"It doesn't change the scenario at all because the incident, as I see it, is not acceptable for us. What we saw there was that Nico was not prepared to take the exit, and that caused the collision. " - Toto
Finally, some real drama again. F1 was boring in the last years, the current Rosberg vs. Hamilton rivalry reminds me of the good old days. (Senna vs. Prost, Schumacher vs. Hill / Villeneuve) As long as they are not trying to really hurt each other, their fight really adds to the entertainment value of F1. Of course, having to guys constantly bullying each other kind of sucks for Mercedes, as they are losing points (and money) in the process.
I think they can only gain from this. With how the championship has been going so far, there is no way Mercedes don't win the constructors and individual title. This fight will gain media attention and viewers. I, for one, enjoyed the Vettel-Webber rivalry a looot. Still one of my favorite press conferences to date: (shitty quality, original was removed)
Yep. Two highlights from this race are that Rosberg is definitely not scared of sabotaging hamilton, and that Kevin Magnussen is not scared of driving dirty against Alonso (who despite being quick has definitely shown a willing to drive dirty).
I think that Ricciardo will probably finish second in the WDC at this rate.
Having contact with someone that damages both cars isn't really sabotage... There has been lots of "sabotage" this year I guess, and not just Hamilton Rosberg. Alonso Vettel, someone and Bianchi, and that's just at Spa. God knows who else has "sabotaged" someone else this year, given how many bits of front wing have been lost in contact between drivers. Everyone seems to be sabotaging everyone else!
That dirty Magnussen on yet another Ferrari, sabotaging it like a dirty bastard.
Notice in every single incident of "sabotage" the one doing the sabotage manages to sustain damage as well.
(Magnussen got a 5 second stop-go and 2 penalty points. Then later in the season, at the behest of people including Nicki Lauda, the Stewards were taking a lesser role in penalising such incidents. Someone like Massa comes out and says Rosberg could be punished. Well yes, he could. Such punishment would be something like... a 5 second stop-go and 2 penalty points, or 5 seconds added to his race time, which is the exact punishment a very similar incident got. As a result, nothing would change. If they do punish him, they *should* be consistent, which is unlikely. They also said since that level of punishment that they would stop punishing people for such things, so...)
The whole 'stewards should take a lesser role in incidents' thing is ridiculous. The punishment should be greater than the crime so that there is no incentive to commit the crime. In Kevin Magnussen's case, Raikkonen lost almost a lap whereas Magnussen lost only five seconds, whereas, ideally, he should have been at least behind Raikkonen (since the Stewards judged that he was at fault for the incident) after Raikkonen's pit stop. + Show Spoiler +
However, one issue with this philosophy is that the sabotaged driver would be able to dictate the penalty of the saboteur without any further constraints. Therefore, instea of having a purely "The punishment should be greater than the crime," some fixed time punishment should exist for different incidents (F/R L/R puncture on circuit X, front wing damage on circuit X, etc). Also, the punishment should be predictive as opposed to relying on hindsight. However, in this case, the saboteur can argue that the worst predictable outcome is whatever occurred and therefore this aspect of any incident would be considered by stewards. + Show Spoiler +
Also, in 2010 Valencia? Hamilton cut the safety car whereas Alonso? didn't and was only punished with a stop-and-go penalty whereas Alonso and the rest ended up far behind him after Hamilton's penalty.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rosberg intentionally did this because of the relaxed punishments.
Also for comparison, Hulkenberg's crash into Hamilton at Spa 2012 was more likely less intentional than what Rosberg did on Sunday (since he locked his (rear) brakes and therefore couldn't control the car. Also didn't help that the caterham was in front and Hulkenberg probably had to brake harder than otherwise and could have forced Hamilton into the grass instead of crashing into Hamilton, essentially doing what Montoya did to Schumacher in 2001 without penalty. And for good measure, Hulkenberg was on the inside line while beside Hamilton on the straight for good measure). Hulkenberg still received a penalty albeit being far less guilty than Rosberg on Sunday. + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, Hulkenberg should have been black flagged for ending Hamilton's race but that's irrelevant to the comparison.
So if you hit someone accidentally but get unlucky and puncture their tyre, you should get a harsher punishment than if you hit someone and don't puncture their tyre?
The moment you start taking into account what happened to the other guy when deciding punishments in this sort of chance incident you are opening a whole can of worms. If Hamilton had got lucky and not received a puncture, no one would even really be talking about it, apart from saying that it was silly and lost Rosberg a position (2nd vs 3rd since Hamilton would presumably have won) and it wouldn't be much of a big deal at all. It's only because by chance Hamilton got a puncture that it's such a big deal, and people want punishments to reflect the outcome of the incident, not the incident itself. If Rosberg gets punished, then Alonso should be too, because he lost his front wing on someone's tyre, even though it didn't cause a puncture. Otherwise it's inconsistent. Hitting someone like that should be either punished in the same way or not. Don't bring in the luck of how the tyre gets hit to decide punishments.
One problem with F1 is the stewarding is horribly inconsistent anyway, which just makes any decision a mess of stupidity anyway.
Without proper evidence of the likeliness/luck of causing a puncture when hitting someone, stewards cannot make an accurate prediction as to whether a puncture is a realistic prospect. Therefore in Alonso's case, he can defend himself by saying "I hit him in a way such that I knew that he would not receive a puncture", whereas in Rosberg's and Magnussen's case, they cannot.
One thing I forgot to mention is that if the driver who receives damage is the offending driver, the non-offending driver should not receive a punishment and the offending driver should receive a punishment in addition to his/her damage. Felipe Massa, for example, should have received an additional penalty for causing Kevin Magnussen to spin at Germany.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvzZjVJIYAAyfjk.jpg)
