comes down to individual opinion. What I may think is inconsistent will be another persons fair and just and vise-versa.

To be honest, I prefer in-race penalties much more. There's nothing worse than having the result tampered with AFTER the race has finished, especially if it concerns the front-runners. Such practice is a sure-fire way of stirring up discontent and controversy.

Spa 2008 and Melbourne 2009 spring to mind in alarming detail.

For in-race penalties there's no review possible, i.e., talking to drivers and find out their point of view, so a bad decision could ruin a driver's race. Adding time after the race when a careful review and interviews are performed seems fairer.