Driving behaviour after the court hearing of Jerez 1997

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Stephenw


The more disgusting thing at Jerez for me is what happened at the final corner. THAT is disgusting. Two teams colluding like that is the blackest scar on F1 by FAR.

What was equally disqusting was that a certain team was eavesdropping, then ran off to the FIA and gave them the recording they had made

[Gt_R]

There's no evidence that if MS is punished more severly, there wont be anymore bad driving. AND MS's actions at Jerez 97 isn't RECKLESS nor DANGEROUS, it's just not fair. Also, to blame ineffective actions at Jerez 97 for now and future bad driving is really not very helpful...how many people race with the thinking "Since MS wasn't punished hard enough..i'm gonna do this and that now!" ?

And before we continue..i suppose this thread is aimed at the FIA instead of MS?

[Knowlesy]

Originally posted by Gt_R
And before we continue..i suppose this thread is aimed at the FIA instead of MS?

Yes.

[Gt_R]

Ok..maybe it's not the absolute best FIA could muster, but thankfully, they could have done worse then.

[fog_shadow]

you drive badly, all that you've gained in the year and/or stand to gain from the rest of the year including any gains from the said bad move will be nullified.

i'd hardly call that condoning. especially given that drivers at the top of the table stand to lose a lot, and drivers at the bottom of the table slog their butts of for even one point.

add to that the mere act of finding a driver guilty and punishing him, exposes him to public condamnation, which no doubt will hit his/her marketing potential and as a result he/she will suffer financially.

[krt917]

Great post johnw. I particularly like:

Originally posted by johnw
1. Think about a conventional or defensive approach to the next corner as soon as you BEGIN the straight. Do not take this line at the last moment.

This is why the 'one-move' rule is such rubbish - some drivers seem to think that they can do their one move whenever they like, such as when the atacking car is drawing alongside. I think that that move is the most common form of bad driving in F1 at the moment.

Originally posted by Gt_R
BTT, whether or not MS win resulting from the clash doesn't make it correct or wrong, better or worse.. it's wrong..just punishment given.. and end of story.

I agree, except for the punishment being just. I think it was a bit weak, but to single it out as THE moment the FIA missed the chance to sort driving behaviour out is a little too simplistic.

[Gt_R]

You know, IMO, i think that the "rules" on racing are more of a "guideline" than an outright rule, and sadly people take it too seriously.

I mean, why say ok, an attacking driver can only do this,this and this, and a defending driver can only do that, that and that...

All we want is racing, and that as long as the drivers involved do it as sensible, safe and fair as they are uncompromising and combative, the racing will be so much more "lively".

It's so difficult to define a proper move when few situations are identical.

[johnw]

Originally posted by Gt_R
You know, IMO, i think that the "rules" on racing are more of a "guideline" than an outright rule, and sadly people take it too seriously.

What utter balls. Motor racing is supposedly non-contact and it used to be quite possible for people to race closely without deliberately running into each other. In fact, to do so was to invite serious injury or worse. Nowdays, we are seeing the racing equivalent of the "professional" (sic) foul. Seeing the prima donnas getting away with it just encourages the same behaviour at all levels, which is bad for the sport at club level where drivers pay for their own damage.

I mean, why say ok, an attacking driver can only do this,this and this, and a defending driver can only do that, that and that....
Because if we all understand what is permissible, we cannot argue with the penalty. After Schuey lite was told that he must in future make room for drivers who are alongside, he apparently asked for a definition of alongside!!!!

All we want is racing, and that as long as the drivers involved do it as sensible, safe and fair as they are uncompromising and combative, the racing will be so much more "lively".

Though the use of agreed well defined rules, not "guidelines" (pathetic), we have closer more competitive racing. This is possible because you can be certain that the guy near you will not get away with blocking, nudging, tapping, squeezing or just plain driving into you.
There were two obvious occasions at Imola where an attempt at "lively" driving was met by "professional" fouls, (by which I mean that both times contact was avoidable.) Neither received any punishment and were therefore condoned.
I have no problem with contact motorsport, it just needs to be defined as such

It's so difficult to define a proper move when few situations are identical.
But not impossible.

[Gt_R]

Quote:"What utter balls. Motor racing is supposedly non-contact and it used to be quite possible for people to race closely without deliberately running into each other."

Don't be cute. WHEN did i say motor-racing should have "contact" and "deliberately running into each other"!??! Really, i read the part you (mis-)quoted me and i don't understand where you get your wierd idea from..don't put words in my mouth.

All that needs to be said is that i don't wish F1 to OVER-influence (stress "OVER") the way drivers behave beyond the point of neccessity.. there's no need to spoon feed drivers to the smallest details and restrict their freedom if they didn't do dirty. Let them know what can and what not be done and let them get on the job, not nagging and nagging.

And reading your post, you just conclude on your own accord that the Imola incidents are foul driving and you think that they should be punished. But FIA saw nothing wrong, believing in the drivers involved hence nothing nasty for FIA to condone.

Haha..kind of remind me journalists honestly, those that take quotes of others out of context, and make a dramatic story out of it.

[ensign14]

The punishment Schumi should have had for Jerez 97?

Season ban.

Had he won the title from that manoeuvre he should also have been stripped of 10 points.

Had Senna been banned for 1991 would Schumi have tried that move? Had Prost been banned for 1990 and stripped of the '89 title (which was much less clear cut) would Senna have done what he did in 1990? I doubt it.

[climb]

Don't agree at all; setting very severe punishment open the way to strong injustices when the judgement is not that clear.
Furthermore, even if you want to implement them, you got to set it clear before the season begins, and not after an accident has occurred.

Other points: fancy banning Senna for a year? Would any brazilian have come and see the race at Interlagos?
The punishment must be proportional to the consequences produced by un unfair manoeuvre.
As MS' actually didn't work at all, a points punishement like the one he received was ok. He lost nothing from that, is true, nonetheless JV lost nothing from MS move so it's right.
Senna on the contrary should have been deprived the world title in 1990, because he won it thanks to that "successful" and very dangerous move. But no ban at all the following season.
1989: the accident was and still is very controversial, and it'0s not clear at all that was at Prost's (or Senna's) fault, so nortmal racing accident.

[z2252314]

Could someone please answer this question.....

If JV was unable to continue after the incident would people have considered the FIA's punishment as adequate?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by climb
The punishment must be proportional to the consequences produced by un unfair manoeuvre.
As MS' actually didn't work at all, a points punishement like the one he received was ok. He lost nothing from that, is true, nonetheless JV lost nothing from MS move so it's right.

But that's like saying someone who is guilty of attempted murder should not be convicted or punished because he didn't actually cause harm.

There needs to be a precedential element involved. This week's Autosport contains 2 examples of loutish driving in the Eurocup and the DTM. This needs to be stamped out and by sending a message in any of the above cases it would have happened. As it is, cheating - for that is what it is - is ruining the sport.

[johnw]

Originally posted by Gt_R
[B}Don't be cute. WHEN did i say motor-racing should have "contact" and "deliberately running into each other"!??! Really, i read the part you (mis-)quoted me and i don't understand where you get your wierd idea from..don't put words in my mouth.[/B]

GT_R try to not take things so personally and treat every view that differs from your own as an insult, as it makes any discussion very boring. I can't see any misquoting, it was all taken from your post. The rest is my opinion, which I believe that I'm entitled to without requesting permission.

[B}And reading your post, you just conclude on your own accord that the Imola incidents are foul driving and you think that they should be punished. But FIA saw nothing wrong, believing in the drivers involved hence nothing nasty for FIA to condone.[/B]

It is indeed my opinion that the Imola incidents were avoidable. Therefore I would reasonably conclude that some form of sanction was required. That the FIA took no action is what prompted this thread.

[B}Haha..kind of remind me journalists honestly, those that take quotes of others out of context, and make a dramatic story out of it. [/B]

All this laughing would suggest that you are a jovial fellow. It would be good to debate the arguments for and against improving driving standards with an open mind, and without the personal angst.

[johnw]

BTW
krt917 - Thanks

[NiceGuyEddie]

I agree with GT-R. It's total nonsense to try and make solid, inflexible rules for drivingbehaviour for the simple fact that it is impossible. It is impossible to make a rule that is so clear in its boundaries that it is a usable tool to decide who is wrong and who is not. When a rule like that is used on specific situations (which it always is when it is enforced) than there will always remain discussion over the question whether or not certain behaviour is, according to that rule, illegal or not.

What we need is a set of groundrules, guidelines if you will. Like there is the rule of 'live and let live' and the rule that you do not run another driver deliberatly off the track. That should be enough to apply on any thinkable circumstance.

What utter balls. Motor racing is supposedly non-contact and it used to be quite possible for people to race closely without deliberately running into each other. In fact, to do so was to invite serious injury or worse. Nowdays, we are seeing the racing equivalent of the "professional" (sic) foul. Seeing the prima donnas getting away with it just encourages the same behaviour at all levels, which is bad for the sport at club level where drivers pay for their own damage.

This is -for instance- total bull. The driving today isn't nastier than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Between 1990 and 2004 I can name two nasty moves. Suzuka 1990 and Jerez 1997. Both in trying to nail a worldchampionship.

Because if we all understand what is permissible, we cannot argue with the penalty. After Schuey lite was told that he must in future make room for drivers who are alongside, he apparently asked for a definition of alongside!!!!

Like I explained, there is no way that you can come up with a set of rules which steps so specifically into detail that it actually stretches out over any thinkable situation. If you'd succeed in doing so, you would end up with about 100 rules and 500 sub-rules and therefor the killing of the sport itself. Who'd dare to try anything? There is something seriously wrong with motorracingenthusiasts when they say they love racing but are actually allergic to collisions and are busier complaining about who's fault it is when two cars do come together (no matter who severe the consequences are, because last race there really wasn't any consequence at all) than they are reviewing the race itself.

All we want is racing, and that as long as the drivers involved do it as sensible, safe and fair as they are uncompromising and combative, the racing will be so much more "lively".

That is exactly what they do. It is totall and utter bull to even suggest they don't just because you can name some incidents in which an overtakingmanouvre or even an attempt ended up in some sort of damage. Just stay focussed. It is totally useless to blow these things out of proportion. First of all, they are merely incidents, second of all, like it or not, but if cars come together in an attacking/defending situation it is part of racing, third of all, it doesn't happen nearly enough to justify the fuss people are making over it.

Though the use of agreed well defined rules, not "guidelines" (pathetic), we have closer more competitive racing.

Guidelines is exactly what we need. Like I said, well defined rules are impossible because every situation is different. You simply cannot ask of a driver to take on a duel and strictly conduct his methods and actions to a -necesseraly- large number of rules. Let the racer please race. If it all ends up in the graveltrap, then there's always time to have a look at whose fault it is, but a driver is very well capable of judging where sporting behaviour has reached it's limits. We don't need extensive rules for that. Ridiculous.

This is possible because you can be certain that the guy near you will not get away with blocking, nudging, tapping, squeezing or just plain driving into you.

A driver is allowed to defend his position (it still is racing you know).

There were two obvious occasions at Imola where an attempt at "lively" driving was met by "professional" fouls, (by which I mean that both times contact was avoidable.) Neither received any punishment and were therefore condoned.

THIS IS RACING FOR GOD SAKE!!! CONTACT WILL HAPPEN SOONER OR LATER!!!! Punishment for a situation in which contact has occured will tell the driver he is not allowed to take on the battle whether it be attacking or defending and the sport will be therefor, dead.

I have no problem with contact motorsport, it just needs to be defined as such

The mere fact that cars touch eachother doesn't mean foul play. It's racing and when a driver is attacking for a spot of asfalt whereas the other is defending that exact same spot, contact can happen without either of one breaking any rule.

It's so difficult to define a proper move when few situations are identical.
But not impossible.

No, it wouldn't be impossible, but it would be impossible without killing the sport for that is what you are doing when you do not longer allow the drivers to decide their actions in the heat of the moment, yet are trying to squeeze everything they do into some distant ruling.

[NiceGuyEddie]

It is indeed my opinion that the Imola incidents were avoidable. Therefore I would reasonably conclude that some form of sanction was required. That the FIA took no action is what prompted this thread.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. How do you descrive 'avoidable'? In hindsight, everything is avoidable, but who does that apply on a situation where in a splitsecond decisions have to be made, are made and executed.

It is exactly these types of remarks that represent what is wrong with this specific view. You simply cannot judge a racingmove on having a long hard look at the facts and circumstances afterwards. You have to take into account that this is about racing and that this is about splitseconds and that overtaking is an act of war. It is about attacking and defending and contact can and will happen, but most importantly: that is not a problem.

The problem is foul play, but not every incident which leads to contact is foul play. In fact, it hardly ever is foul play. Like I said, I can only name Suzuka 1990 and Jerez 1994. The rest are all racingincidents.

[johnw]

Eddie we will never agree.

F1 is killing itself now, proving that guidelines are worthless. Avoidable collisions, should in my view, be punished. ensign14's eloquent last paragraph in his post above says it all.

What I relish seeing is clean close racing with the drivers giving no quarter, yet respecting each other by, where necessary, making (just) enough room to negotiate corners together. This happens every year at the Goodwood Revival meeting and every week at club meetings. Would be good if the F1 lads could manage it too.

BTW if, as it appears from your post, you think that blocking, nudging, tapping, squeezing and just plain driving into people are acceptable means for drivers to defend their position, I guess that you don't race?

[f1atic]

Punishment must be swift and sure.
Timeliness is paramount.
The FIA missed the window on this.

[johnw]

Missed this one Eddie

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
.. How do you descrive 'avoidable'?...

To stay clear of; shun. To keep from happening:

.. You have to take into account that this is about racing and that this is about splitseconds and that overtaking is an act of war.

Get real - it isn't war, it's just an expensive game.

The problem is foul play, but not every incident which leads to contact is foul play. In fact, it hardly ever is foul play. Like I said, I can only name Suzuka 1990 and Jerez 1994. The rest are all racingincidents.

Agreed that's the problem. Cannot agree that it's hardly ever foul play. I imagine that I've been around a bit longer than you, so there are other instances, but a recent one was the blocking of Hakkinen at Les Combes. Deliberate, avoidable and unpunished. Madness!

[NiceGuyEddie]

This happens every year at the Goodwood Revival meeting and every week at club meetings. Would be good if the F1 lads could manage it too.

Get real. Goodwood and clubmeetings are rich people having a hobby. This is Formula 1 and the stakes are high so the racing is harder. Yes it most surely is a war. A sportive war, but a war none the less. They all -no exception- want to win and they must all be prepared to take on the battle, whether it be in defending or in attacking.

And reading this one I agree that we will never agree:

Agreed that's the problem. Cannot agree that it's hardly ever foul play. I imagine that I've been around a bit longer than you, so there are other instances, but a recent one was the blocking of Hakkinen at Les Combes. Deliberate, avoidable and unpunished. Madness!

You call this madness. I call it madness when drivers who ought to be defending keep from blocking and prefer to give room for the other guy so he can move up a place. Now, that is madness.

If Dijon 1979 would've taking place with MS being Gilles and JPM being Rene Arnoux, would JPM be complaining? I suspect he would and you would probably agree with him. If drivers would honor your view, those incidents will be a thing of the past and therefor the racing would be dead.

Just shut up and enjoy the racing, the fights to the bone (if it ever happens), in stead of complaining and screaming foul play every god forsaken time contact is made. They're all big boys. Well, most of em anyway.

[johnw]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Get real. Goodwood and clubmeetings are rich people having a hobby.
Guess that you have never been there then?

Just shut up and enjoy the racing....
Very erudite! And I imagine you refer to the usual procession that is F1.

.. the fights to the bone...

Adios Eddie

[NiceGuyEddie]

Very erudite! And I imagine you refer to the usual procession that is F1.

If it really is the procession that you make it out to be, than what are you complaining about anyway?

Guess that you have never been there then?

I've been to club meetings. That is people playing around with their toys on a track. Enjoy the speed and power, just be careful not to damage anything. I assume that this kind of thing is right up your alley -which is fine- but I happen to like racing and that is not racing.

Adios Eddie

Whatever...

[Gt_R]

Quote Johnw:"GT_R try to not take things so personally and treat every view that differs from your own as an insult, as it makes any discussion very boring."

Nah..i don't usually take things "so personally" as you suggested, but to start off a topic with "What utter balls" and go on to (wrongly) imply that i accept (which i do NOT) "deliberate running into each other" and "contact" is incorrect, and hence i see the need to clarify it.

Anyway, it's very simple. Dangerous/Reckless/Unfair driving ought to be punished. But it also takes some simple common sense of drivers and fans not to cry foul over every single contact or incident.Risk of contact is ALWAYS there. NOT all incidents warrant punishment, and honestly, the complains are getting so much i'm wondering if drivers nowadays are too fragile to even accept a knock.. Jerez 97, yes it does need punishment because it's a deliberate (hence fall under the "unfair" category) attempt. But recently, i saw no really bad driving except a blatant error from Ralf in Bahrain.

EVERYTHING is avoidable...just wind F1 up and everyone tune to playstation.

[Splatz the Cow]

I don't remember which race it was last year, but wasn't Juan given a penalty for coming together with Michael on lap 1, which seemed 50/50, even Michael was surprised at the penalty.. My point is, again these two come together (at Imola) in a way that ruins the race for one of them, pushed off the circuit by force = lost time + dirty tyres = more lost time for rest of stint, and no chance of win. Neither driver was penalised, so therefore, the FIA is condoning that behaviour.

It's like watching Britsh touring cars in the mid-90's...

We want aggressive racing where the drivers both stay on the track. Your opponenent being out of position NEVER NEVER NEVER gives you the right to push them off the track, you have a responsibility to control your vehicle in a way that does not collide with other drivers putting them off the track - NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE. It is irrelevent if they are next to you, in front, or behind. Closing the door is done prior to a vehicle coming along side, and squeezing out is done to pressure them into a bad position on the track, (dirty or wrong line etc,) but this does not include contact.


[Splatz slides two cents across table before exiting]