The Official 2009 Australian GP Thread *spoilers*

Just on a purely technical point: Trulli's 25-second time penalty (in lieu of a drive-through) has been rescinded, because it was unfair. But at Spa last year, the FIA decided that Hamilton's 25-second penalty (in lieu of a drive-through) couldn't be rescinded, so it was irrelevant whether it was fair or not.

How does that work?!

Rubidius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just on a purely technical point: Trulli's
> 25-second time penalty (in lieu of a
> drive-through) has been rescinded, because it was
> unfair. But at Spa last year, the FIA decided that
> Hamilton's 25-second penalty (in lieu of a
> drive-through) couldn't be rescinded, so it was
> irrelevant whether it was fair or not.
>
> How does that work?!


the issue there was that the appeal was not admissable.

that may be why toyota didn't appeal trullis penalty?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2009 05:22PM by marwood82.

to be honest Spa last year is partly responsable for this.

everyone is now so paranoid about getting penalties for overtaking.

lewis overtook trulli and then panicked.(hence he asked the team for guidance)

given the radio transcripts you can see why the FIA have given the verdict they have and its hard to argue.

i would however like to think it was simply a mistake on Lewis and Ryans part rather than a deliberate attempt to mis-lead the stewards as they both must have known the radio transmissions would have found them out.

either way, we've ended up in a mess surrounding overtaking penalties yet again!
FFS we've got more than enough cameras now to review these incidents as they happen. We need some sort of race 'referee' who the teams can talk to and who can give a decision on the spot and his decsion (right or wrong) is final.

that way everyone knows where they stand and situations like this stop happening!

Marwood - I agree with you. But surely the Spa ruling last year means that a post-race penalty, if it's given in place of a drive-through, can't be overturned at all?

If it can be overturned, then the FIA should have been prepared to consider whether the Spa penalty was fair or not. They refused to even consider the point, because it was a "drive-through", and they therefore said it was beyond their power to overturn it, whether or not it was justified.

McLaren may perhaps be in the wrong here, but I don't see how the rules on penalties can suddenly be different now from how they were in Spa last year ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2009 05:33PM by Rubidius.

Rubidius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marwood - I agree with you. But surely the Spa
> ruling last year means that a post-race penalty,
> if it's given in place of a drive-through, can't
> be overturned at all?
>
> If it can be overturned, then the FIA should have
> been prepared to consider whether the Spa penalty
> was fair or not. They refused to even consider the
> point, because it was a "drive-through", and they
> therefore said it was beyond their power to
> overturn it, whether or not it was justified.
>
> McLaren may perhaps be in the wrong here, but I
> don't see how the rules on penalties can suddenly
> be different now from how they were in Spa last
> year ...

i see what your saying.

I think the specifics of the Spa case were,

that you cannot appeal a drive through penalty. if there is no time to give the drive through then the time is added on afterwards. but even though the time was added on at the end, it is still treated as if the driver has still taken a drive through penalty. (to me thats why toyota let it drop)

however what the FIA can then subsiquently do themselves, i don't know? maybe some can shed a little light on this? (also i don't know how this 'new info' was brought to light)

I guess if it became public knowleged that they had acted on incrorrect info and they did nothing then they'd be getting even more sh*t?


the bit i don't get is why lie?. they hadn't done anything wrong. the race finished behind the safety car, they'd got no advice from race control and so taken the cautious option of giving the place back and then asked for clarification? why wouldn't they then be awarded 3rd? (i guess based on some of the other penalites dished out they feared the apparent ineptness of the melbourne stewards)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2009 05:54PM by marwood82.

Toyota didn't appeal the penalty because Spa 08 established that the kind of penalty issued here is not appealable. However, this penalty hasn't been so much removed as annulled - had McLaren not lied, it wouldn't have been issued in the first place.

---

But this wasn't an appeal from Toyota. To the best of my understanding, The case was 're-opened' with new evidence, just like a court case, i suppose. However, should Toyota have supplied this information, which it seems likely they did, then it becomes quite unclear, as they are providing evidence for an appeal, which they subsequently dropped - probably with the knowledge that the FIA could keep the investigation going.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Actually as the FIA explained, f.e the Liuzzi Fuji drive trough 2007 penalty appeal was admissable cause no party involved raised its inadmissability.
So as long as noone raises the inadmissability - it's admissable.

---

GPGSL career;
Current team: Team ShadowSubaru, Previous teams: MPR, Minardi
starts:100 Wins: 12, Podiums: 34, Fastest Laps: 14, poles: 12 Points: 708
winner of Belgian GP (s1), Australian GP (s1), Canadian GP (S1), Brazilian GP(s4, s5), Hungarian GP(s3), Italian GP(s3), French GP (s5,s7), Monaco GP (s4) and USA GP



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2009 05:56PM by BAR#10.

BAR#10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually as the FIA explained, f.e the Liuzzi Fuji
> drive trough 2007 penalty appeal was admissable
> cause no party involved raised its
> inadmissability.
> So as long as noone raises the inadmissability -
> it's admissable.

that explains it then.

still it seems a bit stupid. surely something is either admissable or not? regardless of whether or not anyone complains?

Whats done is done, and its good that the FIA stewards have published a full explanation of there decision. I do however feel that they could of done gone about it better.

I'm still waiting for there explanation of the Vettle penalty (before they re-opened the case) I suspect it was bernie that has made them reconsider, as SV an RK were fighting for those extra points (you know the fighting for points that bernie doesn't thinks happen under the current rules)
i can just imagine what the talking point would of been had bernie got his way.... cant you?

I didn't understand the penalty for Vettel either...the 50K one to the team I think was fair, but the 10 place drop, I think was undeserved. 50/50 there IMO.