[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8756430.stm ]
[/url]It was agreed the rules were unclear - Mercedes and some other teams argued they allowed overtaking after the safety car had pulled in on the last lap - and the FIA, F1's governing body, agreed to clarify them.The rule - [b]which will be introduced with immediate effect[/b] - now makes it explicit that overtaking will not be allowed if the safety car pulls in at the end of the last lap.
So - he didn't actually break any rule in Monaco.
He should only really have lost the position in the first place IMO but I don't think they should reverse their decision now really.
but the penalty to reverse the places does not exist in the regualtions.
So - which rule did he break?
In answer to the orginal question, yes I do. It was an opportunistic racing move, completed agressively but safely on a corner where overtaking never happens. It's the essence of f1 racing and should be applauded.
No - no one has ever gotten their points back after a clarification to the rules and/or changes to them.
Besides, I think he should have had another penalty after his atrocious driving in Canada 😀
They said at the time that the rule wasn't clear but found against him
why change tack now?
The stewards took an opinion on the [ambiguous] rule & decided that it was worthy of a penalty
It happens in a lot of sports
Read what it says: they have clarified the rule. If you clarify a statement, you keep its intended meaning the same but rephrase it so as to prevent misinterpretation.
So the new rule is entirely consistent in its meaning with the old one. It's just that the previous one was vague, but no-one saw fit to seek clarification.
The rule that he broke was the badly-phrased one that was in the rulebook.
Schumi broke the intented explanation of the poorly written rule. As such he was penalised. I thought it'd have been fairer if they'd just put MS back behind FA in the results but there you go...
Poor wording by the Beeb then, i.e. to suggest that there is a new rule which "will be introduced with immediate effect".
in 2008 Hamilton was penalised for a rule which wasnt in the book.
NO.
Further more he should be asked to leave. He is a very talented driver, but he has lost his pace. He knows this, and that the car is flattering him. But his frustrations are making him dangerous.
No. He can be a brilliant driver, but if he can't get his way he turns into a petulant childish bully who'll barge another driver off the track even if he goes off as well. His driving in Canada was execrable, and he should have been penalised for it there as well.
God forbid he does a Senna trying too hard to justify his return.
"does a Senna"? You mean has a mechanical failure resulting in his death?
[url= http://sniffpetrol.com/category/ralf-and-mickey/ ]Sniff petrol - 'the schumachers'[/url]
depends if we beat the Krauts on sunday, if we do he can have his points
He should go back to his job as the Stig 🙂
For the incident in question he was harshly treated - a superb piece of driving. However the answer to the question has to be no purely because of his driving in Canada - still have no idea how he escaped sanction there.
TBH I don't think F1 is better off for his return - sooner he leaves again the better.