planetf1.com

F1 Racer wrote:

Fiki wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Fiki wrote:I have read a number of articles on the incident now, have listened to the BBC 5 Live Sports podcast, and watched Nico Rosberg's video. Nobody even makes the effort to quote the rule that governs the situation everybody has been discussing. Isn't that odd?

Even the stewards' report doesn't mention whether they looked at a possible deliberate crowding off the track - despite noting that Verstappen "was in full control of the car while attempting the overtaking move on the inside of car 16".

Everybody tell us what they feel is right or wrong with the decision, but nobody seems to take the trouble of explaining that the rules have been breached.

Yes.

Someone earlier in this thread posted about Jolyon Palmer and him being overall accepting of the stewards decision in favour of Max, here is the article they linked:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48849024

But here in 2017, a race after the Hulkenberg/Magnussen Hungary 2017 crowding off the track incident he had this to say about being crowded off the track by Alonso:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13147 ... -a-penalty

So he is being inconsistent with his understanding of all of this. They are all clear penalties as crowding off the track has taken place and it's always a breach of the rules when it occurs. Therefore he was right in 2017 about his own incident with Alonso, but in the ensuing two years has somehow forgotten about it by 2019 so that he can then write an article titled 'Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc show F1 future is bright' in which he is essentially forced to agree with the stewards as it helps fit the narrative of his article better. He wants to show that these two had a great, clean battle in Austria and long may this racing between them continue.

I like Palmer and I think he has good insight on a lot of things, but here is a clear contradiction on his part and even he is partially buying into the idea that it is ok to force another competitor off the circuit.

The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.

Yes and no. Jolyon seems to be inconsistent in his views on running somebody off the track, but at the race following his incident with Alonso at Rivage in Francorchamps, Charlie Whiting "explained" the difference between the two cases. So I'm glad you dug up the Palmer case, it helped me find this article back.
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/131590
The article states that :

According to the FIA's guidelines, which were made clear to the drivers back in 2013, if a driver is intending to overtake on the outside, and at the apex of the corner he is in front, he must be given room on the exit of the corner.

To my mind, this means that either those guidelines should be published and available to every person interested, or they should simply be incorporated into the International Sporting Code. They either are valid, or they aren't, and keeping them "secret" or widely open to interpretation is wrong in a sport that still carries some danger to the competitors themselves.
It would be interesting to know whether Jolyon is torn between knowing about this explanation (although he wasn't there in 2013), or whether he thinks it is nonsense, as I do.

Incidently, the very word guidelines reminds me of the explanation of the 'Code' in the Pirates of the Carribean films.

There's another problem with that; does it mean that in 2013 the guidelines had to be made clear to the drivers, although every single one of whom had proved he was good enough to be in F1? After all, they had successfully won their superlicence? Why was it necessary to explain a guideline that all had supposedly raced under for years?

What I would say about that 'secret' rule of a driver overtaking on the outside must be given room if he is ahead on the apex, it is interesting that the converse situation is not also stated by the FIA, for example: ''If the driver overtaking on the outside is not ahead at the apex then the inside defending driver is free to run the outside driver out of road, give him no space on the track and shove him off if need be.''

I guess this is because the idea of the FIA sanctioning another driver to be shoved off the track is unpalatable for the FIA to explicitly put into their rules because it is essentially poor racing etiquette still, (a bit like the weaving and only being allowed to move to block once rule which is good racing etiquette). So racing etiquette and avoiding contact with other cars is still king really.

Fully agreed, when they reach the apex if one driver has claimed the corner then the other should back off, if they have arrived together then they should give each other space.

F1 Racer wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:The same thing with the commentary from Brundle and Crofty on the Rosberg/Max Germany 2016 crowd off situation where Rosberg was penalised, where they are clearly vindicating the stewards decision with their comments in the race, (probably because it was helping Lewis catch Nico up in the championship at the time with Nico being penalised), but in Austria 2019 Brundle was talking about how what Max did was fair and hard racing because he wants to paint the sport in the best light as possible and so having a great, entertaining race with a superb finish again helps suit the narrative that he wants to portray.

The FIA has long considered corners and straights to work differently to each other when it comes to running a car off the track. Usually they side with the car on the inside, taking the natural line and forcing the one on the outside to yield.

Some fans call it hard racing, some call it crowding/blocking. I myself would like to see it made explicitly clear for Silverstone onwards, but for now that's how it works. That's why there's a difference between Spain 2016 and Austria 2019. The crash in 2016 may have also played a part but technically is irrelevant.

What's the difference between Germany 2016 and Austria 2019 though?

Spain 2016 was on a straight yes, but Germany 2016 was on a corner with the inside driver overtaking and forcing the outside driver off. It was basically identical to Austria 2019.

Not even REMOTELY similar in any capacity outside of the drivers coming together, and even that aspect of it is way different. You need to revisit all those incidents and if you still feel they’re all the least bit similar, you should run to your nearest ophthalmologist and have them do a rather thorough check on your retinas… STAT!

.

mcdo wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:Would it be acceptable if the edge of the track was defined by a wall?

The fact that there is a run off shouldn't actually affect the decision in my view.

There was no wall in this instance so it's not relevant

That is exactly my point, the laws say nothing about the track boundaries, they should apply to all instances, either you have laws that cover all eventualities or the consequences of the track boundary become very relevant!

There is far too much that is open to 'stewards interpretation.'

Option or Prime wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:Would it be acceptable if the edge of the track was defined by a wall?

The fact that there is a run off shouldn't actually affect the decision in my view.

There was no wall in this instance so it's not relevant

That is exactly my point, the laws say nothing about the track boundaries, they should apply to all instances, either you have laws that cover all eventualities or the consequences of the track boundary become very relevant!

There is far too much that is open to 'stewards interpretation.'

Could it be that the interpretation of the rules by the stewards is 'guided' by what the drivers are told by the FIA representatives before each race? Charlie Whiting was responsible for Race Control, and also did the briefings.

I agree, obviously, that track boundaries should apply at every situation. I was surprised to see the number of times the cars went off-track at the Niki Laudakurve (turn 1) last race. All without the least comment from Race Control or the Stewards.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
What's the difference between Germany 2016 and Austria 2019 though?

Spain 2016 was on a straight yes, but Germany 2016 was on a corner with the inside driver overtaking and forcing the outside driver off. It was basically identical to Austria 2019.

Not even REMOTELY similar in any capacity outside of the drivers coming together, and even that aspect of it is way different. You need to revisit all those incidents and if you still feel they’re all the least bit similar, you should run to your nearest ophthalmologist and have them do a rather thorough check on your retinas… STAT!

I'm assuming that this is some kind of weird joke right?

https://www.planetf1.com/news/perez-on- ... -is-clear/

It takes a while to figure out what Perez is saying but it seems to be that the rule is clear and Verstappen did force Leclerc off the track, so he is surprised that Vettel didn't get a penalty.
Perez does want to see racing happening without penalties getting involved in the racing though, so he seems to want things to change to be improved so rules are clear and penalties are very rare.

babararacucudada wrote:https://www.planetf1.com/news/perez-on- ... -is-clear/

It takes a while to figure out what Perez is saying but it seems to be that the rule is clear and Verstappen did force Leclerc off the track, so he is surprised that Vettel didn't get a penalty.
Perez does want to see racing happening without penalties getting involved in the racing though, so he seems to want things to change to be improved so rules are clear and penalties are very rare.

Vettel can be frustrating for many but a bit harsh to blame him for Max's indiscretion!

I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

Option or Prime wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:https://www.planetf1.com/news/perez-on- ... -is-clear/

It takes a while to figure out what Perez is saying but it seems to be that the rule is clear and Verstappen did force Leclerc off the track, so he is surprised that Vettel didn't get a penalty.
Perez does want to see racing happening without penalties getting involved in the racing though, so he seems to want things to change to be improved so rules are clear and penalties are very rare.

Vettel can be frustrating for many but a bit harsh to blame him for Max's indiscretion!

Well - I got the first 2 letters of the name right - my brain must have detoured at that point.

Mercedes-Benz wrote:I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

That was the argument that Rosberg used. He claimed that because he had the inside line, he had the right to choose his path around the corner. He was penalised for that.
I think he got the idea after being forced off a few times when he was on the outside, and there being no penalty applied.

IMO it seemed that you had to make a reasonable effort to make it look less deliberate for the stewards to not penalise you.

babararacucudada wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

That was the argument that Rosberg used. He claimed that because he had the inside line, he had the right to choose his path around the corner. He was penalised for that.
I think he got the idea after being forced off a few times when he was on the outside, and there being no penalty applied.

IMO it seemed that you had to make a reasonable effort to make it look less deliberate for the stewards to not penalise you.

Rosberg's move was different. He pushed Hamilton off on the way into the corner not the way out. Effectively not letting him take the corner.

babararacucudada wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

That was the argument that Rosberg used. He claimed that because he had the inside line, he had the right to choose his path around the corner. He was penalised for that.
I think he got the idea after being forced off a few times when he was on the outside, and there being no penalty applied.

IMO it seemed that you had to make a reasonable effort to make it look less deliberate for the stewards to not penalise you.

While I agree with your assessment, it is still just 'convenient' on the stewards part because it is clear that the Rosberg Austria 2016 incident and the Verstappen Austria 2019 incident were both still deliberate and easily avoidable. They just chose to turn a blind eye to the latter one. Anyone that is a 'racer' and understands car control like they surely must, will easily realise that both incidents were 100% intentional, so it's still not an acceptable rationale being used by the stewards, even though I understand where you are coming from when you say that.

babararacucudada wrote:https://www.planetf1.com/news/perez-on- ... -is-clear/

It takes a while to figure out what Perez is saying but it seems to be that the rule is clear and Verstappen did force Leclerc off the track, so he is surprised that Vettel didn't get a penalty.
Perez does want to see racing happening without penalties getting involved in the racing though, so he seems to want things to change to be improved so rules are clear and penalties are very rare.

This is where I think the logic is not sound though with Perez saying that it is good that the stewards 'let them race' by not penalising Max.

On lap 68, with the crowding off the track rule being respected, we got about 20 seconds of racing or jostling for position.

On lap 69, with the crowding off the track rule not being respected, we got about 6 seconds of racing or jostling for position.

I conducted my count from the start of the breaking zone of turn three to the apex of turn four for lap 68's action, and from the start of the breaking zone of turn three to the corner exit of turn three on lap 69's action.

So by allowing drivers to break the crowding off the track rule, the stewards are actually decreasing the racing and are in fact not allowing the drivers to race as much.

So I partially agree with Perez when he says that it was a clear breach of the rules and that he expected a penalty, but I do not agree with his assessment that by allowing drivers to break these rules that you improve the racing and allow the drivers to race more. I have provided figures to back up my claim.

I follow loads of other sports, in a vast majority of them if you physically prevent your competitor from competing you are penalised, if you have to force your opponent off the track then you are clearly not confident of beating him ON the track.
I get that motorsport is different but I much prefer watching Moto GP these days as there is so much more competition and the result is often up in the air.
I do find it a bit worrying that with the fragility of F1 cars contact is permitted at all.
On those lines...(I'm not being serious by the way for those who have had their SOH disabled)... in sailing if you hit another boat you have to sail away to safe area and do a 360 degree turn, sometimes 720, before returning to the race!

What a spectacle that could be!

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

That was the argument that Rosberg used. He claimed that because he had the inside line, he had the right to choose his path around the corner. He was penalised for that.
I think he got the idea after being forced off a few times when he was on the outside, and there being no penalty applied.

IMO it seemed that you had to make a reasonable effort to make it look less deliberate for the stewards to not penalise you.

Rosberg's move was different. He pushed Hamilton off on the way into the corner not the way out. Effectively not letting him take the corner.

The rule does not distinguish where the cars are. The forcing of the car off the track is the issue.

babararacucudada wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

That was the argument that Rosberg used. He claimed that because he had the inside line, he had the right to choose his path around the corner. He was penalised for that.
I think he got the idea after being forced off a few times when he was on the outside, and there being no penalty applied.

IMO it seemed that you had to make a reasonable effort to make it look less deliberate for the stewards to not penalise you.

Rosberg's move was different. He pushed Hamilton off on the way into the corner not the way out. Effectively not letting him take the corner.

The rule does not distinguish where the cars are. The forcing of the car off the track is the issue.

Correct.

Fundamentally the Austria 2016* and Austria 2019 incidents are identical, a car on the inside crowded the outside car off by the intentional path that they took through the corner. On both occasions there was deliberate intent with what happens and they are both wrong. It does not matter how a car got forced off the track, all that matters is that they were forced off the track by another car. It is a pretty simple question for the stewards to answer: Was there enough space given for the car that went off to actually make it through the corner? If the answer is 'no' then the other driver is guilty of not giving enough space and crowding a car off the track, and so gets penalised.

It's a bit like Russell and Hamilton both got grid penalties for impeding Kyvat and Raikkonen in Austria 2019 qualifying. They both impeded the other driver in different ways using a different 'method' if you like, (similar to how Rosberg and Max used different methods to force a driver off the circuit), but the stewards just answered this simple question: Was Kyvat/Raikkonen impeded in any way on their hot lap by the other driver? If the answer is 'yes' then the other driver gets penalised irrespective of how they impeded someone.

*I know that Rosberg wasn't really penalised for forcing Hamilton off in Austria 2016, but that was probably because he didn't ultimately gain from doing so as his front wing got damaged in the move and Hamilton passed him later on anyhow. From the sounds of things people would have expected Rosberg to have been penalised by the stewards if he had successfully held onto the lead after forcing Hamilton off deliberately like that. Particularly as Rosberg did get penalised in Germany 2016 for a less blatant crowding off the track of another driver. So in the context of this argument, the fact that Austria 2016 was punishable had the offender won the race, then why was Austria 2019 also not punishable considering the offender won the race? The idea that the offender used a slightly different method to offend on each occasion does not wash with me as per my reasoning in the two paragraphs above.

babararacucudada wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

That was the argument that Rosberg used. He claimed that because he had the inside line, he had the right to choose his path around the corner. He was penalised for that.
I think he got the idea after being forced off a few times when he was on the outside, and there being no penalty applied.

IMO it seemed that you had to make a reasonable effort to make it look less deliberate for the stewards to not penalise you.

Rosberg's move was different. He pushed Hamilton off on the way into the corner not the way out. Effectively not letting him take the corner.

The rule does not distinguish where the cars are. The forcing of the car off the track is the issue.

The rules do say it has to be deliberate though. And whatever your stance on this issue, like it or not, that is where we are seeing disagreement. Some say it is a penalty, some say it isn't. I am sure we are going to see plenty of scrutiny on future incidents though.

WHoff78 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:I do not think he forced him at all. He got the inside line and decides which line to take and make it difficult for Charles. Charles has to go around him and there was no place for it. If they had given penalty I think it would be bad of the sports. It was a racing incident and drivers should be encouraged to be aggressive on overtakes

That was the argument that Rosberg used. He claimed that because he had the inside line, he had the right to choose his path around the corner. He was penalised for that.
I think he got the idea after being forced off a few times when he was on the outside, and there being no penalty applied.

IMO it seemed that you had to make a reasonable effort to make it look less deliberate for the stewards to not penalise you.

Rosberg's move was different. He pushed Hamilton off on the way into the corner not the way out. Effectively not letting him take the corner.

The rule does not distinguish where the cars are. The forcing of the car off the track is the issue.

The rules do say it has to be deliberate though. And whatever your stance on this issue, like it or not, that is where we are seeing disagreement. Some say it is a penalty, some say it isn't. I am sure we are going to see plenty of scrutiny on future incidents though.

Yes, but it's pretty hard to crowd another driver off the track accidentally, and certainly Austria 2019 does not count as such an occasion.

As per one of my posts above, it takes about 6 seconds for the drivers to negotiate turn three on lap 69; it's a fairly long, slow corner so these 6 seconds are plenty of time for a driver as good as Verstappen to be able to drive his car in an appropriate manner round the corner that does not result in crowding Leclerc off the track in the process. The fact that he does not drive in this appropriate manner despite having plenty of time to do so, shows that he did indeed do this deliberately, and this is strictly prohibited in the rules. It's baffling how the stewards are not able to correctly apply a rule that is clearly written and designed to cover this exact situation.

As I said. That is where people disagree.

WHoff78 wrote:As I said. That is where people disagree.

Yes, only you offer no content or solid argument as to why you disagree, only that presumably 6 seconds of time speeds by far too quickly for Verstappen to avoid contact with Leclerc, so therefore it must have been accidental? Even though this was more than enough time for him to avoid contact on lap 68?

It's ok to disagree but try to at least have some reason of substance as to why you are doing so... otherwise you just come across as petulant and disagreeing with someone for the sake of disagreeing. It essentially doesn't work if there is no clear rationale behind your disagreement.

I have given plenty of reasoning - it hasn't changed. It is ok that you disagree. The trouble is what length of time is reasonable - 2s? 1.5s? Its to subjective. The stewards took there time because max completely pushed the boundary and new what he was doing. But he was still following the corner with no abnormal change in direction. He didn't make any effort to leave room but he doesn't need to on corner exit because then it starts to become a judgement call on what's enough for every similar incident to ensure consistency and that would be opening a whole can of worms.

WHoff78 wrote:I have given plenty of reasoning - it hasn't changed. It is ok that you disagree. The trouble is what length of time is reasonable - 2s? 1.5s? Its to subjective. The stewards took there time because max completely pushed the boundary and knew what he was doing. But he was still following the corner with no abnormal change in direction. He didn't make any effort to leave room but he doesn't need to on corner exit because then it starts to become a judgement call on what's enough for every similar incident to ensure consistency and that would be opening a whole can of worms.

There have been (correct) penalties for less in the past, (Rosberg - Germany 2016), and Max showed he was capable of avoiding contact a lap earlier so why did he change what he was doing all of a sudden? You say Max knew what he was doing which means you even admit yourself that you know it was deliberate, even though the initial reason you were trying to disagree with above is that the rules say that it needs to be deliberate and you weren't agreeing that this situation was necessarily deliberate.

Here is what you said:

''The rules do say it has to be deliberate though. And whatever your stance on this issue, like it or not, that is where we are seeing disagreement.''

So you contradict yourself.

Max does need to leave room on corner exit or otherwise he is crowding and bumping another driver off the road, and this is clearly and strictly prohibted in the rules. If what Max did is not crowding another driver off the track then what is?

Punishing this would not open up another can of worms, it would be applying the rules more often and improve the racing as a result, (20 seconds of racing vs 6 seconds of racing in this specific example).

Of course Maxs move on Charles was fair, just like Lewis;s move on Romain in the German GP 2018 lap 6 or7.
End of argument..

mpls2 wrote:Of course Maxs move on Charles was fair, just like Lewis;s move on Romain in the German GP 2018 lap 6 or7.
End of argument..

So much for my short-term memory. Could you remind me what was specific about that overtake? Did he run Grosjean off the track?

Fiki wrote:

mpls2 wrote:Of course Maxs move on Charles was fair, just like Lewis;s move on Romain in the German GP 2018 lap 6 or7.
End of argument..

So much for my short-term memory. Could you remind me what was specific about that overtake? Did he run Grosjean off the track?

I cant see it on any highlights videos which makes it impossible to compare, last years race was the one where Hamilton cut across the grass at the pit entrance. Grosjean was 6th, Hamilton won, Vettel didn't.

Charles said that Silverstone race was his best race of his carrier so far. I think that say it all. There was nothing wrong in Austria. It was just hard racing

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Charles said that Silverstone race was his best race of his carrier so far. I think that say it all. There was nothing wrong in Austria. It was just hard racing

Sorry, I can't see the co-relation. Can you help?

Siao7 wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Charles said that Silverstone race was his best race of his carrier so far. I think that say it all. There was nothing wrong in Austria. It was just hard racing

Sorry, I can't see the co-relation. Can you help?

Leclerc pushed Verstappen off in Silverstone.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Charles said that Silverstone race was his best race of his carrier so far. I think that say it all. There was nothing wrong in Austria. It was just hard racing

Sorry, I can't see the co-relation. Can you help?

Leclerc pushed Verstappen off in Silverstone.

Oh, I forgot about that. Fair enough, though it was more naughty in Silverstone in my opinion

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Charles said that Silverstone race was his best race of his carrier so far. I think that say it all. There was nothing wrong in Austria. It was just hard racing

Sorry, I can't see the co-relation. Can you help?

Leclerc pushed Verstappen off in Silverstone.

Oh, I forgot about that. Fair enough, though it was more naughty in Silverstone in my opinion

I will have to look at that fight again, but don't forget that Leclerc was told after Austria that it is just fine and dandy to run another driver off the track. To my mind, that was simply re-opening Pandora's box for the umpteenth time. Whatever the verdict there was, I couldn't (and still can't) find anything in the rules to justify it. Neither running somebody off, nor sanctioning it because there was insufficient room on track.

Who was it again on this forum, a few years ago, who said it looked as though the stewards were just making it up as they went along?

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Charles said that Silverstone race was his best race of his carrier so far. I think that say it all. There was nothing wrong in Austria. It was just hard racing

Sorry, I can't see the co-relation. Can you help?

Leclerc pushed Verstappen off in Silverstone.

Oh, I forgot about that. Fair enough, though it was more naughty in Silverstone in my opinion

I will have to look at that fight again, but don't forget that Leclerc was told after Austria that it is just fine and dandy to run another driver off the track. To my mind, that was simply re-opening Pandora's box for the umpteenth time. Whatever the verdict there was, I couldn't (and still can't) find anything in the rules to justify it. Neither running somebody off, nor sanctioning it because there was insufficient room on track.

Who was it again on this forum, a few years ago, who said it looked as though the stewards were just making it up as they went along?

I think a few people in fairness!

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Mercedes-Benz wrote:Charles said that Silverstone race was his best race of his carrier so far. I think that say it all. There was nothing wrong in Austria. It was just hard racing

Sorry, I can't see the co-relation. Can you help?

Leclerc pushed Verstappen off in Silverstone.

Oh, I forgot about that. Fair enough, though it was more naughty in Silverstone in my opinion

I will have to look at that fight again, but don't forget that Leclerc was told after Austria that it is just fine and dandy to run another driver off the track. To my mind, that was simply re-opening Pandora's box for the umpteenth time. Whatever the verdict there was, I couldn't (and still can't) find anything in the rules to justify it. Neither running somebody off, nor sanctioning it because there was insufficient room on track.

Who was it again on this forum, a few years ago, who said it looked as though the stewards were just making it up as they went along?

Thanks to Grosjean braking hard, this contact in the pit lane was deemed 'minor' by the stewards and Ferrari were fined 5000 Euro.
https://twitter.com/518mc/status/1155470601110208515

That would be a way to remove stewards decisions completely - just use monetary fines as punishment and do not have rules where a penalty has to be used which influences the result.
The last time I was in Italy, if you walked onto a zebra crossing the drivers drove over it anyway - but did their best to avoid you.

We saw respectful multi-corner racing from both Lewis and Valtteri and Kyvat and Albon in Hungary.

Perhaps Kyvat should have lifted a bit more in turn 4 to prevent forcing Albon off the track at the exit? However it looked like Albon may have gone off the track anyway by taking too much speed through the corner like Lewis did when he tried to sweep past Max at that corner so not sure on this one.