Belgian Grand Prix

[Rainmaster 7]

But I am not denying any of that! (except the 7 races stuff, but that is because it wasn't quoted there)

Good!

As for steward decisions taking so long/being investigated after the race: it appears that they're massively understaffed. I may be mistaken but aren't there only four of them? To monitor so many cars in the present and deal with past issues, I can understand why they investigate after the race. More stewards, less penalties after the original classification, please!

Kimi needs to win a race! if he doesnt i dont know if he will truely believe he can win the championship, nor do i believe he can win it without a win.

Agreed.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

In order to stop me ranting too much about maldonado i will conclude that Grosjean deserved a penalty, no doubt, but if an accidental collision deserves a 1 race ban then using your car as a weapon and hitting others HAS to get AT LEAST the same. What we as fans need and want is fair and consistant stewarding. (wont even mention the fact that hammi gets bigger pens for little things then maldonado seems to get for dangerous driving)

true, when Maldo is ahead of my fav driver it really stresses me. I was abit relieved when he received that ban, but then that could only spell disaster for Alonso and co. The number of places Kimi has lost at the start due to that idiot's stupid driving is numorous, and in my mind he should have received a 1 race ban for Monaco alone!

[Quiet One 15]

RE Pens for all but only after we (the stewards) have a cup of tea! And maybe a bit on the race itself.

First of all I must agree with several others who have questions what the stewards were doing? Some of the pens I understand not making till after the race (such as the first corner which i will come to in a min) but some of them were so clear! Stewards are there to inforce rules during a race not after! there were some incidents that there was NO question if there was a pen, hekki hitting a HRT IS an unsafe relase!

Moving on to the first corner crash clearly it was Grosjean's fault, noone disputes that it appears to be the ban that is being debated. From what i have read it appears that the result of a big crash and the potential (or almost) very serious/deadly result. If that is just hamilton and Grosjean that are involved you can almost garentee that its a 5 place pen. I agree that he has been involved in quite a few incidents but then last year so were massa and hamilton should they have been banned? No most were honest mistakes as this was. So why did this crash deserve a 1 race ban? Dangerous yes, more so than any other? not so sure. Last year in Monza i remember someone (mayb HRT) on the grass heading strainght into the pack in first corner! or what about Maldonado ramming people as if he is on fair ground ride bouncing of other cars?!

I could go on about Maldonado and i will admit im a mclaren and Hamilton fan so have a bit against him but 1 year ago maldonado RAMMED hammi after hammi overtook him (slightly agressivly) in quali. that went unpunished too! second he clearly drove into perez, pen there but nothing mega! then he carelessly/possibly on purpose knocks hammi out of the European grand prix and he gets another slap on the wrist.

In order to stop me ranting too much about maldonado i will conclude that Grosjean deserved a penalty, no doubt, but if an accidental collision deserves a 1 race ban then using your car as a weapon and hitting others HAS to get AT LEAST the same. What we as fans need and want is fair and consistant stewarding. (wont even mention the fact that hammi gets bigger pens for little things then maldonado seems to get for dangerous driving)

The race for the whole was good some excellent racing and a great performance from button with some other guys doing well too. was shocked by Hekki, of whom im a big fan, had a terrible day but then everyone does sometimes.

I think you are referring to the bowling ball number Liuzzi did last year

I do agree with what you say. This is what I see:

- RG squeezes a competitor (happens all the time) Notice that I use the word "squeeze" and not "swerve". The move was not violent nor overtly aggressive.

- The two cars make contact (happens often)

- Cars go flying around and first corenr carnage ensues (happens sometimes, moe often at Spa than in some other venues, actually)

- The carnage this time is particularly dangerous and one driver is slightly injured (this does not happens often at all anymore, thanks George)

Then we have the explanation of the penalty: something like "severe breach of the regulations which could have caused severe injuries and blah blah"

2 points there: some fact invoked (the severe breach of the regulations part) and some possible consequences of such facts.

1) Facts: "severe breach"? Really? Squeezing another car is a severe breach then that should be punished harshly everytime. Yet not only that is rarely punished, there's an unwritten rule that says stewards don't even bother with investigating these first corner incidents anymore, of which 90% (the number comes right out from my Argentinian behind) are caused by some guy squeezing another car or worse. So the factical part is at least questionable.

2) The second part is already weakened because the "if" condition is weakly supported, but it goes further: it could have ended in severe injuries or death...errr...that's true for EVERY dangerous move in F1. Just yesterday I pointed at Hamilton avoiding Perez at the pit exit and almost collecting a marshall...what about that? A race ban for Lewis? For Perez? What about Alonso squeezing vettel at Monza last year? What about Vettel squeezing everybody and with less skill than Nando? What about Schumi, or Hamilton? And, of course, what about Maldonado?

I do think that Grosjean should have been somehow brought to attention at least for being a repeat offender. And also for being a liar "I did not watch the replay so I don't know what happened" Really? Because all the world saw you watching it on the pitwall!) He did not want to take responsiblity and he was at least negligent so yes, some sort of call for attention either by the FIA or his fellow drivers was in order. I just think that the ban distorts too much the scale of penalties and the message seems to be "you can be as stupid as you want but do not take out the main protagonists because that makes us lose TV rating".

On the matter of penalizations, I also agree, some of them should have been almost automatic (unsafe release from pits are very simple to see and to penalize as the jump start was). Others like Schumi's move I understand that take more time.

[Massa 0]

Well I'm glad you guys liked it the first time because now I'm going to do it to death.

I don't really care who wins the title but I'd sort of like it to be Räikkönen, because he's been so heavily discounted this year on misinformation about Grosjean outperforming him (uh, where's Romain in the points again?) and because I'd laugh really hard at the FIA and FOM's collective scramble to rewrite the points system if a guy won the WDC on zero wins.

Can he do it without a win? Not likely, because chances are, someone else in the five will win every race here on out, so his best case scenario is still losing 7 points to one of his rivals.

If Räikkönen finishes P2 in EVERY race for the rest of the year, an unlikely scenario, he ends at 275. Recall a "normal" end to the season for Alonso gets him 283, and that's theoretically achievable without any wins at all in the last eight (in reality, he can only score even points, so it'd be closest to 15 per race, or third, making it 284).

To get to 275, Vettel would only need one win and an average of a little better than the third place points, Alonso's norm and barely more than Vettel's. Two wins? A little below third place points.

Now, if you take a straight average of Alonso's points per race, including today's retirement, he'd end at 273. So, if Alonso repeats his first 12 average results over the last 8, Räikkönen would just edge him out by finishing second every single race. He'd need 18 points per race to beat Alonso in Alonso's form thus far, even with that retirement today. Which is likely impossible for anyone to do, and is ignoring where anyone else would fall into the picture, or the horrifying (from their perspective) thought of Alonso doing even better. Just shows you how damn good Alonso's been at scoring.

So does Räikkönen need to win a race?

Hell yeah he does, but not as much as he needs Alonso to not be as good as he has been and I guess that goes for anyone. His best case, of course, is both, and a really opportunistic one as far as the W goes.

Do I need a hobby?

Probably. I love numbers so much I once used tenth grade single-variable calculus to prove Nelson Piquet, Jr. was the best driver in NASCAR.

Have a good night/afternoon/morning. So glad we don't have to wait for the next one.

[Rainmaster 7]

I think you are referring to the bowling ball number Liuzzi did last year

I do agree with what you say. This is what I see:

- RG squeezes a competitor (happens all the time) Notice that I use the word "squeeze" and not "swerve". The move was not violent nor overtly aggressive.

- The two cars make contact (happens often)

- Cars go flying around and first corenr carnage ensues (happens sometimes, moe often at Spa than in some other venues, actually)

- The carnage this time is particularly dangerous and one driver is slightly injured (this does not happens often at all anymore, thanks George)

Then we have the explanation of the penalty: something like "severe breach of the regulations which could have caused severe injuries and blah blah"

2 points there: some fact invoked (the severe breach of the regulations part) and some possible consequences of such facts.

1) Facts: "severe breach"? Really? Squeezing another car is a severe breach then that should be punished harshly everytime. Yet not only that is rarely punished, there's an unwritten rule that says stewards don't even bother with investigating these first corner incidents anymore, of which 90% (the number comes right out from my Argentinian behind) are caused by some guy squeezing another car or worse. So the factical part is at least questionable.

2) The second part is already weakened because the "if" condition is weakly supported, but it goes further: it could have ended in severe injuries or death...errr...that's true for EVERY dangerous move in F1. Just yesterday I pointed at Hamilton avoiding Perez at the pit exit and almost collecting a marshall...what about that? A race ban for Lewis? For Perez? What about Alonso squeezing vettel at Monza last year? What about Vettel squeezing everybody and with less skill than Nando? What about Schumi, or Hamilton? And, of course, what about Maldonado?

I do think that Grosjean should have been somehow brought to attention at least for being a repeat offender. And also for being a liar "I did not watch the replay so I don't know what happened" Really? Because all the world saw you watching it on the pitwall!) He did not want to take responsiblity and he was at least negligent so yes, some sort of call for attention either by the FIA or his fellow drivers was in order. I just think that the ban distorts too much the scale of penalties and the message seems to be "you can be as stupid as you want but do not take out the main protagonists because that makes us lose TV rating".

On the matter of penalizations, I also agree, some of them should have been almost automatic (unsafe release from pits are very simple to see and to penalize as the jump start was). Others like Schumi's move I understand that take more time.

I'd say it could easily be described as a swerve, actually. A squeeze is to me more where a driver is alongside for a long time (which can be a matter of seconds, but speaking relatively) and gradually reduces another driver's room (see: Schumi v Barrichello Hungary or Alonso v Vettel Monza - which were both moves that were on the limit). Grosjean moved over extremely harshly and quickly, and was not alongside Ham for very long at all (about a second, I think) before he completely moved over on him. When a driver squeezes you you have a choice to back out of it, when a driver swerves at you you don't; which is why nobody faults Ham in this incident. I know the word "swerve" usually carries an aggressive connotation (like when Rosberg did it earlier this year on Alonso), and I know Grosjean was simply reckless in this case, not aggressive, but I still think it's a more accurate description with that point conceded.

Semantics aside, and FIA "reasoning" aside (they have always been so inconsistent in their punishments and their justifications don't always make sense, and I know they don't mention the "repeat offender" part which clearly had an influence) the penalty doesn't feel wrong to me. Reasoning and argument aside, for example, the Hamilton punishment after qualifying in Spain left a much bitter sporting taste in the mouth than this, imho. It doesn't feel to me like Grosjean is being victimised or treated unfairly, even if a ton of other similar incidents never got a similar response and even if Maldonado deserves something more by now and etc etc, just because of his previous form with these incidents. I can understand why some would consider it harsh though. I still think the best test of whether this is a harsh penalty will be Lotus team's reaction to it and Grosjean's, and so far their lack of comment gives me the impression they accept "this has been a long time coming and might do a world of good".

[Massa 0]

I still think the best test of whether this is a harsh penalty will be Lotus team's reaction to it and Grosjean's, and so far their lack of comment gives me the impression they accept "this has been a long time coming and might do a world of good".

Yeah, that. Not going to appeal it as far as I'm aware, so that says a lot, I think.

[f1bettings 0]

after the first lap the rest of the race became a little boring with Button coasting to an easy victory. At least the championship title is more competitive rather than Alonso winning again and perhaps making the title too difficult to achieve.

[dribbler 6]

Mouth wateringly unpredictable. As we have had a break and are past the halfway point, the outcome will surely be a good indication the remainder of the season.

Climbing off the fence, I think the following is entirely possible;

McLaren will be strong. Strong enough for the win at Spa. Despite all the hype surrounding Lotus, traditionally teams do not suddenly start winning just because eveyone says they will. They need an extra ingredient over and above everyone else. Even with the trick double DRS, my gut feel is that they will not be strong enough here, or anywhere else. A podium down to fith/sixth will be more like it. Personally though, I would like to see three degrees of mouth curl appear on Kimi's face if he can in fact win here.

Vettel will use his dogged determination to push McLaren hard for the win. A mistake by Hamilton or Button may just help him steal it.

Mercedes will not have made up ground. Sixth or seventh will be their lot. Michael will be stronger (just) than Nico.

Webber (who I saw at Car Fest South this weekend - a true petrol head!) will be okayish, but nothing special. Fourth/fifth place will leave him moody.

Can I gloat, please?

[Peeweev 0]

Semantics aside, and FIA "reasoning" aside (they have always been so inconsistent in their punishments and their justifications don't always make sense, and I know they don't mention the "repeat offender" part which clearly had an influence) the penalty doesn't feel wrong to me. Reasoning and argument aside, for example, the Hamilton punishment after qualifying in Spain left a much bitter sporting taste in the mouth than this, imho. It doesn't feel to me like Grosjean is being victimised or treated unfairly, even if a ton of other similar incidents never got a similar response and even if Maldonado deserves something more by now and etc etc, just because of his previous form with these incidents. I can understand why some would consider it harsh though. I still think the best test of whether this is a harsh penalty will be Lotus team's reaction to it and Grosjean's, and so far their lack of comment gives me the impression they accept "this has been a long time coming and might do a world of good".

I wouldnt argue that the ban is in itself unfair I think that the big issue is that the FIA are not being consistant at all. there are so many incidents that could have turned out in a simalar way but because this one did its a bigger slap on the wrist.

BTW this is one of the wonderful reason why F1 is soo great look at us all enjoying a good debate

To Dribbler:

Can I gloat, please?

No!

[dribbler 6]

To Dribbler:

No!

Ah, okay. Looks like I did it anyway.

(Please allow me the glory on this one. I normally get things correct about as much as Quiet One)

[JHS18 0]

1) Facts: "severe breach"? Really? Squeezing another car is a severe breach then that should be punished harshly everytime. Yet not only that is rarely punished, there's an unwritten rule that says stewards don't even bother with investigating these first corner incidents anymore, of which 90% (the number comes right out from my Argentinian behind) are caused by some guy squeezing another car or worse. So the factical part is at least questionable.

2) The second part is already weakened because the "if" condition is weakly supported, but it goes further: it could have ended in severe injuries or death...errr...that's true for EVERY dangerous move in F1. Just yesterday I pointed at Hamilton avoiding Perez at the pit exit and almost collecting a marshall...what about that? A race ban for Lewis? For Perez? What about Alonso squeezing vettel at Monza last year? What about Vettel squeezing everybody and with less skill than Nando? What about Schumi, or Hamilton? And, of course, what about Maldonado?

I agree with this, and also what peeweev was saying as well.

It is what I meant when I said this ruling potentially sets a precedent.

Yes, sure, don't crash into people at the start. But what about every other first corner crash in recent history, particularly aforementioned Liuzzi moment in Monza last year? How do you determine what a "serious breach" is, and therefore what warrants a ban and what doesn't? On how many championship contenders get taken out, and therefore the impact it could have on the championship for the rest of the year? If (god forbid) someone was actually injured, whether it is a driver, marshal or spectator?

As we've discussed already, you have to go back a long way to the time a driver was last banned, and it is not as if there hasn't been any serious incidents that DIDN'T warrant a ban. What about Hamilton hitting anything and everything that moved last year? What about Maldonado making deliberate contact with another driver TWICE in the space of two years? Heck, what about Schumacher's block move on Barrichello when he almost pushed him into the wall in Hungary '10? Do none of these warrant race bans?

Also remember the tragic Monza incident a number of years ago when there was a big pile up on the first lap and a marshal died from being hit by a flying wheel...yet again, no bans.

[pabloh20 1]

I think you are referring to the bowling ball number Liuzzi did last year

I do agree with what you say. This is what I see:

- RG squeezes a competitor (happens all the time) Notice that I use the word "squeeze" and not "swerve". The move was not violent nor overtly aggressive.

- The two cars make contact (happens often)

- Cars go flying around and first corenr carnage ensues (happens sometimes, moe often at Spa than in some other venues, actually)

- The carnage this time is particularly dangerous and one driver is slightly injured (this does not happens often at all anymore, thanks George)

Then we have the explanation of the penalty: something like "severe breach of the regulations which could have caused severe injuries and blah blah"

2 points there: some fact invoked (the severe breach of the regulations part) and some possible consequences of such facts.

1) Facts: "severe breach"? Really? Squeezing another car is a severe breach then that should be punished harshly everytime. Yet not only that is rarely punished, there's an unwritten rule that says stewards don't even bother with investigating these first corner incidents anymore, of which 90% (the number comes right out from my Argentinian behind) are caused by some guy squeezing another car or worse. So the factical part is at least questionable.

2) The second part is already weakened because the "if" condition is weakly supported, but it goes further: it could have ended in severe injuries or death...errr...that's true for EVERY dangerous move in F1. Just yesterday I pointed at Hamilton avoiding Perez at the pit exit and almost collecting a marshall...what about that? A race ban for Lewis? For Perez? What about Alonso squeezing vettel at Monza last year? What about Vettel squeezing everybody and with less skill than Nando? What about Schumi, or Hamilton? And, of course, what about Maldonado?

I do think that Grosjean should have been somehow brought to attention at least for being a repeat offender. And also for being a liar "I did not watch the replay so I don't know what happened" Really? Because all the world saw you watching it on the pitwall!) He did not want to take responsiblity and he was at least negligent so yes, some sort of call for attention either by the FIA or his fellow drivers was in order. I just think that the ban distorts too much the scale of penalties and the message seems to be "you can be as stupid as you want but do not take out the main protagonists because that makes us lose TV rating".

On the matter of penalizations, I also agree, some of them should have been almost automatic (unsafe release from pits are very simple to see and to penalize as the jump start was). Others like Schumi's move I understand that take more time.

Just throwing this one out there, but is it a possibility that because Grojy had so much space (comparatively) around him and had absolutely no need to go anywhere near Lewis a factor in the penalty? Not saying I agree with it, just wondering if this was a factor in the punishment.

You would like to think that it had nothing to do with championship protagonists, but then...................

[Quiet One 15]

Just throwing this one out there, but is it a possibility that because Grojy had so much space (comparatively) around him and had absolutely no need to go anywhere near Lewis a factor in the penalty? Not saying I agree with it, just wondering if this was a factor in the punishment.

You would like to think that it had nothing to do with championship protagonists, but then...................

Flying Frenchman bollocks!

Fact is, no one of us knows what was truly a factor in the punishment and that's my whole grudge against it. I do agree that some measure should be taken against the serial crashers (and this one almost kills my hero!), I do agree that the move was wrong, it's the fact that the punishment is ridiculously harsh in relation to the deed.

The result is that no one is really sure why he was given the worst penalty besides black flag and stripping of Super License a driver can get (the fact that tthis is the first race ban in 18 years is telling).

Would you (anybody) give a driver the worst penalty because he had too much space around? The only thing it proves is that this was definitely an "avoidable" crash. But besides making the decision for the stewards easier I can't see how can it turn a typical first corner pile-up into the worst breaching a driver made in the past two decades.

The risk is that everybody gets the message wrong. And the message in this case seems to be "Do whatever you want, but don't touch the title contenders" thus, creating some sort of "untouchable elite" in the series or "whatever you do, don't make something that looks horrible on TV". Because, apart from that, there is nothing more vicious or evil Grosjean has done here.

In the end its a good thing because it will surely make some guys stop behaving stupidly. One guy at some other website asked "when was the last time you saw Alonso, or Kimi, cause an avoidable accident or even be involved in one?" And it's a very valid question. RG or PM have already been involved this year in more tangles and crashes that Nando and kimi had been in their whole careers. But that should be handled without distorting the whole scale of penalizations.

You can brace yourself for a continuous requests for drivers ban from now on for every first corner incident...

[Massa 0]

The problem is that precedent isn't binding and precedent isn't always right. The notion that all rules must be administered the way they always have been, even though these are completely different people in charge, is just not right.

Precedent evolves and it really serves two purposes:

1. It sets interpretations of rules, but it does not set their punishments.

2. It allows us to go back and say "hey that didn't work" and fix it.

The latter part of 1 is relevant here, and so is 2. If the precedent is to not ban a driver for a similar incident, and they look back and say "wait a minute, this behavior has not been eliminated," what should they do? Continue futile punishments that have never resulted in any corrective measures? Or make the penalty stricter to better enforce the rule? It's the latter. That's how it evolves and you can argue it's too harsh, that's fine, but I don't feel as though you can use "historical precedent" as evidence unless you can prove that the way of enforcing these rules was always the right way (and good luck if you try to). It may look "unfair" to Romain that others did the same thing and didn't get this penalty, but how do you compare this to the past? This is new and enforcement evolves to stay effective. It wasn't effective in the past because these incidents still occur.

I think we should all be glad Grosjean got a one-race ban, actually. Look at how penalizing Maldonado has worked, both in junior series (I think he was banned from ever racing at Monaco again before that got overturned) and F1. He doesn't learn ever, and you know what, that sucks for all of us. It denies us of seeing someone who has a lot of talent in this field because he can't learn how to apply his talent. So we lose. Grosjean? I'm glad they gave him a harsh lesson because he has the potential to be good and if he can cut this **** out sooner rather than later, every fan of the sport gains from having another talented driver running the race, and not just the race to corner one.

As ever, just my two cents, which are worth a little bit more relative to your currency than they used to be (by your doing, not by ours) but still pretty worthless.

[pabloh20 1]

Flying Frenchman bollocks!

Fact is, no one of us knows what was truly a factor in the punishment and that's my whole grudge against it. I do agree that some measure should be taken against the serial crashers (and this one almost kills my hero!), I do agree that the move was wrong, it's the fact that the punishment is ridiculously harsh in relation to the deed.

The result is that no one is really sure why he was given the worst penalty besides black flag and stripping of Super License a driver can get (the fact that tthis is the first race ban in 18 years is telling).

Would you (anybody) give a driver the worst penalty because he had too much space around? The only thing it proves is that this was definitely an "avoidable" crash. But besides making the decision for the stewards easier I can't see how can it turn a typical first corner pile-up into the worst breaching a driver made in the past two decades.

The risk is that everybody gets the message wrong. And the message in this case seems to be "Do whatever you want, but don't touch the title contenders" thus, creating some sort of "untouchable elite" in the series or "whatever you do, don't make something that looks horrible on TV". Because, apart from that, there is nothing more vicious or evil Grosjean has done here.

In the end its a good thing because it will surely make some guys stop behaving stupidly. One guy at some other website asked "when was the last time you saw Alonso, or Kimi, cause an avoidable accident or even be involved in one?" And it's a very valid question. RG or PM have already been involved this year in more tangles and crashes that Nando and kimi had been in their whole careers. But that should be handled without distorting the whole scale of penalizations.

You can brace yourself for a continuous requests for drivers ban from now on for every first corner incident...

Holy ranting bollocks, baldy!!!!

I said 'a factor', not the be all and end all reason!

By the way, I don't believe it's the first time a penalty has been more harsh when involving a championship contender compared to any other time? I am sure there have been other instances. Other people with much better memories than me (which is not hard) will be able to confirm this one. Off the top of my head, I can think of Kubica punting Lewis in a wet race sometime.

However, no, I wouldn't have banned him for a race. Some sort of penalty, yes. Public humiliation possibly. Eyesight test may also be on the cards seems he hadn't seen the incident after 2 replays?

[Massa 0]

The result is that no one is really sure why he was given the worst penalty besides black flag and stripping of Super License a driver can get (the fact that tthis is the first race ban in 18 years is telling).

I'm the only person on the forum who doesn't see these "1 new reply" messages I've been told about so this slipped in there.

Do the FIA release a statement explaining things? Just curious. In ice hockey, their equivalent of Charlie Whiting makes a video every time he suspends a player, reviewing the video footage, explaining which rules it violates, and then explaining why the length of the suspension was chosen (usually things like past offender, bizarre judgments of "intent," playoff game or regular season, etc, etc). It doesn't make the officiating any better, and they've sort of become a running joke on NHL forums, but I was just wondering how transparent the FIA try to be with rulings like this.

[Quiet One 15]

Holy ranting bollocks, baldy!!!!

I said 'a factor', not the be all and end all reason!

By the way, I don't believe it's the first time a penalty has been more harsh when involving a championship contender compared to any other time? I am sure there have been other instances. Other people with much better memories than me (which is not hard) will be able to confirm this one. Off the top of my head, I can think of Kubica punting Lewis in a wet race sometime.

However, no, I wouldn't have banned him for a race. Some sort of penalty, yes. Public humiliation possibly. Eyesight test may also be on the cards seems he hadn't seen the incident after 2 replays?

I know!

I was just using my old trick "get some random post. Better if from some of the lowlier, less intelligent posters around and use it to start an entirely unrelated rant"

I hope you'll appreciate the honor.

[pabloh20 1]

I know!

I was just using my old trick "get some random post. Better if from some of the lowlier, less intelligent posters around and use it to start an entirely unrelated rant"

I hope you'll appreciate the honor.

Why thank you kind Sir

Your generosity is only exceeded by your most personal charm and beauty

[Peeweev 0]

For those that were asking/wondering here is a link to the offical f1 site with some quotes from the fia

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2012/9/13740.html

[AleHop 0]

Of course they have penalised Grosjean for going stupidly near Hamilton an touching him for no reason. Where have you heard that we are all equal, blah, blah, blah, bollocks? That action triggered it all and millions of Hamilton and Alonso fans switched off the TV. No good for Bernie's business, you know? Grosjean is lucky, would have been much worse in the Middle Ages. Just smiling all the time for no reason was a sign of evil enchantment. A race ban penalty for nobodies being involved in avoidable crashes once and again is fresh water for sport. More so if top level title contenders get involved in all that sh¡t. It was two birds with one shot so a single race ban was way too soft.

[dribbler 6]

If I may say so, there is a bit too much analysis here on the rights and wrongs of the penalty.

Motor racing is not an exact science. The variables which exist mean that seemingly incosistent penalties can be administered. But this is missing the whole point. A little like being punished as a child (if doen correctly), the intent behind it is to teach a lesson. The lesson to be learned here by Grosjean is to reel it in a little. To think about the consequences of his actions a little more. It has nothing to do with having taken out title contenders, that was an unfortunate coincidence.

Like Pastor Maldonado of late, Romain Grosjean has shown his wild streak can lead to unnecessary accidents.

He's had plenty of chances to demonstrate these incidents are just bad luck. But after Sunday, it's clear he is trying to do too much at the start and is lacking a little bit of sound judgement. I like the lad a lot and I think this will do him some good.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Can't say I can work myself up into a lather about this one.

I just felt sorry for Alonso who clearly (and not surprisingly) looked a little shocked. He was lucky as a few inches further over could have been very nasty....

Enjoyed the race. Good to see Button back on form.

[Massa 0]

For those that were asking/wondering here is a link to the offical f1 site with some quotes from the fia

http://www.formula1....12/9/13740.html

Thanks for that.

I really don't like the "it eliminated leading championship contenders from the race" part of the FIA's statement. Who it eliminated should be irrelevant. It's just as dangerous of a move if it takes Narain and Charles out.

Anyway, I agree with it, still, for all the reasons I've outlined about precedent and that. Plus, a one-race ban is less harsh in 2012 and than 1994. A lot more races so you're missing a smaller percentage of the season. Still harsh but warranted.

I think there's an element of feeling Grosjean will take this to heart and learn from it, whereas other drivers aren't worth the effort (Maldonado), because they've never improved.

So, a good enough call for me.

[Rainmaster 7]

I fully agree with Eric, and partly Steve (although I will analyse it more ).

I also agree with everything Gary Anderson says here http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/19465187

I think looking back and comparing penalties doesn't get you very far, everybody knows the FIA are inconsistent. That's not the argument or relevant as a defence to say "X person didn't get punished so why should Y". Forget the FIA, modern civilisations legal systems are inconsistent, administering punishments that everybody agrees about is really difficult to do. I don't think the FIA are perfect but I also think that they probably aren't as bad as we sometimes think. In any case I don't think citing the FIA's inconsistency and lack of transparency (something on which everyone agrees) gets us anywhere here.

I also think the only reason people think the ban is so terrible is because it has been used so little. I wonder if the fact it's been used so little might actually be a bad thing? Maybe it's about time and maybe it isn't the great sporting injustice some would have you believe. So Grosjean doesn't get to use his play set for a weekend? So what? And if he learns not to drive into other cars and respect other drivers, which might result in saving someone a serious injury or worse? I fail to see the issue with proportion. Other drivers health and safety (and that really is what we are ultimately talking about here) is greater than Grosjean's embarrassment at being forced to take a weekend out, sorry.

Point is Grosjean getting banned isn't going to end his career; it could be the best thing for it if he takes it the right way. How else will he learn? He wasn't too keen on Jackie Stewart giving him advice, and teams are not necessarily the best at disciplining their drivers these days. The FIA has to be the one to send a message. Some people think that message is "don't hit a title contender", others think it's "don't even try to make places at the start". I think it's the very basic "respect other drivers" and will not even affect 95% of the grid (Kimi and Alonso are such good examples of drivers who almost always show respect and avoid incidents no matter what, btw). But it might wake up a couple of drivers, and drivers coming into F1. Time will tell, but I don't expect drivers to suddenly become timid at the start of GP's or for everybody to call for bans when there's an incident. Grosjean and Maldonado are unique cases and I think that's easy enough to recognise for everybody.

Apparently the other drivers also support the decision, which would be unlikely if it truly was unfair or would have an affect on them and the way they drove. If that was the case you would get quotes like "how are we supposed to race" - none of which you will find here or I'd wager, anywhere else http://www.jamesalle...ng-say-drivers/

[Insider 0]

Button had a perfect weekend basically and he's untouchable when that happens, irrespective of the fact he didn't have Nando or Hamilton to put up with. Grosjean was moronic in the extreme and could quite easily have killed someone. The ban isn't harsh as such, just inconsistent with what has gone before. Mad Donald will never learn I fear whereas, as my learned friend Massa feels, RG will. I hope so.