1.Do you understand the concept of causing a collision by one driver because that's what it was?Andres125sx wrote:Do you understand the concept of race incident?iotar__ wrote:About Raikkonen's crash:
"No driver was at fault." Who was is then, what caused the car moving? Was it a divine intervention, ghosts, another unexplained case?
This is racing, you can´t punish a driver because of losing control when he´s going to the limit. No driver at fault does not mean there was no mistakes, but there was no unsafe or imprudent behaviour.
2. Of course you can punish a driver for losing control, they do it all the time. Do you really want me to give you 20 examples of losing control that were punished with penalties? Grosjean Spa 2012, is it good enough for you with a overreacted, ridiculous race ban?
Do you think they give penalties for keeping control? On the contrary it's the best reason to punish a driver, this old argument recycled when needed "let them race" can be applied to any situation or not applied therefore it's worthless. The answer is also always simple: that was not racing. What other circumstances were there to absolve a driver from guilt? Other cars, rain, technical failure? No. Attempting something like overtake in some clean but risky manner? No. As one sided causing a collision as it gets and they pretend it was the car driving itself. Based on what exactly? Just because it looks weird adn they can't find the better camera? How was that safe?
That wasn't some tricky corner and taking out your competition is good enough reason to penalise on top of safety. What do you think Bianchi was doing when they closed his case with "drove to fast". Was he also racing? Here it's: "no one at fault", how is that possible
?
, hence the penalty in Monaco for Alonso. Which was for me a clear racing incident.
