Really? I was under the impression that the driver steward's role was as Hill described. Perhaps you thought it was really more involved and thus assume that Hill made all the calls and thus you justify your derision of the fellow. As the rules are badly written it's just as likely that the driver steward's terms of reference are badly written. Or would that just get in the way of your ire?WhiteBlue wrote:pure BSlebesset wrote:hill has said he was aware of the responsibility but having done it doesn't think it is correct , he thinks it should be advisory ; saying that he didn't discover the nature of the job until several months after the public is the clueless and ignorant part ...anyway, in reality , the vast majority of the public thought it was advisory because the press presented it that way..
He was under the illusion that others would make the decisions. He clearly said it himself. The public has been very clear about the way the driver stewards work. A person with a minimum interest in doing a solid job should have known what was specified in the job. If he disagreed he could have rejected the job earlier. Bottom line: Screw up.Damon Hill wrote:I imagined I would be there as a consultant providing driver insight to the stewards, who would then make the decisions.
I have no problem with the Schumacher decision. One can in all honesty come to that decision as one can also come to the decision that the rules were not sufficiently clear.
I would have refused to pass judgement on Schumacher and left it to the ICA to sort out a potential Ferrari protest. The stewards have the power to make reasonable decisions if the FiA and race control make a hash of the rules. They have taken contrary interpretations (for instance on mass dampers) in the past. They could have done it again in this case if they felt the application of the messy rules would be unfair. They did not and that is the end of any reasonable debate on this in my view. There is a result and it stands.
You state that you have no problem with the decision reached and yet still protest about Hill's involvement in that decision. The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that you dislike Hill personally and this is a good chance to publically vent that dislike. I hope that is not the case but that's how it's looking from here.