FIA steward Daly says Schumacher should have had penalty

2011 Italian Grand Prix

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 ?é?® Daimler

Advert | Go Ad-free


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

1 2 3 5
  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’.

    • 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.

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

      • 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

        • JCost (@jcost) said on 15th September 2011, 8:07

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

        • Mitori said on 16th September 2011, 8:29

          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.

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

      • newkoba said on 15th September 2011, 1:09

        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.

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

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

  2. InternetF1 said on 14th September 2011, 15:27

    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.

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

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 14th September 2011, 15:32

      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.

      • Scootin159 said on 14th September 2011, 15:41

        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.

        • 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!

        • LordHesketh said on 14th September 2011, 18:22

          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.

        • 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.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 14th September 2011, 18:41

            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.

        • lewymp4 (@lewymp4) said on 14th September 2011, 23:13

          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!

          • 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.

      • Sush Meerkat said on 14th September 2011, 15:42

        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*

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

      • 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

      • snowman said on 14th September 2011, 16:31

        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.

    • TheBrav3 said on 15th September 2011, 5:01

      “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

      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!

      • snowman said on 15th September 2011, 9:09

        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.

      • beneboy (@beneboy) said on 15th September 2011, 11:19

        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??

  5. djdaveyp87 said on 14th September 2011, 15:33

    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.

    • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 14th September 2011, 16:42

      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.

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 14th September 2011, 16:52

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

      • David BR said on 15th September 2011, 0:46

        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.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 14th September 2011, 15:38

      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.

      • kowalsky said on 14th September 2011, 16:21

        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.

      • icemangrins (@icemangrins) said on 14th September 2011, 18:43

        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?

    • kowalsky said on 14th September 2011, 16:18

      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.

    • Dr. Mouse said on 14th September 2011, 17:14

      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

    • Bernard (@bernard) said on 15th September 2011, 3:01

      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.

    • JoeBloggs said on 14th September 2011, 20:45

      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.

    • (and, essentially, properly stewarded)

    • Cacarella said on 14th September 2011, 16:48

      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. Icthyes said on 14th September 2011, 15:46

    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…

    • 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.

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

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

        • 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.

          • According to the Sporting Regulations both is possible:

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

    • 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.

      • Icthyes said on 14th September 2011, 16:46


        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.

        • Agree with that as well.

        • 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.

          • Asanator (@asanator) said on 16th September 2011, 14:42

            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. TED BELL said on 14th September 2011, 16:00

    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.

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

  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. Phillip Jones (@phil18wales) said on 14th September 2011, 16:14

    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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • Asanator (@asanator) said on 16th September 2011, 14:46

        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) said on 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.

    • SteveH said on 15th September 2011, 0:15

      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.

1 2 3 5

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.