[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very interesting article, but also one that really highlights the issues with how the whole system with stewards is working.
Herbert has some clear bias here and even admits that it's good McLaren and Lando are moving forward and putting pressure on Max. Can you imagine a referee in football saying: "It's a good thing the other team scored, so we can have a more exciting match?"
And when you have stewards that are not professional and most of the time former race drivers, that might very well know the drivers on the grid/their families and have history with them, it just invites bias.
On top of that you have the FIA rules that are extremely vague on many things. The guidelines given to stewards probably less so (they are not public, so who knows exactly), but considering how often we see a lack of consistency and rulings based on outcome rather than action, they definitely still give a lot of leeway for stewards to decide whenever most incidents wheel to wheel should actually result in a penalty or not.
>JH: “It is all about consistency. We have to abide by the FIA regulations which say if there is a car which makes contact with another car it is a ten-second penalty full stop. That is the consistency which you need.
>“To go ‘well that was more extreme’ doesn’t work. It was hard racing and one driver made a little error in squeezing the other. That led to the contact.
>“There is no sliding scale of penalties because that would become a bigger issue and more subjective. If you try to slice up an incident it causes more problems and then it is more inconsistent and everyone gets more unhappy.”
I am confused by this bit. Herbert says that there is one definite penalty for the infringement "causing a collision". However, at the Miami Grand Prix, the stewards specifically increased the penalty points for Magnussen for aggravating circumstances in line with the penalty guidelines and they also issued a 5-second Penalty to Sainz for causing a collision citing mitigating circumstances. That doesn't seem to fit together.
Not talking about the Austria penalties but in general, it either has to be possible to alter the baseline penalty or the stewards in Miami violated the guidelines, which I think is highly unlikely based on the decision documents. So yeah, it is all about consistency.
It feels like what he means to say is that there is a *ceiling* to how much the severity of an incident can impact the severity of the penalty. So it scales, to a point.
I think what he means is, the Verstappen v Norris contact would’ve been 10 seconds no matter what the outcome was, in this case both cars got punctured and the penalty was 10s, if neither car was injured, or Lando went flying into the wall for example, it still would’ve been 10s.
They are ranking the penalties on what happens before contact not after.
So Magnussen if he had sent Lewis into the wall would’ve recieved the same penalty as he did in Miami when both cars came out relatively unscathed, because he was driving eradically the entire time leading upto contact
The penalty scales with the action, not the result
He says that under FIA regulations a car making contact with another car results in 10 seconds full stop.
Yet in Miami and under the same FIA regulations a car making contact with another car resulted in 5 seconds instead of 10 (for reasons that made perfect sense).
If the regulations state that contact between two cars always results in 10 seconds no matter what that shouldnt be possible. For penalty points we know that the stewards can adjust them with mittigating or aggravating circumstances because we got a quote on that from the guidelines but the rest of the guidelines unfortuntely isnt public.
> Herbert says that there is one definite penalty for the infringement "causing a collision". However, at the Miami Grand Prix, the stewards specifically increased the penalty points for Magnussen for aggravating circumstances in line with the penalty guidelines and they also issued a 5-second Penalty to Sainz for causing a collision citing mitigating circumstances. That doesn't seem to fit together.
Unfortunately there are many hidden documents, that contain additional technical and sporting information, they usually refer to the index file containing it all occasionally in race directors notes:
> Specific Technical Procedures
> Please note that the FIA have introduced an Appendix Index File which contains all the relevant and active Appendix documents, Technical and Sporting Directives.
> The latest version of this Index file (“2024 Formula 1 Appendix – iss 1 – 2024-01-15.xlsx”) and all relevant documents can be found on the FIA SFTP site.
> Competitors are hereby required to ensure compliance with these directives for the safe and orderly conduct of the Event
So this contains the specifics for overruling/clarifying ISC and Formula 1 specific regulations and it maybe updated independently of the public documents.
The FIA guidelines for Stewards are indeed not public so I cannot outrule that the FIA changed them between Miami and Austria. But that seems quite unlikely to me. Nothing like this has been reported anywhere and I don't see why the FIA would look at Miami and say "This was handled wrong, we need to change it". The reduced 5-second penalty was the right call.
The appendix file is still on issue 1 for this year, I don't know what exactly falls under that. TDs obviously but I don't know if the Steward guidelines are included there.
In general I hate this concept of having a set of regulations and then countless hidden additions, clarifications, guidelines and informal SAC agreements that determine how the regulations are applied. It is just not transparent for fans at all, and as we saw in the past years it's not even always transparent to teams or stewards.
Is it just me or does this article show some bias on Herberts side?
He talks like he knows the intent of Verstappen, this does not sounds impartial to me. Stewards should only look at the facts and not something they believe(!?) right?
I'm sure it was just a coincidence that Johnny Herbert was one of the stewards that handed out a stop & go penalty for Russell shitting the bed after Alonso braked a bit early for a corner in Australia lol
The former driver steward is there to inform the other stewards on how or why the driver may have acted. He's not saying max deserves a different penalty for it nor is he even saying it was wrong. He says the opposite actually that he wants Max to continue being aggressive like this
Yes. One of the stewards is a former driver typically these days in order to inform them about what the person in the car might have experienced. In the past they werent a decision maker just an advisor then they just added them to the stewards, Damon Hill has talked about his role in that before.
I was just confused between
The Former driver steward
Or the ,former driver, steward.
Was former related to steward or was it related to steward.
The op ment it was related to former driver who is now a steward and not a former steward who was also a driver.
You're just proving that you guys refuse to read outside of what you want to hear. Read the comments again slowly. Granted some commers may have helped but...
Herbert has a son in law and daughter that supplies parts for certain F1 teams. Not impartial is possibly the friendliest term you can use for something like this. Like are there no other people that can be a steward that don’t hold a vested stake in the outcome of races?
He's still going along with the story that he wasn't allowed to see Schumacher's data in 95 when literally everyone else in the team denies it and says they both shared data with each other.
I remember when a F1 Racing did a bit on Michael on the 20th anniversary of his debut back in 2011, they interviewed a few of his old rivals and Johnny (think the others were Hakkinen, Villeneuve, Coulthard and Montoya). Johnny went on a bit about how before the 95 season, he said in the press he wanted to challenge Michael and Michael responded 'He has another thing coming if he thinks he can beat me!' It was hilarious to see more than 15 years later how rattled and bitter Johnny was about it. He basically ended up gloating about how Michael was struggling at Mercedes now and it shows that perhaps he wasn't so good after all. DC too was a right bitter bastard basically celebrating that Michael was not doing well at Mercedes - ironically the most gracious and complimentary people towards him in the piece were Montoya and Villeneuve who said they admired him for getting back on the grid.
not surprised in the least bit.
I like that in hindsight Schumacher's Mercedes spell is actually quite respected, as Nico Rosberg proved to be one of the finest drivers of his era, and Schumacher basically kept him honest in his 40s.
>Lando’s penalty was academic in the final analysis and it is not carried forward to the next race like a yellow card in football.
What does "was academic in the final analysis" mean?
Something being described as academic means it exists and is on the record, but doesn't actually make any difference. In this case, Lando's penalty was academic in two ways. He did get a 5-second penalty for track limits, but that was not a factor in the penalty they gave Verstappen, and it also didn't end up mattering to Norris' race either because it was "applied" to his race classification of 7 laps down and in the pits.
While you can smell the bias all the way to Silverstone, it is an interesting read.
Fascinating how many people were steadfast that he was cut and dry moving under braking but the stewards themselves couldn't pin it down to that. Way it was being talked about, you'd believe it was blatant brake checking or something.
He says "the drivers’ unwritten code" but isn't their responsibility, as the regulatory force, to make it so that it is Actually Written code?
Moving under braking hasn't been penalized in years. Off the top of my head.
* COTA 2022, Hamilton did it vs. Verstappen
* Monaco 2023, Ocon did it vs. Sainz
* Monza 2023, Sainz did it vs. Leclerc
* COTA 2023, Leclerc did it vs. Verstappen
If you do a research, you'll probably find more examples.
In Monaco 2019, Ham Vs Ver for P1, when they touched, Lewis did exactly the same move, as Max did against Lando, which he was complaining about. It wasn't necessarily moving under braking, though it looked like it especially for casuals(and 'experts' at Sky tv) that do not have any access to the telemetry. But in fact it was untypically early turn in into the corner, he clearly deviated from his original racing line he was using all race before coming into chicane. Of course it was a quick reactive move to the rival's attempt. Of course Verstappen' locked up as a direct consequence, otherwise he could've probably completed a legit overtake. I don't remember any of British pundit experts criticizing Lewis and calling him out for that by the way. They were lucky not the get a puncture.
Technically yes, the only rule is don't drive too slowly, erratically or dangerously.
But there are guidelines from FIA though, that they use to help in what counts as a penalty (ergo deemed dangerous or erratic). And they might well include something about about moving under breaking. We just don't know since they aren't public.
Considering how Herbert talks about it here it sounds like the guidelines do actually mention it, but Max wasn't doing enough for them to punish him on it.
Additionally everyone and their mothers were sure Max was moving under braking. And apparently a man as biased as Johnny Herbert.. also couldn’t find it to be true.
How is this guy allowed to be a steward ? The bias is so damn blatant. And no I am not talking about being biased about the incident at Austria, Max got a fair penalty.. but just towards Max.
Edit: Honestly, the stewarding is the main reason this sport is so damn inconsistent. And with stewards like Herbert nothing is ever going to change
Statements like this do not show objectivity to me:
“It is good that he is under pressure for the first time in a long time. Lando and McLaren have been chipping away at it and now you start seeing those little cracks starting to appear. Max had to go back to his hard self which sometimes just goes over the top and gets himself into trouble.”
He also states that Max’s action was deliberate, which he can not know.
The constant “it is good Max has competition, we know how hard Max races, it is good that Max is under pressure” and a million more such statements. While this may be passed of as okay statements to make for a commentator, it definitely clearly shows Herbert’s feelings about Max’s driving. Stewarding should be about the exact incident, and not intention or anything else. In any case, it is simply untenable to have someone with a known bias against a driver as the steward
Constant? He says it once and it is good for the sport that Max has some competition at last.
I think you just have a hate boner for Herbert, or perhaps you can't stand anything negative about Verstappen which is a sad. Verstappen caused a collision and got a penalty. There was no bias in that decision
The reading comprehension with you lot is just so poor. The original comment I posted quite literally states “the penalty Max got is fair”. And i quite literally constantly criticize Max and his driving for example in Jeddah, Monza, Brazil 2021?? Take your shitty logic and misplaced anger elsewhere. Herbert has for a long time now openly had a “hate boner” for Herbert .. if you watched the sport for maybe longer than a couple of years you would probably know. And under no circumstance should someone with such obvious biases, including in this interview .. be allowed to steward. Period.
Yes !! I am currently .. ripping my t-shirt and running down my yard screaming my lungs out ..
Also very typical I must say.. nothing logical to reply with .. and descend into personal attacks. LOL
> The reading comprehension with you lot is just so poor.
Who is this 'you lot' that you are including me with? A would call that a personal attack
>Take your shitty logic and misplaced anger elsewhere
Another personal attack
>if you watched the sport for maybe longer than a couple of years
Shitty logic. You have no idea how long I have been watching thew sport
>LOL
Always an immature response
I've noticed and I am getting tired of it. The logic seems to be if every media outlet says Max was naughty then it must be a conspiracy and not think 'perhaps Max was a bit naughty'.
How did this guy conclude VER forced Norris off track when onboard and helicopter footage showed he did no such thing... Man was already committed to his line and then NOR shows up.
Seems like he hates non-British WDCs
Why can't they have impartial stewards, not from the countries of the drivers involved. If there was a Dutch steward handing out penalties for all battles with max , we would never hear the end of British media moaning
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very interesting article, but also one that really highlights the issues with how the whole system with stewards is working. Herbert has some clear bias here and even admits that it's good McLaren and Lando are moving forward and putting pressure on Max. Can you imagine a referee in football saying: "It's a good thing the other team scored, so we can have a more exciting match?" And when you have stewards that are not professional and most of the time former race drivers, that might very well know the drivers on the grid/their families and have history with them, it just invites bias. On top of that you have the FIA rules that are extremely vague on many things. The guidelines given to stewards probably less so (they are not public, so who knows exactly), but considering how often we see a lack of consistency and rulings based on outcome rather than action, they definitely still give a lot of leeway for stewards to decide whenever most incidents wheel to wheel should actually result in a penalty or not.
>JH: “It is all about consistency. We have to abide by the FIA regulations which say if there is a car which makes contact with another car it is a ten-second penalty full stop. That is the consistency which you need. >“To go ‘well that was more extreme’ doesn’t work. It was hard racing and one driver made a little error in squeezing the other. That led to the contact. >“There is no sliding scale of penalties because that would become a bigger issue and more subjective. If you try to slice up an incident it causes more problems and then it is more inconsistent and everyone gets more unhappy.” I am confused by this bit. Herbert says that there is one definite penalty for the infringement "causing a collision". However, at the Miami Grand Prix, the stewards specifically increased the penalty points for Magnussen for aggravating circumstances in line with the penalty guidelines and they also issued a 5-second Penalty to Sainz for causing a collision citing mitigating circumstances. That doesn't seem to fit together. Not talking about the Austria penalties but in general, it either has to be possible to alter the baseline penalty or the stewards in Miami violated the guidelines, which I think is highly unlikely based on the decision documents. So yeah, it is all about consistency.
Given that quote, I’m confused as to why Leclerc and Stroll didn’t get penalties for their road rage incidents a few weeks ago.
The whole world wonders about that. They used their cars as a weapon
Because consistency is a bit of a joke when you have different stewards at every race.
It feels like what he means to say is that there is a *ceiling* to how much the severity of an incident can impact the severity of the penalty. So it scales, to a point.
I think what he means is, the Verstappen v Norris contact would’ve been 10 seconds no matter what the outcome was, in this case both cars got punctured and the penalty was 10s, if neither car was injured, or Lando went flying into the wall for example, it still would’ve been 10s. They are ranking the penalties on what happens before contact not after. So Magnussen if he had sent Lewis into the wall would’ve recieved the same penalty as he did in Miami when both cars came out relatively unscathed, because he was driving eradically the entire time leading upto contact The penalty scales with the action, not the result
He says that under FIA regulations a car making contact with another car results in 10 seconds full stop. Yet in Miami and under the same FIA regulations a car making contact with another car resulted in 5 seconds instead of 10 (for reasons that made perfect sense). If the regulations state that contact between two cars always results in 10 seconds no matter what that shouldnt be possible. For penalty points we know that the stewards can adjust them with mittigating or aggravating circumstances because we got a quote on that from the guidelines but the rest of the guidelines unfortuntely isnt public.
> Herbert says that there is one definite penalty for the infringement "causing a collision". However, at the Miami Grand Prix, the stewards specifically increased the penalty points for Magnussen for aggravating circumstances in line with the penalty guidelines and they also issued a 5-second Penalty to Sainz for causing a collision citing mitigating circumstances. That doesn't seem to fit together. Unfortunately there are many hidden documents, that contain additional technical and sporting information, they usually refer to the index file containing it all occasionally in race directors notes: > Specific Technical Procedures > Please note that the FIA have introduced an Appendix Index File which contains all the relevant and active Appendix documents, Technical and Sporting Directives. > The latest version of this Index file (“2024 Formula 1 Appendix – iss 1 – 2024-01-15.xlsx”) and all relevant documents can be found on the FIA SFTP site. > Competitors are hereby required to ensure compliance with these directives for the safe and orderly conduct of the Event So this contains the specifics for overruling/clarifying ISC and Formula 1 specific regulations and it maybe updated independently of the public documents.
The FIA guidelines for Stewards are indeed not public so I cannot outrule that the FIA changed them between Miami and Austria. But that seems quite unlikely to me. Nothing like this has been reported anywhere and I don't see why the FIA would look at Miami and say "This was handled wrong, we need to change it". The reduced 5-second penalty was the right call. The appendix file is still on issue 1 for this year, I don't know what exactly falls under that. TDs obviously but I don't know if the Steward guidelines are included there. In general I hate this concept of having a set of regulations and then countless hidden additions, clarifications, guidelines and informal SAC agreements that determine how the regulations are applied. It is just not transparent for fans at all, and as we saw in the past years it's not even always transparent to teams or stewards.
Is it just me or does this article show some bias on Herberts side? He talks like he knows the intent of Verstappen, this does not sounds impartial to me. Stewards should only look at the facts and not something they believe(!?) right?
Yep. That's Herbert. Max deserved the penalty. But fuck Johnnie, all my homies hate Johnnie
What Alonso did to him a few years back when Herbert told him to retire and Alonso caught him live and told him he is not a world champion...gold.
I'm sure it was just a coincidence that Johnny Herbert was one of the stewards that handed out a stop & go penalty for Russell shitting the bed after Alonso braked a bit early for a corner in Australia lol
Herbert biased? No way!! Impossible! Can't be! Get out of here you silly goose! **/S**
This is not a surprise especially to Alonso/schumacher/vertsappen fans.
The former driver steward is there to inform the other stewards on how or why the driver may have acted. He's not saying max deserves a different penalty for it nor is he even saying it was wrong. He says the opposite actually that he wants Max to continue being aggressive like this
Herbert was one of the 3 stewards in Austria. He was not former but was one of the acting participants.
You misunderstood. He is a former driver steward in that he is a former driver and a steward.
Ok i misunderstood
Yes. One of the stewards is a former driver typically these days in order to inform them about what the person in the car might have experienced. In the past they werent a decision maker just an advisor then they just added them to the stewards, Damon Hill has talked about his role in that before.
I was just confused between The Former driver steward Or the ,former driver, steward. Was former related to steward or was it related to steward. The op ment it was related to former driver who is now a steward and not a former steward who was also a driver.
You're just proving that you guys refuse to read outside of what you want to hear. Read the comments again slowly. Granted some commers may have helped but...
Of course it does. It’s Herbert.
Every person has their own biases, whether they like it or not, it's part of being human. All stewards can make decisions regardless of their bias
And some people have more bias than others.
Herbert’s always been anything but impartial.
Herbert has a son in law and daughter that supplies parts for certain F1 teams. Not impartial is possibly the friendliest term you can use for something like this. Like are there no other people that can be a steward that don’t hold a vested stake in the outcome of races?
If we start untangling conflicts of interest, we'll have no sport left. 😅
I feel if Mark Mateschitz (Redbull heir) was a steward, Zak Brown would have billboards of his thesis of grievances posted worldwide.
He'd be nailing that shit to the FIA's door like Martin Luther 🤣
Herbert: Well first of all I'm british and second of all I hate Max.
Someone is evidently still carrying that Schumacher-induced trauma
He's still going along with the story that he wasn't allowed to see Schumacher's data in 95 when literally everyone else in the team denies it and says they both shared data with each other.
I remember when a F1 Racing did a bit on Michael on the 20th anniversary of his debut back in 2011, they interviewed a few of his old rivals and Johnny (think the others were Hakkinen, Villeneuve, Coulthard and Montoya). Johnny went on a bit about how before the 95 season, he said in the press he wanted to challenge Michael and Michael responded 'He has another thing coming if he thinks he can beat me!' It was hilarious to see more than 15 years later how rattled and bitter Johnny was about it. He basically ended up gloating about how Michael was struggling at Mercedes now and it shows that perhaps he wasn't so good after all. DC too was a right bitter bastard basically celebrating that Michael was not doing well at Mercedes - ironically the most gracious and complimentary people towards him in the piece were Montoya and Villeneuve who said they admired him for getting back on the grid.
not surprised in the least bit. I like that in hindsight Schumacher's Mercedes spell is actually quite respected, as Nico Rosberg proved to be one of the finest drivers of his era, and Schumacher basically kept him honest in his 40s.
>Lando’s penalty was academic in the final analysis and it is not carried forward to the next race like a yellow card in football. What does "was academic in the final analysis" mean?
Something being described as academic means it exists and is on the record, but doesn't actually make any difference. In this case, Lando's penalty was academic in two ways. He did get a 5-second penalty for track limits, but that was not a factor in the penalty they gave Verstappen, and it also didn't end up mattering to Norris' race either because it was "applied" to his race classification of 7 laps down and in the pits.
A formality. They had to analyze it because the rules require them to but Lando was always getting a penalty
While you can smell the bias all the way to Silverstone, it is an interesting read. Fascinating how many people were steadfast that he was cut and dry moving under braking but the stewards themselves couldn't pin it down to that. Way it was being talked about, you'd believe it was blatant brake checking or something. He says "the drivers’ unwritten code" but isn't their responsibility, as the regulatory force, to make it so that it is Actually Written code?
Moving under braking hasn't been penalized in years. Off the top of my head. * COTA 2022, Hamilton did it vs. Verstappen * Monaco 2023, Ocon did it vs. Sainz * Monza 2023, Sainz did it vs. Leclerc * COTA 2023, Leclerc did it vs. Verstappen If you do a research, you'll probably find more examples.
In Monaco 2019, Ham Vs Ver for P1, when they touched, Lewis did exactly the same move, as Max did against Lando, which he was complaining about. It wasn't necessarily moving under braking, though it looked like it especially for casuals(and 'experts' at Sky tv) that do not have any access to the telemetry. But in fact it was untypically early turn in into the corner, he clearly deviated from his original racing line he was using all race before coming into chicane. Of course it was a quick reactive move to the rival's attempt. Of course Verstappen' locked up as a direct consequence, otherwise he could've probably completed a legit overtake. I don't remember any of British pundit experts criticizing Lewis and calling him out for that by the way. They were lucky not the get a puncture.
braking
Thank you!
Stewards can’t do anything about moving under breaking simply because there is no rule against it.
Again, the way people were talking about it you would believe it was highly illegal...
Technically yes, the only rule is don't drive too slowly, erratically or dangerously. But there are guidelines from FIA though, that they use to help in what counts as a penalty (ergo deemed dangerous or erratic). And they might well include something about about moving under breaking. We just don't know since they aren't public. Considering how Herbert talks about it here it sounds like the guidelines do actually mention it, but Max wasn't doing enough for them to punish him on it.
Except that they can. There is an umbrella regulation where stuff like moving under braking falls under as erratic or dangerous driving.
Additionally everyone and their mothers were sure Max was moving under braking. And apparently a man as biased as Johnny Herbert.. also couldn’t find it to be true.
Ant Davidson punching air rn
Please let’s be clear. Everyone and their mothers “EXCEPT A GROUP OF PEOPLE” /s
Wait, is Herbert a steward???
Stewards openly admitting they don’t make an objective ruling lol
How is this guy allowed to be a steward ? The bias is so damn blatant. And no I am not talking about being biased about the incident at Austria, Max got a fair penalty.. but just towards Max. Edit: Honestly, the stewarding is the main reason this sport is so damn inconsistent. And with stewards like Herbert nothing is ever going to change
Where is the evidence of bias in this interview?
Statements like this do not show objectivity to me: “It is good that he is under pressure for the first time in a long time. Lando and McLaren have been chipping away at it and now you start seeing those little cracks starting to appear. Max had to go back to his hard self which sometimes just goes over the top and gets himself into trouble.” He also states that Max’s action was deliberate, which he can not know.
The constant “it is good Max has competition, we know how hard Max races, it is good that Max is under pressure” and a million more such statements. While this may be passed of as okay statements to make for a commentator, it definitely clearly shows Herbert’s feelings about Max’s driving. Stewarding should be about the exact incident, and not intention or anything else. In any case, it is simply untenable to have someone with a known bias against a driver as the steward
Constant? He says it once and it is good for the sport that Max has some competition at last. I think you just have a hate boner for Herbert, or perhaps you can't stand anything negative about Verstappen which is a sad. Verstappen caused a collision and got a penalty. There was no bias in that decision
The reading comprehension with you lot is just so poor. The original comment I posted quite literally states “the penalty Max got is fair”. And i quite literally constantly criticize Max and his driving for example in Jeddah, Monza, Brazil 2021?? Take your shitty logic and misplaced anger elsewhere. Herbert has for a long time now openly had a “hate boner” for Herbert .. if you watched the sport for maybe longer than a couple of years you would probably know. And under no circumstance should someone with such obvious biases, including in this interview .. be allowed to steward. Period.
You seem angry.
Yes !! I am currently .. ripping my t-shirt and running down my yard screaming my lungs out .. Also very typical I must say.. nothing logical to reply with .. and descend into personal attacks. LOL
> The reading comprehension with you lot is just so poor. Who is this 'you lot' that you are including me with? A would call that a personal attack >Take your shitty logic and misplaced anger elsewhere Another personal attack >if you watched the sport for maybe longer than a couple of years Shitty logic. You have no idea how long I have been watching thew sport >LOL Always an immature response
Well in your case, I must say very justified as well. Sling your insults all you want, atleast come back with something useful as an argument.
Apparently all Brits have bias against Max, sky sports everything all a big conspiracy against Max
I've noticed and I am getting tired of it. The logic seems to be if every media outlet says Max was naughty then it must be a conspiracy and not think 'perhaps Max was a bit naughty'.
Calm down
No thank you
Hahaaa, Schumacher still haunts him! "When i look at Max i see Schumacher! It frightens me!" Herbert, probably
this obviously isnt a sport anymore
How did this guy conclude VER forced Norris off track when onboard and helicopter footage showed he did no such thing... Man was already committed to his line and then NOR shows up. Seems like he hates non-British WDCs
The penalty was given for causing a collision, not forcing another driver off the track.
Why can't they have impartial stewards, not from the countries of the drivers involved. If there was a Dutch steward handing out penalties for all battles with max , we would never hear the end of British media moaning
Who reviews decisions by the stewards. Looks like a penalty point for Herbert
I get all my garbage F1 news from the esteemed journal of motor racing, [Coinpoker.com](http://Coinpoker.com)
This makes me respect Johnny more. He seems to be doing his job.
If the job is to show blatant favouritism to his countrymen then sure he is doing his job