Quote:
Originally Posted by davyboy
Advantages are gained and lost by all drivers throughout the race... otherwise we'd be watching a procession where the cars remained equidistant from one another. All that matters is whether Nico contravened the rules in force at the time or not. The stewards deemed that he didn't... so we need to move on...
|
This whole debate though is interesting in the light of Spa 2008 when Hamilton used the run off area to recover, dropped back then took Kimi back on the next corner....
He did more than Nico did in Canada but still got a penalty....
This is where clarification and consistency are needed because we have stewards making decisions that appear to be completely inconsistent. A gain is a gain, regardless of how and where it occurs, and if people are going to be penalised the rationale needs to be consistent across the board, for everyone.
Another example: In the GP2 race at Monaco a wheel after a tyre change went askew on the pit road and bounced across the path of vehicles exiting the pit lane.
A casual fan I was with asked why there was no penalty applied when at Sepang, Ricciardo had a penalty for unsafe release when all he did was go a few metres down the pit lane and realise the wheel was not properly secured. the team pulled him back and then fixed and sent him on his way.
He got a drive through AND a ten place penalty for the next race but this GP2 driver got nothing....
If casual fans see this and see the inconsistency and reflect that the sport is badly managed and governed and that the stewards are capricious and selective in their deliberations and actions then the whole judiciary is a joke.to them and all they are doing is manipulating the outcome and being selective in the application of the rules.
That brings the whole sport into disrepute. So the issue with Nico does need to clarified so everyone knows what is clearly expected and it has to be applied across all aspects of corner cutting in a consistent manner.