Richard Casto wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:09 pm
In the end, I think my question still stands, but can only be answered by those who maintain the rules
. My personal conclusion is that the rules were drafted as they are today with good intent, but that in the end the jump start detection process uses any number of data points available to the stewards and not necessarily what is called out in the regulations. And that the discrepancy I call out is one in which nobody else is complaining about, so there is no push to resolve it. That until someone inside the sport (not a fan like me) pushes for change/clarification in the regulations, it is unlikely to actually change.
If I was to change it, I probably would make it less technology specific (as it is today) and more general so as to allow those managing the race to use any an all tools at their disposal (as it seems to work today).
Thanks for your comments-I am glad that some of what I posted helped shed some light. This response is not specifically to you, but to other readers that may stumble upon this post at a later date.
I think you are correct in thinking that there is a discrepancy from the fan perspective. However, your last sentence is really on point. Regardless of the technical data at their disposal, the ultimate decision is the Race Director.
What I suppose is the real
issue: The elusive "False Start Detection System" is not
an on screen feature of the broadcast for the fans to see.
This has been the root of the discussions here, because fans want concrete proof data, whether it is from the on board telemetry or from a T&S feed, so they
can be the arbiters of any infractions they see in the data.
I think you see the crux of the situation, the officials have control and like it or not (the hard part for "fans"), their decisions are the result of analyzing all the data at their disposal.
I recently had the opportunity to be part of a Race Control moment, where an on track interaction appeared on the TV broadcast...and to everyone, the broadcast image revealed a serious infraction of one particular driver. Once various camera views were replayed, on board images were replayed, on board telemetry was reviewed, the infraction was nothing of the sort, and no call was made...to the extremely vicious rhetoric of many acquaintances in the post race discussion! How do I explain the process to them that there was a very meticulous analysis made, and all possible data were used and the decision made was fully supported by the 8 people that reviewed the infraction, but
that portion of the decision was not revealed.
So in a way, to answer you question as one who has the perspective of an "insider", I realize that often there are decisions that are revealed to the incredulity of the audience. It is what it is, and so it is.
To my estimation, the only way to combat the rebuke of these decisions is to wire up the officials, put a live camera in Race Control, and display for the audience all the information used, the analysis of, and the result of the analysis and then the call. Sometimes this takes 10's of minutes, and honestly, I don't feel the audience is really interested in the Race Control action as much as they are the action on the track.
Your conclusion is exactly how things are orchestrated today. In my experience, Officials must have the leeway to interpret data as they see fit, and if their decisions are ultimately habitually incorrect, they are usually quickly removed from their position of authority.
All I can say is that I have complete trust in my coworkers and in 36+ years have rarely seen decisions based on bias. Often times the data used is not for public consumption, and that leaves the fans in the dark. There is no PR department for Race Control.
Another odd point coming: The newest data collection for Formula One includes biometric gloves for the drivers. The bio-sensors generate driver specific health information, including pulse/heart rate data. So, when that data becomes an on-screen feature to enhance the fan experience, and is readily available as part of the feed, will the typical fan be incensed when that part of the feed is removed after an accident so the audience is not allowed to partake in the exact moment a driver's heart stopped?
As fans we have to trust the officials. I've written posts here about timing anomalies and the possibility of scoring bias or hacking the timing system to the benefit of a specific team. What I know about the officials I work and have worked with, the possibility of having a bias or favoritism within an officiating capacity would be called out immediately by fellow officials. Those people don't last long in racing.
If I may say a few words here about the people at the level of professional racing:
Most know, similar to the extremely difficult road for a driver to obtain a drive, and considering the very very few jobs available at this level in professional racing, anyone in an officiating capacity seeks to preserve longevity and the highest standard of integrity to continue to be allowed to work in this very coveted field.
I look back on my involvement to date and am awe struck to have had the privilege and opportunity to be part such a thing. I feel extremely honored to work with and know these people, and in addition to being a wonderful mix of the best of the best in their specialties, always striving to operate at the highest level of their capacity, the racing circus is a true family.