Monaco GP 2010 - Monte Carlo

[Just_a_fan]

Just don't give it to Hill again. He forgot to investigate Rubens tantrum in his haste to punish Schumacher. I wasn't impressed.

That is just so childish it's unfunny. To suggest that one man held sway in the stewards' room in order to avenge something that seems to worry everyone except him is silly.

It is more childish to defend the the sanctimonious sod who did a bad job. He screwed up! So you should be prepared to see him blamed.

The only people who think he screwed up are Schuie fans. Or has he (or any of the stewards/Charlie) gone on record to admit they made a mistake.

The only people who perceive a problem between Hill and Schuie these days are the media (who are keen to fan the flames in order to generate a story) and Schuie's fans (who seem happy to help the media).

The fact of the matter is that Schuie, following instructions from his team, made a mistake in overtaking in that location at that time. Not helped by poor wording of the rules, true. I also think the punishment was excessive in the circumstances - owing to the fact that the rules are a bit vague the best option would have been to revert him to his last lap position. But I'm not sure the rules allow for that either.

Had it been any other racing steward there'd have been calls for rules to be clarified etc. Just because it's Hill looking at Schuie it's automatically considered to be vengeful / vindictive. That says more about the people making those comments than it does about Hill and his relationship with Schuie in my view...

[Just_a_fan]

When Merc announced Schumacher's come back Hill felt compelled to advise Jean Todt how important it would be to be even handed in punishing Schumacher to avoid any ideas of bias. He surly did not take much time to show his unbiased stance when it counted.

There's going to be a lot of interested viewers watching the sport for that one, because the suspicion was always that Michael got a little bit of favouritism from the FIA," said Hill. "I think the FIA are going to have to be on their toes to make sure that there is no suspicion of that in the coming season."

The point he was making was that Todt (now head of FIA) was his boss at Ferrari and that there might be people who suggest that that relationship would colour the FIA's dealings with Schuie (just as they suggested, seemingly accurately in some circumstances e.g. funding, that the FIA favoured Ferrari previously).

If anything, the Monaco debacle is useful in showing that such a relationship no longer exists and won't interfere with the sport.

[WhiteBlue]

That is just so childish it's unfunny. To suggest that one man held sway in the stewards' room in order to avenge something that seems to worry everyone except him is silly.

It is more childish to defend the the sanctimonious sod who did a bad job. He screwed up! So you should be prepared to see him blamed.

The only people who think he screwed up are Schuie fans. Or has he (or any of the stewards/Charlie) gone on record to admit they made a mistake.

Barichello was reported to the stewards for throwing his steering wheel in a tantrum and they could not get their heads out of their asses because they were busy punishing a guy who only did what his team had told him.

Gutjahr confessed they messed up.

Actually, we had Barrichello on the list,” the Swiss admitted. He explained that the issue simply fell off the agenda in the “hectic rush” to sort out the controversial Schumacher maneuver.

Hill himself said after the experience of full stewarding that he was not prepared for it and did not feel up to it.

I imagined I would be there as a consultant providing driver insight to the stewards, who would then make the decisions, ” said Hill. “My expertise is as a driver rather than a lawmaker or interpreter of regulations.
“It was a fascinating experience but I wonder whether it is right that drivers are put in the position of interpreting the regulations.”

He should not be nominated again due to his inaptitude, IMO.

[Just_a_fan]

@WB

What Hill says is that he doesn't think that drivers should be interpreting laws.

I think he's right - the driver steward should just be there to help the other stewards understand the driver's view of things. The stewards and Charlie should be interpreting the laws and just asking the driver steward for his view of the "racing incident" part of any situation.

That way we can get away from people attempting to put Machiavellian subtexts to rulings.

[segedunum]

The only people who think he screwed up are Schuie fans. Or has he (or any of the stewards/Charlie) gone on record to admit they made a mistake.

I'm not the biggest Schumacher fan in the world but I think they made a mistake. The guys at Autosport think they made a mistake and they don't exactly think he's a saint. The loophole was absolutely clear, and no you're not going to hear an admission of screwing up from the stewards other than in the completely reworded 40.13. However, none of that was Hill's fault. I don't know why he was even involved there.

Par for the course in the regulation of this sport though.

[ArchAngel]

...What Hill says is that he doesn't think that drivers should be interpreting laws.

I think he's right - the driver steward should just be there to help the other stewards understand the driver's view of things. The stewards and Charlie should be interpreting the laws and just asking the driver steward for his view of the "racing incident" part of any situation...

This sentiment of Damon has been cited enough number of times and I do agree with him. Yet I wonder whether he actually understood or meant what he said. A driver is primarily trained for years & years to "interpret" and react to evolving track conditions, changing car behavior, and developing race situations. It's hard enough to think of much else when they're in the middle of the pack with other cars squeezed around them as they blast through a tight & twisty track at dangerously high speeds. Hill was supposed to share a bit of that perspective to the stewards -- what would a driver be seeing, thinking & feeling in that situation.

For the record, I don't attribute his decision to call the move illegal & punishable as a way to exact some measure of revenge over a past incident. But I am disappointed that he failed to think like a driver and share to the other stewards what would've been going on inside a driver's head upon witnessing the following:

• message received "SC in this lap"
• SC peeled off into the pitlane
• all SC boards were withdrawn
• all flags & lights changed from yellow to green
• his team told him to "go for it!"

As a driver, would he (or any of the other drivers on the grid, even Alonso) have been serenely thinking to himself "Hang on! According to new yet obscure Rule 40.13, I can't race anymore in these last few turns and couple'a hundred yards to the finish line! I'm a race driver, but sod all those green flags & lights! I'll just coast to the finish line like it's a parade lap and just wave to the people!" Would he, really?? Seriously?? I don't think so.

Yet for whatever reason, he decided to think just like any other pencil-pushing bureucrat who's even less-informed than the armchair experts in here. WTH did they put a driver-steward in there for, then?? [/color]

[lebesset]

despite all the hype and talk about changing the wording the rule for the last lap is actually absolutely clear ...if the safety car is out on the last lap [ as it was ] , you can't overtake after the safety car line

what's complicated about that

green flag means track clear ; so ? green flag on parade lap means you can race ?
don't think so

[WhiteBlue]

@WB

What Hill says is that he doesn't think that drivers should be interpreting laws.

I think he's right - the driver steward should just be there to help the other stewards understand the driver's view of things. The stewards and Charlie should be interpreting the laws and just asking the driver steward for his view of the "racing incident" part of any situation.

That way we can get away from people attempting to put Machiavellian subtexts to rulings.

Hill is clueless and ignorant if he discovers the nature of his job as a steward several months after the public recognized it. Since the FiA announced the driver stewards it was completely clear that the job comprises full judgement like all other stewards. It also means that all stewards share the responsibility to judge all events and incidents with the same attention to all competitors and be even handed.

I remain convinced that Hill screwed up like the other three stewards of Monaco by focussing on how to punish Schumacher and forgetting to even look at Rubens tantrum. All four of them effed up but Hill is the man who was preaching equal punishment and failed to perform his duties when it counted. He should be removed from the list of driver stewards for failing his job. Herbert did very well in my view and deserves to have a second go. I don't want to see Hill again in a responsible position at the FiA.

[lebesset]

hill has said he was aware of the responsibility but having done it doesn't think it is correct , he thinks it should be advisory ; saying that he didn't discover the nature of the job until several months after the public is the clueless and ignorant part ...anyway, in reality , the vast majority of the public thought it was advisory because the press presented it that way



the law is actually quite clear despite all that has been said ; the re-wording is just political

please explain in what other way rule 40.13 could be interpreted than the way it was ; the stewards had no options in the matter ; either it was the last lap or it was not ...if it was , rule 40.13 applies NO OVERTAKING BETWEEN THE SAFETY CAR LINE AND THE FINISH IS PERMITTED



the safety car has always pulled in before the end of a safety car lap , and overtaking permitted when the new lap began ; the fact that a regulation that overtaking after the safety car line was introduced doesn't mean it isn't a safety car lap any more than showing green flags on the parade lap means it isn't the parade lap

[WhiteBlue]

hill has said he was aware of the responsibility but having done it doesn't think it is correct , he thinks it should be advisory ; saying that he didn't discover the nature of the job until several months after the public is the clueless and ignorant part ...anyway, in reality , the vast majority of the public thought it was advisory because the press presented it that way..

pure BS

I imagined I would be there as a consultant providing driver insight to the stewards, who would then make the decisions.

He was under the illusion that others would make the decisions. He clearly said it himself. The public has been very clear about the way the driver stewards work. A person with a minimum interest in doing a solid job should have known what was specified in the job. If he disagreed he could have rejected the job earlier. Bottom line: Screw up.

I have no problem with the Schumacher decision. One can in all honesty come to that decision as one can also come to the decision that the rules were not sufficiently clear.

I would have refused to pass judgement on Schumacher and left it to the ICA to sort out a potential Ferrari protest. The stewards have the power to make reasonable decisions if the FiA and race control make a hash of the rules. They have taken contrary interpretations (for instance on mass dampers) in the past. They could have done it again in this case if they felt the application of the messy rules would be unfair. They did not and that is the end of any reasonable debate on this in my view. There is a result and it stands.

[lebesset]

it is the end of any reasonable debate because both the law and the intention of the law are absolutely clear
actually there never was any possibility of a reasonable debate because any law which says it applies on the last lap must do just that ; apply on the last lap

what other possible interpretation of law 40.13 is there ? I would love to know what it could be !what other circumstances exist that 40.13 could apply to ? please tell me as to me last lap means last lap and no overtaking means no overtaking ...or am I simplifying !

in any court of law the argument that there was any other possible interpretation would be rejected out of hand , the fact that the FIA have agreed to re-write it is , in my opinion , a face saving exercise for a certain important team

is there a single person in F1 who doesn't understand exactly the meaning of the law as currently written ?

[WhiteBlue]

Lebesset, are you desperate to provoke a debate with your 40.13 ramblings? The issue is as dead as an old road kill.

[img]http://www.news-tasmania.com/morning-af ... l9.jpg[img]

You should sop baiting people back into it again.

[aral]

Two weeks after the race, and there are still some arguing about the decision. The race is over, Merc have accepted the decision, the rule is to be clarified, so that those who didn't understand it (read Merc) will not fall foul of it again.

Whiteblue, your continued attack on Hill is despicable.

[WhiteBlue]

Whiteblue, your continued attack on Hill is despicable.

Not at all. He richly deserves some hard words and a slap on the hands in my view.

Hill was a mediocre driver in his time compared to the greats. He is now in the best possible job he ever had, presiding over the old boy's club. He should stop meddling with current sporting events and go back to his BRDC job.

[lebesset]

despicable ..the very word I was looking for , no , perhaps scurrilous would be better

especially as your statement as to the fact that everybody knew that the job of the driver was NOT to assist the stewards was totally erroneous

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/ ... 10279.html

unless they didn't read the official FIA website which was reported by the worlds media , which they then didn't read either , in which case they wouldn't know about the drivers' appointment , would they ?

I have read the world according to garp

perhaps you should publish 'the world according to white blue '.....I most certainly wouldn't read that as I like at least some grasp of reality