Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Monza, 2011

FIA steward Daly says Schumacher should have had penalty

2011 Italian Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Monza, 2011
Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Monza, 2011

Derek Daly says Michael Schumacher should have been given a penalty for his driving at Monza.

The former F1 racer was the drivers’ advisor to the stewards during the Italian Grand Prix.

Schumacher was criticised for his moves while racing with Lewis Hamilton.

In a statement Daly said: “On lap 20, race director Charlie Whiting asked the stewards to look at an incident between [Felipe] Massa and [Jarno] Trulli at the second chicane.

“While looking at the slow motion video of this incident, I missed the Schumacher/Hamilton incident that happened at that moment.

“When I looked at it again at home, I believe that Schumacher should have been given a drive-though penalty. He was warned repeatedly and this style of driving is not what you want the future generation of drivers to perfect.

“We as stewards probably let Charlie down with this one.”

Hamilton overtook Schumacher on lap 27, and finished fourth with the Mercedes driver fifth.

2011 Italian Grand Prix

Browse all 2011 Italian Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Daimler

203 comments on “FIA steward Daly says Schumacher should have had penalty”

  1. Schumacher did one move that wasn’t completely fair, but all other moves didn’t hinder Hamilton and was good defending. You can’t expect him to say ‘Ok, your faster than me, go right by’.

    1. I could understand their point if those corners had more than one line, but they dont.

      You either take the one line, or you crash.

      He didnt really have a choice but to try move over to hit the apex.

      1. So he should of stayed on the line before lesmo 1, not swerve across the track like your going up the senna S’s at suzuka.

        1. No matter what Daly says. Merc Big Boss is happy with Schumi’s drive

          http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94553

        2. I didn’t know that there were Senna S in Suzuka.

    2. Intresting point considering DRS was introduced to get the faster drivers in front.

      1. that wasnt what DRS was for, or well it shouldnt be.

        It should be for allowing the following driver to get closer to the leading car, and therefore have an attempt to pass, it was there to counter the dirty air effect. It should Not just be a switch to allow the fastest car to automatically reach the front.

        FIA need to tweak it next year, perhaps limit the angle the wing can change, hopefully meaning all it would do is allow the car behind close enough to have a stab on the brakes. not just fly past

        1. Agree. It’s better too hard than too easy.

        2. Your 100% right but to me it seems sometimes more like a fia rule not to mug up races for fast drivers ehhh… cars. F1 is more and more like the USA series with lots of action and ‘K.I.T. give me some power’ systems. ;-) I miss the drama of blown engines and single race hero’s holding up the big boys.

    3. I beleive the rules are you can make one move and then also able to return to the racing line for the upcoming corner.

      1. i fully agree you shouldn’t have to choose defense and crash or be lazy and take the proper line. that said, in general i normally think that its a race and you should really be able to do damn near anything to keep someone from passing you as that is the point of racing.

    4. people seem to forget that hamilton did a similar thing on the same corner in 2008, in the wet, on the outside to glock

      http://youtu.be/GDlLOrDZlyM?t=2m

      IMO much more dangerous. and he did it to a car that was much slower – no threat.

      1. I don’t think Hamilton forgets. That why he kept his comment fairly tame.

      2. commentry quote “shades of shumacher”

      3. He also did the same thing during FP3 in 2007 to Alonso (His team mate at the time).

  2. It’s funny how any 50/50 incidents involving Hamilton immediately gets investigated.

    However when Hamilton is on the losing side, there is nothing but a peep.

    Examples include all the times he’s been wiped out by Webber in the past etc.

    1. Hahahaa like Canada this year?

      1. erm, you kind of proved his point. In canada Hamilton was investigated, yet in Aus 2010 (almost identical incident just opposite) no investigation

        1. And Monza 08

    2. It’s because he has had warnings about his driving since he started in F1, there are only so many warnings you can give before the penalty book comes out. These warnings are not on a race by race basis, Hamilton is a repeat offender and is treated as such.

  3. Is it appropriate for Daly to be saying this publicly?

    1. It’s surprising that he has, it’s been clear in the past the FIA usually forbid stewards from doing it.

      It’s good that he has though, because it gives us a very useful insight into how these decisions are taken. Or not taken, as the case may be.

      1. I expected this 100%. Derek Daly has routinely criticized ANYBODY for putting on ANY kind of defensive move. As soon as I knew he was a steward in the pre-race, I rolled my eyes just thinking of all the blocking penalties to be handed out.

        I recall a few years ago when Daly was a stand-in commentator on the SPEED F1 coverage of the 2006 USGP – Daly butted in to the coverage a half dozen times to whine about how so-and-so was blatantly blocking. It got so bad that Bob Varsha ended up cutting him off one time to ‘remind’ him that drivers are allowed one defensive move per straight, and then are allowed to return to the racing line. The manner in which Bob did it though was just priceless – you could tell he just wanted to tell Daly to ‘shut up’, but since he had to do it on the air he tried to be more polite. Incidentally Daly has not been on the SPEED coverage since.

        The fact that he felt the need to go public with this just exemplifies his lack of tact and understanding of what a proper defensive line is.

        1. Generally speaking, in the U.S. stewards tolerate much less of the “one-move plus return to your line stuff” and much of it is simply labeled blocking. Daly has that attitude, probably, being a U.S. commentator so long. Daly should have been applying the “international” standard of course and I think he knows the rules. So I have to give some credit to these comments, with the explanation that the offending acts were never actually reviewed.

          And yes, Daly is a truly terrible TV announcer. UK people who complain about Eddie Jordan and whoever have no idea how obnoxious and dumb he is on the microphone. He has basically ruined every F1 broadcast he took part in. He is so bad that if I had kowalsky’s memory, I would be indicting him for other stuff that happened 31 years ago also!

        2. Glad I scrolled down and read a few of the comments first. I agree with you 100% Scootin159. Those of us who have had the misfortune of enduring a SPEED broadcast involving Derek Daly rolled our eyes exactly the same way that you did. I was shocked when they said that he’d be an official steward. It is obviously NOT appropriate for him to be saying this publicly, but he’d say anything to get his name mentioned. I’d also wonder how an official steward with all sorts of monitors and replay controls could “miss” something. But………Derek Daly.

        3. Derek Daly is another ex driver with a magnum chip on his shoulder.
          He drove in 64 races but had only 49 starts,he had zero wins,no podiums and managed 15 points for all of that.
          He should surely not be spouting off about an issue that he was only a minor part of.
          If anyone should have said anything it would have been Charlie Whiting, but he said nothing,as no rule was broken.
          Do we want racing or boring processions?.
          Schumacher was,is and always will be the Superstar of F1,and he NEVER whinges and whines about other drivers,he keeps his own counsel,and in my book,that says a lot about his frame of mind.

          1. He should surely not be spouting off about an issue that he was only a minor part of.

            On the contrary, he was one of the stewards brought in to rule of driving standards during the race. If anyone has a right to an opinion on this, it’s him, even if you don’t like it.

        4. I couldn’t agree with you more, and will never forget Daly’s criticism of Hamilton, during that memorable duel between Lewis and Fernando down the main straight at the 2007 U.S. GP, covered by Speed. Daly said to his fellow commentators Bob Varsha, David Hobbs, and Peter Windsor how much Hamilton was blocking Alonso down the main straight. Both Varsha and Hobbs felt that they didn’t see any blocking on Lewis’s part, and Windsor……..well Windsor said…….call it what you want, blocking, hindering or whatever, but what we are witnessing is F1 racing at it’s very best, by 2 of the best drivers in the field today!

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MeTHySzddY&feature=related

          1. Given his (Daly) way of thinking , if it were possible , there should be two or three or four “tracks” (like a game of scalextric) , then the cars could go out and do the fastest possible lap times , and the one with the fastest time would win. Wow ! I’m sorry , but my opinion of Schumacher’s drive at Monza , was no different to when Alonso “held him behind” , think it was in 2005 or 2006 (may have been Imola), and when Jos Verstappen held David Coulthard in Monaco for 40 laps (some years ago now) , and there are a number of other similar incidents. Weaving is not allowed (meaning repeated moving across the track , from left to right several times) , and that’s definitely not what Schumacher did , he would move across once , then back to get the racing line at the corner , all in order.

      2. I thought that Derek Daly was starting to sound like a stuck record.

        But its nice to have this insight into how they operate and not being able to see incidents while they are investigating a prior offence, especially for the team principals.

        “OK Michael, Webber being investigated”
        Michael Mercs Swerves*
        “WWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! BANG!”

        1. Keith I agree,but with the concurrence of ALL the stewards not as an issue AFTER the race was over and dusted.

      3. I don’t think FIA will invite him to become a steward after this! I mean they like to keep things within themselves.

      4. It really is supprising. I am looking forward to see them discuss this with Peter Windsor tonight, as Daly will be on his show tonight!

        Derek and Conor Daly will be helping us with our Monza debrief tomorrow at 11AM Pacific http://smibs.tv/live

      5. It’s highly inappropriate that Daly should comment on this after the event not least because he makes it come across as if he is speaking for all the stewards involved that they would have deemed it a penalty.

        He says “While looking at the slow motion video of this incident, I missed the Schumacher/Hamilton incident.”

        He didn’t say they all never seen it but just himself.

        Maybe I’m wrong but what are the chances at least one of the other stewards were looking at the live action at the same time and seen Schumi/Hamilton and didn’t think it was worth looking into?

        I haven’t seen him on Speed but maybe that ordeal makes sense of this.

        1. That show is just about to begin in a couple of minutes now, have a try and you might still find out!

    2. “A steward told me after the race that he was very frustrated not to have been consulted during the race, particularly as he takes a very dim view of what he perceived as blocking.”

      This is from martin brundles post race column
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14883755.stm

      The moment i read this i was a bit disturbed because it says that without even having investigated the incident he was already happy to hand over a penalty, for something which most people seem to agree was a non issue close but fair. So how on earth can the fia assure the teams and fans that stewards are partisan when you have comments being made like these.

      It’s like the old black adder scene when cpt black adder is on trial for shooting a carrier pigeon, as the court assembles the judge says ah the black cap i’ll be needing that!

      1. And I will bet anything that steward Brundle mentioned was Derek Daly.

        I am all for stewards being open and transparent about all there decisions like the time they released the in-depth analysis of how they came to their conclusions at the Canadian GP.

        But one of them coming out and making it sound like he speaks for all of them over the incident is really badly done.

        Daly tries to make it sound like because he missed seeing it that was all that mattered even though he admits other stewards might have seen it and Charlie Whiting would have.

      2. The case before us is that of the Crown versus Captain Edmund Blackadder, alias the Flanders Pigeon Murderer. Oh, and hand me the black cap, will you – I’ll be needing that.

  4. Even schumacher crossed the line, The moves are not definitely worth Drive through penalty, probably a reprimand would have been suffice. If same yard sticks applied wondering what hamilton would have got for his moves on petrov in 2009. Disqualification??

    1. you meant 2010?

    2. This move was deemed to be breaking the slipstream I think. But I Hamilton was excessive in this situation.

      Incidentally, I think Schumacher was correctly unpunished.

      1. but that one wasnt blocking. if you notice, lewis moves first and then petrov follows his slipstream. n besides the mclaren was faster. there was no way petrov would’ve passed him.
        Accepted it was wrong and excessive, but i doubt he was blocking.

    3. I agree he should have been reprimanded but no penalty. The only clear-cut block was going into Lesmo 1, but should you get a drive-through for a single block? I dont know. In any case, the stewards’ non-action made for a more exciting race.

  5. I stand by what I said that had it been the other way around, Hamilton would have been penalised. So Schumy should have been penalised.

    1. No, that last bit does not follow. Perhaps it means that the FIA still can’t be very consistent, or that they are really unhelpful in showing the viewers how they do decided on other penalties.

    2. Even if Hamilton would have been penalised if the roles were reversed, it doesn’t actually mean a penalty would have been correct.

      1. The weary fact remains we all know if Hamilton had blocked Schumacher (or Alonso etc.) in identical style for so many laps, he would have been punished.

        I think that’s djdaveyp87’s point.

  6. I just don’t understand what is happening to the perceived mentality of driving in this sport. Michael’s defensive driving was methodical and precise under the most potent pressure, I truly enjoyed watching it. Lewis’ attempts to pass Michael at EVERY corner instead of building some momentum was just as contributory to his failure to get past, as Schumacher’s defending was.

    The incident at Curve Grande which has got some people oo-ing and ah-ing is most overblown in my opinion. The main reason Hamilton had to back out of the grass was because of the elongated raised kerb he would have met otherwise. Frankly, one could argue what was Lewis doing trying to dive up the inside in that situation, that move would never have fully worked whoever he was trying to pass, never mind someone like Schumacher.

    Genuinely, I think the most fitting thing we can take from their battle is that two drivers who have probably earned the most criticism for their wheel-to-wheel methods in the past 12 months, when put in a battle with each other, managed to have a great, dynamic scrap for over 20 laps without contact. This was a great victory for the driving which inspired many of us in the 90s.

    1. The incident at Curve Grande which has got some people oo-ing and ah-ing is most overblown in my opinion.

      Worth remembering Daly is referring to lap 20, so he’s not talking about that.

      He’s almost certainly referring to what happened between the della Roggia and Lesmo 1.

      1. keith. Do you know how much are this ex driver get paid for doing such a job? I imagine it’s not cheap to fly them over to the track plus hotels etc.

        1. I don’t think any of the stewards get paid, though they may have their basic expenses covered for them. I’m not 100% sure.

      2. Keith, is there a way for the FIA to know how the fans feel about instances like these or they care less? Every common theme in this post is asking for consistency in the way Stewards operate. I’m sure it is implied that FIA act fair and they act in the best interest of the sports. How do we know if Daly is raising an opinion about Schumi’s driving and other Stewards are in concurrence?

    2. i agree. He is having a second youth, and we need to encourage him, to see if he is able to do some of the things that captured the imagination of a generation of fans in the past. Even though the other drivers burn with envy.
      Some people like brundell or daly didn’t even win one gp, and would be too humiliating for them to see schumacher win some when he is over 40!! sorry guys, i hope he does.

      1. amen to that

    3. Michael’s defensive driving was methodical and precise under the most potent pressure, I truly enjoyed watching it.

      I have to agree with this.

      I have never liked Schumacher, and only grudgingly admit he’s a good driver. I’m also a big fan of Hammy. But I was screaming “Go On Schumacher!” at the telly during that battle, at least at the start. It was great, exciting racing.

      I also think that Schumacher should have received a reprimand. No other penalty, just a slap on the wrist and “Don’t do that again”. There was some brilliant defensive driving, but he also broke the rules at other points. Not serious enough for a drive through (Although I doubt Hamilton would agree) but enough for a telling-off.

  7. should, would is in the past

    1. Indeed, Brundle at al are always going on about the stewards having far more footage and data than we do, but what good is aquiring a pile of evidence when the only judges permitted to preside over it are unobservant and logically inept?

      They could and should punish drivers after the fact if they are deemed to have broken the rules, the problem is – as always – a complete lack of consistency.

  8. that was racing plain and simple…. In my opinion none of the moves were dangerous and that should be the only consideration for penalties…. The one move rule is outdated, drivers know that finishing these days is more important than reckless blocking.

    1. That is your opinion, though – and maybe a lot of other people’s opinion. But whether you think the rules are outdated or not, they are still the rules and should be enforced. Unfortunately, we have the situation where sometimes they’re enforced and sometimes they’re not. If that frustrates the fans, think what the drivers must feel about the situation.

  9. My issue here is no longer with the incident, but the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a system that allows the stewards to investigate an incident while also ensuring that the rest of the race remains fair and safe.

    1. (and, essentially, properly stewarded)

    2. I was just about to post the exact same thing!
      What kind of an organization suspends officiating to perform a task while the event continues to play out?
      In North American Football, a whistle is blown to stop play so that the officials can discuss incidents and possible penalties. I understand that the race can’t be stopped during the review of an incident but surely this grand international organization can develop a method to ensure that the proper officiating can take place during the entirety of the race?

  10. All we ask for is consistency. I would love for drivers to be given final warnings by Charlie Whiting, or for drivers to be told “moving back to the racing line” isn’t allowed in any case. And next week I’m going to win the lottery…

    1. If the stewards had investigated Schumi and then either issued a warning or decided it was just racing I would have been happy, but that they didn’t even investigate it is a problem. They shouldn’t became incapable of doing their job while investigating another incident, and if on reflection they think it deserved investigating then they didn’t ‘let Charlie down with this one,’ they let down the teams and fans who expect and deserve correct stewardship.

      1. Not that fair and consistent stewarding will ever happen though, as you say.

      2. It’s Charlie’s job to refer incidents to the stewards for investigation.

        1. Strange, because he said this:

          We as stewards probably let Charlie down with this one.

          But then he also said it was Charlie who got them to investigate the Trulli and Massa incident. I wonder how they let him down if Charlie is the one who refers them? Regardless, the incident shouldn’t have been completely missed by all the stewards (including Whiting), it probably should have at the bare minimum been looked at and considered for investigation.

          1. According to the Sporting Regulations both is possible:
            16.1

            “Incident” […], which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to
            the race director for investigation)

    2. But if they do that, again, they need to tell the public its done because of a warning from race control. So we all know what’s happening.

      1. Agreed.

        To clarify, I prefer lenient stewarding, just that if we’re going to start punishing people then they should all be punished. I am a little concerned at some comments though, which seem to be advocating going even further and letting drivers put others at risk of injury and death. No heightened experience or “show” is more important than the lives of the marshals, if we can help it.

        1. Agree with that as well.

        2. Agree, some people are suggesting scrap the one-move rule, but that could just cause carnage, which would detract from the racing if too many people crash too often, and it would be unsafe.

          1. There were OTHER stewards in the room watching the race while ‘whinger’ Daly was reviewing the Trulli/Massa incident. The race wasn’t being ignored, it’s just that the other stewards didn’t think it was worth investigating.

            Perhaps we should stop calling it the ‘one move’ rule and start calling it the ‘defending’ rule as some people and supposed ‘experts’ seem to be confused about the whole returning to the racing line.

            Christ! I have just watched the flying lap and this man’s views are nonsense. Maybe he would like F1 to follow the American model where cars aren’t even allowed to leave the racing line to defend their position!

  11. In the good old days if you were trying to pass someone it was up to you to get the job done. Better drivers got the job done and didn’t have to deal with the “one move only” rule.

    Drop the rule entirely and let the better driver in the better car do what he does best…drive the racecar as he sees fit.

    If the best you can do is to just block then maybe your team has picked the wrong driver.

    Unfortunately we live in the world of safety and that has left F1 somewhat sanitized.

    1. Couldn’t agree more; great comment !

    2. and totally ignore driver etiquette?
      Vettel would be pleased to hear that..

    3. In the good old days, cars weren’t 100% aero dependent and could actually move offline to overtake. That’s why despite some valiant blocking attempts, better drivers could still overtake.

      The 1 move rule is a necessary evil, a direct consequence of our current era of aero dependency.

  12. daly is a disgrace.Obviously he should have been penalized.

    1. lol, yes you are right

  13. i still can’t believe people compare Hamilton’s weaving on petrov to this incident. this “way.. way off” in comparison. jeez..

    please look at the incident regarding Hamilton & Alonso at Malaysia GP..

    no penalty was fair, good racing from both..
    but please don’t bring up the weaving incident on ’09

  14. So whilst the stuards are looking at one incident if another incident happens it’s missed because they don’t have anyone else watching the action, this is good knowledge for the teams, if a back maker has a crash then they could use a slip road to overtake someone and get away with it.

    1. Yeah, that’s the most interesting part here. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and they can’t investigate two incidents at the same time?

      1. At the beginning of the year they couldn’t even have two detection points for DRS. And the DRS still can’t differentiate between a car in front and a lapped car. Also the TV coverage misses things and is slow to pick up new technologies (HD and 3D). Everything about the sport other than the cars is surprisingly low-tech and suffers a distinct lack of common sense.

      2. There were OTHER stewards in the room watching the race while ‘whinger’ Daly was reviewing the Trulli/Massa incident. The race wasn’t being ignored, it’s just that the other stewards didn’t think it was worth investigating.

  15. Andy G (@toothpickbandit)
    14th September 2011, 16:17

    I think whether or not he should have had a penalty comes down to your opinion of whether or not you can return to the racing line after your one move.

    Personally I believe moving back to the racing line is a ‘double-move’ and he should have been punished. Then again I believe he should have been punished only to maintain consistency with Hamilton’s penalty in Malaysia for blocking Alonso (he did almost the same thing). I would have rather neither of them punished; it was nice to see a good fight last 20 laps rather than the DRS single straight ‘fights’ that are all too common today.

    1. That makes no sense. If you move off line as a blocking move and then aren’t allowed to move back on line the chasing car gets a free corner. That would mean that effectively you can’t make ANY move unless you would like to just give the corner away.

  16. Interesting that he has spoken out about it. Personally, I enjoyed the battle between Schumacher and Hamilton – its a shame it had to end in controversy. Some of it was stretching the rules a bit and I think that that was made clear as Ross Brawn came on to the radio.

    I did have a bit of a chuckle when Jenson seemed to just waft past Schumacher…

    1. Jensen flew past Sch and kept the place due to different a different gear setup than Hamilton. Sch’s rear tyres done in too!

  17. Brundle hinted at that in his post race comments.

    I really feel the drivers are pushing far to much into penalizing every slight deviation from perfectly safe. Wether its the call to ban DRS in the Monaco tunnel or Eau Rouge, or punishing a driver for knocking off his own wing, Liuzzi for ruining his and others races etc.

    If these penalties were based on clear cut easy to follow rules, it might help get young drivers to understand what is fine and what is not allowed.

    But with the inconsistency of FIA stewarding, and the messy/foggy rules it just gives the feeling we should have all drivers get an allowance for DRS passes where its not even allowed to defend (makes sense on ovals, but not for normal tracks), and not allow drivers to either take a chance and attack, nor to defend.

    If they want to penalize this, isn’t a reprimand fully satisfying? If not, then they would have really have had to ban Maldonado for a couple of races for his driving after Spa qualifying to keep penalties balanced.

    1. Well summed up, I think.

  18. It was clear – we saw a frustrated Lewis sitting behind a relatively slower car. As far as Lap 20 is concerned, with hindsight, Michael could have been reprmanded. It is not the first time Michael got the stick. Calling for a penalty is still harsh and it takes away the real spirit of racing. We all know how wide his car grows…. Spain 2010, 2011 are some examples. The fight he had with Ricardo Patrese @ Hockenhiem (in 1993?) was very impresive

    Are stewards an independent body or part of FIA? I meant their consistencies are quite apparent isn’t?

    But, if there’s ever a reason why F1 is still interesting….. we know why.

  19. I think it’s worth remembering that before Senna squeezed Prost at Estoril in 1988, drivers moving off line to defend was uncommon. Watch that incident now and it seems fairly tame, but at the time it was shocking. (Partly the reason I think Daly feels so strongly about this – he raced in the late 70’s and early 80’s and doesn’t have as much first hand experience of such tactics).

    Senna had a repuation for being uncompromising on track, and when Schumacher arrived he took it to another level – perhaps a level too far. His rivals then had to adopt similar tactics if they were to try and beat him and it soon became the norm. However, with the racing of the 2000’s being largely devoid of overtaking and more reliant on strategy, strong defensive tactics happened less frequently and therefore were less of an issue.

    In the last few years however with the return of slick tyres, less aero and devices such as the KERS, F-Duct’s and DRS we’re seeing more passing on track rather than in the pits, and as such we’re seeing more of the strong defensive tactics.

    As a result it’s been necessary to upgrade the ‘one move’ rule from a mere drivers understanding to a hard and fast because otherwise, all the drivers who grew up watching Schumacher and Senna being uncompromising on track will be likely to use such tactics themselves. Having one or two drivers at is is a risk, but if the whole field have the “if you don’t back off we’re both going to crash” mentality then it’s a surefire recipe for disaster.

    The grey area is whether moving back to your racing line is deserving of a penalty. It needs addressing, because there are calls to penalise Schumacher for doing this on Sunday, but Hamilton did exactly the same at Spa and it put him out in a nasty accident. (I also remember Hamilton squeezing Webber onto the grass at Monza 2008, but whilst that was a bit naughty, I don’t remember it being discussed much afterwards becuase that type of driving was almost seen as ‘the norm’).

    Consistency is what’s needed, but it’s such a tough rule to enforce anyway I think each instance should be looked at individually during a race, rather than being a blanket rule in which anything resembling more than one move is hit with an instant penalty. Charlie getting on to the teams and asking any driver on the borderline to calm down is the best way to deal with it in my opinion.

    1. You’re right. Although I didn’t see Schumacher do more than one move, sometimes he left Lewis too little space when he was lamost alongside him. I’m not sure if going off line and back to the racing line is one move or two, because Schumacher after Lesmo 2 moved to the center of the track, then on the right for braking at Ascari. In my opinion it was a hard battle but fair, and it was for me a rare view which I enjoyed. Of course Schumacher is the best at defensive driving, but this was nowhere near Hamilton’s swerving at Malaysia 2010.

    2. Excellent post, Dan – I agree with all your major points but have a slightly different take on some things.

      Driver coach (for Bruno, among others) Rob Walker made the point in a “Flying Lap” interview, that Senna under normal conditions was nowhere near as hard or unfair as he’s often accused of being. He chose Senna’s wheel-to-wheel confrontation with Mansell in 1991 on the pit straight in Barcelona as an example, and made the point that both drivers did the “nerves of steel” thing with car proximity, but Senna did not block unduly and neither driver was behaving dangerously, weaving or whatever – just racing hard. Then he contrasted this with the Schumacher move on Barrichello in Hungary and said something like: “so which driver would you rather be racing against, if you value your safety?”. Because of Japan 1990 and a couple of lesser and earlier incidents like Estoril (arguably before he fully matured as a driver), Senna is often grouped with Schumacher as borderline homicidal in some serial way; he was certainly hard and occasionally unfair, but I agree with your take that it was by the standards of the time that Senna’s driving was seen as sometimes OTT, and all but his worst moves (including Estoril) now look relatively mild.

      Re: “[Schumacher’s] rivals then had to adopt similar tactics” – yes, but I never really thought they did, in his dominant era. Standards certainly ‘deteriorated’ (if you see it that way) in general, and it was a horrible example for the various racing ranks to follow (I saw it personally in karting – almost a step function deterioration in standards at certain points over a 10 year period, depending on what had just happened on TV), but it always seemed to me that Schumacher usually acted with impunity under the auspices of the “one move” rule, and I don’t recall many (if any) moves made against him that rank with his pushing Alonso onto the grass on the Hangar straight, or pushing Ralf at the pit wall in Germany, his contact-blocks on Hill or Villeneuve, or his move in Hungary. I could only ever conclude that either (a) his main rivals accepted their place in some kind of “pecking order” where they were intimidated by him (I think Coulthard even admitted to such a thing?), or (b) there was actually a general and systematic double standard in the stewarding, and they all knew it. I see evidence for both. It seemed to me that there was a long period where “one move” from Michael could mean what you like, no matter how harsh – as long as there was only one of them, and if others raced him and there was contact (like when Schumacher understeered into Montoya at turn 1 in Malaysia), it was usually Schumacher’s rival who got the penalty. I know this is getting back to the whole “FIA favouritism” story (and Keith will probably jump on me for polluting his blog with it) but I feel that this has *direct* bearing on where we are now. There was a long period where “one move” (ambiguously defined as you commented) seemed to be the sole standard. It was only when we got to Hungary 2010 that we heard that not pushing your rival sideways off the track was also a rule (and a lot of people on the boards were still hollering that what Michael did to Rubens was fine and dandy, precisely *because* it was just one move). I honestly don’t know the chronology of how the rules and the rule interpretations evolved, but I can sure as heck say that the standard applied against Michael in Hungary 2010 was conspicuously absent during his dominant period – at least where he was concerned.

      Re: “if the whole field have the ‘if you don’t back off we’re both going to crash’ mentality then it’s a surefire recipe for disaster” – well exactly, and I was saying the same thing in 1998, and for at least the next decade. So it’s remarkable we got this far without a fatality, and – a serious question – how did that come to be, exactly? (Addressed to anyone who will run with it).

      With all of the above in mind, I looked at Michael vs. Lewis at Monza on Sunday and thought “OK, that’s borderline, but mostly it was just what we want: hard racing”. It’s amazing, though, that we’re still arguing whether one move really means two moves. I have long assumed (because so many block-and-back-to-the-racing-line double moves have gone unpunished) that it is indeed OK to block and then move back again, and that the reason Brawn was on the radio about it is that if your rival has overlap after you blocked him the first time and made him move offline, then you clearly can’t move back and force him aside again. That’s what Michael was in danger of doing, especially into Ascari. I agree with you that this really needs clarification – it’s such a basic thing and, yes, that’s exactly why Hamilton was at fault against Kobayashi at Spa (albeit unwittingly, having evidently not realized he still had overlap in the braking zone).

      If one move really does mean two moves, then I think this is a bit of a shame. It means that not only can you block someone who’s quicker than you, you can effectively block them twice if only you make the second sweep back to the racing line quickly enough. It’s actually a potential recipe for some even more horrible double-blocks than we saw under “one move” – as long as the leading driver can say “there was no overlap when I moved back”, then you can stick the rear end of your car in your opponent’s face twice and claim it’s all OK. In this respect, I’m somewhat sympathetic to where Daly is coming from.

  20. Does anyone else not find it a little strange that they simply ‘missed’ it…?!

    There’s a panal of stewards – surely one (at least) needs to be keeping an eye on the live action?! Plus, there should be replays in full use.

    I find this really rather odd.

    1. Daly said “I missed it” not “we” so perhaps there was someone watching and didn’t think it needed looking into.

      I find it extremely hard to believe anything can happen and go unpunished when they are looking at a replay.

  21. And what if Coulthard was a Steward!!

    Id imagine Schumacher would be given a drive through for not queuing clearly at the buffet breakfast and moving across the fruit salad in a matter unbecoming of a f1 racing driver. “rule 23.21 clearly states…” whined coulthard into his boiled egg

    1. Haha, though to be fair to the square chined one, him or Brundle haven’t been critical of Schumacher of late and even EJ is starting to mellow.

    2. Its interesting how coulthard was so adamant that you could ask any driver and he would agree that schuey was in the wrong,
      and the only driver that mattered {lewis} saw nothing wrong.

      1. To be fair it looked as if Hamilton was completely holding back in that BBC interview.

        I would like to have seen what he was saying behind closed doors.

        If Schumacher did get away with anything it’s the first time since his comeback, as he has had some extremely harsh penalties this last two years.

        1. Snowman is right. Schumacher has had some pretty harsh penalties for incidents which in my opinion should have been considered racing incidents, and which severely hampered Schumacher’s race usually costing him numerous positions.
          The 10 second stop-and-go penalty at Silverstone for example.

        2. I think he was also holding back in his usual agressive racing style too, this was probably the reason he didn’t get past him quicker than he normally would, it’ll be because he’s trying to make sure he finishes a race rather than crashing out like he has done a few times recently.

  22. I do agree with the general consensus here that Daly may have overstepped the boundaries by issuing such a statement. While I do think that they should speak up (I’m looking at you, Mark Blundell), there is a right way of doing it (think Nigel Mansell).

    That said, Daly also mentioned that: “On lap 20, race director Charlie Whiting asked the stewards to look at an incident between [Felipe] Massa and [Jarno] Trulli at the second chicane.” Yet we STILL haven’t seen it!

  23. I think it’s racing pure and simple. Lewis couldn’t get by because Schumi is a superb defensive driver. Lewis undestand this and accept it for what it is. Unfortunately, the rules are applied different to him. He would have been in the steward’s office straight from his car had he made even one of those move on anybody else.
    And this talk of Jenson making such a nice overtake is rubbish. He passed because even Schumi can’t defend a line against two cars. He was too tied up with Lewis to defend Button.
    Get out of formula one Lewis, it’s not worth the bother.

    1. and what should lewis do? Drive a cab around your city? :P

      1. If it’s a good fair cab race where he does not have to deal with FIA,yes. I’m sure it would be appreciated by true racing fans.

    2. We need an thumbs up button on comments, because I’d be clicking it here.

      I think Lewis is starting to feel that the whole ‘F1’ scene is against him and his driving style.

      1. Senna had the same problem and he did get by.

        1. The FIA is a bit more sophisticated than in Senna’s day. They are diffidently more anal retentive.

  24. This is why we can’t have nice things. The moment the racing drivers try to do some wheel to wheel racing, they get penalise. Michael made one move to defend, then he returned to his racing line, which he is entitled to do so.

    If you start penalising people simply for being good at defending, then why don’t we just all go home after qualifying on saturday?!

    1. Where in the rules and regulations does it say the driver is allowed to move back to the racing line to take the corner.

      FIA’s Sporting Code Appendix L, Article 2, para c states

      c) curves, as well as the approach and exit zones thereof, may be negotiated by the drivers in any way they wish, within the limits of the track. Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be done either on the right or on the left. However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers such as premature changes of direction, more than one change of direction, deliberate crowding of cars towards the inside or the outside of the curve or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited and shall be penalised, according to the importance and repetition of the offences, by Penalties ranging from a fine to the exclusion from the race. The repetition of dangerous driving, even involuntary, may result in the exclusion from the race.

    2. Drivers should not be allowed to push each other off track. That this is illegal is actually written in the rules. It’s hardly ever enforced though.

  25. I think it would make sense for the FIA to have a permanent driver steward that has raced in F1 the last 10 years and has plenty of experience.

    Having a guy that hasn’t raced in F1 since 1982 when rules and cars and everything were completely different trying to look at an incident from a drivers point of view is a bit of a joke.

  26. Question: I noticed there was some slight flexing in the front wings of mclaren at high speeds. and that they moved a lot when he went over the kerbs. Was/Is that normal?

    1. yes, that is pretty normal.

      The material bends, so it can “wobble” when hitting the kerbs. And all wings bend down a little (or a bit more in case of the top teams since last year) under pressure when driving at speeds.

  27. this style of driving is not what you want the future generation of drivers to perfect

    Perfect? Perform?

    1. He said perfect. Perfect is also a verb, it makes sense.

      1. Aha! English is still complicated language to some Asian such as me! :D

  28. It was a good battle but a clear double move across Hamilton’s line from Schumacher on lap 20 and he should’ve been penalised as per the current rules. Either you want the rules applied fairly or you’re a hypocrite. The BBC should apply more attention to the steward’s behavior instead of trying to provoke soundbites out of drivers. Stewards who think it’s Schumacher’s duty to set an example for “future generations” or that Hamilton’s obliged to accept their career advice need to be put in their place.

  29. The only incident on lap 20, that I can see, was two moves by Michael between Della Roggia and the 1st Lesmo corner.
    Watching this again, a couple of times, I can only say Michael was guilty. But part of the coverage of lap 20, of them, was interupted by Vettel stopping to change tyres.

  30. “While looking at the slow motion video of this incident”

    So they have a video of the crash! Why did they not show it in TV?

    1. Was wondering that myself. Maybe we’ll see it in the FOM race edit. Or the end-of-season video. Or never…

  31. If Daly was preoccupied reviewing ANOTHER incident it’s Whiting who let the fans down by not asking Daly and the stewards to review Schumy’s behavior.

  32. Why all this drama, Shumacher was going by the rules, but right on the limit. A reprimend would be acceptebale, anything harsher is just plain wrong.

    1. The point for me is that if it was the other way round Lewis would of been on the receiving end of a penalty of some sort!

  33. I thought it was a bit strange when Luizzi`s crash was deemed investigate after the race at around lap 22. F1 has surely reached its goal line technolgy moment, but it doesn`t need technology, it needs a goal line?.

    Without a fully independent set of Marshalls that travel between the races studying the rule book F1 will act and appear….well..crooked. There is no consistency in there desicions.

    For a sport that spends £1500 on a single tyre I`am sure they can afford it?

  34. Derek Daly you are so boring!

  35. How about, in our hugely expensive Sky package next year, we get the following flick up on the screen should the situation repeat.

    Q. Should Schumacher be penalised for making more than one move?

    Press Red for yes, press Blue for no.

    Majority wins and the Stewards take action upon that.

    Tongue in cheek of course…

  36. besides the bickering whether it was worth a penalty or not, there are more important questions that should come out of this;
    1. How on earth is it even possible that the stewards panel, whose only responsibility is to look at race incidents ‘missed’ the most important and talked about incident of the whole race. It’s baffling really.
    2. If they have footage of the MAssa-Trulli incident, why wasn’t it shown!
    3.Charlie obviously was of the opinion Schumi did somthing illegal and warned Ross Brawn. Why didn’t Hamilton first get a warning in Malaysia, why did Charlie chose not to respond when Mclaren explicitly asked him for advise when Button cut the chicane to pass Massa in Melbourne

    This stewarding business reeks.

  37. Fair Both Mickael and Lewis.Lewis himself recognize it after the race.He was just frustrated with his car’s pace even with KERS. Mickael in the other hand seems enjoing fighting with Lewis, because he has an estime of him, and I remember him the first driver to defend Lewis after Monaco mess. I Think Mickael has a high esteem of L.Hamilton.
    Secondly, the Stewards should consider the 5 place Grid penalty forV. Liuzi, it was H. Kovalainen Fault at first!!! Does he has Balls to recognize it? I don’t think so. And Liuzi is a fair, serious and pragmatic racer, and some bit nice. But he shouldn’t in this circumstances, he should go for an Appeal.

  38. HounslowBusGarage
    14th September 2011, 21:15

    Lots of very perceptive comments here from BasCB, Snowman, F1er, TheVillainF1 and many others.
    So at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Daly’s publicised comments make the entire Steward panel and F1 stewarding in general look very amateur. So far this year, they have been imprecise, ignorant, indiscreet and indifferent.
    Not a good score sheet.
    A professional sport like F1 cannot rely on amateur Stewards, even if one of them actually raced once upon a time. In comparison to the minutiae of the technical regulations, the driving standards are as wooly as a flock of sheep.
    Who were the other Stewards at Monza?

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      14th September 2011, 21:16

      Missed out ‘inconsistent’ too!

      1. HounslowBusGarage
        14th September 2011, 21:37

        Thanks for that. So there were two Stewards, plus DD as the ‘driver adviser’. I thought it was a panel of four Stewards though; maybe it includes Charlie Whiting as well.
        The most interesting part of that FIA page was “. . . FIA trainee stewards’ program . . .”. So there is some kind of training or education program for F1 Stewards before they are accepted. It doesn’t say that the Swiss gentleman undertook the program; only that the Spanish lady did. Surely, every Steward should undergo training.

        1. Your welcome. As to Gutjahr, it does say that he has been an F1 Steward since 1995.

          On a side note, I was recently reading Mark Whitelock’s ‘1 1/2-litre Grand Prix Racing 1961-65’ ( Highly recommended BTW ) and came across a reference to the 1961 Yeoman Credit Team being “Run by respected former driver and Aston Martin team manager Reg Parnell from a base in Hounslow, West London”. Were you aware of this and know if the building they were located in still exists?

          1. HounslowBusGarage
            15th September 2011, 8:56

            Vaguely, but only vaguely. I remember my brother Chris telling me about this many years ago – after we’d both left Hounslow. He was ten years older than me and had certainly been around in that era. Unfortunately he’s not around any more so I can’t ask him. But as I recall, there were lots of little backstreet lock-ups and yards where a racing team could have lodged. Preobably between the yard selling ice-cream vans and the steam laundry!

    2. In the programme as always:

      Former F1 driver Derek Daly, a veteran of 49 starts, is the drivers’ advisor to the stewards this weekend.

      Daly joins Swiss auto club president Paul Gutjahr and FIA trainee steward programme graduate Silvia Bellot on the panel.

      2011 Italian Grand Prix programme

      I think Bellot is the first graduate of the FIA’s trainee programme to work as a steward in an F1 race. She has done lower-formula races including GP2, and worked as a steward at an F1 race for the first time in Turkey:

      2011 Turkish Grand Prix programme

  39. lewis didnt get punished for returning to the racing line in spa and crashing with kobyashi.

    was it beumi who did get a 10 place grid penalty earlier in season for doing same thing to nick?

    consistency is appalling it has to be said. i agree with JV that you should only penalised if you go out of your way to take someone off, or do something completely dumb.

  40. My advise: Derek Daly will never be a race steward advisor again.

    I seriously don’t understand why people complain. YEs Schumacher defended hard, but that’s how u supposed to defend your position. The Curva Grande incident where Schumacher supposedly pushed Hamilton on the crash?? Was Hamilton next to him? No. Did Schumacher make two moves NO
    Hamilton thought he saw a gap which wasn’t there plain and simple.

    1. not crash, but grass

  41. Derek Daly, the epitome of racing experts, more mouth than racing talent. If he had a sex change and raced today, he’d be Danica Patrick who wouldn’t have a ride if she didn’t have breasts.
    What I’d like is to have everyone complaining about Schumacher’s driving to send me the video of the race you watched because the one I watched, and replayed, didn’t show him doing anything except make a block and move back to take the normal line into the next corner. That’s the whole point of the exercise, after all.
    And, as far as Vettel is concerned, when he doesn’t just flash off of the pole and win he always has to whine about whomever he has to pass.
    The results of this season might be a lot different, but certainly a lot more meaningful, if the first half of the grid were inverted after qualifying.

    1. A lot less meaningful actually, since inverting the grid would just reward slow qualifiers. And Vettel didn’t complain about Rosberg at Blanchimont.

  42. Jenson didn’t have any problem passing Schumey. I thought Lewis was a racer through and through. It appears Schumey was teaching Hamilton how to race.

    1. What a load of ****

      When MS finally yeilded to LH, he pulled over before ascari and left room, if you watch JB getting passed MS, MS basically did the same thing for Jenson.

      Maybe MS didnt realise JB had passed LH and thought he was letting LH go by into ascari. but as it turns out it was JB and everyone was raving about how it was an awesome pass, JB included. Like i said, watch BOTH passes again, they are practically identical. The difference is MS yeilded to JB far sooner than he yeilded to LH.

  43. I agree with you Mickael. That was a training and learning lesson for Lewis, at the same time, Mickael’s driving finally not far from Lewis style in the positive of it, when Lewis was winning races, he’s a Class, so Mickael is preparing himself for next few races and the next year, and found in Lewis the perfect man for the perfect situation to learn from himself too.

  44. As a fan I love it when there’s some dust being kicked up during overtaking. Makes it much more exciting and creates tension between racers. I’m sure there were many incidents that went unnoticed because they’re not the front runners, think about it.

    Vettel’s pass on Alonso was more dramatic with brown dust smokin the track, awesome.

  45. I don’t think there was anything wrong with it.Secondly why did FIA appointed Derek Daly for? I think they should or must have a Formula 1 former World Champion on the panel,someone like Emerson,Jackie,Hill,Mansell.

  46. “When I looked at it again at home, I believe that Schumacher should have been given a drive-though penalty…

    Ok so there are several conclusions I make from this comment:

    1) From my understanding, the decision to panalise someone is not governed by 1 person alone. There must have been other stewards who were (and had to have been) looking at the replays/incident. The fact that he refers to the possibility of a “penalty” based on his own individual ability to see or act upon, suggests that he is talking rubish because its not only his dicision to make.

    2) By him admitting that “I had to go home to have another look”, suggests that he did not do his job properly in the first place, im sure there is “plenty” of time to look at the replay during the race.

    3) If it is true that stewards did not see the very incident that was spoken about the most, then this is quite scary, because it supports the very concern that stewarding is a very inefficient system. Which i dont believe to be the case. It is more likely that Daly couldn’t do anything about it because the incident could not be proven with 100% certainty to be blocking. And these are the facts.

    From my understanding, there is a group of stewards looking at various incidences and not just one. And they make dicisions together. So Daly is making matters worse for himself by reflecting on decisions outside of his work.

    1. 1) Daly did say on posts I have seen and on Peter Windors broadcast that he didn’t know what the other (2) stewards were doing when he was watching a slow motion vid of an incident that Charlie Whiting had asked them to look at.
      2) A I said Daly was busy at the time of the Schumacher/ Hamilton incident on lap 20, and the stewards were not asked to go back and look at it.
      3) If the stewards were busy and did not see the incident and it wasn’t refered to them. What are they supposed to do about it?

      I would think that this is a Charlie Whiting or a system failure, not the three stewards on duty. One of which was a trainee. After two warnings to Ross Brawn, passed on to Schumacher, by Charlie Whiting before this incident I am sure that this incident should have been passed to the stewards But then again Charlie Whiting might not have seen the lap 20 event because he was busy with something else.

      We will probably never know.

      Maybe there should be more teams of stewards and/or more people with the power to refer incidents to the stewards.

  47. So let me get this right, what some people are saying here is it’s ok to move once to block an overtake and then when your opponent moves the other side to overtake you can move back in front of him because that’s the racing line ? What a load of TOSH ! One move means one move, not one off the racing line and then one back on it again.
    I find Daly’s admission after the race more disturbing than what happened during the race. Once again the FIA and consistency simply don’t go hand in hand.

    1. One move means one move, not one off the racing line and then one back on it again.

      I understand why you think so, but that isn’t how the rule is enforced.

      For years, decades even, drivers have been allowed to move once off the racing line and then move back towards the racing line.

      I’m not saying I like it, but that’s how it is. Here’s an example from three years ago describing the same thing:

      Four of F1′s ‘unwritten rules’

  48. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpdAH5ohpAo&feature=fvsr

    I like to see these older races. Probably Senna nowadays would have gotten a penalty, which we would be discussing time and time again.
    I enjoyed watching Hamilton versus Schumacher. With DRS and Kers it seems its just a matter of setting the car right push the button and you’re set.

    1. Good point, though I’m not sure I see anything there resembling a double move (or even a single “block”) from Senna – maybe the approach to bridge corner that one time, but it seems to me that Senna just keeps outbraking Prost and going around his outside.

      Actually, what’s notable here (again, per my earlier reference to Spain 1991) is actually that Senna is NOT blocking. First shot – into Stowe, he leaves the inside completely open for Prost and just goes around the outside. Same again into Abbey, he comes up the centre of the track but leaves room for Prost to go inside, which he does, then has a twitch on turn-in and backs out of it. Same story again into Copse, then Senna just takes the normal racing line into Becketts.

      If anything, this seems to support Rob Walker’s point that Senna on a typical day was cleaner and fairer than he gets credit for now, and that standards have degraded w.r.t. blocking in general. Go back to that first shot – how many drivers today would move to the inside to block going down to Stowe? Seems to me that’s exactly what was happening multiple times in the very last race. I think the leading driver can take his chosen line in a case like that (though Senna here shows it’s not always necessary and there’s more than one way to skin a cat), but I’m still uncomfortable with the idea that he can move once to block and then move back again “to take the racing line”. To me that’s two moves and if you move once, you commit to that line, including a shallower corner entry.

      I think your wider point is very well taken, though. This was excellent, hard racing and if stewards intervention takes us to a point where this sort of racing gets penalties, then it will be a horrible development. And it’s certainly possible that we could end up there.

      1. This was excellent, hard racing and if stewards intervention takes us to a point where this sort of racing gets penalties, then it will be a horrible development. And it’s certainly possible that we could end up there.

        Exactly. Jenson overtook at Ascari, we should be looking at that,it was a brave racing move and it should deserve more consideration.Looking at another sport – cycling – http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-begins-implementation-of-radio-ban-for-elite-riders – i’m bringing this as they point one of the reasons being forcing the riders to “think by themselves”. On Spa we had that huge moment between Alonso and Webber,on Monza, that move by Jenson at Ascari. Limiting defending to one move and then having drs and kers it’s like making of more like Fast and Furious and less like 1969’s Grand Prix.

  49. Hello to all formula 1 fans i found this conversation between michael his race engineer and ros brawn.I don’t know if it’s real but the journalist is reliable the dialogues are so funny.Here it is:
    Race engineer:Michael you may take a penaltyfor blocking
    Michael:Why?
    RE:Because the stewards warned us
    M:Blocking?Isn’t my teammate?
    RE:No it’s Hmamilton.That;s yellow helmet is Hamilton’s not Nico’s
    M:A..I can’t see nothing from the mirrors.
    RE:Have your mirrorsbeen broken?
    M: Not somebody stuck a photo of Kobayashi on the left and one to Petrov on the right.
    RE:Can you repeat?
    M: Just kidding. Now go to Ascari. Yes! Again failed to pass the Schumy.
    RE:micael you must stop blocking.
    M:We have a nice battle.
    RE:Charlie don’t think it looks like that.
    M: You know I wonder if I can lead him on the grass in this lap.
    RE:If you do not stop the closing(blocking), I will call Ross.
    M:I don;t hear.
    Ross Brawn: Michael Ross here. You must leave space.
    M: There is enough space.
    RB: You must let the width of the car, not just the space between the car and the barrier.
    M:It really is fun
    RB:Michael must let go of Lewis, if you crash …
    M:He;ll take responsibility.Always blame him for everything, there will be no problem
    RB: We had several problems with Rubens last year.
    M:Schumi schumi schumischumi schumiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!
    RB:If you don;t make space ,i;ll tell people what happened in 1994
    M:Well i think my tyres are finished

    That is a conversation i found it;s really funny.I’m not sure if it’s real or not.Ifound it on a greek site and i translate it.Can anyone confirm that?

    1. I hate to sound dismissive, but that’s clearly not real. It’s not even vaguely realistic.

      It has been posted here before as well:

      http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/09/12/2011-italian-grand-prix-mercedes/comment-page-1/#comment-820901

  50. Sorry Keith my mistake i was misleaded because of the reliability of the journalist.I thought also it was very good to be true.

  51. I really need to sit down and watch this race on TV. A couple of things are niggling me, this being one of them.

    1. perhaps a penalty for Shumacher would off killed off Alonso`s 3rd place….prod….niggle….prod ;-)

  52. my only take on this “incident” with Hamilton and Michael is: what the devil has f1 racing become. Given all the add-ons and DRS’s, Kers and the likes, now one must simply move over to let a car thru that is on the same lap as you are. Those moves are only for when you are about to be lapped.
    Being in front of any car gives you the right to the racing line and if in doing so you move wide to cut a turn, it’s your right. Hamilton at no stage was in a position to enforce an overtake and was merely getting frustrated at his own incapability of doing so. He should ask his team-mate to give him some pointers how to pass Michael with ease, on their off week-ends.

    1. Totally totally agree

  53. There was no penalty ‘coz he is black’ innit?

    ;oP

  54. The problem with the Daly comment is that he’s basing it on insufficient evidence from a steward’s point of view. As Martin Brundle said in his column on the race “When the stewards look at an incident, they have GPS trace overlays, car data, and many camera angles to carefully analyse a driver’s consistency of line and actions.”

    Perhaps the incident should have been looked at and Daly could rightfully say that it should have been referred to the stewards, or if he could say that had he seen it during the race, he would have recommended it be referred, but beyond that, without the totality of the process that stewards go through to determine if an incident deserves a penalty, then he’s just showing his own bias and suggests he has other motives for his comments. On the surface, his comments seem unprofessional (whether or not they appeal to a segment of fans).

  55. hamilton was complaining during the race but when asked after it, he said it was normal racing. So i think that’s the end of it.
    But a nobody like daly wants to be heard, because nobody cares about his opinions anymore.
    It was a long time when people cared what you had to say derek. Sure most of the f1f fans don’t.

    1. Says who? If he’s one of the ones responsible for handing out penalties I definitely want to know what he thinks.

      1. the problem with that, is that while we want his opinion as someone responsible for handing out penalties, we assume that it would be based on him having access to much more information (data, LH’s in-car camera, the distances between the cars, etc.). But he’s basically giving an opinion on the same footage we’ve all seen on the world feed which doesn’t give the best angles, foreshortens perspective, etc.

        A doctor’s opinion carries much more weight when it’s based on having access to all of a patient’s data, not trying to diagnose from a distance.

        As I said above, it’s one thing to say an incident deserves to be investigated, quite another to say because it deserves investigation it deserves a penalty. An accusation isn’t proof.

        1. I don’t think that was Kowalsky’s point, which is what I was replying to.

          And I don’t agree with your view that a steward necessarily needs to see more footage than we do in order decide whether a move was legal or not. There may well be cases when extra footage isn’t available.

          What matters is that the rules are interpreted and enforced consistently and that the process is transparent and fans can comprehend it. I think Daly deserves credit for giving us insight into what actually goes on in the stewards’ room.

          1. I’m new to posting here, so I won’t belabor my point (great site btw). I agree it’s nice to get insight into the stewards’ room and I agree on consistent interpretations and enforcements of the rules.

            I don’t think we’ll ever get to transparency in the process, but we can keep it on our Christmas wish list :-)

          2. great site btw

            Thanks!

      2. i said most.

    2. I have a feeling that Hamilton didn’t want to say anything in public that might upset the officials.

      What would be more interesting is what he has said at the de-briefing. And that we will probably never know.

  56. Why do we even need the one move rule? Why can’t they just penalize dangerous driving, or questionable driving at certain dangerous spots and then forget about whether it was one move, or two or one and then a second back to the racing line?
    And if there has not yet been caused an accident I think they should just bring out the “you are driving like a ****! Cool down!” flag (I don’t remember what it is called or how it looks, but I think it exists.) out more often to warn the drivers if they are getting too close. I would have hated to see the Schumi vs Ham duel stop because Schumacher was given a drive through. I think an official warning from the stewards during the race if the drivers are getting on the edge would get the to keep themselves within what is safe to do, and then the duel might fade away because of that, but I will much rather see it that way then with a drive through. Of cause if they just ignore the warning and keeps going a penalty has to come.
    But I want to see the stewards manipulating the race result as little as they can. They need to be there to keep things under control, but the more invisible they are the better.
    And while we are at it, lets stop the causing a collision, drive through unless it is an obvious brain fade kind of accident.
    Let the laws of physics sort out who comes out better in a crash. Not the stewards.
    Unless as I say that it is a total kamikaze overtake kind of crash, or just stupidity behind the wheel.
    The one move and one back to the racing line is a fine guideline, but I don’t want to see penalties handed out mainly because of that rule.

    1. And if there has not yet been caused an accident I think they should just bring out the “you are driving like a ****! Cool down!” flag (I don’t remember what it is called or how it looks, but I think it exists.)

      That would be the black-and-white ‘unsportsmanlike driving’ flag, though I think the ‘you are driving like a ****’ flag is a better name.

      1. Was racking my brains for when I last saw a black white flag (with an accompanying number)…

        http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/04/04/drivers-as-stewards-make-presence-felt-as-hamilton-gets-black-and-white-flag/

        Hmmm curious how this gets the B/W flag and the 20 lap Schumi swerve show didnt.

  57. Here’s what I’d like to say about the subject: As a fan, I love racing, I’m biased not to penalize Schumi because I’m a fan, as a steward, I’d have to at least warn him, directly about it. Stewarding is been has been and will always be inconsistent because its up to each individual steward to decide what a violation is. Yes, there’s rules but there’s loads of ambiguity in them and there always will be.

  58. i am not a Michael Schumacher fan BUT that was racing. fed up with all the rules. let drivers drive and fight and get rid of blue flags and rolling starts and bring back refueling so we dont have to have fuel saving periods. and the rule saying you have to use both compounds of tyres is stupid too. i as a fan want to see drivers racing from start light to checkered flag. in the past races could be won or lost due to fuel rig problems or getting stuck in traffic etc etc. tear up the rule book and start again and let teams and drivers decide whats best and safe.

  59. I’m new here and discussions like this make me wish I started really watching F1 more than just last year and that I found this awesome site during 2010. I don’t know the rules like probably all of you here but after reading “4 Unwritten Rules” Schumacher might have made a move and a half at the lap 20 incident but the actual racing line was hard for me to determine from the TV coverage, the rest fit into what I understand those rule mean from reading the article. As for Lewis going off in the grass I don’t think he was run off by Michael as much as he made a judgment error on the space he needed. Also, Stewards are just like officials in any other sport, human. They do their best but make mistakes like anyone else. Was nice to get a glimpse of what goes on in their world though.

  60. And here’s a current F1 drivers opinion on Shumi’s driving in Monsa……….Mark Webber

    Webber has weighed in on the matter, saying some of Schumacher’s moves were unacceptable.

    “It was a unique fight between Michael and Lewis because the McLaren was running up against the rev limiter, so Michael had a speed advantage on the straights. He could position his car very cutely to try to keep him out,” he wrote in his BBC column.

    “There were a few times when Michael returned to the normal line having defended. That’s the point of interest because it’s not what most drivers understand to be acceptable.

    “Once incident in particular stood out – out of the second chicane and into Lesmo, when Lewis had a clear run and Michael went across to defend and then came back again.

    “Moving that many times was pushing the boundaries.”

    Keith, note the point about drivers returning to the racing line after defending being – ‘not acceptable’. Webber is on the safety committee so I guess he should know what he’s talking about.

    1. He said “pushing the boundaries”, not exceeding them. I think that says it all.

      1. it’s not what f1 is all about. Pushing the limits, and sometimes exceeding them.
        And we mortals love them for it.
        Daly and people like that want them all to be equaly boring.

  61. Keith,

    “It’s not what most drivers understand to be acceptable”

    What he’s saying is your unwritten rule of drivers moving off the racing line then back on it to defend is not acceptable.

    I think that says it all.

    1. Except that every time we’ve seen drivers do the same thing in the past they’ve never been penalised. Nor was Schumacher this time.

      What else do you expect me to say? It’s not as if you can argue the stewards are being inconsistent on this one.

      1. but you have to agree with me. They were not inconsistent because daly was looking at some othe thing. If he was on it he would have penalised the german ace. He said so.
        So my question is. Why should we care what a steward has to say when he is ready to be inconsistent and hurt the fans and the racing.
        To tell you the truth he is not qualified to be a steward another time.

  62. Its nice to be talking about MS pushing the boundaries rather than pushing his zimmerframe.

    Lewis and MS are quite similar in some ways, both look at ways to exploit vagaries in the rules, are very quick brained and sometimes the rule makers have to scrabble around afterwards to inventing or reinterperating the rules. Lewis breaking tows or letting someone repass and then immedietley retowing and going past them spring to mind but there are others. MS career is littered with examples, some of them beyond the pale if not beyond the rules. Senna too had a similar mindset.

    The very best have a 2nd brain whilst driving on the limit and we should really applaud it rather than as per teachers pet David Coulthard, start putting our hand up to “tell sir on him”

  63. Keith,

    So the fact that Schumi wasn’t penalised means what he did was right does it ?

    Surely what your well written article tells us is Daly thinks he did something wrong and now Webber has stepped in, I applaud them for being honest and making these statements because if they didn’t, many younger drivers will think along those lines of ‘well he wasn’t penalised so it must be alright then’.

    Of course (and by Daly’s own admission) it should have been dealt with during the race but we are all human and make mistakes. What is important though is that other drivers get the message that it will not be tolerated in the future.

    1. So the fact that Schumi wasn’t penalised means what he did was right does it ?

      Not at all, but this is a completely different thing.

      I’m saying that Schumacher shouldn’t get a penalty because plenty of other drivers have done the same in the past and not got a penalty for it. That’s the ‘unwritten rules’ side of it.

      But do I think drivers should be allowed to, in effect, cross all the way to one side of the track and then all the way back again to defend their position? No. I think that gives the defending driver too much power.

      What’s ‘right’ and what’s ‘allowed’ are different things. Sadly in F1 it’s often so difficult to figure out what is ‘allowed’ that what’s ‘right’ gets too little consideration.

  64. Does it happen that often ? Do you have any info. on other incidents ? The only other one I can think of was Shumi pushing Rubens into the pit straight wall.

    Most of the time they are small moves of a few feet on the straight or in a braking zone, you don’t often see someone do what Schumi did in Monza.

    Hamilton weaving on the straight to break the tow was wrong but not a blocking move to cause petrov to brake or be pushed onto the grass…..and of course he was penalised for it.

    1. No he wasn’t. Lewis got a reprimand for that.

      Yes it does happen often without punishment and if you feel the need to ask the question you obviously have not watched many races,

  65. You’ve always been able to retake the racing line its the degree to which you do it and how aggressive it looks. It also of course depends if you are high profile and racing near the front. You dont get much more high profile than Lewis vs MS, they are both known to be hyper aggressive and so the magnifying glass is turned up. Rules and in fact most things are still an art not a science. If you are looking for an equation that gives you a 100% cast iron answer you are going to be disappointed

  66. antonyob,

    So how do you explain Webbers comments…..

    ““There were a few times when Michael returned to the normal line having defended. That’s the point of interest because it’s not what most drivers understand to be acceptable.”

    1. webber should focus on taking monza flat out, being worthy of the best f1 ever or retire and leave the wheel for someone else. Hamilton comes to mind. Then we would see how good the german realy is.

  67. that he was talking to the press, that drivers, especially Webber can be cute if they want to also, that throwing doubt can cause doubt in others. Ecclestone does it all the time and mostly everyone falls for it, its not beyond a driver to do the same!

  68. something i find amusing is that the sort of driving we saw schumacher do at monza used to be considered good racing.
    people complain everytime anyone moves to defend/block or anytime any contact is made & then also complain that there’s no good racing?

    something i noticed is that many of the moves schumacher pulled didn’t look nywhere near as bad from hamiltons onboard camera as they did from the trackside cameras on the world feed.
    the one going into lesmo 1 looked really close from the trackside shot but upon seeing the onboard channel hamilton was actually not especially close when schumacher moved back onto the racing line.

    point been that several of the instances where it looked like schumacher was chopping hamilton off from the trackside shots didn’t look anywhere near as close from the oncar shots.

    some of the onboard.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHTVwBkcTr8

    1. can i just ask a question.

      if this moving back to the racing line is an unacceptable as some lewis supporters claim then why was there none of the outrage at spa when hamilton drifted back across the track when he collided with kobayashi?

      dont forget he moved right to defend the inside & the contact was caused because he then tried to retake the racing line, Incidently daviod coulthard didnt see anything wrong with lewis doing that & even said it was hamiltons right to do that, so whats different?

  69. I don’t think any penalty was necisary to be honest, I though that was a brillaint fight for position & the best on-track scrap we’ve seen all year.

    Schumi got close to the line but I don’t think he actually crossed it, I thought it was good, hard racing & the sort of racing I woudn’t mind seeing more of.

  70. Dave_f1,

    In my opinion what Hamilton did to Kobi was wrong, he should have stayed on his line in the braking zone but he DRIFTED back, he was punished for what he did by crashing out and then was man enough to admit it was wrong after the race.
    Did you think it was ok what Hamilton did to Kobi ? Did you think it was ‘good racing ‘?

    What cracks me up is we have one of the actual stewards of the race (Daly) and 2 very experienced drivers who were in the race…. Webber and Button (Button had a ring side seat) who are all saying what Schumi did was wrong but they are all wrong or just playing mind games.

  71. Dave_f1,

    Do you think what Alonso did to Vettel was just good racing ?
    Was Vettel therefore wrong to ask for the incident to be investigated after the race ?

    I guess Coulthard and Brundle are also wrong with their opinions of the Schumi/Hamilton blocking as well then.

    Why don’t we all ignore these so called experts……what do they know eh ?

    1. problem with brundle/coulthard’s opinions on it is that both have ignored the same sort of thing been done in the past.

      monza wasnt the 1st time a driver has done what schumacher did & i didnt hear any critisisms from anyone on those occasions & on at least 1 of them i remember brundle calling it hard but fair racing.

      if brundle & coulthard had made a point of calling that sort of thing out consistently then fine but the fact is they havn’t.

      as to daly, ive heard him cover many indycar races & he sees any deviation off the racing line as been blocking.
      i recall at the 2006 british gp he was commentating for the cbs coverage & when raikkonen defending the inside & then squeezed schumacher slightly he started screaming about how kimi should be penalised for something nobody else saw anything wrong with.

  72. What do you think of the Vettel/Alonso incident then Dave ? Do you think Alonso was just racing ?

    Do you think Hamilton was right to move over towards Kobi and therefore shouldn’t have given an apology ?

    1. lewis was perfectly within his right to drift across, i think where he made a mistake was not realising where kobayashi which resulting in lewis clipping him.

      when schumacher was drifting back onto the racing line at monza he made sure lewis wasn’t alongside him (watch the onboard clips i posted earlier) so that no contact was made. when lewis did get alongside he left him just enough room to avoid contact.

      i think the alonso/vettel thing was marginal but ultimately just about fair & something i think backs this view up is that i dont recall any drivers or stewards or anything saying anything different.

      going back to the schumacher/hamilton racing, i’d be saying the same if the roles were reversed or if any other drivers were involved. im not coming at it from a pro-schumacher or anti-lewis POV, I just thought it was great racing which provided the most exciting racing we have seen all year.

  73. Most of the Hamilton/Schumi stuff was great racing but there were a few occasions where he went over the line.
    When Schumi was drifting back to the racing line it was to MAKE SURE Lewis didn’t get along side him.
    Any driver can weave back and forth and then say afterwards that when he did it he didn’t have anyone beside him. It will certainly stop someone having a go.

    Re: the Alonso/Vettel incident, there was a comment about it by Brundle/Coulthard but as you say it wasn’t investigated by the stewards. Saying that it appears Vettel wasn’t happy with it and ask for it to be investigated.

    You may well be saying the same thing about the Hammi/Schumi thing if the roles were reversed and that is to be respected but I’d put money on the outcome not being the same……Hamilton would have had the book thrown at him.
    I like to see great racing too but not when it starts to get dirty. I loved watching Senna but sometimes he could overstep the mark as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.