Do marshals need to go to "race school"

[dhart]

Mr Pye in todays Autosport rambles away about the need for marshals to attend "race school",apparently Brands finest didnt notice cars passing him really close in the wet race!!!!?
Just what is race school? and is passing in the wet endorseable? just may have to rethink my heroes!

[PaulSands]

I have to admit I found this suggestion a little odd.
I think he must've written the article will still a little pi**ed off about what he percieved as on track bullying.

[Beardy359]

If Mr.Pye is paying, sign me up!

[ss_collins]

I agree with Marcus (as usual) and think if Marshals spent a bit of time at a racing school then they would be able to understand what constitutes good or bad racing a little more from the drivers point of view...

...can't see anyone stumping up the cash though...

[Stephen Green]

What would you have us do at the Race School folks, drive cars around the track in order to get our ARDS test? If so, sign me up so long as MP or Autosprout are footing the bill

As far as I am aware there are no rules about passing in the wet unless it's done under caution flags (yellow of black/yellow). The only thing we as marshals would report is contact between two or more cars. No contact no report, thems da rools guys.

[Stephen Green]

Sam, we are not there to decide what is good or bad racing, that is the job of the stewards and Clerk of the Course. We merely report the facts not our opinion, that is the one thing drummed into marshals time and time again. Just tell the facts, don't give your personal view.

[dhart]

wish pye's brief was the same!

[diz]

Originally posted by Stephen Green
The only thing we as marshals would report is contact between two or more cars. No contact no report, thems da rools guys.

I am not going against the thread, as I agree with dhart [unusual in itself].
I do take issue with Stephen's no contact no report though. Surely there are many types of ontrack misdemeanour that do not involve contact, but should be reported as being dangerous and often aren't "seen"

[Muttley]

Perhaps Mr Pye should spend a day on the bank in the weather that was at Brands last weekend. Then he might think about what he writes

[ss_collins]

probably a good idea.

[chezza]

This is unusual, Marcus is normally very supportive of the marshals.

Have to agree with you there muttley and maybe not just marcus maybe the drivers too. If they had half an idea of what we have to face in the rain and cold then there might be a better understanding all round.

[goforit500]

Can someone drop the text of Mr. Pye's report in here, or the gist at least - Haven't got my copy yet....

[Stephen Green]

Diz, as a rule our job is to report contact, spins, accidents and things like infringements of flag signals. It is rare that we will make a written report on something which is shall we say subjective. If for example I saw a driver who's driving was erratic then I may ring or radio Race Control and ask THEM to observe the driver. As I stated before, our job is to report facts not our personal feelings. I'm sure you would agree that what I consider to be an ambitious overtaking move could well be seen as perfectly ok by another Observer, hence the rule.

[Bob Pearson]

Stephen,
I don't think that fully covers the issues involved. Take the well publicesd business on the Hanger Straight last GP when M SCumacher bundled Alonso onto the grass, the only reason there was no contact was because Alonso opted to go onto the grass to avoid the collision which had been "arranged" by MS. By your rules that is not reportable. Do we therefore never move off line when lent on on the basis that we need at least a collision and preferably a crash before anything is done about such over aggresive driving.

[Stephen Green]

Bob,

It would probably take the form of a verbal report rather than written (unless specifically asked for by the C of the C). Something along the lines of...Car no 1 moved across on car no7 forcing car 7 onto the grass. That is what I mean when I say we don't give opinions. It would then be down to the Clerk to make a decision.

Of course nothing is ever black and white in any sport, but I hope that gives you the gist of my point.

[Bob Pearson]

That's good Stephen, I got the impression you were saying that if there is no contact then there is no issue to be addressed.

[Stephen Green]

Hmmm, I don't think I explained myself properly in the first post

[Flagman]

I guess that in the future the circuits will of course ensure that all their 'paid' marshals will have attende the race school as part of thier intensive training...

[EvilPumpkin]

It has been my experience that what many (by no means all of course) drivers think should be reported is rather subjective - and usually applies, as appears to be the case here, on what they believe has been done to them. I've known drivers complain about moves made on them that I have seen them do to other drivers. Apparently, when it's done to you, it's dangerous driving. When you're doing it to someone else, that's simply racing....!

Besides, there's no point in me going to race school - I don't drive.

I'm with Muttley on this one - if Mr. Pye has queries over marshalling, then he should get his botty out onto the bank and get all his questions answered first hand. One would think that journalistic integrity would demand it to be honest.

[Mark Mitchell]

I have and still do give my opinion of what I judge to be dangerous or erratic driving to the Clerk of the Course!
Often he will ask whether I thought it (A manouvre etc) was intentional. Obviously I have no way in knowing what a drivers intentions are, but when you have a field of perhaps 20 cars and just one or two are driving so different from the rest - then they stick in your mind!
Clerks have also asked me whether a driver deserves a right old B********g or just a quite word in his shell-like!
A good Clerk will take note of his Obsrvers before making his mind up!
I have often suggested to clerks that a quiet word with a driver would suffice and if there's repitition of the reported behaviour in the race then a different approach would be needed.
So, what I'm trying to say is that YES we can only really report facts, BUT using common sense and experience we should be able to give opinions verbally to the likes of Cof C's

[johnw]

Quote from Marcus
"But if nothing gets reported, the problem persists. No criticism implied......"

So do try not to take take it as a personal insult.You all know that Marcus is very supportive of the Marshals.

His first sentence I absolutely agree with. I have, for several wondered why blatantly stupid, and potentially dangerous, driving is permitted to go unpunished in British Motorport.

Just understanding the constraints the marshals work under explains a great deal. A lack of observers means that many of the moves go unseen; If the flagger is doing both jobs his chances of being able to observe are diminished; It is not yet possible to look in both directions at once; and, for me, the killer "we can only report facts."

Stephen's point about reporting contacts, spins and accidents is, I think, what Marcus was driving at. We know that is how you are trained, but it then doesn't allow anyone to deal with a brainless, hopelessly late charge up the inside which might require the lead car to leave the track in an effort to avoid contact. Similarly reports which say "Car x and Car y" touched and continued, do nothing to assist the Clerks in dealing with careless, reckless or dangerous tactics. I was surprisewd to hear that you get no feedback on actions taken from your reports. I think that this is an absolute requirent in every case. Otherwise why bother?

Sure, we want subjective reports Evilpumpkin, because there is then a process which might lead to some education. The nil report or the type above is being read (by the perpetrators)as condoning the behaviour.

However, I don't think sending the Marshals to race school is the answer (sorry chaps!)

I think that a fundamental change to policing driving standards is required.

It is obvious that at the highest financed levels of UK motorsport (say BTCC and SEAT's), contact is condoned or even encouraged. It seems to be popular with the spectators, arguably makes for better TV and costs nothing to the drivers - just part of the manufacturers marketing budget.

Whilst I find it ridiculous and stupid, if that's what folk want, they should have it. (At least until someone is killed, when it will be roundly condemned by those who have let it become the norm.)

For those of us paying for our own damage I think that it would be better to clearly define what is unnaceptable, and then police it vigorously. I also think that it will lead to closer racing if you believe that your closest competitor will not resort to taking you outin order to gain a place.

The Blue Book regulations in this area need expanding; we drivers need to accept that we have responsibilities to our fellow competitors; we need to be adult enough to accept that we do screw up on track; and we need to give sensible, experienced people the opportunity to express an opinion, and for us to deal with the consequences of that.

We have been progressively policing our own driving standards for three years in the KUMHO BMW's. It has had a beneficial effect. We still have disagreements about the penalties, of course, but by taking a draconian line with no room for appeal, we now have vastly improved standards.
With the excellent help of Roberto Giordanelli, Motor Racing Instructor and contributor to the MSA's magazine, we have added more definition to our standards for this year which we hope will encourage more reports and therefore more learning.

I have some proposals to put to the next MSA Safety Working Group meeting and will be making the same proposals to the BARC, regarding more freedom for expression in the observers role. I don't know if I'll get anywhere with it, but we are implementing them in our club racing rules.

Finally, was there a report, verbal or written, about the Schuey/Alonso incident at Silvestone and what was the feedback?

John

[blueflagger]

Well said Observer. That tends to be how it is here. Officially, the stewards want "just the facts" but if they suspect malice and/or stupidity AND they trust the experience of the flagger or observer, they may ask for an opinion.

We do have an advantage here with our radio system though. If I call a car for "erratic driving," all the posts know to watch his behaviour, rather than just the stewards who can only see one part of the track.

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally posted by johnw

Sure, we want subjective reports Evilpumpkin, because there is then a process which might lead to some education. The nil report or the type above is being read (by the perpetrators)as condoning the behaviour.

Sorry John but in my experience, the only subjective reports drivers want are ones that work in their favour.

Here's a case in point for you:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=39136

If we stick to the facts of an incident, we don't run into any problems and we don't have to spend a huge amount of time rummaging through paperwork and being treated like criminals in star chamber style tribunals. The second we start attributing motive - or calling a manouvere dangerous - we're open to being fired upon.

It may sound self-serving, but I've had a baptism of fire on this one and the only time I make a report now is if there is an obvious flag infringement or if a marshal has been put in danger (which is usually also the result of a flag infringement).

For instance, I have lost count of the number of times I've complained that drivers have not slowed down for a yellow flag - and been told "ah well it may not have looked that way to you but they were half a second down on that sector for one lap".

If my word isn't good enough when someone's life is at risk, then surely it can't be good enough for what happens in a race?

[johnw]

Evilpumpkin
Thank you for that thread. Very interesting.

I do understand why you do what you do, but it doesn't actually achieve what is required to improve standards, and that is what I would like to see changed.

I don't at all think that you should be required to determine motive or call a move dangerous, that is a decision to be reached by the C of C after reviewing the reports.

What I do think, is that you should be allowed the freedom to deliver more than facts to mske this possible.
Example the Schuey/ Alonso move. If it were me, I would have written "Car 1 moved across the track ignoring the position of Car 7, and leaving Car 7 the options of leaving the track, braking in avoidance or being involved in a collision." (Please F1 fans - this is an example - I'm not remotely interested in the incident itself, so let's have no stealing the thread with TGF v Alonso vitriol.)
The C of C can then take a view and discuss this with the drivers before coming to a decision. Assuming that you can agree with my report (for the purposes of illustration), why would you need to get involved in the paperwork or Starchamber stuff? It sounds as if the CofC isn't his own man or woman.

I can empathise with your position, given your experience and imagine that many of your colleagues feel the same way. But in order to improve standards, we cannot go on doing the same old same old. It isn't working.

Your yellow flag example is a great one. We are required to slow down and be prepared to stop in the event of a yellow. Knocking off half a second would to me seem to be taking the ****. In this circumstance I would consider the situation, and if marshals were on track, would have no problem with the action been seen as reckless or dangerous.

I realise that I'm coming on like Ghengis Khan here, but it does require resolute policing if you want to make it stick. Our DSA's are making these decisions stick, so there is no reason why it cannot be done elsewhere.

If you happen to marshal at one of our rounds next year, please feel free to write what you like. We will not come back to you, just use the information to make our own decisions.

Your last line is an indictment of the current system.

In an effort to ward off future flak, I am here talking about club racing, where the drivers are essentially paying for their own sport. I really have little interest in the commercial series where folk believe that they are on their way to stardom and the contact racing that is accepted in those places.

I really believe that our approach will both improve the spectacle and be safer for us all.

John

[Asp]

Originally posted by johnw
Quote from Marcus
"But if nothing gets reported, the problem persists. No criticism implied......"

So do try not to take take it as a personal insult.You all know that Marcus is very supportive of the Marshals.

I made a point of reading the article whilst in TESCO, and it certainly wasn't a criticism. The relevant paragraph started "Heroes...". The actual comment on racing schools was that "funding should be found...". The idea is part of this mutual understanding and respect between marshals and drivers. I do feel driving would help (OK, I want to play myself) - but when contrasting it with the vice-versa of drivers on the bank: it's easy to tell which one is likely to be more successful due to cost reasons if nothing else!