BUXTON: The gray flag

Baku is done. Seb's apologized. Lewis has accepted it. The FIA has accepted it. Time to move on.

Except it's not quite that simple.

There remain those on both sides of the argument who refuse to accept the facts for what they are. This has not been aided by an imperfect approach to transparency and, as I hope to make clear, the nigh-on-impossible role faced by the stewards.

While we can and must move beyond the incident itself – it has now been judged, reappraised and settled – what remains is the regulatory quagmire that has been highlighted by the manner in which the whole thing was handled. From the stewarding, the awarding of the penalty and the reasoning behind it, to the FIA's follow-up and little chat in Paris, there is much that needs to be addressed and understood.

Let's start at the beginning. Sebastian Vettel's ten second stop-go penalty was awarded for driving dangerously. The penalty awarded for any in-race infringement is at the discretion of the stewards and can be taken from the following list:

a) A five second time penalty.
b) A ten second time penalty.
c) A drive-through penalty.
d) A ten second stop-and-go time penalty.
e) A time penalty.
f) A reprimand.
g) A drop of any number of grid positions at the driver's next event.
h) Disqualification from the results.
i) Suspension from the driver's next event.

It was thus interesting to read comments from the Chief Steward in Baku, the experienced Swiss Paul Gutjahr. Speaking with Swiss outlet Blick, he confirmed that "of course, we could have issued a more severe penalty, like the black flag or a race ban. But Hamilton had no damage, and we did not want to influence the world championship too much."

These comments, later removed from the newspaper's website, are troublesome in the extreme. The first consideration, the lack of damage to Hamilton's car, is understandable as it has direct relevance to the severity of the misdemeanor on Vettel's part. The second, however, is not. Placing a value judgement on those involved in an incident, and determining the penalty imposed with considerations of how it might affect a world championship fight, should never enter the equation.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't be the first time that such considerations were used in Formula 1. The troublesome precedent was set in 2012 with Romain Grosjean's race ban for his race start collision at Spa, when part of the reasoning for the severity of the penalty was that he had "eliminated leading championship contenders from the race."

No two incidents are the same, and each must always be judged on their merits. But those merits surely cannot include a value judgement predicated on the worthiness of a driver based solely on his position in the championship table.

Perhaps even more interesting is Gutjahr's admission that the stewards had considered giving Vettel a black flag. Now we all know what a black flag means, right? Disqualification. Well, the thing with that is that it actually doesn't. I know. News to me, too.

According to Appendix H of the International Sporting Code, a black flag "should be used to inform the driver concerned that he must stop at his pit or at the place designated in the supplementary or championship regulations on the next approach to the pit entry."

That's it. The black flag in Formula 1 is not a disqualification from the race. It is a "come and have a chat," flag. Taken to its logical conclusion, it is an instruction to a driver to come to the pits, park his car up, walk into the control tower, wait outside the stewards office and, when they're ready to talk to him, explain himself. He might then be parked, or allowed to go back out and race again. Having lost however many laps he's lost.

The issuing of such a flag does not form part of the penalties listed as being at the discretion of the stewards. Because it isn't a penalty as such.

The black flag, then, isn't so much a black flag as a gray one. A gray area at least.

Speaking with high-ranking FIA officials in Austria this weekend, almost all agree that the penalty awarded to Sebastian Vettel in Baku was incorrect. Sorry, let me rephrase. The penalty was adequate. It's the infringement for which he was penalized that was wrong.

The prevailing opinion is that Vettel should have been awarded a ten second stop-go for causing a collision. Not for dangerous driving. There is sound reasoning for this. In the first instance, the accusation of dangerous driving and the potential severity of the penalty which one might expect to receive for such a misdemeanor necessitates that the individual in question be afforded the opportunity to defend himself. Vettel received no such concession. As such, the FIA sources I have spoken to this weekend consider that two independent judgements should have been handed down by the stewards in Baku.

The first is the aforementioned stop-go penalty for causing a collision. The second would have been for Vettel to attend a hearing to answer charges of breaching any one of the following Articles of the International Sporting Code:

12.1.1.c Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any Competition or to the interests of motor sport generally.

12.1.1.d Any pursuit of an objective contrary or opposed to those of the FIA.

12.1.1.f Any words, deeds or writings that have caused moral injury or loss to the FIA, its bodies, its members or its executive officers.

12.1.1.h Any unsafe act or failure to take reasonable measures, thus resulting in an unsafe situation.

12.1.1.j Failure to follow the FIA Code of driving conduct on Circuits (Appendix L).

Of key interest here are two further Articles of the ISC:

12.1.2 Unless stated otherwise, offences or infringements are punishable, whether they were committed intentionally or through negligence.

12.2.6 As well as this and independently of the prescriptions of the following Articles, the prosecuting body of the FIA may upon the proposal and report of the FIA observer, upon the joint report of the two international stewards designated by the FIA, or on its own initiative in pursuance of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, bring a matter before the International Tribunal to have it directly inflict one or more penalties which will take the place of any penalty which the stewards may have pronounced on any one of the above‐ mentioned parties.

In such a situation, Vettel would have served the penalty for causing a collision in the race. He would then have been afforded the opportunity of an adequate hearing, and the chance to defend himself over the deeper, some might term "moral" issues for which he has now been forced to apologize and take on a program of community service for the FIA.

Ten days after the fact, it is perhaps easy to use hindsight to deem what should have been done. But the fact that there were so many holes in a stewarding decision that has proven itself so easy to pick apart shows the mess that exists and the almost impossible position those handed the thankless task of officiating Formula 1 find themselves in.

Perhaps it was for this reason that Vettel found himself in Paris on Monday. Perhaps it was a tacit admission of the fallibility of the system that the German was finally given a chance to explain himself.
Either way, there are still those this weekend who find the result of Monday's meeting unsavory. Their reasoning is that Vettel was called to the FIA to explain himself as part of an investigation as to whether the International Tribunal needed to sit to further examine Baku. The outcome of this meeting was that no further action needed to be taken. And yet Vettel was still handed what in effect was a Community Service order. The question, then, is whether he had been judged and sentenced in a behind closed doors meeting, rather than through the formal process of a Tribunal.

You can look at it from completely the opposite angle, of course. That Vettel, realizing the error of his ways, apologized and offered to dedicate himself to promoting the FIA's Road Safety campaign. Thus no judging had been done and no sentence had been handed down. It all depends which side of the coin you want to shine.

What it does show is that, once again, the regulation of this sport has worked itself into a spaghetti bowl of confusion. With part-time stewards faced with a library of rules, appendices, amendments, judgements and potential penalties, with their every decision acting as a precedent upon which the future direction of the sport and its racing code are set, the time is perhaps long since due for reform.

The nature of refereeing any sport makes it an imperfect science. But when the foundations upon which their role is set is uncertain and overly complex, it only serves to make an almost impossible job completely so. Moving forward, we need to find a way not only for the stewards to be able to make more consistent and simpler decisions, but for that process to be made more open so that we in the media can better explain to this sport's millions of fans how and why decisions are made.

This really isn't about the incident anymore. It's far more important than that.