[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by minn19

Actually, I'd say the officials and race directors thoughts/punishments matter the least out of all of this. They didn't give MV the win so what does a ten second penalty matter to a driver that wasn't even going to make it into a point position anyway? And MV's penalty? Who even knows what they meant there.

They cant give MV his win because that would be a punishment for Hamiltons performance. Something like that never happens, at least not that I have seen in any FIA raceclass.
The 10 sec penalty is the 2nd heaviest penalty they could give within the F1 penalty system. Disqualifying would be the other option. And its not only the 10sec stop/go he got, Ocon also got 3 penalty points. Not that that matters as he's probably gone in next season, but otherwise thats also a penalty most drivers dont like. If it was up to me Ocon should have been disqualified because the penalties he got didnt really hurt him because of the position that he's in (assuming he wont return in F1 next year), but then again, the punishment for a fault should be determined by the fault thats made, not by how it effects the perpetrator in sports.

I guess for me it is hard to understand your point of view because............I don't get why MV is allowed to stuff his nose into the first corner defending his inside line (as Ocon was ahead there), but Ocon isn't allowed to defend his inside line into the next one. MV clearly dove into Ocon in that corner causing the crash.

Read Whitings comment. Ocon is not allowed to hinder the race leader. One may unlap, but not in a fighting manner.

Before you say race leader etc. Was it bad taste etc by Ocon to do what he did? 100%, was it against the rules to try and pass him to unlap himself no.

Of course it was bad taste. He may unlap himself but not by means of hindering the race leader. When he saw that his unlapattempt failed at the straight he should have backed off and wait for another oppertunity.
Not trying to get the inside line to the next corner.
I dont understand why this is so difficult to understand. He's a lap behind. He had no business in interfering or hindering the race leader. Thats the rule.
If he wanted to unlap himself, he should have taken care of that on the straight, like he attempted. But that failed. So then wait for another suitable attempt instead of driving your car in the side of another car. When the crash happened in T1, he tried to force Verstappen off the racing line by placing his car inbetween Verstappen and the curbs. In this case, the race leader doesn't have to yield, the lesser driver has to. It all fits in the system of blue flags etc, the leader has the 'right of passage' so to speak
Or would you rather have the racing system again from the era before blue flags? Where cars that are lapped are virtually equal as cars that fight eachother for a position?
I can mention loads of drivers back then that were feared to be overtaken when lapped .... I dont think that was a better system back then from a sporting pov.

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

This is what you are saying we should understand so easily, correct Guido?

Pretty much if you're not smart enough to understand Whitings view. But thats basically what you're saying, that you know things better than him.
They didnt punish Verstappen because he did nothing wrong (at least not on the track, I'm not talking about his behaviour in the pits). If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about the F1 rules apparantly. Or in your view: you understand better than Whiting how the rules work (that he himself probably made, seeing how long he has been in F1)