That double block into Lesmo 1 wasn't the only double standard Lewis V Schumacher.
I'm also citing Singapore:
Exhibit A
Lewis misjudges his breaking into Massa and gets a drive through penalty
Exhibit B
Schuey misjudges his breaking into Perez and gets away without any penalty (a 5 place Grid Drop would have been somewhat the equivalent).
It's absolutely ghastly how the FIA seems to be favouring Schumacher while, simultaneously, wiping the floor with Hamilton's bum.
First the non-penalization for Shumacher at Monza...now this at Singapore.
The Stewards consistency is utterly hideous.
This isn't a good example of a double standard. The incidents were similar in that both were innocent mistakes due to clumsy attempts at overtaking. The differences were that: whatever car damage Perez suffered during the incident lost him far less time than Massa lost; and Schumi crashed out whereas Lewis didn't.
A pretty reasonable set of stewarding rules might stipulate that drivers are only punished for reckless or clumsy racing incidents, of the class that would normally merit a drive-through, when they remain in the race long enough to have served the penalty. The purpose of these stewarding interventions is to promote a certain standard of racing conduct, without neutering the racing. I submit that sufficient disincentive is provided by only punishing drivers who remain in the race in such cases (note that for example Liuzzi's crash in Monza is different, because this was sufficiently reckless and destructive to merit more than a drive-through whether or not he remained in the race). Therefore since the less stewarding the better as long as the desired standard of racing conduct is met approximately, why not eliminate a class of unnecessary penalties by neglecting to hand out grid drops to those who crash out due to clumsy racing?
Furthermore, this prevents the stewards from having to regularly hand out different penalties (grid drop vs drive-through) for the same class of offences, and prevents stewarding decisions from proliferating into new races (which is aesthetically unappealing in a way that in-race penalties are not).
Whether the outcome for the innocent party should be taken into account is another matter. An argument in favour is this: If all substantial contact where one party is mostly to blame is punished, then "substantial" is subject to the discretion of the stewards. If only contact where one party is mostly to blame and the victim is significantly hampered is punished, the "significantly" is subject to the discretion of the stewards. So in both cases there is some level of subjectivity, but the advantage of the latter approach is that fewer penalties are handed out. (Note that I am still talking about reckless or clumsy, but unintentional and not-inordinately-dangerous incidents. Different rules should apply in some other cases.) So as long as we are satisfied that this approach brings about a suitable standard of driving conduct, it therefore seems preferable.
I am aware that this may not be how the rules are worded. However, it seems to me that the rules are rather vague, and the stewards do tend to apply these unwritten principles in their judgements. In my opinion, the rules are in many places far too ambiguous or under-defined for anyone to complain fairly that the stewards haven't followed the letter of the law in their judgements.
In fact, I think that the rules of Formula 1 on-track racing should be improved to become more rigorously defined (although hopefully not to the point where they become labyrinthine). But the point I am trying to make is that with stewarding rules and precedent being what they are, I don't think that the point stands that Lewis was subject to a double-standard with respect to Schumacher on this occasion.
This is not to say that Lewis hasn't in general been treated unduly harshly by the stewards this season or subjected to genuine double standards on previous occasions, though.
