The Same Stewards At Every Race.

[Adam43]

This has come out of something Montoya has said recently, although has been suggested (many) times before.

At present F1 mostly has different stewards at each GP. Is this a good idea? Here is Montoya's take on it:
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlin...09144704.shtml

JPM
The biggest problem we have got is that every race you have got different stewards. I think it is sad to see that such a big series is still messing around with different stewards every race.

You can't go against the FIA. They are making the rules and it's like: 'you like it, you race, you don't like it, go race somewhere else.' All you need is more consistency. The rules are there and you have got to know what is right and what is wrong. You have got to have someone who goes to every race and they know what is right or wrong.

In this weeks Motorsport News (8/10/03) Ron Dennis has the opposite view.

RD
I feel that we've always got to look at stewards and appreciate that they vary from race to race. There's been an inconsistencey in their judgement but if you had the same stewards at every race there would be a mounting perception that those particular stewards had a particular style and way of conducting themselves.

I don't think there is a good solution. Do you need stewards? Yes. Is the system perfect? No. But it's a system we've used for many years. As always, I would personally prefer to see a higher level of independence

OK Ron is always conservative (little c), but I think he has a point too.

[Super Tourer]

There is an argument for both methods. One in theory offers a constant, the other a variable.

I would go for a rota of stewards who did say 4 races per year split across the season, the teams and drivers wouldn't need to know when and where they were officiating.

This would give the best of both worlds. A more consistent approach, combined with a rotation system that avoided stewards getting too 'comfortable' or building too many pre-conceptions. This would also build experience.

I also agree with JPM that when a title is at stake, an offence that might have gone unpenalised as a 50/50, that subsequently becomes a punishable offence at a later race needs some clarification.

Particularly in a tight contest, which we all want to see more of.

ST

[Knowlesy]

I think Super Tourers idea is the best way. If you used the same stewards all year, then if one is biased then that will shine through regularly.

[Smokey 6 litre]

Originally posted by knowlesy
I think Super Tourers idea is the best way. If you used the same stewards all year, then if one is biased then that will shine through regularly.

But if you had a jury of 12 stewards who had to agree unamiously then bias shouldn't be a problem...hmmm, this is begining to sound like a criminal trial.
If a unanimus agreement isn't m,ade withing 1/3rd race distance then no penalty can be given except points deductions or other penalties if the incident would've warrinted them under the old system.

[ljakse]

I'm not sure what would be better in theese circumstances, but if FIA would, not just clarify, but expand their Sporting rules, it wouldn't matter.
I mean, if there would be rules about what exactly a driver in front and a driver behind are allowed to do when the second one wants to overtake, than we wouldn't be discussing this. Or, if the rule would say if you're to obey yellow flag from were you can see it, or from were it is, than we wouldn't have had discussion if TGF broked the rule when overtaking Panis.
I could think of many other examples that could make everybody's lifes much simplier.

[GP Racer]

All sports are played by people and officiated by people. Sometimes the calls go your way and sometimes they don't, that's just the "weakness" in such a system. As long as humans are overseeing our sports you will never get rid of mistakes being made or even the perception of mistakes being made. So in this regard, I don't think it matters much if its the same stewards or different ones.

On the other hand, I can't think of another sport that uses the same stewards, umpires or referees.

[The Zuschauer]

The system used in Olympic judging could be useful. A panel of judges, and discard the highest and lowest scores.

Translating to Formula One - the stewards investigate an incident and determine a penalty. That incident/penalty combination is then reviewed by a panel (of say 6 people), and at least 4 of them have to agree with the punishment. If not, no punishment.

[gttouring]

but time is of the essence, if the penalty was deemed fit for the 'yellow incidence' at Indy than whenis it too late, and what is the appropriate penalty. Different stewards, marshalls, corner workers, flagmen etc. do lend too much variability, but if it is the same circue travelling- even if biases show through, how long before bias is noticed 2-3-4 races? a race has skill involved, good teamwork, and lots of luck as everyone knows, and the proper call and flags and penalties fall under luck towards many drivers, although it should be more academic, it must be called as it is seen by the marshall at the time, that is the pace of racing and the reason they are there. they do the work they should have their opinions valued.

[Bleu]

IMO, one of three stewards would be same all year, and other two changing.

[KC]

I fail to understand why the most important and most expensive and most famous racing championship in the world does not have a hired staff of personnel to administer it. Imagine the company you work for changing CEOs or bosses every two weeks. Imagien that every now and again you get someone who gets the job not because they are good at management, but because they know someone. Its ridiculous. Its one thing to use volunteer marshals and some staff, but to oversee the entire operation you must have a travelling Steward to run the race. Anything else is unprofessional and bush league.

[Mark Webber]

Doesn't work in V8 taxi racing in Oz . Just have the same bonehead's getting it wrong each race

[Jordi]

We need the same stewards at each race. But please not Mr. Nazir Hoosein. Protagonist of the stop & go belatedly given to Schumacher at Silverstone 1998, or the secondary brake pedal fuss at Brazil 98. You would think he would no longer be at his post after the Silverstone thing, but he was one of the Stewards that gave Montoya the drive-through at Malaysia 2002...

[Mr V]

Not entirely sure what can be done to make F1 more consistant?

Can anyone tell me the difference between these 2 collisions?......

(Other than the fact that one driver was penalised and the other wasn't)

JPM and Rubens Indy 2003

.

[Mr V]

And this?......

Michael and DC Argentina 1998

.

[Mr V]

Both avoidable accidents, but different outcomes.

[Asp]

I agree with Blue - 1 constant and the rest variable. The constant can try and maintain the continuity, and other two will have knowledge of the circuit and no bias. It's also just a development of the existing system with the FIA steward - just make the FIA steward the same week-in week-out.

[Sato san]

Mr V....best post of the week awarded to you .

totally agree with the point your making .

[Jordi]

Yes, well done Mr V...

It's special to remember that collision as at Indy Schumacher himself was somewhat angry at Coulthard, saying that "he nearly took his nose off" when DC closed the door and left the tyre mark in the sidepod of the F2003-GA.

Well, DC lost a rear winglet, jumped and spun, but... it was nothing back in 1998 I guess...