Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I agree. Although it was Kimi's mistake and he was the 1st person to go off, I think it is a racing incident and although going off track allowed him to maintain his position, there should be no penalty.



Are you telling Lewis now what he was thinking :laugh:

In case you missed it, Kimi braked early and Lewis was alongside him on the outside of the first corner. Lewis had the inside as the 2nd corner but Kimi came across forcing him off the track. Now, according to the FIA regulations, this sort of driving should be severly punished. However, the more realistic of us consider it hard racing and again, I don't think Kimi should be penalised for it.



It was several instances in a race where he was guilty of maintaining his position that he would have otherwise have lost by cutting corners and not yielding the position.

Yet you argue this is inadmissible yet the tiny snippet at Spa you consider to be worthy of a 25 second penalty even though Hamilton conceeded the position immediately.

Do you not see why people may consider your opinion hypocritical?



As I have said previously, I don't give a figg what personal comments you care to direct at me. However, if it's something you consider against forum rules, there is a "report post" option but making personal attacks against me could be seen as being against forum rules.

Up to you fella but might I suggest you stick to the topic?

---

If Lewis was here I wouldn't be saying what i thought he was thinking. I'd be more than happy to ask what he was thinking at the time but in his absence it's safe to think that someone of his skill and experience didn't really expect to get around Kimi like that and he was just having a look. :)

Lewis didn't really concede the position immediately. he held on for quite a while in racing terms.

Yes I can see why people might consider my view hypocritical but tbh I don't have a view on the schumacher incident. It's a small snippet and who knows what else happened before or after? I certainly don't remember so it would be silly of me to have a view of the incident. All I'm saying is that you can use a small video clip to prove anything. This incident is very fresh in my mind and that's the only reason I feel able to make a judgement.

All I asked is that you didn't put words into people's mouths and didn't make out that people were thinking one thing when they were clearly thinking and saying something else. It's just common courtesy that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

In my opinion Massa's pitstop incident doesn't justify a penalty for the driver. Massa went when he was told to and he slotted in behind Sutil after a short distance alongside and Sutil didn't need to take significant action. It was in my opinion borderline unsafe and it wasn't the drivers fault so the team were given a small fine. If Massa had pulled out into a car I'd be supporting a significant penalty but he didn't.

Why was Lewis craned back onto the track last year? I've never seen that done for anyone else. Surely that's a clear, obvious and undoubtable sign of bias?

Like I said. No bias.... just bad decisions.

---

Hey - I'm first to defend the decision to not penalise Massa in Spain. Though I do go along the lines of F1 is a team sport, you win and lose together. But I was against it because similar situations have happened on numerous occassions and no action take. Sure its against the rules if deemed unsafe, but the stewards can't decide to take action when it suits them. They got to be consistant so the teams know where they stand. But fact is, when unsafe releases are penalised. They give the driver a 25s penalty, as in Imola 2005.

Massa wasn't. On grounds no sporting advantage was gained.

Same principles apply to Hamilton. In nearly all cases, letting a driver past is enough for the Stewards to not penalise. This can be seen in Charlie Whitings thoughts that what Hamilton did was enough. And again, in this situation, they decide to penalise (similar to Massa that all of a sudden they're penalising it), and again, no sporting advantage was gained. But this time they go the full wack with a 25s time penalty.

Surely you can see the inconsistencies. And sure if wrong is wrong it should be punished. But while Ferrari seem to get off lightly, McLaren are always the victims of these inconsistancies. And its got so bad these last two years - theres a case to say its bringing the sport into disrepute. If the English legal system was handled this way, the country would be rioting.

Regarding Lewis being put back on track, Schumacher had exactly the same a couple years ago, because it was deemed to be in a dangerous place. No one else was moved off because only Lewis kept his engine running. So I wouldn't class that as a sign of bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Hey - I'm first to defend the decision to not penalise Massa in Spain. Though I do go along the lines of F1 is a team sport, you win and lose together. But I was against it because similar situations have happened on numerous occassions and no action take. Sure its against the rules if deemed unsafe, but the stewards can't decide to take action when it suits them. They got to be consistant so the teams know where they stand. But fact is, when unsafe releases are penalised. They give the driver a 25s penalty, as in Imola 2005.

Massa wasn't. On grounds no sporting advantage was gained.

Same principles apply to Hamilton. In nearly all cases, letting a driver past is enough for the Stewards to not penalise. This can be seen in Charlie Whitings thoughts that what Hamilton did was enough. And again, in this situation, they decide to penalise (similar to Massa that all of a sudden they're penalising it), and again, no sporting advantage was gained. But this time they go the full wack with a 25s time penalty.

Surely you can see the inconsistencies. And sure if wrong is wrong it should be punished. But while Ferrari seem to get off lightly, McLaren are always the victims of these inconsistancies. And its got so bad these last two years - theres a case to say its bringing the sport into disrepute. If the English legal system was handled this way, the country would be rioting.

Regarding Lewis being put back on track, Schumacher had exactly the same a couple years ago, because it was deemed to be in a dangerous place. No one else was moved off because only Lewis kept his engine running. So I wouldn't class that as a sign of bias.

---

I was being sarcastic when I was saying it was a sign of bias ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

As for the Schumacher thing I don't see the point in arguing about a tiny snippet of a race. These sort of clips are very selectively picked to show someone's point. I'm sure if I wanted I could gather clips which show Hamilton doing this sort of thing and not getting penalised as well and claim that there is bias towards McLaren.

---

and, in the hamilton case, we are all arguing over, funnily enough, a tiny snippet of a race.

all race incidents are, after all, tiny snippets of a larger race.

or do you not see the point in arguing because it so clearly shows an obvious case of a driver gaining an advantage not being penalised while a driver who gained no / minor / arguable / irrelevant advantage (tick your own box) was penalised?

to wave off one clear cut piece of footage because it's inconvenient to your argument, on the basis that it's a "tiny snippet" is pretty hypocritical. Schumacher's scenario was far, far worse, yet he got away with it, then tried to crash heidfeld off the road in the same place a few laps later.

it doesn't help F1's credibility at all that the chief steward (donnelly) is not an ex race driver and, what's worse, until quite recently had Ferrari's road-car division as one of the biggest clients in his political lobbying company...

... a company that lobbied, amongst others, the FIA!

go right ahead, then, and gather all the alleged hamilton clips together. do that, and you might regather some of your lost credibility.

by the way, hamilton was craned out because he's one of the few who knew the rules as they stood at that time. The rules allowed for that to happen and nobody else thought to take advantage of them.

simple as that. the rules were subsequently changed because people didn't like that situation and that, i should hope, is the nature of the rulebook and the job of the rulemakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Regarding Lewis being put back on track, Schumacher had exactly the same a couple years ago, because it was deemed to be in a dangerous place. No one else was moved off because only Lewis kept his engine running. So I wouldn't class that as a sign of bias.

---

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

No not at all. The stewards took too much time to make a decision in my opinion and missed their opportunity to issue a drive through penalty. Fair enough issue a penalty but its too late to issue a drive through penalty when the flag has dropped. By not dispensing their form of justice until after the race they removed any opportunity for the penalised driver to react and minimise the impact of the judgement.

Obviously you can't have drivers flouting the rules at the end of a race for the sake of a victory. Under these circumstances penalise, suspend or fine the drivers till they bleed but retroactively altering race results is probably not the way to go.

At worst this incident was a 10 place penalty at the next grid and could've been handled quite adequately by issuing that judgement. We must keep in mind that the race result would've been the same even if the 'offence' had not occurred.

If they believe that it needed an extra harsh penalty then make it 10 places at the next two grids. This is how I believe serious offences should be dealt with and especially for offences committed towards the end of races. When a penalty is issued it must be consistent with the offence, and, with the complexity of modern F1, this may require investigations which can't be completed on race day. Arbitrarily altering race results open's the door to suspicion and nothing will kill a sport faster than the public losing confidence in the integrity of its racing.

I do not believe that the penalty that has been handed down was balanced as it unfairly penalised a point scoring driver. This may not have been the intention but I think that it is the result as a lower placed would not have felt the same sting. In the case of Lewis Hamilton it was a doubly harsh punishment in that it also took a race win away from a young driver.

Just my opinion... :)

---

This was posted earlier in this thread...

2009 Formula One Sporting Regulations, section 16.3, 16.4:

"16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed:

a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.
b) From the time the stewards’ decision is notified on the timing monitors the relevant driver may cover no more than three complete laps before entering the pit lane and, in the case of a penalty under Article 16.3b), proceeding to his garage where he shall remain for the period of the time penalty. ..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

---

Good to see we agree on that :up:

I personally think he should have been black flagged during the race but the end result is the same so no big deal. At least with no being black flagged he could run his race and if need be he could have been penalised and McLaren could have appealed and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

and, in the hamilton case, we are all arguing over, funnily enough, a tiny snippet of a race.

all race incidents are, after all, tiny snippets of a larger race.

or do you not see the point in arguing because it so clearly shows an obvious case of a driver gaining an advantage not being penalised while a driver who gained no / minor / arguable / irrelevant advantage (tick your own box) was penalised?

to wave off one clear cut piece of footage because it's inconvenient to your argument, on the basis that it's a "tiny snippet" is pretty hypocritical. Schumacher's scenario was far, far worse, yet he got away with it, then tried to crash heidfeld off the road in the same place a few laps later.

it doesn't help F1's credibility at all that the chief steward (donnelly) is not an ex race driver and, what's worse, until quite recently had Ferrari's road-car division as one of the biggest clients in his political lobbying company...

... a company that lobbied, amongst others, the FIA!

go right ahead, then, and gather all the alleged hamilton clips together. do that, and you might regather some of your lost credibility.

by the way, hamilton was craned out because he's one of the few who knew the rules as they stood at that time. The rules allowed for that to happen and nobody else thought to take advantage of them.

simple as that. the rules were subsequently changed because people didn't like that situation and that, i should hope, is the nature of the rulebook and the job of the rulemakers.

---

Great post :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

and, in the hamilton case, we are all arguing over, funnily enough, a tiny snippet of a race.

all race incidents are, after all, tiny snippets of a larger race.

or do you not see the point in arguing because it so clearly shows an obvious case of a driver gaining an advantage not being penalised while a driver who gained no / minor / arguable / irrelevant advantage (tick your own box) was penalised?

to wave off one clear cut piece of footage because it's inconvenient to your argument, on the basis that it's a "tiny snippet" is pretty hypocritical. Schumacher's scenario was far, far worse, yet he got away with it, then tried to crash heidfeld off the road in the same place a few laps later.

it doesn't help F1's credibility at all that the chief steward (donnelly) is not an ex race driver and, what's worse, until quite recently had Ferrari's road-car division as one of the biggest clients in his political lobbying company...

... a company that lobbied, amongst others, the FIA!

go right ahead, then, and gather all the alleged hamilton clips together. do that, and you might regather some of your lost credibility.

by the way, hamilton was craned out because he's one of the few who knew the rules as they stood at that time. The rules allowed for that to happen and nobody else thought to take advantage of them.

simple as that. the rules were subsequently changed because people didn't like that situation and that, i should hope, is the nature of the rulebook and the job of the rulemakers.

---

Oh no I've lost all credibility :( I'll never be able to argue a point on an internet forum again! Oh the pain! The pain of it all! It is important to not take this whole internet too seriously and start using words like "credibility". If you want to talk about credibility you'll want to look at the fact that you took my words out of context. When I was saying that you can use a snippet to prove anything I was talking about selective editing of an incident that's happened way back in the past. OMFG you credibility is in tatters! Back in the real world

I don't see a problem with a steward not being an ex driver. A lot of motorsport officials have never competed in their lives but have spent lots of time around motorsport so have experience of being officials which is what you want from an official. The fact that he's worked for Ferrari... does it matter? Perhaps it does and perhaps it doesn't. You'll find a lot of people in the FIA that may have worked for McLaren or Ferrari in some capacity and perhaps for both. To start saying they shouldn't be doing their job without any evidence of wrongdoing is something which could be bad for your credibility.

You say I'm being hypocritical and I merely respond with the fact that I don't remember the incident which is the truth. In fact I probably never even saw the race the clip came from. If someone doesn't know the context of a clip then it's silly of them to make a judgement from what is a very small snippet. If I don't know then I don't know. There are countless threads in this forum that I don't get involved with because I never saw the incident and I don't feel that a small snippet or a bit of heresay is good enough evidence for me to base an opinion on. If you don't believe me then it's your problem not mine :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

---

Sorry, this post is fundementally wrong.

The post by Micky is correct. The FIA confirmed that it was not only legal but the best course of action to get him craned back on track.

Afterwards, the rules were amended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Sorry, this post is fundementally wrong.

The post by Micky is correct. The FIA confirmed that it was not only illegal but the best course of action to get him craned back on track.

Afterwards, the rules were amended.

---

Why were the rules ammended then? :confused:

Not a dig at you but I do think that the car was in a dangerous position and the race was safer without the car there so the right thing was done. Perhaps Lewis should have been black flagged but that sort of penalty can always be applied retrospectively as required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

...Afterwards, the rules were amended.

---

Typical :mark:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Why were the rules ammended then? :confused:

Not a dig at you but I do think that the car was in a dangerous position and the race was safer without the car there so the right thing was done. Perhaps Lewis should have been black flagged but that sort of penalty can always be applied retrospectively as required.

---

Personally, I think the FIA was fundementally wrong in saying it was the best course of action and if it was, as you rightly point out, why did they change it?

We need to look at a bit of History here.

The rule was not designed to be used to recover cars that would be out of the race but when Ferrari / Schumacher used it for justification when he was pushed back in Germany, they sort of had to leave it in.

Lewis did the same so they couldn't really go back on it but perhaps it illustrated that it needed changing.

Ideally, the FIA should have disqualified Schumacher for getting pushed back into the race but they let it go opening the excuse for others to use a loophole that was never really there.

I do agree with you though that it always should have been illegal and Lewis should have got out of the car and retired.

Another consequense of FIA rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Personally, I think the FIA was fundementally wrong in saying it was the best course of action and if it was, as you rightly point out, why did they change it?

We need to look at a bit of History here.

The rule was not designed to be used to recover cars that would be out of the race but when Ferrari / Schumacher used it for justification when he was pushed back in Germany, they sort of had to leave it in.

Lewis did the same so they couldn't really go back on it but perhaps it illustrated that it needed changing.

Ideally, the FIA should have disqualified Schumacher for getting pushed back into the race but they let it go opening the excuse for others to use a loophole that was never really there.

I do agree with you though that it always should have been illegal and Lewis should have got out of the car and retired.

Another consequense of FIA rules.

---

Agreed :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I was being sarcastic when I was saying it was a sign of bias ;)

---

What do you think of rest of my post? Surely if you agree it was right to let Massa off, same should apply to Hamilton?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

---

Come on Knock On, you seem enough of my posts, source stuff like this please :) .

I'm not aware of this. I understand he was in a dangerous place and was more than entitled to be pushed back on, just like Schumacher a few years before.

---------------------

ignore posted before reading end of topic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Good to see we agree on that :up:

I personally think he should have been black flagged during the race but the end result is the same so no big deal. At least with no being black flagged he could run his race and if need be he could have been penalised and McLaren could have appealed and so on.

---

Was it wrong for Schumacher to be pushed back on track before then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

What do you think of rest of my post? Surely if you agree it was right to let Massa off, same should apply to Hamilton?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

No.

---

Why not? Same principles, but different results.

You think they shouldn't be treated in same way because one is red and one is silver? Whats your reasoning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Was it wrong for Schumacher to be pushed back on track before then?

---

I didn't see it but by the sounds of it yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Why not? Same principles, but different results.

You think they shouldn't be treated in same way because one is red and one is silver? Whats your reasoning?

---

Damn! You got me! Yes it's because one is silver and one is red :laugh:

Or perhaps they are totally different incidents and one happened on the track and another in the pits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Damn! You got me! Yes it's because one is silver and one is red :laugh:

Or perhaps they are totally different incidents and one happened on the track and another in the pits.

---

Well they're not though are they, as I've said, the Stewards only enforce the rules of unsafe pit release and letting a car past with full distance when they feel like it (sometimes they don't and sometimes they do).

Both have a punishment of a drive through / 25s time penalty when punishment is enforced.

Hamilton recieved this. Massa didn't. They said Massa didn't because he didn't get a sporting advantage. But neither did Hamilton in his incident. How can you say they're totally different?

Different incidents, but the past shows they treated in the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I can certainly recall such incidents. However, am I right in thinking that at least one driver (possibly Panis?) was penalised for cutting a chicane at Hockenheim?

---

I don't know if you meant this, but back in 1999 Coulthard got penalized by passing Panis with shortcutting the chicane at Hockenheim - he didn't gave that position back though.

Generally I'm quite tired of this discussion here already. :D
But I've to mention one more thing. FIA should change this 25-second penalty rule. It was introduced back in 1998, when 10-sec stop & go was used as a standard penalty. Drive through penalty was introduced in 2002, which has often been used during races. However, 25s is equivalent to stop & go, not drive through. Why should a post-race penalty be harsher than a drive through?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I didn't see it but by the sounds of it yes.

---

You think it was wrong despite it being fully within the rules?

What can I say, its hard to take you seriously if you openly admit to thinking somone should be penalised for being within the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Well they're not though are they, as I've said, the Stewards only enforce the rules of unsafe pit release and letting a car past with full distance when they feel like it (sometimes they don't and sometimes they do).

Both have a punishment of a drive through / 25s time penalty when punishment is enforced.

Hamilton recieved this. Massa didn't. They said Massa didn't because he didn't get a sporting advantage. But neither did Hamilton in his incident. How can you say they're totally different?

Different incidents, but the past shows they treated in the same way.

---

The whole thing is that I agree that Lewis DID get an advantage out of what he did......

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70440

One of the stewards claims that the penalty was for cutting the chicane.

He makes no mention of giving the place back or that this had any effect but a blanket judgement that this was what the penalty was for.

Seems strange considering others such as Kimi went off.

Think the FIA are digging a hole and if this is the best they can come up with after 2 days...

I've posted this on the appeal thread because it's moved on to a new stage now but here it is again.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cosmicpanda

Massa offers a good opinion:

'"What Lewis did is the sort of thing that can happen," admits the Brazilian, "but I think he was maybe a bit too optimistic in thinking he could just hand back the position, albeit only partially to Kimi and then immediately try and pass him again.

"Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained. If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay. Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter."'

---

I'll take this opinion over Lauda's anytime. He also gives us a chance to know what is expected from the driver in such cases when he cuts the chicane.

Thanks a lot for posting this quote!

"When I had a look around the outside at the chicane , we almost had an accident and I needed to steer left to avoid him ." -Lewis

"I got in his tow..." -Lewis

"Fortunately , I got back in his slipstream..." -Lewis

He "had a look" .
Then he got a "tow" .

Lewis says he got an advantage .
But , I don't think Lewis knows he says he got an advantage .
He should really have a talk with him about this .
Maybe he could have a talk with Lauda , too .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

well ya..but what about my above post than ? and all them drivers not using the track either at the first corner..and also gaining advantage from it..like Kimi fe ? Can anyone tell me why none there got a penalty ?

---

Than you agree that by not going off the track Massa and Heidfeld are rightfully 1st and 2nd after the race?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I'll take this opinion over Lauda's anytime. He also gives us a chance to know what is expected from the driver in such cases when he cuts the chicane.

Thanks a lot for posting this quote!

---

wow, massa endorses a stewards' move that gifted him an undeserved race win and moves him much closer to the world championship lead.

he is also, like all of them, on a dollars for places deal, so he also benefits financially.

so he is the major beneficiary of the decision, plus the incident involved his team mate, with whom he has sided.

that'll be an impartial opinion, then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

"When I had a look around the outside at the chicane , we almost had an accident and I needed to steer left to avoid him ." -Lewis

"I got in his tow..." -Lewis

"Fortunately , I got back in his slipstream..." -Lewis

He "had a look" .
Then he got a "tow" .

Lewis says he got an advantage .
But , I don't think Lewis knows he says he got an advantage .
He should really have a talk with him about this .
Maybe he could have a talk with Lauda , too .

---

Ioan and Bagwan..are you guys willing to give your thoughts about Kimi's action at the start (1st corner)..see me earlier posts...and maybe explain me the difference between that action and lewis ??? Both went of the track...doing it themself..Not forced of (like been said for lewis)...and also kimi clearly gaining advantage...thx in advance !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

"Shut up , Lauda . " - bagwan .

---

:up: Someone had to say it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Than you agree that by not going off the track Massa and Heidfeld are rightfully 1st and 2nd after the race?!

---

well yes..But only if penalties where handed out in the very same way on every race this season..and the same for every team...and don't think that's the case ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

wow, massa endorses a stewards' move that gifted him an undeserved race win and moves him much closer to the world championship lead.

he is also, like all of them, on a dollars for places deal, so he also benefits financially.

so he is the major beneficiary of the decision, plus the incident involved his team mate, with whom he has sided.

that'll be an impartial opinion, then...

---

If you didn't bother reading the comment by Massa, then why bother posting about it?
What I liked in Massa's comments was the part about the drivers briefing and the description of what is expected form a driver in case he cuts a chicane and gains an unfair advantage from doing so.
This is the first time anyone was able to tell us what Hamilton should have done. And the answer from the Hammy fanatics is that Massa is biased, like if you aren't! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

well yes..But only if ...

---

What IF? What BUT?

YES or NO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

If you didn't bother reading the comment by Massa, then why bother posting about it?
What I liked in Massa's comments was the part about the drivers briefing and the description of what is expected form a driver in case he cuts a chicane and gains an unfair advantage from doing so.
This is the first time anyone was able to tell us what Hamilton should have done. And the answer from the Hammy fanatics is that Massa is biased, like if you aren't! :rolleyes:

---

I too am getting weary of this thread. But I would add that everybody would seem to think that the penalty was a surprise given the fact that there is almost no precedent for it under these circumstances, which, in their basic form, are not unique.

Oh, and ioan - can you honestly say that your opinions on this subject would be exactly the same had a Ferrari driver been penalised? I think we ought to know in the interests of fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

What IF? What BUT?

YES or NO?

---

I stick with my previous comment...If FIA have been handing out penalties the same all season as they did in Spa..iow..being consequent in there decissions...I say yes..YES (in case you not read it)Massa deserved the win...

But than again kimi should have gotten a drive through at the start to..and the race would have looked totaly different from the start..so that's why I not just say YES or NO !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I too am getting weary of this thread. But I would add that everybody would seem to think that the penalty was a surprise given the fact that there is almost no precedent for it under these circumstances, which, in their basic form, are not unique.

Oh, and ioan - can you honestly say that your opinions on this subject would be exactly the same had a Ferrari driver been penalised? I think we ought to know in the interests of fairness.

---

My opinion is that the stewards didn't act in the right way, and I can't judge it any more than this because I don't have the data. I refer you to my previous posts, starting with the very first page of this thread. You'll see that I never said that Hamilton was guilty and rightly punished!

So, what exactly should my opinion be if it was a Ferrari driver? :p :

You see, you are judging me without knowing the facts first! ;)

This thread could easily be closed if my question would or could be answered:

How far back should a car be after giving up a position gained by using a part of the ground that isn't considering the race track?