You make it sound like Hamilton hasn't been on the other side of questionable decisions many times.That's Hamilton basically saying "some you win, some you lose". Hopefully he'll remember that when he's next on the wrong end of a dubious decision.
Well apparently, if we believe the Autosport article, the five stewards did decide that Vettel had control and could of avoided blocking the racing line. It was a unanimous decision that included Emanuele Pirro, who has stewarded many times before.I don't have a problem with the wording of art 27.3, but it clearly refers to a car re-entering the track when the driver has some control of it, if you have no control the strict intepretation of that rule means that you are punished for making a mistake which sounds a bit extreme to me.
But in the past....that has been interpreted in other races as having to give up the position (again Mexico 2016). So, it does not appear that losing a second relative to your opponent counts as such.Regarding "gaining any lasting advantage" that is clearly out of the question because when Vettel committed to that turn he was over a second clear of Hamilton, after he re-joined the track Hamilton had to brake to avoid hitting him so Vettel had lost any advantage that he had when he made his mistake.
I gather from the Autosport article, courtesy of Brogan, it was Vettel's decision to "drift to the right" that made them decide against Vettel. I have not seen anything on the stewards' reasoning beyond the Autosport article.But the point is that according to what is available on the web (Autosport and many other web sites) Vettel was punished because Hamilton had to brake in order to avoid hitting Vettel, what they are saying is that since Vettel left the track he had to give his position to Hamilton. To my knowledge they are not charging him for re-joining the track unsafely, it's not as if he had any option, he was lucky not to hit the barriers, the stewards know that full well.
I thought "blocking" has been for ages one of the tools a driver has to his disposition. Blocking once, Ok. Blocking twice, is big NO. I didn't know Hamilton was special, and no one is allowed to block him at any time, unless you are asking for two demerit points and 5 sec penalty. In terms of safety, they probably forgot Verstappen escapades when he started, and got away with - all without a single boo...Well apparently, if we believe the Autosport article, the five stewards did decide that Vettel had control and could of avoided blocking the racing line. It was a unanimous decision that included Emanuele Pirro, who has stewarded many times before.
But in the past....that has been interpreted in other races as having to give up the position (again Mexico 2016). So, it does not appear that losing a second relative to your opponent counts as such.
There is precedence that Vettel had to surrender the position regardless.
I gather from the Autosport article, courtesy of Brogan, it was Vettel's decision to "drift to the right" that made them decide against Vettel. I have not seen anything on the stewards' reasoning beyond the Autosport article.
But, if they had not enforced the rule based upon that....then I suspect they had to enforce the rule based on their past interpretations and the precedence established on the interpretation of "gaining any lasting advantage."
The way the rules are currently written and interpreted and the precedence established, the moment Vettel left the track he lost his lead, regardless of the exact interpretation or reasoning used. Again, check the video I posted of Mexico in 2016. That is clearly how it was interpreted then.
Forgive my (pseudo) lawyer-like argument.
Thanks for the lesson, but if I may add, this rule might not be applicable in two cases. One, when Vettel is involved, and when overtake is attempted in turns. We can argue about topography in the latest Canadian incident later on.Defence fine as long as you don’t defend the position by more than one change in direction, the attackers front wheels aren’t level (ahead?) of the defenders rear wheels or either driver doesn’t leave a car width or force four wheels off the track.
I presume Izumi you’ve only been watching F1 a couple of years from your anti Hamilton stance.
It appears that you and I are interpreting racing, and life that defines F1, vastly differently. Simply put, I do not agree with your assessments. Cause & Effect analyses are available for practice by broader public. You should try it sometimes. You will feel refreshed and free from some false flags.Izumi you’re welcome.
Why are you trying to compare racing scenarios to this one where Vettel left the track all by himself? The only point he defended his position (and according to the stewards he was in control of that final part) was when he saw he was about to lose the position.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the application of the rule. I think as has been said before people don’t like rules that prevent hard racing (2008 anyone?). However, we didn’t get hard racing regardless. As before when we get tantalising close to what might be a boundary pushing battle, Vettel bottles it and denies us that chance. He either ****s up all by himself or takes someone with him. You want decent racing? Give someone else that red car.
Hi RasputinLives and Titch, yes just been lurking!
that Autosport article say that according to the stewards once Vettel had regained control he straightened his steering wheel. Given that the track goes straight what they are blaming him for seems to be the fact that he didn't move out of Hamilton's way.
"I think the function of the stewards is to penalize flagranty unsafe moves not honest mistakes as result of hard racing"