Monaco GP 2010 - Monte Carlo

[segedunum]

You never saw him race in the Junior categories and for the Mercedes Sports Car program then I take it?

Yes, and I also saw him get taken to the cleaners by Justin Wilson in Formula 3000.

[segedunum]

for me the rule is clear: if you have SC during the last lap, this means race finishes under SC and the racing is over. This is what 40.13 means.

As we've all consistently pointed out, it does not say that at all.

[vall]

for me the rule is clear: if you have SC during the last lap, this means race finishes under SC and the racing is over. This is what 40.13 means.

As we've all consistently pointed out, it does not say that at all.

what else does it mean then? Why is this rule there? For me it is obvious. I hope the Brawn-Shummy trick will not work this time. It worked too much in the past.

[segedunum]

what else does it mean then? Why is this rule there? For me it is obvious.

I'm afraid saying "What else does it mean?" and "It is obvious" is not how the world works. The world is based on clear and accurate communication, especially when it comes to rules and regulations. When many rules and regulations are legally accountable that is especially so.

I hope the Brawn-Shummy trick will not work this time. It worked too much in the past.

What may or may not have happened in the past has no bearing here. You've just discredited yourself.

[Moanlower]

When i'm arriving at a crossroad with traffic lights on green and a policeman in the middle of the road guiding the traffic and tells me to stop I have to stop even though it shows green. Some rules are simply inferior to others.

What did you smoke? There are no policemen in F1. They are called safety car, and we have covered that item.

No policemen? Thanks for this clarification. By the way, I was referring to the green lights being inferior to rule 4.13 and not the safety car... To answer your question, ganja.

[segedunum]

The 'spirit of the law' - meaning the race was OVER!

Unless you have a written rule for that it is utterly meaningless.

[segedunum]

No policemen? Thanks for this clarification. By the way, I was referring to the green lights being inferior to rule 4.13 and not the safety car...

40.13 does not override anything. It clearly states "If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed". It wasn't. It's as simple as that. I suggest you go and read exactly what 40.13 actually says.

[Giblet]

On the Rubens issue, he has been a very well behaved driver his entire career, minus a couple verbal rants.

Even if the wheel was thrown without thinking as it appears, I think a suspended sentence is enough. That just means do it or anything like it again, and pay a serious penalty.

This should be enough to remind Rubens and everyone else from letting it happen again, which is the whole point really.

We can't have drivers throw hissy fits OR suffer panic attacks.

[Ray]

I think they need to drop the hammer on RB. By not punishing him it leaves the taste in the mouth that you can do something so clearly stupid once and get away with it. You can't allow someone to even have the brief thought that they could endanger another competitor or person at the race in any capacity that could jeopardize their safety. He may very well have thrown it in frustration and not realized what he was doing, but the precedent needs to be set that will NOT be tolerated. After all we did have on object coming from another competitors car, both not intentional, kill one person and damn near kill another last year. Say Karun ran over that steering wheel and kicked it in the air and the following car hit it? Say it hit them in the head like Surtees and Massa last year, that shouldn't ever happen because someone lost control of their emotions. Accidents happen, you can't control that. Throwing objects on track should never be tolerated and swiftly and severely punished. Hell, at Talladega a few years back people in the stands were arrested for throwing objects on the track at a NASCAR race. And those are completely closed cars, not an open cockpit car going around blind corners and crests.

[Giblet]

I agree that it is not something to be made light of, but the punishment also has to fit the crime. It was a momentary lapse of reason, and not something premeditated.

Lewis's weaving this year Petrov was considered dangerous and life threatening as well, and he was given a suspended sentence.

A stern talking to by Charlie Whiting and a suspended sentence should be enough to deter him or anyone from doing it again. Maybe a grid penalty, but every driver knows they can't do this, and this will drive it home.

I am pretty sure making an example of him would have the exact same effect, which is never seeing this happen again.

[sknguy]

The 'spirit of the law' - meaning the race was OVER!

Unless you have a written rule for that it is utterly meaningless.

Actually, the letter of the law (rules) are often manipulated to contradict the original intent, or spirit, of a law (rule). It's called "gaming the system". That's where someone uses the letter of the law to achieve a specific result. Original intent of the law be damned.

Often it is that "specific result" which conflicts with the original intent. So... writing a rule doesn't guarantee that everyone will follow it. The letter of the law can be manipulated to achieve any outcome that anyone so chooses it to mean. That's why it's very important that there be some common understanding of the original intent (spirit) of a rule, or law. It is intellectually impossible to write a rule for every situational iteration imaginable. If we did write such rules there would be no point to the sport and we'd all be either rules players, or there would be no sport left to play.

People shrug off the importance of the spirit and original intent of rules. But they are much more important than people think. If you don't respect original intent then everyone should just write their own rules. All rules or laws need to find a balance between protecting against anarchy (lawlessness) and allowing for growth (R&D). Just my thoughts, lol. Sorry for being off topic.

[Moanlower]

No policemen? Thanks for this clarification. By the way, I was referring to the green lights being inferior to rule 4.13 and not the safety car...

40.13 does not override anything. It clearly states "If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed". It wasn't. It's as simple as that. I suggest you go and read exactly what 40.13 actually says.

you should quote the entire sentence and not a part of it. "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."

I think you're mixing up the words ends with ended. I might be wrong since english isn't my mother tongue. Otherwise, what do you mean with 'it wasn't' ?

[Jersey Tom]

To be honest the 20 sec penalty is prob a bit much. Shoulda just bumped MS back down to 7th.

[The FOZ]

The 'spirit of the law' - meaning the race was OVER!

Unless you have a written rule for that it is utterly meaningless.

Actually, the letter of the law (rules) are often manipulated to contradict the original intent, or spirit, of a law (rule). It's called "gaming the system". That's where someone uses the letter of the law to achieve a specific result. Original intent of the law be damned.

Often it is that "specific result" which conflicts with the original intent. So... writing a rule doesn't guarantee that everyone will follow it. The letter of the law can be manipulated to achieve any outcome that anyone so chooses it to mean. That's why it's very important that there be some common understanding of the original intent (spirit) of a rule, or law. It is intellectually impossible to write a rule for every situational iteration imaginable. If we did write such rules there would be no point to the sport and we'd all be either rules players, or there would be no sport left to play.

People shrug off the importance of the spirit and original intent of rules. But they are much more important than people think. If you don't respect original intent then everyone should just write their own rules. All rules or laws need to find a balance between protecting against anarchy (lawlessness) and allowing for growth (R&D). Just my thoughts, lol. Sorry for being off topic.

I'd refer you to this TED talk from awhile back...

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alan_ ... argon.html

The problem lies in how the rules are written. You, or I, or pretty much anyone with normal intelligence and a grasp of logic and critical thinking could write the SC rule in plain language, capture the intent of how the rule is written, and get the intended result.

In this instance, however, that still wouldn't cover the mistake that was made in turning the lights back to green. That was either an ill-conceived procedure before the fact, or someone pressing the wrong button at that time today.

[ISLAMATRON]

To be honest the 20 sec penalty is prob a bit much. Shoulda just bumped MS back down to 7th.

I think thaT IS THE ONLY POINT THAT people who agree and disagree with the penalty can/would agree upon... but it has been noted that there is no such provision in the rules... if he is guilty than that must be the punishment...

but wasnt it 25 seconds for Hamilton in Spa, is a drive thru in Monaco that much shorther than in Spa? is the pit speed different for the 2 venues?