I had the same reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
I believe that they think that the penalty is correct, which may be the right stance.
But still the way it is being dealt is the wrong one IMO.
Printable View
I had the same reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
I believe that they think that the penalty is correct, which may be the right stance.
But still the way it is being dealt is the wrong one IMO.
This is just about to become another Groundhog Thread isn't it? ;) :rolleyes:
Do you try, a very little tiny bit at least, to be objective? I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
Because its not against the regulations?...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
so what Bourdais did at the start was also ok to you ? don't think he got a punishment either or ?Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
trying my very best Ioan...But the ones defending Kimi in this should be to..I mean..one the one hand Lewis should have hit the breakes and when one asks why Kimi not did so..it suddenly is racing and no prisoners are taken..I mean ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Because there's nothing wrong with it. Cars are allowed to touch and as long as there is no clear malice or recklessness in the move then it's allowed. If you start talking about no contact between cars then you will totally kill racing off. Kimi was clearly hoping Lewis would drift out wide leaving a gap for him to come through. It didn't happen and Kimi backed out of it and possibly had a slight touch on the back of Lewis' car. Nothing to complain about there. I've yet to see any footage which shows the cars actually touching there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
That was reckless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
Contact will be penalised if its reckless or malicious, and Raikkonen v Hamilton was neither. Therefore, no penalty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...enComment=true
McLaren may discover their appeal will be inadmissable
Quote:
Hamilton certainly obeyed the letter of the law, but in his haste to attack did he not allow, as one observer put it in a heated paddock afterwards, “adrenalin to triumph over the rulebook?” The British ace allowed Raikkonen to pass him but almost instantaneously went back on the offensive in his McLaren Mercedes and it was debatable whether or not Raikkonen had fully recovered his position and his advantage before Hamilton made his next move.
The rules do not go into detail about how an advantage can be deemed to have been recovered or reestablished and the stewards are thus left to interpret what they see on the television footage, combined with the representations of the drivers and the teams. It is is perhaps this subjective element that leaves an uneasy feeling and it is not hard to sympathise with Hamilton and McLaren, who believed that they had not breached the racing code.
But, equally, anyone who saw the skirmish and the replays will have felt an instinctive moment of alarm at the way Hamilton drove, albeit in the heat of the moment. They might recognise, too, that the stewards had a difficult decision to make,
haha ok Daniel..let me see...Lewis clearly hoped Kimi would leave him space..But he didn't..so instead of hitting the breaks hard..eventualy causing a dangerous situation..he choose for the safest option..cutting the corner..letting Kimi pass again after that..Nothing to complain about here either or ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel