Why "after the race"?

[eduisfine]

Can anybody give me a reasonable explanation as to why the stewarts should judge the ROS-HAM & ROS-ALO incidents after the race?
If any penalties are handed out it is highly probable that they would affect the race result in a different way than if they where applied in real time.
Hell, if ROS where found guilty in the first incident, the second one probably would't have occured.



[/b]

[Editor]

Probably because they all want to get out of Bahrain as soon as posbbible and not hang about making investigations.

There has clearly been trouble this afternoon as one of the pics on the Red Bull media site shows thick smoke and reads - "smoke is seen on the horizon"

[Kennywinnit]

Surely though, they stayed to the end of the race. The point is, why couldn't they make a decision during the race? Mind you after the ludicrous decision in the first GP1 race re Nasr/Ceccotto, I hope they'll be given some advice[/u]

[moonrover]

I guess that's when they can't convince eachother during the race!

and moreover the interpret process of the new law (just one defensive move) showed difficult....

One move is ok, eventhough Hamilton is in the barrier? and he can't set back for the racing line afterwards? (how we get to know that going back there is part of 2nd defense or not)

[solarflare]

I guess it's a lack of relevant info - probably got some different camera angles but that might in itself not be enough.

Quite an interesting one, the Hamilton-Rosberg one. I'm quite glad noone got penalised, because it was gutsy breathtaking stuff, but you'd have to say if Rosberg hasn't done anything wrong then should Hamilton not be getting looked at for overtaking outside the confines of the track. Like I say glad neither got penalised but it is kind of difficult to understand what the process there is.
_________________
Life is.....the gap between Formula 1 Grands Prix

[bewildered_jim]

I'm all for the racing, actually. I think that the drivers should sort it out themselves, as human beings do in any line of business. What goes around comes around.

As an aside, that's much worse than Lewis' antics last year, and where's Niki Lauda with his 'he will kill someone', now? The stewards got much better at not intervening in 2010, then in 2011 they started to get a bit worse.
_________________
"With its F1 coverage from 2012 set to play second fiddle, the BBC promises to get fans close to the true experience - of being Mark Webber" #HIGNFY @don_lyall

[eduisfine]

No penalty for ROS. Fine, I wont argue the decision. But after reading the six points made by the stewarts my conclusion is that the determining factor was that Lewis and Fernando where never alongside Nico, and therefore no penalty applies. How many replays do they need to determine this? Isn't waiting until after the race going to bias their decision towards not taking any action?

[pitball]

[gourami]

[eduisfine]

[solarflare]

[The Rumble Strip]

It is a tricky one.

On first glance, both incidents to me look like a case of Rosberg blocking but then in retrospect, it seems to be Hamilton that commits the offence by passing outside the confines of the circuit.

That the stewards choose to take no further action I can live with but sometimes one must question the point at which penalties are handed out.

I agree that a scenario like Belgium 2008 happening again would not be good, where the winner of the race changes a number of hours later but conversely to add a post race penalty would not reflect the true place on the racetrack. In other words, potentially they could be much further up the road and a penalty would therefore not have as much effect.

It is my view therefore, that in the interests of fairness we should go one way or the other. Either applies a penalty during the race or after it, not a mixture of both.