FIA stewards showing their stupidity again.

[Garry Walker]

What the hell was it with that penalty for Webber? Completely idiotic.
People complain there is no racing and when someones is trying to race hard and defend his position, the fool stewards give a penalty for a non-issue.

It is a shame the stewards are people with no racing or sports experience, but rather some overweight jerks who take enjoyment in ruining races for true racefans.

[wedge]

Just like football referees (eg. headers and raised elbows).

The stewards read the letter of the law without understanding competition in the heat of the battle. :down:

[Garry Walker]

Just like football referees (eg. headers and raised elbows).

The stewards read the letter of the law without understanding competition in the heat of the battle. :down:

The stewards are fat jerks. They have no racing experience, no experience of competition other than comparing which of them has the bigger beer gut.

[ShiftingGears]

Poor decision by the stewards. The Sutil/Raikkonen incident was a lot like Bourdais/Massa at Fuji last year, I was surprised they didn't hand out a stupid penalty there too.

[AndyL]

Perhaps we should have a poll:

a) Mark Webber is a dangerous psychopath who didn't deserve to win
or
b) The stewards are idiots who can't tell their arses from their elbows

Personally I'd go for (c) Webber made a hard move on Barrichello, marginal whether it deserved a penalty, I'd have said no but the stewards decided yes on this occasion.

[VkmSpouge]

It was overly aggressive by Mark Webber but not worthy of a penalty, the FIA shouldn't have punished Webber.

[Hawkmoon]

I think the penalty was justified. Webber ran into Barrichello. If memory serves Webber had already moved to the right and then made another move and hit the Brawn. Hamilton was penalised for less at Fuji (I think) last season.

I don't know why they investigated the Raikkonen/Sutil incident. That was nothing more than a racing incident. What Webber did was completely avoidable.

[Garry Walker]

I think the penalty was justified. Webber ran into Barrichello.

How dare he try to protect his position.

[ioan]

Just like football referees (eg. headers and raised elbows).

The stewards read the letter of the law without understanding competition in the heat of the battle. :down:

The rules are there to be enforced not to be interpreted in order to please one fan or another.

He did something stupid and he paid for it, and in the end he won the race anyway. I don't see anything to be unhappy with.

Sore fans of a winner driver?! :rolleyes:

[cynisca]

What the hell was it with that penalty for Webber? Completely idiotic.
People complain there is no racing and when someones is trying to race hard and defend his position, the fool stewards give a penalty for a non-issue.

It is a shame the stewards are people with no racing or sports experience, but rather some overweight jerks who take enjoyment in ruining races for true racefans.

Amen! You words in the steward's ears. :p


Just like football referees (eg. headers and raised elbows).

The stewards read the letter of the law without understanding competition in the heat of the battle. :down:

So true. That's a normal move by a player who just wants to do the header but if you are not blow a whistle, the player does a revenge foul and is moaning. I don't know the footballers in UK but it is in Germany at least. :rolleyes:
Sorry, I know that's off topic. :p :

[ioan]

How dare he try to protect his position.

It wasn't about protecting the position it was about being careless, IMO.

[ioan]

Perhaps we should have a poll:

a) Mark Webber is a dangerous psychopath who didn't deserve to win
or
b) The stewards are idiots who can't tell their arses from their elbows

Personally I'd go for (c) Webber made a hard move on Barrichello, marginal whether it deserved a penalty, I'd have said no but the stewards decided yes on this occasion.

d) Mark Webber made a careless move while racing at 300 km/h.

BTW the first two choice are complete BS.

[Hawkmoon]

How dare he try to protect his position.

Surely running into another car is more than just defending a position. Particularly off the start. The Stewards got this one right in my opinion.

[rah]

Good decision by the stewards. Webber made a silly move and got called on it. He deserved the win, but he deserved the penalty.

[wedge]

The rules are there to be enforced not to be interpreted in order to please one fan or another.

He did something stupid and he paid for it, and in the end he won the race anyway. I don't see anything to be unhappy with.

Sore fans of a winner driver?! :rolleyes:

No, because by that logic Gilles Villeneuve was a dirty driver and should've been penalised in Dijon 1979.

Ant was bashed out of the race by Fisi in Hungary 2007 and Fisi wasn't penalised. Arguably another example of inconsistancy by the stewards.

[Dave B]

Webber did what Schuey got away with several dozen times, and what Lewis and others have done ever since. Harsh and undeserved penalty but luckily no harm done.

[Hawkmoon]

Webber did what Schuey got away with several dozen times, and what Lewis and others have done ever since. Harsh and undeserved penalty but luckily no harm done.

I think it only seemed harsh because Barrichello didn't end up off the circuit. If the Brawn ends up in the wall this forum would be up in arms.

Incidentily, what did Barrichello have to say about it?

[Ranger]

French Grand Prix, 1979.

If you believe Webber was fairly penalised, then you believe Messrs Arnoux and Villeneuve should be maimed, tortured, hung, shot and blown up.

[ShiftingGears]

Incidentily, what did Barrichello have to say about it?

I am guessing he would be a bit too busy bemoaning team orders at the moment.

[christophulus]

It could have been a disaster if they were a few meters closer to the wall, but they weren't. Webber just drifted over to the right of the track, no swerving, so maybe it was clumsy rather than dangerous.

On the other hand, is this the first penalty in F1 history that hasn't made any difference to the race result?? :p

[Wasted Talent]

I think the penalty was justified. Webber ran into Barrichello. If memory serves Webber had already moved to the right and then made another move and hit the Brawn. Hamilton was penalised for less at Fuji (I think) last season.

I don't know why they investigated the Raikkonen/Sutil incident. That was nothing more than a racing incident. What Webber did was completely avoidable.

Spot on

WT

[Ranger]

It could have been a disaster if they were a few meters closer to the wall, but they weren't. Webber just drifted over to the right of the track, no swerving, so maybe it was clumsy rather than dangerous.

On the other hand, is this the first penalty in F1 history that hasn't made any difference to the race result?? :p

Nah, Schumacher got a drive through at France 2002 and a stop/go in Canada 1998 and won both times.

[ioan]

No, because by that logic Gilles Villeneuve was a dirty driver and should've been penalised in Dijon 1979.

Because the same rules were in place 30 years ago?!
Really man, what's wrong with you today?

[Oli_M]

I agree it was a stupid penalty.... Webber didn't cause any damage to Barrichello, didn't cause any follow-up accident behind, and lost out on a place. He lost out on the track, and then AGAIN with a penalty.

Kinda says it all when both Brundle and DC said they couldn't understand the penalty. Then rubs further salt into the wound when a later incident between two drivers causes damage to one, yet no penalty (as yet) is given.

Hopefully new FIA = new stewards. But I doubt it.

[Garry Walker]

Because the same rules were in place 30 years ago?!
Really man, what's wrong with you today?

Then it is obvious the rules need to be changed ASAP

[ioan]

It could have been a disaster if they were a few meters closer to the wall, but they weren't. Webber just drifted over to the right of the track, no swerving, so maybe it was clumsy rather than dangerous.

1. He has the right to one move to defend his position. He did several!
2. He hit a car as a consequence.

That's 2 infringements at once.
He should be happy he didn't get a 10 seconds stop and go penalty.

[ioan]

Then it is obvious the rules need to be changed ASAP

That might be the case, but for now everyone needs to play by the rules.

[ioan]

I agree it was a stupid penalty.... Webber didn't cause any damage to Barrichello, didn't cause any follow-up accident behind, and lost out on a place. He lost out on the track, and then AGAIN with a penalty.

He broke the rules, that's why he got a penalty.

Try to go out on the street with a gun and rob someone, than give them back their money, do you think you will be absolved if the Police catches you? :rolleyes:

Or even easier just go and run over a red light without killing anyone and without provoking an accident, if the police sees you you'll lose your driving license even if there was no accident.

I have the impression people don't understand why there are rules in this world and why these are enforced.

[Hawkmoon]

French Grand Prix, 1979.

If you believe Webber was fairly penalised, then you believe Messrs Arnoux and Villeneuve should be maimed, tortured, hung, shot and blown up.

Different area, different circumstances. I don't think Dijon '79 can be used as an example of why drivers hitting each other is OK. That was 30 years ago. If we're going for the history books was Webber's move any different from those of Suzuka '89 or '90 or even Jerez '97?


It could have been a disaster if they were a few meters closer to the wall, but they weren't. Webber just drifted over to the right of the track, no swerving, so maybe it was clumsy rather than dangerous.

On the other hand, is this the first penalty in F1 history that hasn't made any difference to the race result?? :p

Webber most definently swerved into Barrichello. He turned right off the line to try and cover the Brawn after he was a little slow to get away and then turned sharply right a second time and hit the Brawn.

[Ranger]

If we're going for the history books was Webber's move any different from those of Suzuka '89 or '90 or even Jerez '97?

Because racing and driving with the intent to eliminate a rival are verrrrryy different things.

Even then, Suzuka 1990 was unpunished. Appallingly.

[Garry Walker]

Even then, Suzuka 1990 was unpunished. Appallingly.

Prost shouldnt have braketested Senna.

[AndyRAC]

Slightly different, but if we had those stewards in the BTCC there would be a road-block in the pitlane penalty box........

[ioan]

Because racing and driving with the intent to eliminate a rival are verrrrryy different things.

Even then, Suzuka 1990 was unpunished. Appallingly.

Maybe if I repeat it enough you might realize that the rules were not yet in place back than?

Being penalized is about breaking the rules not about the color of the car or nationality of the driver.

[Hawkmoon]

Because racing and driving with the intent to eliminate a rival are verrrrryy different things.

Even then, Suzuka 1990 was unpunished. Appallingly.

True, but racing carelessly shouldn't be condoned either. Webber was either overly aggressive or careless. Either way a drive through was appropriate in my opinion.

[Ranger]

True, but racing carelessly shouldn't be condoned either. Webber was either overly aggressive or careless. Either way a drive through was appropriate in my opinion.

Aggressive driving shouldn't be punished, careless driving should IMO.

That's why that penalty was marginal for me... was it overly aggressive or careless? Barrichello did have room to move.

Consistency is also an issue. Nakajima punted Kubica out of the race from behind the SC in Australia last year and was unpunished.

In any case, both cars continued undamaged and we got a great race, fortunately.

[ioan]

He either did it on purpose and than the penalty is for dangerous driving.
Or he didn't do it on purpose and than the penalty is for careless driving.
And he also broke the rule on the one move alowed to defend the position.

Pick your choice!

PS: He deserved the win and won, why can't you guys just accept he made a stupid move at the start of the race?
He's just a human being and he makes mistakes like everyone.

[Ranger]

He either did it on purpose and than the penalty is for dangerous driving.
Or he didn't do it on purpose and than the penalty is for careless driving.
And he also broke the rule on the one move alowed to defend the position.

Pick your choice!

PS: He deserved the win and won, why can't you guys just accept he made a stupid move at the start of the race?
He's just a human being and he makes mistakes like everyone.

OK, I agree with you... but only so I can retire to sleep! :D :p :

[Daniel]

I think the penalty was justified. Webber ran into Barrichello.

Couldn't agree more.


How dare he try to protect his position.

Sorry I ran him off the road, I was only trying to protect my position. What a lame excuse for what was just deliberately dangerous driving.

If someone moves across at you on the race track you can either be chicken**** and move which is exactly what they want you to do or you can rightfully stand your ground and let the other guy take the penalty

[Daniel]

I agree it was a stupid penalty.... Webber didn't cause any damage to Barrichello, didn't cause any follow-up accident behind, and lost out on a place. He lost out on the track, and then AGAIN with a penalty.

Kinda says it all when both Brundle and DC said they couldn't understand the penalty. Then rubs further salt into the wound when a later incident between two drivers causes damage to one, yet no penalty (as yet) is given.

Hopefully new FIA = new stewards. But I doubt it.

This is such a silly idea. So if I go out with a gun and unload a few magazines in a crowded shop and kill someone it's a crime (der!) yet if I walk in and do the same thing but miss and no one's hurt it's OK? The damage is irrelevant, the fact that he chopped Rubens and colided with him is what is relevant here.


Webber did what Schuey got away with several dozen times, and what Lewis and others have done ever since. Harsh and undeserved penalty but luckily no harm done.

The difference is Lewis never got away with actually hitting someone like that. I'm the first person to criticise Lewis for being agressive but if he makes a move and someone is too chicken**** to stand their ground and they move then I don't see a problem.

[christophulus]

Webber most definently swerved into Barrichello. He turned right off the line to try and cover the Brawn after he was a little slow to get away and then turned sharply right a second time and hit the Brawn.

To me it looked like one move, plus it wasn't in the braking area and Barrichello had ample time to avoid him. And as many have said, other drivers have done the same before, often swerving more dramatically, and got no penalty - Hamilton and Schumacher (gasp!) being the main culprits.

On the plus side, the FIA stewards do have some brains and haven't penalised Sutil or Raikkonen, quite rightly.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/12/sutil-and-raikkonen-go-unpunished-after-another-clash-costs-force-india-a-point/

[pino]

The penalty was a joke, with such incompetent and stupid stewards we would've missed so many great fights e.g. Mansell vs Prost in the past, shame on them. This has to stop now ! :mad:

[Bradley]

No, because by that logic Gilles Villeneuve was a dirty driver and should've been penalised in Dijon 1979.


French Grand Prix, 1979.
If you believe Webber was fairly penalised, then you believe Messrs Arnoux and Villeneuve should be maimed, tortured, hung, shot and blown up.

That's not honest to compare this with that great moment !

I just rewatched the video :

They touched wheels in the last lap, in the left corner where Villeneuve had to go wide just before he regained his second position and kept it.
But that was in a corner, and it looks more like they were both all over the place in search of control.

Webbers move was pure intimidation. The penalty is defendable, however I'm happy it did not change the result.

[Robinho]

at first i thought is was an overly harsh penalty, then when i saw it again a few times, especially from in Ruben car it looked worse, and although the penalty was undeniably harsh, it wasn't entirely unjustified.

however most oft he comments before me have compleetly missed the point, Webber was not being aggresive, nor was he defending his position, he said himself, he had "lost" Rubens, and drifted into him, not realising he was there.

not deliberate, but could have ended up in a massive accident if they had locked wheels, and most definately careless. It wasn't '79, with 2 guys passing and repassing and defending, it was a dangerous, albeit, accidental move. i maintain that Webber's penalty was harsh, but not entirely unjustified, and in the end the right result rmeinaed as he didn't take anyone out and was able to race to the win anyway

[BeansBeansBeans]

I've seen penalites given for less, and I've seen people get away with more. It's just one of those things. Happily, Webber won regardless.

[markabilly]

People who want to see more passing, need to be quiet and stop whining, and that includes you, pino.

In the good days, when things were far more dangerous, a little chop like that, and people died.

now all chopping does, is to take the almost impossible passing opportunities, and eliminate them

and for those who want to be pointing to GV and that race, take a good look again, there was no chopping each other right off the road and only slightly incidental contact

eliminate pit stops, and there will be no passing in F1

if webber had lost the win for his chop, then he would have deserved the loss--does not matter that I have seen far worse and more dangerous stupidity this season than that stuff which went unpenalized, but I have seen penalties for lesser (like spa when it rained---yeah I know, but it was not dry, and if it had been dry, that would have been differnt, but it was RAINING!!)

[Ranger]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76937

No action on Raikkonen/Sutil incident.

[CNR]

That might be the case, but for now everyone needs to play by the rules.

mark said he did not see him in the mirror so it may be time they introduce rearview cameras

http://www.motorauthority.com/content/images/s/e/seb_vettel_rbr_rb5_main_630-0624.jpg
the way the mirror is facing you would have a hard time seeing anything be hine the back wheel

[markabilly]

mark said he did not see him in the mirror so it may be time they introduce rearview cameras

http://www.motorauthority.com/content/images/s/e/seb_vettel_rbr_rb5_main_630-0624.jpg


Actually given how low they sit and the stuff up in front (take a good look at those pods), I think they may need cameras forward facing so they can see where they are going...

[ioan]

mark said he did not see him in the mirror so it may be time they introduce rearview cameras

http://www.motorauthority.com/content/images/s/e/seb_vettel_rbr_rb5_main_630-0624.jpg
the way the mirror is facing you would have a hard time seeing anything be hine the back wheel

It's obvious he couldn't see him in the rear view mirrors because he was alongside him!

Than Mark also said he thought Rubens was on the other side! Try understanding that! :laugh:

[wedge]

It's obvious he couldn't see him in the rear view mirrors because he was alongside him!

Than Mark also said he thought Rubens was on the other side! Try understanding that! :laugh:

Ever heard of blindspot?

[wedge]

and for those who want to be pointing to GV and that race, take a good look again, there was no chopping each other right off the road and only slightly incidental contact

Rubens and Webber both managed to finish the race with no serious damage to either car or driver.

[ClarkFan]

I think the penalty was justified. Webber ran into Barrichello. If memory serves Webber had already moved to the right and then made another move and hit the Brawn. Hamilton was penalised for less at Fuji (I think) last season.

I agree. It wasn't a "my line, your line" dispute through a corner (which is what Arnoux and Villeneuve were doing in 1979). Webber went off his line to hit Rubens in the run to the first corner after the start. That fits pretty clearly in the "stupid and dangerous" category and is not the first time he has done something like that.

ClarkFan

[Valve Bounce]

The penalty was a joke, with such incompetent and stupid stewards we would've missed so many great fights e.g. Mansell vs Prost in the past, shame on them. This has to stop now ! :mad:

This is your big chance pino: ban them

[Valve Bounce]

That's not honest to compare this with that great moment !

I just rewatched the video :

They touched wheels in the last lap, in the left corner where Villeneuve had to go wide just before he regained his second position and kept it.
But that was in a corner, and it looks more like they were both all over the place in search of control.

Webbers move was pure intimidation. The penalty is defendable, however I'm happy it did not change the result.

Are you kidding? they were banging wheels all round the course. That's what made that race finish so memorable. And they were both sheepish after the event.

[leopard]

That penalty was a bit harsh. If I were Mark, quite happy without having to be bothered by it. The result was in balance with the efforts and costs of the penalty.

[wmcot]

It's funny that many of those who support Webber's move as "racing" are the same ones who would come unglued when Schumacher "chopped" an opponent at the start (without actually hitting them, mind you!)

Webber deserved the win and the penalty. His race would have been totally flawless if not for the startline incident. He might have ended his race right there and would still be looking for his first win.

As for comparison to Dijon '79, in those days, cars didn't fall apart at the slightest bump. If you watch carefully, Villeneuve and Arnoux are racing, not trying to take each other out - big difference from Webber's move.

Still, congratulations on your first win, Mark!

[ArrowsFA1]

1. He has the right to one move to defend his position. He did several!
2. He hit a car as a consequence.

That's 2 infringements at once.
Watching Webber's in-car view it's hard to see him make any kind of move. Perhaps he was defensively drifting across to the right but I didn't see any swerve, or deliberate block.

I think the contact with the Brawn surprised Mark and what appears to be a swerve is his reaction to the contact, not any intent to hit Barrichello.

The issue of the drivers not being able to see much around them was highlighted last year, and I think the high cockpit sides are a factor in these kind of incidents.

Fortunately, in this case, the stewards didn't affect the outcome of the race in this case. Still, nice to see them back. They've been very quiet recently :p

[ioan]

Ever heard of blindspot?

Maybe blind man is more appropriate. The other car was alongside him, he should have seen the BrawnGP car's left front wheel without any problems as it was not in his blind spot at all.

[ioan]

It's funny that many of those who support Webber's move as "racing" are the same ones who would come unglued when Schumacher "chopped" an opponent at the start (without actually hitting them, mind you!)

:up: Well spotted! ;)

[Ari]

The rules are there to be enforced not to be interpreted in order to please one fan or another.

He did something stupid and he paid for it, and in the end he won the race anyway. I don't see anything to be unhappy with.

Sore fans of a winner driver?! :rolleyes:

I agree.

At first I was obviously livid with the penalty but after seeing the replay during the race I understood why they handed it out.

You just can't do that, certainly not into the first corner.

I would hope though that the penalty was touch n go and not clearcut.

[tmx]

Yes I think it was justified. If someone ram into me in real life on purpose I would hope the person get locked up.

[Sonic]

I'm a bit late to the table but my 2 pennies worth is simple; F1 is a non contact sport. Webs made contact by steering directly towards another car. Punishment deserved. Simples.

[Saint Devote]

What the hell was it with that penalty for Webber? Completely idiotic.
People complain there is no racing and when someones is trying to race hard and defend his position, the fool stewards give a penalty for a non-issue.

It is a shame the stewards are people with no racing or sports experience, but rather some overweight jerks who take enjoyment in ruining races for true racefans.

Actually the stewards in countries like Germany tend to be people that have raced, are well known drivers and are fully aware of conditions at the Nurburgring.

You can blame drivers like Schumacher and Senna for the level of intervention.

Secondly, given the safety and strength of the cars drivers are more likely to
be less safety conscious.

Did Mark Webber deliberately hit Rubens?
It is unusual for a driver of Webber's experience to be unware of cars around him - especially at the start.

No, its not Mark's style, but Sunday was not a usual day.

[wedge]

It's funny that many of those who support Webber's move as "racing" are the same ones who would come unglued when Schumacher "chopped" an opponent at the start (without actually hitting them, mind you!)

Schumi is one of my all time heroes. From Mansell to Dale Earnhardt Sr. They were hard racers because they weren't pussycats.

[555-04Q2]

I think the penalty was justified. Webber ran into Barrichello. If memory serves Webber had already moved to the right and then made another move and hit the Brawn. Hamilton was penalised for less at Fuji (I think) last season.

I don't know why they investigated the Raikkonen/Sutil incident. That was nothing more than a racing incident. What Webber did was completely avoidable.

I agree. The likes of Senna and Schumacher were crucified for intentionally raming people, so why not crucify Webber to? Luckily, neither landed up in a barrier, but still a very dangerous move.

Cant detract from the fact that Webber had a great race though :up:

[BeansBeansBeans]

It may have been a harsh decision, but it wasn't stupid or ridiculous. It certainly didn't call for the sort of abuse dished out by the OP and others.

[ioan]

The Penalty was abit harsh, and certainly contradicts the need for more overtaking set by the FIA. If this is the punishment for an overtake gone wrong, then drivers will be less willing to take the risk...

It looked like he was being overtaken to me, so your point is moot.

[Bagwan]

Err no.....

Anyway I very much doubt Webber intentionally rammed Ruben's seeing as it was his first pole position, and he had every intention of finishing the race..

It was purely a mistake on Webber's part and he wasn't going to risk taking himself out of the race before the first corner... IMO

Not a punishable racing incident IMO, however had Rubens crashed as a result, then there would be a case. As nothing came of it, nothing should have been done seeing as it wasn't malicious....

I'm afraid I can't agree with that , my friend .
Mark made a move that made everyone "take notice" .
Rubens didn't move towards Mark .
They touched .
Being that Rubens was fully along side , Mark should have known he was there . If he didn't , but knew he was back there somewhere , he was making that move that made us all "take notice" , into pretty un-known territory .

Being a racer for many years , he made that jerk to the right(no , not Rubens) , knowing it was the preferred line . Thus , he would have known that it would be Rubens preferred line as well , and the most likely place to see him emerge .

Mark's intent is what must be questioned here , and the most plausable explanation to a jerk of the wheel such as what we saw , I think , is one of trying to intimidate the driver trying to pass , out of the move to the inside .

But , as Rubens was well past that decision already when Mark made his move , it came off rather feeble .

It was a very dangerous move , and one done "blind" , if we believe Mark , and I think we should .
I hope that Mark learns from this .

I am very impressed , though , at his composure in the car after the incident .

[ioan]

Err no.....

Err yes! :D

What Webber did is try to intimidate a fellow racer who was willing to have a go at overtaking him, and the stewards punishing him means that people will know in the future that it's OK to try to overtake while it's not OK to be driven into while overtaking!

How did, in your opinion, Marks move help with making overtaking moves more popular is a bit much for my logic.

[Sonic]

Err yes! :D

What Webber did is try to intimidate a fellow racer who was willing to have a go at overtaking him, and the stewards punishing him means that people will know in the future that it's OK to try to overtake while it's not OK to be driven into while overtaking!

How did, in your opinion, Marks move help with making overtaking moves more popular is a bit much for my logic.

Here, here.

There is a HUGE difference between drifting over to protect your line, limit the other guys space and reduce the chance of being overtaken, and jerking violently towards another vehicle which could/will result in;

a) a collision - perhaps with interlocking wheels :eek: :eek:

b) the other driver having to violently swerve to avoid said collision. Possibly straight into the path of another car.

Mark's a big lad - and knowing him he probably knows he's been a bit of a berk, called himself a dozy bast@rd, taken a fair bit of stick from his mechanics and learnt a hell of a lot from it about how to conduct hmself in those huge pressure moments.

[leopard]

There were two collisions in the last week race, another one was in the pit exit. Webber was not in an easy position to avoid that collision and hence justifiable, not sure the another one...

[stevie_gerrard]

I do think it was slightly harsh, but in the end, we have to remember the penalty didn't really matter. Martk still won the race and deservedly so :)

[Hawkmoon]

Take a look at what Massa did to keep Vettel behind him early in the race. Massa moved steadily to his right forcing Vettel to cut across the chicane in an aborted passing attempt. A perfectly good defence.

I think that's what Webber was doing to Barrichello but he moved to his right much harder. Barrichello wasn't intimidated and they hit. I think that's where Webber crossed the line. A move to protect your line is one thing but a sudden jerk on the wheel is quite another.

[Tazio]

On the lighter side, I have to chuckle a little.
Here's mark who has never in his career been the first one around turn one at the start of an F1 race.
And he's so close.
Here comes Rubens just kinda sliding up the inside.
I think Marks determination got the better of him in that situation. In the end not a determining factor.
I think Mark went slightly troppo on RB. But nothing like he did after the checkered flag. :p :

[Sonic]

Take a look at what Massa did to keep Vettel behind him early in the race. Massa moved steadily to his right forcing Vettel to cut across the chicane in an aborted passing attempt. A perfectly good defence.

I think that's what Webber was doing to Barrichello but he moved to his right much harder. Barrichello wasn't intimidated and they hit. I think that's where Webber crossed the line. A move to protect your line is one thing but a sudden jerk on the wheel is quite another.

Snap :p :

[Daniel]

Take a look at what Massa did to keep Vettel behind him early in the race. Massa moved steadily to his right forcing Vettel to cut across the chicane in an aborted passing attempt. A perfectly good defence.

I think that's what Webber was doing to Barrichello but he moved to his right much harder. Barrichello wasn't intimidated and they hit. I think that's where Webber crossed the line. A move to protect your line is one thing but a sudden jerk on the wheel is quite another.

I preferred my chicken**** explanation :p Massa's defence showed exactly how it's done. You put the car in the position where he has to hit you or pull out of the move, not hit someone as Webber did.

[jens]

I think Webber's move was too harsh - he and Rubens were basically side-by-side, when MW rammed into the side of RB's car. Thankfully it didn't hamper either's progress. I remember Schumacher having risky start tactics, but he was never that rude!

[CNR]

mark said he did not see him in the mirror so it may be time they introduce rearview cameras

http://www.motorauthority.com/content/images/s/e/seb_vettel_rbr_rb5_main_630-0624.jpg
the way the mirror is facing you would have a hard time seeing anything be hine the back wheel

onboard shot from the redbull

[CNR]

after watching this in slow mo it may be a case of of the wrong car in the mirror