Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Harte
But, Greem, none of that applied in this case. And what's happened to common sense?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greem
I don't think I've ever seen a rulebook with a Common Sense appendix!
|
Exactly. Everyone complains when rules are broken and penalties not applied to someone. Usually it happens when their driver has been "wronged" by a competitor. But at the same time they are quick to want the rules to be bent on a regular basis. I expect they also try to apply common sense when they can. Regardless, we can't have it both ways people!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Harte
If common sense was allowed to prevail then only Perez should have been given a metaphorical slap for being stupid for not letting Hartley get by. And that should have been the end of it, in my simple mind. Instead, they've made a mountain out of a molehill.
|
I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill! I also think we are generally misrepresenting what happened as well. I frankly only know what was listed in the article linked earlier, but it seemed to have some good details. Here is two quotes...
Quote:
The stewards' official statements said: "Car 11 (Perez) overtook car 28 (Hartley) before Turn 1 and then during the remainder of the formation lap made no noticeable effort to allow car 28 to regain his position.
"The driver of car 11 also admitted the driver of car 28 was not unduly delayed when leaving the grid to start the formation lap.
|
That is the Perez "being difficult" part. Note, nowhere does it say Perez stopped Hartley from retaking the position. But he clearly also didn't slow down and wave him by (or something similar).
Quote:
|
Hartley didn't [start from the pits], but he [also]didn't actually try and get back [into position]. This is the slightly odd thing.
|
It sounds like if Hartley had at least tried to get his position back he might have walked away without any issues? But he made no attempts. Sounds like passive inaction by both drivers (that could have been corrected on track) got both in a tiny bit of hot water. It still is a lot of talk for mostly nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl
i guess if one thing bothers me though is why was it only applied post race (or at least i think it was post race...if it wasnt please ignore this next bit ).
seems like something that should have been sorted more quickly like a false start and/or penalized at the same time they looked at their first lap incident.
for me its not a stretch to think that their formation lap issues were a contributing factor for their first lap incident no? so connect the two incidents.
anyways, its as if (or leaves the impression imo) the stewards didnt realize it was an infraction until post race and needed someone to tell them it was before handing down the penalty. |
I could be wrong, but I think I saw mention of the stewards investigation shortly after they mentioned they would be investigating the collision at the start. So I think it was discussed during the race, but they probably didn't know what to do about it during the race.
I have to wonder if there was a "tit for tat" thing going on. Such as FI complained to race control about the collision (which resulted in a time penalty for Hartley), so then TR said... fine and then complained about Perez overtaking Hartley at the start?
Richard