Ferrari/Vettel appeal against Canada penalty
Discussion
Taking a hint from the French GP thread, I thought it might be an idea to separate the (possible/potential/just mentioned in passing) appeal against the stewards' decision in Canada.
Whilst it can irritate if you receive a penalty due to a mistake of the referee in rugby, the premise is that you let it go. You can cite, but there's a requirement that there must be strong grounds, such as clear cut video, just not to be fined yourself.
It is a decision that meant Hamilton did not have to overtake. Unless it was Leclerk's car that went off, then there's no way a successful appeal would result in anything other than an apology.
Let it go. It's over. Don't leave the track and it won't matter in the future.
Whilst it can irritate if you receive a penalty due to a mistake of the referee in rugby, the premise is that you let it go. You can cite, but there's a requirement that there must be strong grounds, such as clear cut video, just not to be fined yourself.
It is a decision that meant Hamilton did not have to overtake. Unless it was Leclerk's car that went off, then there's no way a successful appeal would result in anything other than an apology.
Let it go. It's over. Don't leave the track and it won't matter in the future.
Also, had the penalty not been applied at the time, Hamilton might have pressed more vigorously for an overtake, forcing Vettel into another mistake. It's funny now that Vettel is suggesting Hamilton was making mistakes at the hairpin, in a vain attempt to suggest it wasn't just him messing up on the day.
REALIST123 said:
Oh FFS, do you have to keep flogging this dead horse?
Its actually Ferrari that are flogging their own dead horse. Whats wrong with having a discussion about the meeting that is taking place regarding Vettel's penalty? If it annoys you, why bother dropping in on this thread to vent? Jeez.You're missing the point. On one hand F1 has a "let them race policy" and on the other they penalise for incident that was nothing really. Hamilton gained time, Vettel lost time. Hamilton was no further out of the track than he had been on his own and Vettel wasn't as far over as he had been before.
Ferrari are perfectly within their rights to seek clarification. Given that many other drivers are of the same opinion I have zero problem with Ferrari "flogging a dead horse" regardless of whether I think the penalty was correct or not.
Ferrari are perfectly within their rights to seek clarification. Given that many other drivers are of the same opinion I have zero problem with Ferrari "flogging a dead horse" regardless of whether I think the penalty was correct or not.
Kraken said:
You're missing the point. On one hand F1 has a "let them race policy" and on the other they penalise for incident that was nothing really. Hamilton gained time, Vettel lost time. Hamilton was no further out of the track than he had been on his own and Vettel wasn't as far over as he had been before.
Ferrari are perfectly within their rights to seek clarification. Given that many other drivers are of the same opinion I have zero problem with Ferrari "flogging a dead horse" regardless of whether I think the penalty was correct or not.
I think it has been shown that LH lost time through SV's move. Had he continued at speed, it is probably that the two cars would have collided.Ferrari are perfectly within their rights to seek clarification. Given that many other drivers are of the same opinion I have zero problem with Ferrari "flogging a dead horse" regardless of whether I think the penalty was correct or not.
I think it is you who has missed the point. Both cars losing time is not what the stewards considered. It is immaterial to the penalty.
I think Ferrari want the penalty points deducted. This might be because they think SV is likely to reoffend.
London424 said:
What a farcical appeal. Citing Karon C analysis on Sky!
He wants to be paid now 
https://twitter.com/karunchandhok/status/114208814...
London424 said:
What a farcical appeal. Citing Karon C analysis on Sky!
That seems a very odd move. I like Karon and thorough enjoy his presentation, but his opinion is an opinion and as such is not relevant as it's the stewards' opinions that are the ones that matter.That's struggling.
I read an interesting piece on Boris this week about the “dead cat on the table” theory. (Belongs to Lynton Crosby)
Basically, if you find yourself in deep doodoos, you throw a dead cat onto the table so that everyone talks about that instead of the serious stuff that needs fixing.
It looks like Mattia Binotto threw this one onto the table to stop everyone talking about the basic lack of performance in his car and him looking at a potential season Whitewash.
Basically, if you find yourself in deep doodoos, you throw a dead cat onto the table so that everyone talks about that instead of the serious stuff that needs fixing.
It looks like Mattia Binotto threw this one onto the table to stop everyone talking about the basic lack of performance in his car and him looking at a potential season Whitewash.
rdjohn said:
It looks like Mattia Binotto threw this one onto the table to stop everyone talking about the basic lack of performance in his car and him looking at a potential season Whitewash.
Or to avoid the fundamental issue - Seb cracked under pressure again... Can they retain a No1 and No2 driver status still?Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff