November 27, 2021, November 8:2427, 1:12, 2021 | Works written by Keith Corantin

The latest controversial decision on the rules of Formula One has sparked new discussions about whether those responsible for overseeing the sport are making a unanimous decision.

Advertising | Be a supporter and stay away from advertising. Among those who think there is room for improvement, some believe that having the same administrator responsible in every game is a step in the right direction. At present, the steward for every weekend, from illegal driving to technical problems, etc., is selected from a collection of multiple chairpersons, driver stewards and others.

Advertising | Become a supporter without advertising

But according to Lewis Hamilton, FIA F1 Race Director Michael Massi recently told the drivers that similar incidents may be handled in different ways by different managers. This seems to leave room for inconsistency.

Is it time for F1 to appoint a permanent administrator to accompany the series from venue to venue? Is this change more likely to produce decisions that are seen as consistent and fair?

Sharing responsibility for such important decisions among the population ensures that a different perspective is applied every weekend. Regardless of all those involved in decision-making pay close attention to past events, when the person answering the call changes due to the event, change is inevitable.

The introduction of a permanent butler will ensure that every decision is made by those who make similar decisions during the tournament. Therefore, situations where similar decisions elicit widely different reactions will be less frequent.

There are other potential benefits of having the same housekeeper on every race weekend, such as reducing the time required to make a decision, which has been a problem in recent races.

It is not certain whether having permanent administrators will change the number of disputed decisions that have attracted attention in recent games.

For example, it is believed that Max Verstappen avoided punishment for allegedly forcing Hamilton to widen at Interlagos because of the pitch at the corner exit. The interpretation of the rules surprised Lando Norris, Lando Norris. Norris was punished for similar punishments. In the Sergio Perez incident in Austria, there happened to be rubble on the outside of the turn.

This shows that some people believe that the reason for the "inconsistent" decision is not the appeals made by different administrators, but the unclear, unobvious or controversial standards applied.

For me, the call to permanent steward is like one of the "grass is always greener" debates. I agree that there is a problem and I think a change needs to be made, but although I see the logic of the argument about permanent administrators, I am not entirely convinced that it will successfully solve the problem, or at least completely solve the problem.

I have some sympathy for the butler, especially in the current situation, the champion is entering the final game, and the stakes are rising in a way that has never been seen in years. Nonetheless, I have shared the surprises many people have expressed about the way some recent decisions have been handled.

One argument against permanent administrators is that this increases the possibility that decisions may often be beneficial or detrimental to a particular driver or team. I suspect that compared with the current situation, if the same person is on the phone every week, then this obvious bias will actually be easier to spot. But anyway, I doubt whether this will happen.

This makes me think that permanent housekeeping may be an idea worth trying, but I don't believe this is the complete solution. Coherent explanations and fair reasons for what drivers can and cannot do will certainly convince everyone more that the same racing rules apply to all competitors. Especially when it comes to the annoying thing that drivers use track restrictions in the asphalt runoff area, F1 has done a poor job of fairness supervision this year and before.

Do you agree that F1 should have permanent administrators? Vote below and post your opinion in the comments.

Do you agree that F1 should have permanent administrators?

A RaceFans account is required to vote. If you don't have one, please register for an account here or read more about registration here. When this voting ends, the results will be displayed instead of the voting form.

Did the F1 race control make the right decision when it restarted on the last lap? In the first lap, did the butler make the right decision about Hamilton and Verstappen? Was Verstappen correctly penalized for Hamilton's "brake test"? Did the butler make the right decision? Hamilton and Verstappen in the fourth round? Should Ricardo be punished for his collision with Bottas on the first lap? Browse all debates and polls

Are there any potential stories, tips or queries? Learn more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Promotional content from the web | Become a RaceFans supporter to hide this and other ads

John H (@john-h) November 27, 2021, 8:30

As with many things in life, I think what is needed is compromise. If we have 3 groups of permanent administrators and they meet to compare opinions with each other, but it is true that each person has 7-8 races, at least the drivers can expect more consistency. Things are too random at the moment, it's better to have a better structure. Agree that the group mentioned in the article will really be "grass greener" because it may set a bias for the entire season. Of course, simply briefing the administrator on what is acceptable, rather than at the beginning of the season may also produce better results than the current one.

Then they should have some standards for their work. Currently, drivers are punished for not being able to complete impossible tasks, such as changing the route when passing a curve at maximum speed while already leading. The rules prohibit braking tests, and they should also supervise their polar twins, accelerate tests, or attempt to crash. Many other nuances exist in the behavior of the driver and the car and can be processed so that the butler does not use more personal preferences based on their emotions, but uses a more mathematical or logical process to assess culpability.

I agree, but it is slightly different. The same group of butlers should be on a similar track. For example, one set is used for street circuits. One set is used for high speeds, such as Spa, Monza, Austria, etc. One set is used for high down pressure tracks, such as Hungary. In this way, race tracks with similar characteristics that the teams (and Pirelli) will approach in a similar way will also be similarly supervised by the same group of administrators. This will make it easier to find butlers, and they don't need to do a full season, but a group.

There should also be greater visibility. A reason should be provided for every decision. If it is during the game, it may not be immediately, but in the following week, fans will know why the decision (or not) was made.

This is a good idea. They can first make sure that the butler who participates in the 2021 World Cup in Brazil will never participate in any butler activities again.​​ They seem to be particularly annoyed with a team and a driver all weekend.

@spiderman I seem to remember that although I may be wrong, it is actually the same driver (I think it is Hamilton) who was treated unfairly under the previous standing management team (and to a certain extent his team) It is considered to be one of the reasons for the introduction of the rotating panel. Especially Belgium in 2008, and the prejudices that were generally considered pro-Ferrari and anti-McLaren at the time (whether this view is correct is another matter, but it usually creates enough storms for the FIA ​​to try to change certain thing).

In Brazil, I absolutely disagree with Max’s decision not to punish Max for driving them off track, but I don’t think you can complain to the DSQ administrator. The car failed the test. Finish. If you have any questions about this, please raise it to the scrutineer and rules, not to the butler. Once the car inspection team comes to the administrator with evidence that the car has failed the test, giving DSQ almost becomes procedural. I don't remember when the last time the car failed the test and did not get the DSQ.

@randommallard re: Brazilian review. My understanding is that the car initially met the test requirements, and the administrator admitted that the malfunction was caused by the malfunctioning component. I think it is unreasonable to punish a component for failing the test after it fails. If it is suspected that the malfunction was intentional, or that Mercedes gained an advantage, then this may be reasonable, but none of these are true: the wing still obeys in the middle and the right side, while on the left it fails by a minimal The 0.2 mm, literally means the width of a hairline! Mercedes should be allowed to replace parts without being punished, especially considering that the fault is obvious: a few screws are loose!

@slightlycrusty My understanding is that after the preliminary inspection that started on the weekend, the car is legal. After passing the test, when the DRS is closed, the flaps meet the test requirements, and the gap must be between 10 mm and 15 mm, but there is One period when the DRS was turned on, the outside of the wing malfunctioned. I fully believe that Mercedes has not made illegal cars, but once it passes the test and fails, there are few other options besides DSQ. The rules even make it very clear that "the claim that you have not obtained a performance advantage should not be a defense."

I absolutely believe that this is the explanation of the malfunction, although it has not been a defense in the past. For example, in Hungary, AM claimed (and later managed to provide evidence) that there was a fuel leak, which meant that inspectors could not extract the required amount of fuel from the tank (note: AM’s problem is not necessarily the fact that they ran out of fuel or Insufficient fuelling of the car is not a direct violation of the law. In fact, the FIA ​​test requires 1 liter to ensure that the fuel meets the regulations).

In terms of wing replacement, if they solve this problem themselves during the qualifying round, they will be allowed. During the qualifying period and the grid, the team can change parts under parc ferme without written permission, as long as the team has reason to believe that the permission will be obtained (hence why RB can be on Quali/on the grid). The housekeeper said in the report in Brazil that if they want to tighten these bolts in the garage, they are completely allowed. However, the car that completed Quali was the one that was inspected. As the event administrator pointed out, "In the end, the rules were clear. At the moment of the compliance inspection, this car was not complied with."

I think in this incident, the butler did nothing wrong or should do anything better. If there is anything that needs to be changed, it is the rule in this case, but for now, the housekeeper applies the rule as usual.

@randommallard Thanks for your explanation. Although the rules can be adjusted in this regard, it sounds like the administrator’s behavior is indeed fair.

F1oSaurus (@f1osaurus) November 28, 2021, 16:32

The @randommallard team has been allowed to repair parts. If they repaired the part and it passed the test, then there is no problem.

Of course, if the test is that you need to bring a certain amount of fuel, repairing the leak in the fuel system will not bring it back. This is not a related comparison.

Red Bull also replaced the rear wing of the Parc ferme. Will those wings pass the inspection? suspect.

@f10saurus This is correct. You can repair it during qualifying or at the start, but you cannot repair it between qualifying and car inspection. The FIA ​​confirmed that if they discover damage to the wing during the meeting, they will be allowed to repair it. To use fuel comparison again, you cannot fill the car with fuel between the end of qualifying and the start of the car inspection to ensure that you have the 1 liter of fuel you need. You can refill it as you wish during the meeting, but not between the end of the meeting and the entry review.

Re: RB's rear wing. They will change these during qualifying, when they are allowed, or in the grid, when they are allowed. The question is not "Will they pass the review?" but "Do they pass the review?". I think Brazil has emphasized that the review process is not perfect, but the job of the steward is to enforce the rules, not to make the rules (although they do not do well in both aspects)

Sorry, I misspelled @f1osaurus

F1oSaurus (@f1osaurus) December 1, 2021, 16:04

@randommallard Sorry, but this is just nonsense. If they fail the inspection, they can repair the damaged parts. Mercedes said they have done this before.

Repairing the leaking fuel system will not bring back the lost fuel. This example is not relevant at all. But yes, the extent to which they allow Aston Martin to recycle fuel shows how tolerant they are. The rules clearly stipulate that fuel needs to be drawn from the car. Aston Martin claimed that the pump must be broken, and they were allowed to repair the pump, then even surpass it and recover the fuel in any way possible.

If there are any fuel examples that show how incredible it is that administrators usually compensate for damaged parts.

The actual reason for the butler's refusal to repair was because they did not see any obvious damage. This is of course also bs, because you can't always see it. Then the screw is broken, so there is actually obvious damage.

It is ridiculous that a car failed the inspection of damaged parts. They have never done this before. No, lost fuel is not a damaged part that can be repaired.

The rules clearly stipulate that fuel needs to be drawn from the car

The rules clearly stipulate that the tail opening cannot exceed 85mm.

Aston Martin claimed that the pump must be broken, and they were allowed to repair the pump, then even surpass it and recover the fuel in any way possible.

No, they are not allowed to do this in the game. After the game, once the DSQ had been distributed, they were allowed to do so and used it in their review request, but failed. In the same way, after the administrator made a decision, Merkel was allowed to inspect the wings.

In addition, this is not unheard of. Raikkonen was excluded from the 2013 qualifying competition because the floor failed the deflection test. The key quote was "Lotus believes that the floor damage caused by the track curb caused the malfunction, but their explanation is not accepted as a racing car. Excuse me not being able to pass the exam."

Once the car fails the test, the usual question is "why did it fail the test". If there is an obvious reason, such as a collision or collision captured on the camera, this is usually sufficient. In the case of damaged floors (like the ones above), running across the curb is sometimes a valid reason (Grosjean 2013 in Hungary, Kvyat 2016 in Monaco), and sometimes not. In the case of Mercedes, it was clear that something went wrong (broken). What is not clear is why it broke. This is not quite right:

The actual reason for the butler's refusal to repair was because they did not see any obvious damage.

According to the housekeeper’s report, the reason they were not allowed to change was because they "cannot extend this argument [collision damage] to cover the part that was found to be unqualified in the post-meeting inspection without obvious other evidence. Instead of considering it here. Normal operation during this event.” That is, Mercedes could not give the reason for the damage to the part. This indicates that either the car was not assembled correctly (it is the responsibility of the team to manufacture the car in accordance with the regulations), or the wing cannot withstand the forces at full speed.

I'm not arguing that the rules should be like this, because they obviously have some problems. I'm just arguing that butlers follow the rules currently written, even if they shouldn't be written this way.

F1oSaurus (@f1osaurus) December 2, 2021, 7:26

@randommallard Just stop. Even before DSQ, Aston Martin received more fuel drains than allowed. Then indeed they were still allowed to take out the fuel. Clearly demonstrates the butler’s lenient treatment

I'm not arguing that the rules should be like this

No, you are arguing that the rules are different from the actual situation. Just stop making things, and now try to finally educate yourself after your stupid remarks, and then twist things to pretend that your stupid remarks are still correct.

Your comment is completely wrong. Damaged parts are usually allowed to be repaired, and then see if they pass the inspection. This has always been the case.

@randommallard As early as 2008, Alan Donnelly's participation in the butler group was the main focus of criticism of butlers, especially after the Belgian Grand Prix (given that he was the chairman of the butler group). Many people believe that given his financial conflicts of interest, he should not be in this role-Alan Donnelly runs a lobbying company, Sovereign Strategy, which has a contract with Ferrari (and with FIA and FOM) contract).

Ah yes, thank you anon. I seem to remember that the butler at that time had some very strange and unpopular things. I believe it was the reforms at the beginning of the Todd era that caused Donnelly to step down.

It's weird. There is too much prejudice there, and I think the FIA ​​is following the FIFA line. They need to be removed and replaced.

@randommallard also emphasized that although some people asked whether permanent butler institutions would be affected by prejudice or corruption, Donnelly's questions and criticism of Massey were all directed at people who were not butlers themselves.

Donnelly was the chairman of the butler team at the time, and Marcy was mainly the tournament director, even though he was, and I think, may still play a role in training butlers. Although some people may argue that rotating groups can reduce the possibility of persistent prejudice, corruption, etc. in one direction, when the most common point of criticism is a fixed role in the chain above them, it may not necessarily be this way.

F1oSaurus (@f1osaurus) November 28, 2021, 16:33

He actually took over the entire management work. No other butler was involved in the decision to punish Hamilton for almost anything he could think of.

Not only should there be the same team of administrators, but there should also be the same team of bailiffs in every game. All the money is floating around in Formula One, the importance and prestige of winning the championship and the millions of bonuses based on scores, as well as all corporate scams, unless millions of dollars are involved, no one will shake their fingers. This is Quite an absolute farce, if there is no group of people voluntarily participating in their time during the event, the whole show will basically not work. Don’t get me wrong-there is no opposition to Marshall-they have done a good job since dot, but this is a Formula One car-creme de la creme, so if everyone else behaves professionally and gets professional Compensation, then the entire show needs to be professional! At the beginning of all purists-"But wait," and no. , Volunteer Marshals can still stay in all other motorsports, but F1 has surpassed this model a few years ago. Let's be serious-this is common sense after all!

Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust) November 27, 2021, 10:57

Mike Davies (@nanotech) November 27, 2021, 15:56

I know a pair of volunteer housekeepers in Montreal. They like to do what they do because they have a good opportunity to participate in the action "for free", and they are well treated and trained.

Having said that, a permanent group of people added by local volunteers would be great for me.

@nanotech This might be a good compromise. There is a group of 3 dozen permanent marshals that may be part of the F1 circus. They serve as chief marshals at each marshalling station and can advise the "junior"/local marshals on what to do in certain situations (obviously can withstand anything). Urgent attention). But I don’t think we should completely get rid of local volunteers

I object to this idea. The permanent housekeeper has opened up more room for corruption. I think the permanence of butlers is a bit far-fetched. In many sports, officials rotate, which is not a problem. If anything, the whole process should be more transparent or open. Why not highlight the decision of the butler team in the broadcast so that inconsistencies can be more easily identified. The post-match press conference with the butler was amazing.

Whiting began to become more transparent about why certain decisions were made towards the end of his era. You can agree or disagree, but the reason is clear. Although things such as news broadcasts are open to the tournament director, the behind-the-scenes decisions are very opaque.

I also oppose it, because the current debate is more about guidelines than the decision itself. If we show 3 different event videos to different people, the decision on the ruling may be very different because there is too much room for interpretation and there are too few reasons for consistency. I like the idea of ​​creating some reference cases that can be used by administrators and drivers, and even a rule of thumb (that is, if the car outside is more than halfway before the breakthrough zone, it has the right to track space. If it is inside the breakthrough zone If the front wheel of the car is ahead of the front wheel of the outer car, he has the right to retract the racing line).

It will not prevent someone from braking late and overtaking on the outside or inside, but it may provide some basis for judgment for administrators with the same references. Some cases may still exist, regardless of the group or rules, we will not achieve perfect consistency in decision-making (maybe based on artificial intelligence?). For me, the guide and reference cases are the best step we can take so far.

Fixed steward, I think in the highly politicized F1 world, this is more of a risk than an advantage.

Both of you have a good argument for the permanent housekeeper, I agree with @jeanrien, @skipgamer

When the rules are not clear, a consistent ruling cannot be expected. When there is a lot of room for interpretation in these guidelines, it is more important to conduct transparent and thorough arguments (including as many shots and telemetry as possible) within a relatively short period of time after these judgments.

Julian Goddard (@juliangoddard) November 27, 2021, 9:24

I don't think this is an either-or situation. Of course there are many administrators, so some can be permanent, and some can be based on a set of races. I also think the principles should be written down and made clear to everyone. Cancelling invitations that violate the rules (for example, because it is an asphalt road, it can cut into corners faster) will avoid the need for many people.

Roger Ayles (@roger-ayles) November 27, 2021, 12:16

@juliangoddard In the past, they used to have a permanent butler and "random". Everyone complained that the remaining butlers were affected by permanent members, and they pushed for decision-making according to FIA requirements.

This is part of the beginning to believe (I have always felt that this is not entirely accurate) that the butler prefers Ferrari and always opposes McLaren.

The problem is that once a perception is generated, it is difficult to get rid of that perception, so even if you make a fair decision, you will still be biased by this perception. That is & will always be a problem.

F1 does not need a permanent butler, it needs a professional butler. In all other professional sports, referees and referees are well-trained professionals. They pass exams and perform performance evaluations.

F1 management is weird. There are three people: a local management with no valid reason, a former F1 driver who may or may not be interested in the rulebook, and the third guy chosen by the FIA. All are amateurs. There is no quality control, no record of their personal input to the decision, and therefore no performance evaluation. The race director can issue his ordinance ("crowding is strictly prohibited"), and the race manager can ignore what he says. This is hopeless.

The permanent housekeeper is completely a herring, what lacks is training and accountability.

@slightlycrusty I agree that this would be a better solution. In theory, 4-5 groups of professional housekeepers who have participated in the same training courses, seminars and reports should provide a more consistent approach.

In my opinion, the biggest problem is inconsistency, not necessarily whether the decision is correct.

I agree. A group of professional butlers who receive the same training and participate in the same report will be a better solution. Explain the results reported after the game through a press release, so that we can understand whether the decision made has been agreed and "approved", or whether they think they made a mistake, and what decisions will be made in future matches.

I voted for neither agree nor disagree, because I think the problem lies elsewhere.

I think the FIA ​​should take a step back and not only review but also formulate their F1 sports rules from scratch. These rules should be as simple, clear, clear, results and coherent as possible. They should contain previously unwritten but accepted but different interpretations. the rule of. It can now be explicitly quoted. Obviously, drivers and teams are always trying to break through the rules and take advantage of the gray areas in the rules, and this is only part of the game. I think the butler should only be an enforcer, nothing more. If the “laws” (regulations, rules, codes) have the above-mentioned qualities, then any appointed butler should not consider or give different interpretations.

No, they just need to be fair and consistent.

In order to be consistent, they need to have an in-depth understanding of the previous rulings of the sport and other stewards. This requires professionalism and education to achieve this goal. You can't gather people at will and have this.

Ah, but if the rules are clear, you can. Now, F1 managers can choose whether to apply the rules in the same way that they are interpreted in various other events, and these rules are different. Should they adopt the "Austrian" interpretation, or the "Silverstone" interpretation, or the "Imola" interpretation, or some other interpretation, or even make up their own?

They should delete all "unofficially agreed explanations" and write down the actual written explanations everyone knows before the start of the game. It will be better before the start of the season. It may even be written in a document and called "sports rules"-because they should be the things that control F1 sports...

Consistency seems to be the key word... They have the same safety car drivers-why not the same team of administrators? Can they track it for a season?

ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh) November 27, 2021, 15:47

This! It's easy to try a season and show the willingness to do things better. However, for F1, this idea may not be controversial enough. ;)

Managers should provide written reasons for all formal decisions to impose penalties or decisions that do not require investigation. This will be after the game is over... This kind of reason will always cite previous decisions as a precedent or guide, which will help promote more consistency and accountability... Steward Really need to be responsible for their actions or omissions.

Another simple change to the sports rules would be useful, changing the clause on review decisions to automatically review if new evidence appears or is available but the administrator did not use the new evidence when making the decision. If the administrator does not believe that this is new or unused evidence, they must justify it in writing.

Finally, it must be clear who will manage the butler and how to manage it?

+1 reviews should be conducted by different groups of administrators. I was shocked by the angry tone that managers took when responding to Mercedes’ polite review request-this should be a normal and non-controversial part of the whole process.

*Can they try it out for a season?

This is not about butlers, but about the rules—they keep changing. The rules are often unclear, the interpretation is inconsistent, and the application is also inconsistent-no matter who sits in the butler's chair. The inconsistent track restrictions and all the trouble they cause are just the tip of the iceberg.

F1 needs to organize its rulebook before it starts to "solve" the problem of who is applying this mess.

In addition, the FIA ​​(and the FIA ​​alone) should decide on the rules and their interpretation, rather than accepting the opinions of any teams, drivers, spectators or media organizations during the current season. Save any changes for next year.

This is the "F1" thing.

Roger Ayles (@roger-ayles) November 27, 2021, 12:09

Some things we agree with :)

I think we have reached agreement on many things about F1 @roger-ayles. However, we do often have different ideas on how to deal with F1 issues... :)

Srdjan Mandic (@srga91) November 27, 2021, 10:52

I agree with Keith. There is no evidence that having a permanent housekeeper leads to a more consistent decision. I think the problem lies more with the administrator’s guidelines. Often there are no guidelines at all, or they are set in a way that allows multiple interpretations. It is almost impossible!

The general decision-making process may be an additional problem. A few years ago, Alex Wurz, who had served as a driver butler for many times, revealed the reason why he refused to be a member of the butler group: the driver butler was often voted by other butlers, even in this case the voice of the driver and waiter was obvious

Not to mention that the game instructions from the game control are constantly changing, it will certainly not be easier to keep consistent @srga91

Pinak Ghosh (@pinakghosh) November 27, 2021, 14:16

This is also after the weekend has begun!

Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust) November 27, 2021, 11:11

F1 is the premier open-wheel racing series. Those who manage it should have the highest quality and ability. Although I don’t believe that paying a lot will get you better results, the simple fact is that usually expensive lawyers do get better results.

I think they need to improve the criteria for choosing a housekeeper. Dump local stewards and former racers, and select them based on objectivity and processing power, and guided by data. It is now clear that, for example, the rules of the Red Bull Ring have changed, or if there are a lot of screams, and the idea that the decision is not driven by the result is a complete joke.

There is a group of administrators, if they are not objective, let the team vote them out. And give up this kind of "let them play" thing, this will only change the rules and blur the boundaries.

Caroline Geddes (@lass321) November 27, 2021, 11:36

Regardless of the model of butler composition has disappeared, this lottery system of investigation and punishment and why it must be stopped. All decisions should be transparent and clearly explained with reference to the rules and precedents used. This should include an accurate explanation of why an investigation is deemed unnecessary if the action has been noticed and then no investigation has been conducted. I like the idea of ​​a team consisting of several groups of referees. I also think that there should be an appeal panel (created by members of these groups) that can investigate the decisions made if they are challenged. This again must fully explain their findings.

David BR (@david-br) November 27, 2021, 11:37

For me, the management trough involved Mika Salo at the Russian Grand Prix. Aside from the advantages of the 25-second penalty caused by the pre-match accident (Leclerc was not penalized in Spa: inconsistency again), the worst aspect is that the penalty was leaked to the Finnish media and the official information has been given. ("Niki Juusela, a commentator on the Finnish channel C More, told the audience 10 minutes before the referee's verdict that Hamilton's super driver's license will be punished by 10 seconds and 4 points.") Who leaked it? One of the butlers, apparently. This is a serious problem in itself. Then we saw Salo’s reaction to Hamilton’s subsequent criticism of the butler’s decision, “Hamilton is full of ****”, both of which are very unprofessional, which also shows potential prejudice and the danger of rotating butlers. You cannot act like Salo as a judge and jury. No matter what opinions or provocations you feel, you must remain professional and independent. His incompetence is a bit shocking, revealing how bad the butler may actually be. Who chooses them?

If every incident were decided by the same management team, then we might get a more consistent decision. The butler does not need to go from game to game. After all, butlers don’t watch the game themselves, they just watch the monitor so they can watch it online from any country in the world. The administrator needs an event database to refer to for consistency. The rule book needs to be clear and clear. In short, we need more professional butlers who will act in a professional manner and be responsible for their decisions. When asked, the butler should explain their decision. If the team/driver wants to inquire about the manager’s decision or appeal the decision, it should be appealed by a different panel of experts who are fully familiar with the rulebook.

Roger Ayles (@roger-ayles) November 27, 2021, 12:05

I am not opposed to permanent housekeeping, but I am not necessarily convinced that this will improve the situation.

I take Indycar as an example. They may have permanent administrators for 20 years or more, but you still see inconsistencies, you still see stupid decisions made, and you still see calls for favoritism from fans and teams/drivers.

Indycar's trend is often the arrival of a new team, and everyone is talking about how fair they are and how great the work they do. However, they will end up making a bad call, perhaps an unwelcome call, some kind of inconsistent call, or seemingly biased towards the team or the driver, and will eventually be required to be replaced.

You saw something similar in F1. Everyone has been calling for racing drivers to be included in the steward group because they will bring racing experience and knowledge that those who have never participated in the race do not have. However, this did not really change any of the previous complaints.

Oh yes, why not? Hill, Brundle and Button/Coulthard should be enough.

I think rotating permanent housekeepers is the right balance. Less than it is now, but not exactly the same in every game throughout the season.

I don't believe that butlers are the problem. I think the problem lies more in the instructions and guidelines issued by Liberty through Massi. The problem is Liberty's F1 direction.

Pinak Ghosh (@pinakghosh) November 27, 2021, 14:14

indeed. The first thing to double check is the game director's notes, which are constantly changing after the start of the weekend.

No, imagine the long-term prejudice that comes with it. In today's F1, politics obviously has the same value as the actual race, which will be a huge burden. There are a bunch of people, but they need to be better trained. Let them get degrees, exams, etc. Make sure everyone is or has been a racing coach from a recognized school etc.

I think there should be a manager who participates in every game and participates in decision-making. Then you can have other administrators in different races, but they are guided by permanent administrators.

I think it is good to have various opinions, but someone needs to be able to accept their findings after the incident and apply the punishment consistently in accordance with the rules.

A permanent chief butler is required to have the final decision-making power over the auxiliary butler. In more than 20 seasons, there may be two or up to three of these chief stewards, who will rotate during the season.

This is obviously a very difficult and sensitive situation. I think the FIA ​​must be very careful not to react subconsciously to one or two incidents.

In my opinion, the problem is not the rotation of butlers. Other sports rotate officials in every game, and in most cases, consistent and correct decisions can be made. I think the problem here is that, as others have said above, there is a lack of professional training for butlers. I think there are two solutions:

1. Create a selective group of appropriately trained and qualified butlers. The local housekeepers and driver housekeepers are still very good, as long as they are well prepared, well-trained and qualified. I know that other sports have a referee hierarchy, such as football, in which you can be promoted from grassroots football to Premier League Select Group 1 or FIFA International Referee List. Perhaps a similar system can be imposed here, inviting experienced, consistent, and well-performing officials at all levels (with sufficient training for each level), for example F1 or FIA World Tour Championships (or similar) are the top category.

2. In the UK, we have a magistrate's court that handles most criminal and minor cases. The magistrates who preside and make judgments in these cases are usually unpaid members of the public. They have received some training on how to deal with procedures, but they themselves do not understand the ins and outs of the laws they enforce. This work belongs to the legal counsel (or judicial clerk), whose duties mainly involve advising the magistrates on the content actually stipulated by the law, the scope of available penalties, and the precedents of similar cases in the past, but they usually do not make judgments themselves. Can the system also be used for racing? If the FIA ​​is so determined to require a rotating group of unqualified butlers, does it certainly make sense for a highly qualified individual to fully understand the regulations and past precedents to advise them?

@randommallard These two are the best ideas I have read in these comments.

Andy Bunting (@wildbiker) November 27, 2021, 13:47

Interestingly, Bernie E and Charlie W almost never make jokes. The technical and sports rules cover the entire nine yards of F1. Why are these rules not equally applicable, enforced and punished for any violations? The current indecision, uncertain time and various "open interpretation" decisions. Completely mock the rules, the drivers, the team and most of our fans. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. But I see more and more Circus Stunts being staged because LibFlix is ​​"entertainment" garbage.

Pinak Ghosh (@pinakghosh) November 27, 2021, 14:01

I do not agree that every race has a permanent steward. This hinders diversity and increases the risk of personal bias.

Marvin The Martian (@marvinthemartian) November 27, 2021, 14:04

We don’t need permanent stewards.

We do need to 1. Post a recommendation letter, or post all communications or broadcast records of the tournament director or representative. 2. Decide whether to investigate the record, if not, why not 3. If an investigation is needed, publish the record and precedents 4. If it takes time for full disclosure, a brief notice of the decision should be made in a timely manner. All decisions must be made during the game, or a brief delay notice including reasoning must be issued. All decisions must be made on the day of the referral. No overnight delay 5. Netflix must be excluded from this process. We neither want nor need artificial drama to increase ratings

In addition, all communications from the game director throughout the weekend will be announced to ensure that there is no outside interference with him or him.

The FIA ​​is too opaque for fans, but it is still far from getting along with commercial rights holders. If you want to prevent any collusion or trickery in your decision, please make the process transparent.

I agree with everything you posted, Marvin The Martian.

I will add that you need to review the rules/regulations and rewrite any ambiguities to ensure that they are impeccable. The rules/regulations have been bent many times this season

Formula One should have clear rules and an office that reviews phones like other sports.

Jim from the United States (@jimfromus) November 27, 2021, 14:24

I don't think this is important. Brazilian managers have punished the driver. A few days later, Massi hinted that the butlers might feel the pressure of the championship. Any butler needs to understand that not awarding a penalty kick also determines the championship. The first two drivers who crossed the line obviously need to be investigated, and may or may not be punished.

Whenever there are two or more potential problems for a problem, solving one of the problems cannot solve the problem. The problem here is the inconsistency of the ruling, the room for interpretation within the rules, the race director (and the tire manufacturer, for that matter) after the fact that the decision was justified, and the “cause” shown by the mixed party throughout the process.

If the explanation is always the same and there is no other change, this will trigger a "lawsuit" by the team, which has a different understanding of the rules and believes that they have been deceived and deceived. From a "performance" point of view, this may solve some problems, but it does not solve the whole problem. Cleaning up the rules to reduce the space for interpretation will have a greater effect, because the judges have less room to play. However, these people may still be incompetent and prefer a team, driver and/or manufacturer. In addition, this will allow the third (and fourth) party to remain in a dominant position in order to integrate the “show” cause with the rules and rulers. In the end, there is still no independent accountability system in place, so we will still be caught up in discussions after the fact.

I think we can agree that LM should have zero say in this matter. I also think that the rules should be written by a party with zero interest in any team and/or driver. There should be an accountability system in place for jurors to follow. Then, if you want a consistent and fair ruling, please do it by a well-trained, capable, and completely independent person, or... let the computer make a ruling based only on sensor input. The pinnacle of motorsport, right?

All in all, it doesn't sound too difficult, does it?

I can understand the reason for this article, but I think I can choose shooting or hanging, and there are many aspects to dealing with crime.

Dallin Smith (@darryn) November 27, 2021, 16:48

This is about money. Butler is no problem. The Liberty team will never let their appointed champion be punished in Brazil. He must go further than Senna to let the butler do anything.

@darryn I haven't seen any evidence that freedom is influencing decisions here. I can definitely understand why people might think this way, and definitely think that they may have affected race control (red flags, SC, etc., although this may also be due to other factors)-Whiting's race control is the main part of getting rid of the red The flag and anyway are facing SC), but the butler itself is not seen. There are many different factors at play, and I found that without any conclusive evidence, Liberty is unlikely to influence the butler’s decision (especially given the relatively short time frame in Brazil). For the record, I totally feel that Max should be punished. I just don't think freedom is the reason he doesn't

I disagree. The same housekeeper also opened the door to tunnel vision, overcompensation and even pressure from the team. For the same reason, we do not see similar referees in football matches. In addition, who will these stewards be? You can't have too many English/Italian, etc., you can't have people with team history, especially when they are housekeepers all year long. Every (big) team wants someone to join, and experienced people, such as Liuzzi, Salo, etc., have connections with the team and/or have been outspoken to the drivers in the past.

I think this is a bad idea. You want fresh eyes in every game.

Dr. Sven (@svend1) November 27, 2021, 18:41

Yes, why not? They don’t change their safety car drivers every weekend, do they?

@svend1 I really don't think this is the best comparison, because SC didn't really participate in the referee's decision, he just followed the instructions. Just like in a football game, each game team/stadium may have its own medical staff, but referees rotate from team to team on each match day

When following the rule book, refereeing decisions in all sports are subjective to a certain extent. The problem with f1 is that decisions usually appear to be completely random. There must be a group of well-trained and experienced butlers, just like referees in other sports, that can reduce this randomness to some extent. Do f1 administrators need to complete x times the time to manage lower formulas? They should.

These may be keywords-"The standards applied are unclear, unobvious or controversial." In other words, to be honest, I believe the butlers are doing their best and they do not favor any driver or team. I think we should accept the fact that in some cases there will always be room for explanation​​.

I don't think it is wise to create a strong "super housekeeper" team-constant does not mean better, we might as well keep making wrong decisions.

Nacho Nachev (@nnachev) November 27, 2021, 19:39

Should F1 race on the same track every weekend?

Obviously, public opinion polls show that the popular view is that F1 should not be a world champion, but may be some local law schools that are fully standardized. What is the next step to make it "fairer"-the same car, the same 20 drivers may all be clones of SHAM, once genetics can achieve this?

The whole point of having a versatile experience is to see the difference between good and good, bad and bad.

As far as the discussions triggered by the Verstappen/Hamilton Brazil incident were concerned, the issue of permanent stewardship and the consistency of the rulebook were both red herrings. The problem is not that the butlers or the rules are inconsistent (at least in this case), but that these butlers made a terrible mistake and didn't even bother to investigate a very clear penalty, and then Marcy and the FIA ​​made the issue complicated by refusing to admit Made a mistake. If you believe that Verstappen's actions are legitimate, then you need to explain it in some way. In this case, the chosen solution seems to redouble its efforts in the inconsistency and pass it on as part of the movement, which makes many people frustrated.

A better and cleaner solution is to let the FIA ​​confess that a mistake was made. This is and should be a penalty. Apologize, but say that the sport will not be dragged into the quagmire. One week is the condition, and every potential free throw is fully investigated. This is how every sport works. Something was missed, the wrong call occurred, but life goes on. It's ok. But the sport refuses to admit its mistakes and insists that somehow this bad decision is actually a good decision, which is just embarrassing. That was the beginning of such a debate, and it was a terrible appearance for a sport that wanted to attract a new audience.

Fans are not boys. (@peartree) November 27, 2021, 23:44

Pirro participated in Monaco in 2016 and Canada in 2018, so it doesn't make sense to keep the same administrator. The website claimed that the butler did not fine Verstappen because of the asphalt outside. False excuses for fabricating claims...

I think maybe part of the group can be permanent and part of it can be rotated? This will provide us with consistency, but it will also prevent consistency bias. Maybe two-fifths are permanent? At least 2 so that they can help recall previous events. 5 So the number of butlers is odd, so there is no tie when voting, 2 out of 5 to prevent unanimous bias.

"...However, regardless of the opinions, it is clear that the consensus between the team and the drivers is that lack of consistency is the fundamental factor. In fact, this is the problem. I have heard a suggestion about the management team this season. Yes. , Sometimes there will be cases where the administrator is absent, but the overall composition of the team will remain. At least it should be investigated. In addition, it is 1000% clear to me that the addition of the "driver" butler failed, miserably. The current A crash is a typical example. Considering the expertise of most D/S, the real cause cannot be determined without being in the room, but it obviously cannot work."

This is an excerpt from my recent comment [Reference: Debate on racing ethics after Interlagos left "all parties are not happy" – Seidel]

As for the different panels for street circuits, etc. no! ! ! Why doesn't the FIA ​​reinvent the wheel to inject some common sense into the whole legend-the white line is the track limit.

Very much agree. In similar situations, the risk of different outcomes is lower (at least in theory).

F1oSaurus (@f1osaurus) November 28, 2021, 16:44

They tried with Alan Donnely in 2008 and it turned out to be a disaster. Although in that case, an additional problem is that he alone gives orders. Maybe there are three (supposedly) independent butlers, this is not a problem, but it is still the case. During that time, Mosley hated Ron Dennis so much that it was not unimaginable that he deliberately appointed Donnelly.

When Gary Connery was one of the housekeepers, Verstappen also complained that he was actually punished for his misconduct. The most notable is the COTA free throw in 2017, when Verstappen cut a corner and passed Raikkonen. In addition, Verstappen recently received a penalty kick for continuing to advance in the lost position until he landed above Hamilton at Monza.

I think the current system, which I think is a pool of trained permanent butlers and "guest" driver butlers, is not a bad start.

What is missing (as far as I know) is the review process after the end of each season, reviewing the main or controversial decisions of the season, preferably by one or two team leaders, a small group of drivers, Marcy, some stewards , And some others.

For example, in Austria and Brazil, the handling of pushing drivers off the track is very different-why? Is it possible to clarify the rules for forcing drivers to deviate from the track? Most importantly, is it possible to create a guide (I hope it already exists) and make the book public?

Similarly, it used to be the white line is the edge of the track-everywhere. There are one or two exceptions (for example, Ascari Variant at Monza), but otherwise, stay on the track or risk being punished. That needs to come back. It would be foolish to need a map of the track and three activity notes from the race director every race weekend.

Shocking news! Vitantonio Liuzzi will be the steward of the Saudi Arabia Grand Prix! That was after what happened at the Brazilian Grand Prix, where Liuzzi was the steward...

© 2021 Collantine Media Ltd | About RaceFans