Your Reject of the Race - Monaco!

LukeB · Post by **LukeB** » 16 May 2010, 21:39

I've changed my mind, the real ROTR is people whineing about stewards decisions. Thank god they don't let F1 fans have any input on these things.

It wasen't even the super move some are making it out to be, the reason Schumacher took the place is because he took Alonso by surprise. The reason he took Alonso by surprise is because he (Alonso) quite rightly belived that it would be against the rules for someone to overtake.
But I guess at Monaco you have to take and cling to overtaking moves as and when they come because christ knows we don't see many. Goddamn I hate that track...

Valrys · Post by **Valrys** » 16 May 2010, 21:58

Pedestrian wrote:
Valrys wrote:
Pedestrian wrote:I nominate "the newbies" collectively for ROTR. None of the new drivers and none of the new teams managed to finish the race.

Uhh, did you actually watch the race?

Yes, of course I watched the race.
Is my observation not corect?

Your observation is correct, but none of the new teams and drivers deserve a ROTR, for a variety of reasons. I'd list them, but I don't think I need to.

noisebox · Post by **noisebox** » 16 May 2010, 22:24

With regret (and I say that as a long suffering fan) it has to be Williams - two mechanical issues and two cars in the wall, both thankfully without serious consequences.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 16 May 2010, 22:35

I think the race stewards deserve ROTR here. Not for their decision, but rather the actions which led to a situation where they were damned if they penalised Schumi, and damned if they didn't. It's their job to know what the rules are and make sure they are enforced, and what they did was mislead Mercedes into thinking the race was back on for the last few hundred yards. IIRC, the BBC commentary team thought that as well. Not to mention the rule itself, which didn't help matters. Utterly rejectful.

RAK · Post by **RAK** » 16 May 2010, 22:40

CarlosFerreira wrote:
fjackdaw wrote:
pablo_h wrote:I have vested interest in this, but surely hulkenberg who pretty much crashed straight away!
I had a feeling he would, don't ask me why...

Are you up for his seat if he gets sacked?

I do have a vested interest in this one, but let me clarify that: Hulkenberg has suffered a front wing failure, that's why he plummeted to the wall. http://www.attwilliams.com/news/view/1375

It's going to be Williams, I'm afraid.

I think I've got the biggest vested interest of all to have Williams as ROTR, in the form of 3 extra points in the Predicament Predictions championship. I think I need them after that atrocious weekend at Barcelona...

Nessafox · Post by **Nessafox** » 17 May 2010, 00:35

the finishing-in-a-safety-car-situation-rules

Jordan · Post by **Jordan** » 17 May 2010, 01:07

Sadly, I must nominate McLaren for leaving the vent cover in Button's car. For a team as established and successful as them, that's inexcusable

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 17 May 2010, 06:11

3. The FIA/Stewards/The Rules/Damon Hill/ whoever the hell you want to name here: All has been said and done but I must say that not being a Schumacher fan at all I thought it was quite a clever move even if it was deemed illegal.

2. McLaren: Rookie mistake puts an end to Button's already disappointing weekend

1. Williams: 9th and 11th on the grid, Clutch and Front Wing Failures for Nico, Suspension Failure for Barry.

Post by **mario** » 17 May 2010, 09:07

LukeB wrote:I've changed my mind, the real ROTR is people whineing about stewards decisions. Thank god they don't let F1 fans have any input on these things.

It wasen't even the super move some are making it out to be, the reason Schumacher took the place is because he took Alonso by surprise. The reason he took Alonso by surprise is because he (Alonso) quite rightly belived that it would be against the rules for someone to overtake.
But I guess at Monaco you have to take and cling to overtaking moves as and when they come because christ knows we don't see many. Goddamn I hate that track...

That is certainly hat Alonso thought, as he asked his team if it was possible for him to try passing Hamilton, only to be told that he could not. You can imagine his surprise when he found Schumacher sending one up the inside of him at that point.
Furthermore, it appears that it may have actually been a misinterpretation of the rules by Ross Brawn, instead of Schumacher acting out of opportunism on his own. It appears that there may have been some confusion on Ross Brawn's part; technically, the race ended under the safety car, which means that the following rule applies (and it is this rule that Schumacher has been penalised under).

40.13 If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed it will enter the pit lane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking.

Now, it seems that Ross Brawn thought that the safety car was coming in that lap to allow the cars to race to the line, based on the fact that the information he was given indicated that the safety car was coming in, but, crucially, he says that they were not told that the race was being ended under the safety car. (from this article http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83670 )

Ross Brawn wrote:So, from the instructions we have from the FIA, the safety car was coming in on the final lap but the race wasn't finishing under the safety car and it's a very important distinction so we advised our drivers that they could still race between safety car line one and the start/finish line.

So, having been told by the team that he could overtake another car if he had a chance, that is exactly what he did - so part of the blame lies with Ross Brawn there for giving Schumacher the wrong advice.

So, whilst there may be those who complain about the stewards decision, what they have done is correct; based on the fact that the race was finishing under the safety car, Schumacher should not have passed Alonso, and therefore he broke the rules. Based on that, the stewards applied the standard 20 second penalty, as per the regulations.
Who would want to be a steward in this sort of situation; you do everything by the book, and still get criticised...

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 17 May 2010, 09:25

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:I think the race stewards deserve ROTR here. Not for their decision, but rather the actions which led to a situation where they were damned if they penalised Schumi, and damned if they didn't. It's their job to know what the rules are and make sure they are enforced, and what they did was mislead Mercedes into thinking the race was back on for the last few hundred yards. IIRC, the BBC commentary team thought that as well. Not to mention the rule itself, which didn't help matters. Utterly rejectful.

Actually, it would be race control who made the safety car decision, and the stewards who penalised it, so not the same group of people at all.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 May 2010, 10:34

Based on mario's post, Mercedes may deserve it: not only did they cock-up Schuey and Rosberg's possibilities in Q3, they also advised the drivers wrongly about the procedure after the SC was brought in. Add that to their inexpert treatment of Alonso's climb through the field (notice how McLaren brought Lewis in at exactly the right time for him to maintain track position in front of Alonso, while Merc were surprised and lost positions there), and it'd seem like someone was fats asleep in that garage. Very unBrawn-like, all weekend.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 17 May 2010, 10:44

CarlosFerreira wrote: Add that to their inexpert treatment of Alonso's climb through the field (notice how McLaren brought Lewis in at exactly the right time for him to maintain track position in front of Alonso, while Merc were surprised and lost positions there), and it'd seem like someone was fats asleep in that garage.

Well to be honest they did make a decent call to leave Rosberg out there and pull out a few laps before he pitted to try and clear the Massa/Hamilton/Alonso/Schumacher group but that plan went to hell when he got stuck behind Webber when Webber had just left the pits.

Collieafc · Post by **Collieafc** » 17 May 2010, 11:00

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:I think the race stewards deserve ROTR here. Not for their decision, but rather the actions which led to a situation where they were damned if they penalised Schumi, and damned if they didn't. It's their job to know what the rules are and make sure they are enforced, and what they did was mislead Mercedes into thinking the race was back on for the last few hundred yards. IIRC, the BBC commentary team thought that as well. Not to mention the rule itself, which didn't help matters. Utterly rejectful.

You make a good point there. If the vast majority of people originally thought that it was legal, then something is wrong with the rules.

Hence why I now award my ROTR vote NOT to the stewards, but to the rule book itself. The stewards only seem to be doing what they are told and I can see why they have to apply this. If they let one driver off, it sets a poor standard. So the stewards done nothing wrong, its the rules that are retarded (why do we need so many obscure multi-point rules anyway? It just drives off potential new fans with all these ifs and buts)

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 May 2010, 11:21

Wizzie wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote: Add that to their inexpert treatment of Alonso's climb through the field (notice how McLaren brought Lewis in at exactly the right time for him to maintain track position in front of Alonso, while Merc were surprised and lost positions there), and it'd seem like someone was fats asleep in that garage.

Well to be honest they did make a decent call to leave Rosberg out there and pull out a few laps before he pitted to try and clear the Massa/Hamilton/Alonso/Schumacher group but that plan went to hell when he got stuck behind Webber when Webber had just left the pits.

True, but only AFTER they realised what was going on...

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 17 May 2010, 11:24

CarlosFerreira wrote:
Wizzie wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote: Add that to their inexpert treatment of Alonso's climb through the field (notice how McLaren brought Lewis in at exactly the right time for him to maintain track position in front of Alonso, while Merc were surprised and lost positions there), and it'd seem like someone was fats asleep in that garage.

Well to be honest they did make a decent call to leave Rosberg out there and pull out a few laps before he pitted to try and clear the Massa/Hamilton/Alonso/Schumacher group but that plan went to hell when he got stuck behind Webber when Webber had just left the pits.

True, but only AFTER they realised what was going on...

Touche.
What I found even more amazing than most of the front runners' reacting about 5 laps too late to Alonso was that nobody in the midfield dared to try a similar stratagy to Alonso.

Python · Post by **Python** » 17 May 2010, 11:31

Rubens Barrichello - Throwing the steering wheel, you know better.

McLaren - For their mistake with Button.

Schumacher - He knows better.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 17 May 2010, 12:11

Python wrote:Schumacher - He knows better.

Au contraire. It seems it was not being fully aware of the rules which caused this.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 May 2010, 12:22

fjackdaw wrote:
Python wrote:Schumacher - He knows better.

Au contraire. It seems it was not being fully aware of the rules which caused this.

After 2006, I think he just dislikes that section of the track. :roll:

Bleu · Post by **Bleu** » 17 May 2010, 12:49

If Kobayashi hadn't retired Rosberg's tactics might have worked better. Kobayashi was holding Ferraris, Hamilton and Schumacher behind before his gearbox failed.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 17 May 2010, 12:50

Guys, does anyone remember Melbourne 2009? That race finished under SC, the difference was that they were told that the race is going to finish under SC, even though the SC is going in. They were waving yellows on the whole track and you are not allowed to overtake under yellows. Problem is, that they were waving green, no one said that the race were going to end under SC, they said SC is going in this lap. maybe Charlie Whiting & co meant to end the race under SC, but, they did not say it, everything that was done, was like a normal restart situation. The way I see it, there are 3 different things that can happen during SC.

1. SC is going in before the last lap, and there are no doubt about the rules, just race from the SC-line!

2. SC is not going in on the last lap, because the track is not clear, there are still some dangers on the track, and a need for SC. The SC does not switch off the lights, the track is not declared clear, and the yellows are still waving.

3. SC does not come in before the last lap, but the track is clear and there is no need for a SC. This will happen very rarely, but can happen. The "Safety Car In This Lap" message is given, SC is turning off the lights, they are stopping with waving the yellows, and start waving with the greens when the SC is going in. In other words, a normal restart.

In Monaco it was alternativ number 3 that was used, if they meant to use number 2, they screwed up, all the messages that were sent out, fits with number 3. The best thing would be to accept that they did a mistake and let Schumacher get that 6th place...

Tealy · Post by **Tealy** » 17 May 2010, 15:03

To me it seems that the rule that is being quoted has not been amended for this season's safety car line rule. The Australia 09' was more obvious because you wern't allowed to overtake before the line anyway.

I really hope they clarify this rule now, I also hope that Mercades' appeal gets accepted because I don't want us to go back to the old ways of iron-fisted stewards.

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 17 May 2010, 15:13

As much as it pains me to say it, it has to be Williams, a promising qualifying ruined.

Archie2K · Post by **Archie2K** » 17 May 2010, 16:08

Tealy wrote:To me it seems that the rule that is being quoted has not been amended for this season's safety car line rule. The Australia 09' was more obvious because you wern't allowed to overtake before the line anyway.

I really hope they clarify this rule now, I also hope that Mercades' appeal gets accepted because I don't want us to go back to the old ways of iron-fisted stewards.

Indeed. The safety car pulling in on the last lap made perfect sense last year since the lead driver took over the position of safety car and no overtaking was allowed until the start/finish line when the race ends. The rule should be amended or clarified.

If the accident had been at Anthony Noghes, ie. after the pit entrance, surely the Safety Car would have led the drivers all the way around until the end of the race to avoid such confusion and potential danger.

P_Friesacher · Post by **P_Friesacher** » 17 May 2010, 17:02

For me it has to be Barrichello for throwing the steering wheel on the track.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 17 May 2010, 17:08

P_Friesacher wrote:For me it has to be Barrichello for throwing the steering wheel on the track.

Talk about throwing the toys out of the pram... Barrichello did it literally!

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 17 May 2010, 17:48

Archie2K wrote:
Tealy wrote:To me it seems that the rule that is being quoted has not been amended for this season's safety car line rule. The Australia 09' was more obvious because you wern't allowed to overtake before the line anyway.

I really hope they clarify this rule now, I also hope that Mercades' appeal gets accepted because I don't want us to go back to the old ways of iron-fisted stewards.

Indeed. The safety car pulling in on the last lap made perfect sense last year since the lead driver took over the position of safety car and no overtaking was allowed until the start/finish line when the race ends. The rule should be amended or clarified.

If the accident had been at Anthony Noghes, ie. after the pit entrance, surely the Safety Car would have led the drivers all the way around until the end of the race to avoid such confusion and potential danger.

The easiest way to not make drivers confused is to keep waving yellows, then they can't overtake what so ever...

LionZoo · Post by **LionZoo** » 17 May 2010, 18:11

Myrvold wrote:Guys, does anyone remember Melbourne 2009? That race finished under SC, the difference was that they were told that the race is going to finish under SC, even though the SC is going in. They were waving yellows on the whole track and you are not allowed to overtake under yellows. Problem is, that they were waving green, no one said that the race were going to end under SC, they said SC is going in this lap. maybe Charlie Whiting & co meant to end the race under SC, but, they did not say it, everything that was done, was like a normal restart situation. The way I see it, there are 3 different things that can happen during SC.

1. SC is going in before the last lap, and there are no doubt about the rules, just race from the SC-line!

2. SC is not going in on the last lap, because the track is not clear, there are still some dangers on the track, and a need for SC. The SC does not switch off the lights, the track is not declared clear, and the yellows are still waving.

3. SC does not come in before the last lap, but the track is clear and there is no need for a SC. This will happen very rarely, but can happen. The "Safety Car In This Lap" message is given, SC is turning off the lights, they are stopping with waving the yellows, and start waving with the greens when the SC is going in. In other words, a normal restart.

In Monaco it was alternativ number 3 that was used, if they meant to use number 2, they screwed up, all the messages that were sent out, fits with number 3. The best thing would be to accept that they did a mistake and let Schumacher get that 6th place...

Very true. Race control cocked up the end of the race with their safety car in this lap message and the subsequent waving of greens. It must be confusing to the drivers since they've been programmed all their lives to just go for it when they see green. There are a couple extremely logical solutions to this problem that wasn't taken:

1. First of all, why not just leave the damn safety car out? It's not like leaving the car out would've endangered anyone and if the race is actually ending under safety car, it would seem to be the most logical decision and the one with least potential for confusion. Sadly, I think the FIA didn't want to do that because it might spoil some end of race photos...

2. If you must bring the safety car in, but want to prevent actual racing, then just keep waving the yellows so the drivers have no doubt that there is no passing. In ALL series of racing, yellow means no passing and green means passing allowed. Why not just keep following that convention?

3. If they wanted to end the race under safety car conditions, and all the jazz that that entitles, why did they splash messages that say "safety car in this lap"? Would it not be wiser to say something like "race to end under safety car conditions, but safety car will pit" or something to that effect? Their message given seemed to indicate a race restart.

4. Finally, why did they even bother changing the point from where you can pass following a safety car situation? My guess is the motivation is to get more passing when safety cars come in, since previously a driver can really control the field tightly if it was at the start finish line. However, in reality one line is really the same as the next in racing as equal strategies apply. So instead, we don't actually see more passing when safety cars come in, but we've just introduced a giant headache of a situation where racing is seemingly legal for a few hundred yards.

It seemed that the FIA, through some perceived opinion that it's shameful to end a race under yellow, wanted to appear as much as possible that the race was ending under green flag conditions while not allowing what is generally accepted under green flag conditions (e.g. passing). Basically for the sake of appearance, they managed to confuse everyone and themselves and create a situation where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

For this reason, my reject of the race, in a race that was full of potential rejects, goes to the poorly written rules.

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 17 May 2010, 20:31

Many of the above points about the safety car confusion at the end of the race are very well made.

I'll add one extra bit of evidence into the mix. Why did Webber, Vettel and Kubica steam towards the finish line at close to full racing speed? If they all knew there was no risk of being overtaken, surely Webber and Vettel would have slowed down for a photogenic formation finish or similar. This is the Monaco GP, the jewel in the crown, after all. The fact that Webber felt compelled to sprint to the line and go over it at full speed shows that Red Bull considered the race to have restarted for those last few hundred metres.

In the end, the stewards only applied the regulations as they were intended to be applied. The marshals contributed by waving green flags, but that would not have made a difference if the rule was clearly understood. As has been said above, the rule should have been amended this year, but is now hopelessly ambiguous. But for a partly-understood interpretation ("partly" because only some teams understood it, and others didn't) of the rule, every other piece of evidence in the situation suggested that the opposite (i.e. return to full racing conditions) was taking place.

Accordingly, I have decided that Rule 40.13 gets ROTR this time around, with the race review to be written and uploaded in the next day or so.

Don't let that get in the way of further discussion/debate/papaya throwing!

watka · Post by **watka** » 17 May 2010, 20:57

Going to chip in with my suggestions formally now:

Fernando Alonso - Why, I hear you all shout? Well there are several minor points that blot would seems a decent performance on first glance. Firstly, and most obviously, he binned it in FP3 to cost himself any chance of a podium. As far as I've heard, it was simply driver error, when he really shouldn't have been pushing that hard. Secondly, he's allowed Massa to get himself a bit more comfortable again. Massa was not that far off him at all this weekend, and what track is up next? Massa's favourite; Turkey. Thirdly, I don't believe for a second that he knew that letting Schumacher past in the last corner would give Schumacher a penalty. As far as I'm concerned, he was caught napping.

Sauber - Don't need to say much about them. It just goes to show how far they've fallen that it is now expected that both cars retire and no one can bother nominating them for Reject of the Race. This is maybe because they are nailed on for Reject of the Year instead.

Jarno Trulli - Was there really any need for that move? Maybe Trulli thought he could just scare Chandhok out of the way; there was no way he was going to get that Lotus stopped in time. Furthermore, it was the first time he's ever been outqualified by his team-mate at Monaco.

McLaren - Many things to poke at here, but I'll start with Button. I commented earlier this year when the Virgin team left Glock stranded on the track (can't remember which race this was) before the warm up and how amateur and rejectful the incident was. However, the highly respectable (ok, maybe not in some people's eyes :lol:

) McLaren have gone and done the same sort of thing by leaving a bung in the air intake. It's simple provisions that the team should really not be getting wrong. As for Hamilton, I'm getting increasingly critical of his attitude. I've defended him before as being a refreshingly aggressive and exciting driver. However, there is really no way he should be speaking to his colleagues like that re: the brakes. He also got lippy in Australia, and in Spain he was heard speaking directly to the stewards trying to tell them how to do their job. As the Scousers say, calm down mate.

Williams - Would be a clear no. 1 if not for the below. Both cars failed in spectacular fashion, and although Hulkenberg's car was damaged by an HRT, he shouldn't have had such a shocking start. Monaco is definitely not a place where you want your car to give way on you because you will hit something. Their reject status was also upped by Barrichello's foolish steering-wheel chucking antics, which was stupidly dangerous.

But the clear winner is:
Da Rulz - No, not some kind of rapper (ok, that was lame). The rules are obviously not clear enough, and also the punishments do not seem in any way consistent. This must be the 3rd or 4th time after a race this season we have found ourselves talking about a steward's decision and it's stupid that you have to wait until a few hours after the race just to check if anyone's been demoted for a petty "crime". In my opinion, the racing regulations should be firstly about safety, and secondly about sportsmanship/fairness, although this season it seems the former has been almost ignored and latter blown completely out of proportion. In football, if you score a goal in injury time, it still counts, so what is so different about Schumacher's move? Furthermore, the punishment did not match the crime. Schumacher was punished with a time penalty in a safety car field, for an infringement of a dodgy rule, which was pretty much as good as a DSQ. I ask the stewards; was that move worthy of a black flag? Why not just drop him down a few places on the grid at the next race. I could go on for ages, but I won't. The point is, race results are being decided by a bunch of scrutineers, which just spoils the whole thing for the fans. What if that happens in Abu Dhabi this season and decides the championship? It would be a disgrace.

Malta Shadows F1 · Post by **Malta Shadows F1** » 17 May 2010, 21:01

Rubens Barichello, for nearly removing both HRT cars from the race with his $50000 steering wheel...(speedtv reported that after Karun Chandhok hit it the steering wheel was hit again in the tunnel by Bruno Senna). it was a childish move and Rubens should be "rejected" for doing it...

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 May 2010, 21:25

eytl wrote:Accordingly, I have decided that Rule 40.13 gets ROTR this time around, with the race review to be written and uploaded in the next day or so.

Don't let that get in the way of further discussion/debate/papaya throwing!

I was going to hurl a bunch of papayas at this, until I read watka's post below, and found myself agreeing with the "what if it happens in Abu Dhabi?" argument.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 17 May 2010, 21:26

Malta Shadows F1 wrote:Rubens Barichello, for nearly removing both HRT cars from the race with his $50000 steering wheel...(speedtv reported that after Karun Chandhok hit it the steering wheel was hit again in the tunnel by Bruno Senna). it was a childish move and Rubens should be "rejected" for doing it...

It also got stuck under Chandhok's car for close to half a lap.

LionZoo · Post by **LionZoo** » 17 May 2010, 21:49

watka wrote:Sauber - Don't need to say much about them. It just goes to show how far they've fallen that it is now expected that both cars retire and no one can bother nominating them for Reject of the Race. This is maybe because they are nailed on for Reject of the Year instead.

At the rate I and some others are nominating steward decisions this season, Sauber is going to have tough competition with FIA decisions for Reject of the Year.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 17 May 2010, 21:52

LionZoo wrote:
watka wrote:Sauber - Don't need to say much about them. It just goes to show how far they've fallen that it is now expected that both cars retire and no one can bother nominating them for Reject of the Race. This is maybe because they are nailed on for Reject of the Year instead.

At the rate I and some others are nominating steward decisions this season, Sauber is going to have tough competition with FIA decisions for Reject of the Year.

Virgin has seen the finish line more times than them. Just saying.

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 17 May 2010, 22:16

thehemogoblin wrote:
LionZoo wrote:
watka wrote:Sauber - Don't need to say much about them. It just goes to show how far they've fallen that it is now expected that both cars retire and no one can bother nominating them for Reject of the Race. This is maybe because they are nailed on for Reject of the Year instead.

At the rate I and some others are nominating steward decisions this season, Sauber is going to have tough competition with FIA decisions for Reject of the Year.

Virgin has seen the finish line more times than them. Just saying.

Definitely a bad sign for Sauber, they're going the right way for Reject of the Year at the moment.

BB01 · Post by **BB01** » 18 May 2010, 00:34

eytl wrote:Many of the above points about the safety car confusion at the end of the race are very well made.

I'll add one extra bit of evidence into the mix. Why did Webber, Vettel and Kubica steam towards the finish line at close to full racing speed? If they all knew there was no risk of being overtaken, surely Webber and Vettel would have slowed down for a photogenic formation finish or similar. This is the Monaco GP, the jewel in the crown, after all. The fact that Webber felt compelled to sprint to the line and go over it at full speed shows that Red Bull considered the race to have restarted for those last few hundred metres.

In the end, the stewards only applied the regulations as they were intended to be applied. The marshals contributed by waving green flags, but that would not have made a difference if the rule was clearly understood. As has been said above, the rule should have been amended this year, but is now hopelessly ambiguous. But for a partly-understood interpretation ("partly" because only some teams understood it, and others didn't) of the rule, every other piece of evidence in the situation suggested that the opposite (i.e. return to full racing conditions) was taking place.

Accordingly, I have decided that Rule 40.13 gets ROTR this time around, with the race review to be written and uploaded in the next day or so.

Don't let that get in the way of further discussion/debate/papaya throwing!

That's very true.

Enoch, you're the lawyer of the pair, aren't you? If not, then I guess its a question for Jamie. Anyway, what would be the impact, legally speaking, if there was a law, as is the case with 40.13, that boiled down to "if something happens in the future, people should have acted in a certain way before it happened"? That sounds inherently flawed to me.

Also, the Barrichello thing was pretty bad but we didn't really see it on the channel one coverage.

Post by **DemocalypseNow** » 18 May 2010, 00:54

eytl wrote:Accordingly, I have decided that Rule 40.13 gets ROTR this time around, with the race review to be written and uploaded in the next day or so.

Don't let that get in the way of further discussion/debate/papaya throwing!

Can I have an extra 1000000 points in the Guessing Game for this?

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 18 May 2010, 01:07

eytl wrote:Accordingly, I have decided that Rule 40.13 gets ROTR this time around, with the race review to be written and uploaded in the next day or so.

Argh, don't spoil it! Then there's no incentive to read the race review!

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 18 May 2010, 02:00

Captain Hammer wrote:
eytl wrote:Accordingly, I have decided that Rule 40.13 gets ROTR this time around, with the race review to be written and uploaded in the next day or so.

Argh, don't spoil it! Then there's no incentive to read the race review!

What? Enoch's writing is an incentive for me.

Bort · Post by **Bort** » 18 May 2010, 02:33

thehemogoblin wrote:
Malta Shadows F1 wrote:(speedtv reported that after Karun Chandhok hit it the steering wheel was hit again in the tunnel by Bruno Senna)

It also got stuck under Chandhok's car for close to half a lap.

I was wondering how it managed to make its way down the hill and into the tunnel from the top of the track.