2010 Formula 1 Monaco Grand Prix

[The Outlaw]

He stole a world title off him. I doubt he'd object to the other stewards giving that penalty out.

Obviously.

The fact that Schumacher basically stole his world title from him is beyond the point. The point is that personal issues should have no influence on a stewards decisions, whatsoever. Why? Because they can not only unfairly affect the driver in question, but also just about all of the other title contenders as well.

For example, what if Rosberg (for arguments sake) manages to win the 2010 WDC by 1 point (over Webber who would be unaffected by the stewards call regardless) thanks in part to this questionable call by the stewards today which handed Rosberg a few extra points. It would be pretty lame for Webber and fans of the sport to look back and realize that Rosberg was basically gifted the Championship due to a stewards personal beef impacting the points tally in such a dramatic way. Not to say that will be the case...but the possibility is there, and this proves that Hill or any other steward should keep his personal issues aside when it comes to stewarding.

 

[Peter]

That "stupid rule" has been around for a very long time. But did they really have to give him a 20 second penalty? Why not just give Alonso back the position and fine him, instead of last place?

 

[Only_in_f1]

That "stupid rule" has been around for a very long time. But did they really have to give him a 20 second penalty? Why not just give Alonso back the position and fine him, instead of last place?

Is it an old rule? or is it a rule that was introduced this season along with the whole SC line?

If its an old rule its outdated, surely?

Thing that annoys me is that pass is legit on every other lap, so what does the last lap make a difference?

Total Rubbish.

 

[Watchman]

All in all, an interesting race. 👍

Nice move from Schumacher in the last corner, but it should've been better for him to stay behind Alonso, finishing 7th instead of breaking a rule and ending 12th. Oh well.

 

[Famine]

Obviously.

The fact that Schumacher basically stole his world title from him is beyond the point. The point is that personal issues should have no influence on a stewards decisions, whatsoever. Why? Because they can not only unfairly affect the driver in question, but also just about all of the other title contendors as well.

For example, what if Alonso manages to win the 2010 WDC by 1 point (over Webber who would be unaffected by the stewards call regardless) thanks in part to this questionable call by the stewards today. It would be pretty lame for Webber to look back and realize that Alonso was basically gifted the Championship due to a stewards personal beef impacting the points tally in such a dramatic way.

That's what happens when you get ex-drivers being stewards while drivers they raced with still race.

The system is both good and bad - stewards who've never raced don't "get" what it means in the heat of the race, but you get someone like Schumacher who's rubbed everyone up the wrong way and a steward who drove against him and you won't see any sympathy in his direction.


People are merely people. If I were in Damon's position, I'd find it hard not to issue a £20k fine to Schumacher for merely turning up this weekend.

 

[Tomaz]

Anyway, Schumi is still the KING!

 

[Soundtrack]

He stole a world title off him. I doubt he'd object to the other stewards giving that penalty out.

Sure, but “this” should have been heavily sanctioned back in 1994. I have too much esteem for Damon Hill to even imagine he could enjoy some sort of personal revenge in todays matter. After all, weren't former racers hired to prevent some race-stewards stupid decisions? Let’s face it, if someone is to blame it’s probably the race direction; should the race indeed have ended under safety car regulation, I would imagine the stewards showing SC panels and waving yellow flags instead off greens .

Oh and no I’ll never forgive Michael Schumacher for that Adelaide move either!👎

 

[The Outlaw]

So why appoint an F1 driver to the board? To offer his personal opinion? If it was simply a matter of "the book says this" then why do they need someone of personal experience to give their view and opinion.

Everyone knows Hill and Schumacher has history, it's no secret.

This.

They appoint ex F1 drivers to the board to offer their personal opinion on the racing incidents which specifically aren't cut and clear, as they can be a better judge of an incident because of their prior on-track experience. Now this doesn't mean their decision (which can affect ALL of the other drivers and WDC contenders either postively or negatively) should be jaded by some prior incident between the ex F1 driver steward and driver in question...which is the point I'm trying to make, and something to you seem to think is just fine.

 

[Peter]

Is it an old rule? or is it a rule that was introduced this season along with the whole SC line?

If its an old rule its outdated, surely?

Thing that annoys me is that pass is legit on every other lap, so what does the last lap make a difference?

Total Rubbish.

The rule has been, for a very long time, that when the safety car goes in, you can't overtake until you cross the finish line, regardless of lap or if the person ahead is a lap down.

 

[Only_in_f1]

The rule has been, for a very long time, that when the safety car goes in, you can't overtake until you cross the finish line, regardless of lap or if the person ahead is a lap down.

Well not really, last season it was the start finish line, this year its the Safety Car line.

The Safety Car line is before the pit entry, therefore anyother lap but that one, that pass would have legal.

 

[ExigeEvan]

For example, what if Rosberg (for arguments sake) manages to win the 2010 WDC by 1 point (over Webber who would be unaffected by the stewards call regardless) thanks in part to this questionable call by the stewards today which handed Rosberg a few extra points. It would be pretty lame for Webber and fans of the sport to look back and realize that Rosberg was basically gifted the Championship due to a stewards personal beef impacting the points tally in such a dramatic way.

Sorry but that's the worst analogy ever. What exactly has Rosberg done?

They appoint ex F1 drivers to the board to offer their personal opinion on the racing incidents which specifically aren't cut and clear, as they can be a better judge of an incident because of their prior on-track experience. Now this doesn't mean their decision (which can affect ALL of the other drivers and WDC contenders either postively or negatively) should be jaded by some prior incident between the ex F1 driver steward and driver in question...which is the point I'm trying to make, and something to you seem to think is just fine.

So you have a big problem with a man who was driven off the track both dangerously and as a terrible act of sportsmanship getting a tiny bit of revenge 16 years on?

Lets not kid ourselves here, Schumacher is hardly in a championship winning position, and in terms of giving Rosberg points it is hardly the biggest advantage gained in F1 due to stewards decisions.

And at the end of the day, as posted above, there's quite a clear rule regarding this.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Unless someone tells me article 40.13 was written by Damon Hill himself and that he did it AFTER Schumacher's move, I really fail to understand why are you all discussing Damon Hill's actions as a steward. I think all of it isn't flattering to Damon Hill and frankly I don't think he deserves it. Schumacher's move was aginst the above mentioned rule and that was it.

PS - Unless you are discussing the concrete penalty applied in this case, because regarding that I have no idea what kind of penalties can be issued to illegal overtaking moves.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

The rule has been, for a very long time, that when the safety car goes in, you can't overtake until you cross the finish line, regardless of lap or if the person ahead is a lap down.

Nope, this rule is new and drivers can now overtake before the finish line, but not in the last lap obviously, as was posted here earlier. It's a very stupid rule tho, that's the problem.

I doubt Hill had something to do with it for this very reason btw... I'm sure he wouldn't mind but the rule is clear. 👎

 

[ExigeEvan]

Unless someone tells me article 40.13 was written by Damon Hill himself and that he did it AFTER Schumacher's move, I really fail to understand why are you all discussing Damon Hill's actions as a steward. I think all of it isn't flattering to Damon Hill and frankly I don't think he deserves it. Schumacher's move was aginst the above mentioned rule and that was it.

PS - Unless you are discussing the concrete penalty applied in this case, because regarding that I have no idea what kind of penalties can be issued to illegal overtaking moves.

Because the discussion began before the ruling and justfication was given.

 

[Captain Roh]

Whatever credibility this bringing in of old f1 drivers has given the sport, has just been single handedly quashed by that imbecile by the name of Damon Hill.

Ross Brawn gave a very clear and concise interpretation of the rules everyone is to abide by, and in my opinion there could be no counter argument.

Maybe i exaggerated in my opening statement, but Damon Hill at least has lost the respect of many people. Myself included.

Schumacher passed Alonso on his way out of Rascasse and into Anthony Noghes, but the move came under a safety car.

FAIL!!
Race had resumed. Stewards need their eyes checking

 

[yeti]

I think that it was pretty harsh to penalise Schumacher for that move...

The communication to the teams was obviously very ambiguous as to whether or not the race was going to end...

Also - I'm with "Racing" - and say that this was a racing move - and something that I would like to see more of in F1... What on earth is the point of not allowing overtaking at any point in a Grand Prix when there was no safety implications?

C.

 

[The Outlaw]

Sorry but that's the worst analogy ever. What exactly has Rosberg done?.

You already answered this yourself in the paragraph below "and in terms of giving Rosberg points it is hardly the biggest advantage gained in F1 due to stewards decisions.."

So you have a big problem with a man who was driven off the track both dangerously and as a terrible act of sportsmanship getting a tiny bit of revenge 16 years on?.

That again is not the point! And I see you still condone jaded stewarding which can not only affect the driver in question, but many other WDC contenders as well. Basically you seem to condone Hill getting his revenge against Schumacher even if it cost another driver the WDC at the end this year. Lame 👎

Lets not kid ourselves here, Schumacher is hardly in a championship winning position, and in terms of giving Rosberg points it is hardly the biggest advantage gained in F1 due to stewards decisions..

Maybe you need to be reminded that the Championship can be won by something as little as a 1 single point, or by the number of race wins. Even the SMALLEST decision by the stewards can have a dramatic impact come Abu Dhabi.

 

[Christian_C]

My opinion on the matter is that I think decision that was made was right but the punishment is too severe. Its a simple as that the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this instance.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You already answered this yourself in the paragraph below "and in terms of giving Rosberg points it is hardly the biggest advantage gained in F1 due to stewards decisions.."

Hahaha, yeah sure. Becuase he asked the stewards for an advantage, or did he ask Schumacher to carry out an illegal move?

Again, Rosberg has done nothing.

That again is not the point! And I see you still condone jaded stewarding which can not only affect the driver in question, but many other WDC contenders as well. Basically you seem to condone Hill getting his revenge against Schumacher even if it cost another driver the WDC at the end this year. Lame 👎

Yep, I do. No point arguing it, I have no problem with it. And at the end of the season, if Rosberg nabs the title by one point and you turn round and say this was a pivotal moment, I'd laugh.

Maybe you need to be reminded that the Championship can be won by something as little as a 1 single point, or by the number of race wins. Even the SMALLEST decision by the stewards can have a dramatic impact come Abu Dhabi.

Oh sure, but at the end of the season anyone who's nit picking over every stewards decision is a very bad loser.

 

[The Outlaw]

Hahaha, yeah sure. Becuase he asked the stewards for an advantage, or did he ask Schumacher to carry out an illegal move?

Again, Rosberg has done nothing..

It's not about what Rosberg did, it's the fact that Rosberg gained an advantage in his finishing position/points thanks to the questionable penalty that was placed on Schumacher.

Yep, I do. No point arguing it, I have no problem with it. And at the end of the season, if Rosberg nabs the title by one point and you turn round and say this was a pivotal moment, I'd laugh...

Keep digging...you're just making yourself look like a fool due to your immaturity.

[Oh sure, but at the end of the season anyone who's nit picking over every stewards decision is a very bad loser.

Then I don't see why you justify and condone Hill getting his revenge through his role as steward either He must be a "very bad loser" as well.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Because the discussion began before the ruling and justfication was given.

LOL, then explain to me the posts this thread has AFTER you posted that one

 

[ExigeEvan]

Rosberg gained an advantage in his finishing position/points thanks to the questionable penalty that was placed on Schumacher.

So Rosberg is a victim of circumstance and hence is held resposnible by Webber. Good one 👍

Keep digging...you're just making yourself look like a fool due to your immaturity.

Gladly. The fact is, the judgement shows Hill didn't actually have to do anything to get Schumacher found guilty. Now whether he could have done more to plead Schumacher's case is something we'll never know, but if he didn't do anything in Schumacher's support, I wouldn't begrudge him for it.

Then I don't see why you justify and condone Hill getting his revenge through his role as steward He must be a "very bad loser" as well.

Then you have little understanding of where I'm coming from. I can justify and condone Hill's view, but that doesn't make it morally correct. Hill isn't the better man in all this. Infact revenge often pivots on the decision of whether you wish to maintain the morale highground.

[EDIT]

LOL, then explain to me the posts this thread has AFTER you posted that one

Because we chose to continue the discussion. Difficult concept?

 

[Fastas]

Whatever credibility this bringing in of old f1 drivers has given the sport, has just been single handedly quashed by that imbecile by the name of Damon Hill.

There are four race stewards of which Damon Hill is only one and further more, can only offer his opinion to the official stewards, he can not single handedly dish out penalties.

Ross Brawn gave a very clear and concise interpretation of the rules everyone is to abide by, and in my opinion there could be no counter argument.

Last time I checked Ross Brawn was not in charge of the FIA, F1 or any other race rule defining body that influences the results of a formula 1 race. Close your eyes tight if you want but, there is a written counter argument that is actually implemented and adhered to by all of the teams as part of the championship.

Maybe i exaggerated in my opening statement, but Damon Hill at least has lost the respect of many people. Myself included.

I bet Damon Hill will be devastated by this.

FAIL!!
Race had resumed. Stewards need their eyes checking

Rules is rules; sometimes we don't like them but they are there for a reason and if appropriate they get changed.

Irrespective of whether this decision is upheld after the appeal, should that be continued, I imagine the people involved will just get on with the rest of the season. I doubt it will have a negative effect on any of the involved parties.

 

[PeterJB]

Why are people worrying about Rosberg gaining the title from this? Alonso got an equal advantage to Rosberg from this penalty and he's more likely to win the title than Rosberg at the moment.

That rule is stupid. Alonso was still ahead when he crossed the Safety Car line and there were green flags out. Green flag = race. And last time I checked overtaking is allowed under 'race' conditions.

 

[The Outlaw]

Why are people worrying about Rosberg gaining the title from this? Alonso got an equal advantage to Rosberg from this penalty and he's more likely to win the title than Rosberg at the moment.

I'M NOT. I simply brought Rosberg into the equation/analogy (for argument sake) since he was the guy who benefited most from this questionable call. Realistically Schumacher should have been moved back to 7th position (which would have had no affect on Alonso regardless) due to the fact that race direction wanted the cars to maintain position...I just think the 20 second penalty (to push him out of the points) imposed on Schumacher that they came up with was a bit harsh considering the confusion brought about by the race directors as the safety car came in.

Basically I used Rosberg as an example as how something so little can dictate who wins the Championship at the end of the year. Not that I think he will be a contender...I just used him as an example to illustrate how important stewards decisions can be and that they shouldn't involve any personal grudges or vendetta's in their decision.

 

[PeterJB]

I'M NOTjust used him as an example to illustrate how important stewards decisions can be and that they shouldn't involve any personal grudges or vendetta's in their decision.

Theirs no proof that he has. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that is an act of revenge. But the rule, as controversial as it may be, says that drivers cannot overtake wen the Safety Car goes in on the final lap. Schumacher did, and was penalised for it. I'm sure the same would have happened had Damon not been a steward. Damon was simply complying with the rules, and little manipulation of them was required because it wasn't an unusual incident, just a slight mistake from Alonso.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Because we chose to continue the discussion. Difficult concept?

It is. I can understand a discussion about the rule, not about Damon Hill's supposed "revenge" when it is clear that such thing didn't happen.

In any case, the "did Hill do it?" conversation is funny

 

[Seismica]

The penalty was out of order in my opinion.

The rule that stated you cannot overtake under safety car conditions on the last lap is outdated. The way I see it, they implemented the new rule about overtaking after the safety car line, but they did not update related rules in conjunction with that rule, which obviously created a contradiction. But In my opinion, Ross Brawn had the right idea, the safety car had been called in before the final lap had begun, so the race did not finish under the safety car, the race re-started before the start/finish line which gave the drivers a small opportunity to overtake.

Both teams were right in their interpretation of the rules, thats the thing (Though in my opinion Mercedes was more right than Ferrari). Simply because the FIA rules left too much of a grey area. If they saw the need to hand Alonso's place back they should have relegated Schumacher back to 7th place, not 20 seconds (Which they knew fine well under a safety car would have put him dead last) 👎

 

[The Outlaw]

Theirs no proof that he has. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that is an act of revenge. But the rule, as controversial as it may be, says that drivers cannot overtake wen the Safety Car goes in on the final lap. Schumacher did, and was penalised for it. I'm sure the same would have happened had Damon not been a steward. Damon was simply complying with the rules, and little manipulation of them was required because it wasn't an unusual incident, just a slight mistake from Alonso.

I NEVER said he did. All along I've just been stating why ex F1 driver stewards shouldn't bring personal issues with a particular driver into their decision making process...but let me state clearly that this doesn't mean Hill is guilty of doing so though!

ExigeEvan seems to think that it is ok for a steward (especially Hill) to do, which is why I've been arguing with him all along.

 

[NapoleonMikey]

I'm trying to wrap my head around what some of you are arguing about but I just cant seem to comprehend. I don't understand whats so difficult about a black and white rule, no judgment needed for it, that was broken and people are accusing Hill of revenge.

And also the SpeedTV broadcast clearly said what the rules for a safety car finish were on the last lap. After they saw the pass on Alonso they were saying Michael would get a penalty for it. So if a couple of experts are saying he will get penalized before he was by Hill and the 3 other stewards, I don't understand why this is all Hills fault and why its such a shock that Michael got penalized. Will someone please explain this to me with rational thought.