When the Massa/Trulli duel eclipses Schumacher and Hamilton

You couldn’t have missed it this week: the controversy over the Italian Grand Prix and the battle between Lewis Hamilton and Michael Schumacher continues to make headlines. A legitimate topic of debate, as long as one adopts an argued position, so there will be no question of revisiting its validity.

Last year, to ensure a sort of legitimacy or even credibility to the penalties imposed on drivers or teams in certain race situations, the famous « fourth steward » was introduced: a former driver, of worldwide renown (Emerson Fittipaldi, Nigel Mansell…) or not, whose role is to support the actual race stewards and to provide expertise in analyzing and judging the disputes that may arise during a race weekend.

A system initially praised and rather successful in retrospect, often resulting in reasoned sanctions, more adapted while remaining sufficiently severe not to weaken its impact. A number of technical devices, whether already in force or not, have accompanied this innovation, beginning with the control room housing up to forty video screens, logically allowing for an overall view of the track and the ability to act quickly in case of a problem, with the possibility of viewing the images in question from a multitude of different angles to help commissioners make the best decision; this, notably, with the aid of software using satellite technology specially developed to automatically list a number of potential incidents that can be reviewed with a simple click on this listing. The race management is also in constant contact with the teams via radio communication but also through an SMS alert system that allows teams to contact the FIA directly without having to go through a number of administrative steps that could slow down the process.

But this weekend in Monza, behind the scenes and without anyone being immediately informed after the Grand Prix, a rather disheartening scene played out that doesn’t seem to have moved the Formula 1 circle. Derek Daly, who was acting as the fourth official for the Lombard weekend, threw a stone in a pond that apparently didn’t splash many people: « There was a blatant double block. But on the 20th lap, the race director, Charlie Whiting, asked the stewards to look at an incident between Felipe Massa and Jarno Trulli. While we were watching this video in slow motion, I missed the incident between Schumacher and Hamilton. When I watched it at home, I thought Schumacher should have received a penalty ».

A statement that might make one smile, if it didn’t call for a slew of opposing arguments. The essential point here is not about taking sides on the simple question of whether there was a fault or not: that’s precisely the role of the race stewards. But how can one not be annoyed when reading such remarks? How can one not laugh when thinking that no one, starting with Charlie Whiting, thought of replaying the slow-motion footage of the incident between Schumacher and Hamilton? How can one not think of those penalties imposed after the fact, sometimes within a delay of twenty laps after the fault had been committed, as was the case for Lewis Hamilton in Valencia in 2010 after he overtook the safety car during the race? How, finally, can one imagine that a logistical issue could have so much influence on the ability to sanction a potentially illicit maneuver?

Often mocked for its lack of discernment in the application of rules and enforcement of sanctions, the FIA has evolved significantly over the past two years towards more nuanced positions, notably by introducing a former driver into the decision-making process. However, by being guilty of a miscarriage of justice and not providing its officials with the means to act or refrain from acting through a collective decision, it undermines the system it aimed to correct.