FIA admits “lack of clarity” and vows to change rules after Monaco controversy

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA will revise the rules that caught out Michael Schumacher

The FIA has said it will make changes to the F1 rules following the controversy over Michael Schumacher’s penalty in the Monaco Grand Prix.

The governing body issued a statement saying:

The problems identified during the final lap of the Monaco Grand Prix, counting for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship, showed a lack of clarity in the application of the rule prohibiting overtaking behind the Safety Car.

Adjustments to the regulations are necessary to clarify the procedure that cars must meet when the last lap is controlled by the Safety Car whilst also ensuring that the signaling for teams and drivers is made more clear.

These adjustments will help to avoid the problem which occurred during the Monaco Grand Prix from happening in the future.

The Formula One Commission, upon a proposal of the F1 Sporting Working Group will submit an amendment to the Sporting Regulations to address this issue. These amendments will be considered by the World Motor Sport Council at its next meeting in Geneva on June 23.
FIA statement

Over 1,100 comments on the incident have been received so far on F1 Fanatic, and 79% of readers said Schumacher should either receive a less severe penalty or no punishment at all.

Read more: The FIA’s badly-written rules leave Formula 1 looking stupid once again

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

95 comments on “FIA admits “lack of clarity” and vows to change rules after Monaco controversy”

  1. Now that the FIA have admitted that the rules were not very clear. Shouldn’t they overturn the stewards penalty?

    1. That was my first thought too. Of course, they’d have to find some way of putting him in seventh, i.e. behind Alonso, and I don’t think they can do that because of article 16.3 (see here:

      So I don’t think we’ll see any further changes in the Monaco finishing order.

      1. I thought that too. FIA doing this basically are trying to say, “Ummm sorry we were wrong, the rules are a bit crap aren’t they”

        1. No, I think they are doing it to reduce the amount of irritating pedantry that has been doing the rounds in the last few days, courtesy of Ross Brawn and assorted web-gnomes.

          1. Who are the web gnomes? The 78% who think FIA made the mistake or the few that hate Schumacher and want to see him hanged?

          2. Generally the web-gnomes would be those who got pointlessly angry about the whole thing. Such as blaming Damon Hill for the whole fiasco (including the deplorable practice of sending him hate mail), or suggesting that the regulations should be overlooked on the grounds of “entertainment.” Essentially, those people who wouldn’t know logic if it presented itself to them in a coherent, rational sequence of events.

          3. Now you’re conflating two separate things and basically making out everyone who disagrees with the penalty to be illogical, which is a really dishonest way to discredit people who disagree with you.

            And how wrong was Ross Brawn – in view of the fact that the FIA have admitted the rule is unclear?

          4. Not really. I understand the points of those who say that the rules can be read in different ways. The FIA has admitted as such. Personally, I thought 40.13 was pretty clear, but there you go.

            But if you go back onto some of Keith’s pieces on the incident, there were plenty of people who said that the move should be allowed to stand because it was “entertaining” or “a smart piece of opportunism,” as if these qualities alone should be sufficient reason for the rules to be ignored. That’s the illogical part. Perhaps I should have pointed out that not everyone who disagrees with the penalty is necessarily the target of my exasperation. It depends on how you reach that conclusion.

          5. 40.13 is indeed quite clear. But the condition “IF the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed” coupled with a removal of the SC signs obviously gives room for the interpretation that the safety car was NOT deployed.

        2. Red Andy, Although there were people who argued due to entertainment, they are the minority, 40.13 is very clear, and it’s intention is that at the end of a race, to make it look pretty for the camera’s (This artificial edit to an otherwise pure racing event is something I detest and an insult to out intelligence.). So ergo the cars cannot pass.

          But 40.13 is clearly on the basis that the safety car is deployed.

          The problem many, but not all, people have had, Is that a combination of other events, like Charlie whiting giving the “safety car in this lap” message, and the drivers being shown green flags, is what in any other circumstance, fulfils all the requirements to a return to racing, and if those requirements are fulfilled, which many believe they were, 40.13 doesn’t come into it.

          Personally I think the whole thing is a blunder by Whiting and the FIA, Whiting for fulfilling the requirements I mentioned above, and the FIA to having rules so badly written, yet so ridged, that a compromise, like Schumacher demoted to 7th, was impossible.

      2. Allow me to quote rule 152 of the ISC again:

        As well as this and independently of the prescriptions of the
        following Articles, the FIA may, upon the proposal and report of
        the FIA observer or the joint report of the two international
        stewards of the meeting designated by the FIA, directly inflict a
        penalty which will take the place of any penalty which the
        stewards of the meeting may have pronounced on any one of the
        above-mentioned parties. In this case, the ASN concerned cannot
        refuse to appeal to the International Court of Appeal on behalf of
        the party concerned.

        And 153:

        Penalties may be inflicted as follows in order of increasing
        severity :
        − reprimand (blame);
        − fines;
        − time penalty;
        − exclusion;
        − suspension;
        − disqualification.
        Time penalty means a penalty expressed in minutes and/or
        Any one of the above penalties can only be inflicted after an
        enquiry has been held and, in case of one of the last three, the
        concerned party must be summoned to give them the opportunity
        of presenting their defence.

        If they would have the intention of rectifying the result, they had every possible means. They could replace it with either a reprimand or a 0,7s penalty (reversing the order).

        1. HounslowBusGarage
          20th May 2010, 10:59

          I thought the rules stated that the minimum time penalty was 20 seconds.
          Could they have just fined him instead?

        2. If they can use 152 then I think they should do it.

          1. So maybe it would be good for the FIA to clear the possible use of that as well, giving the Stewards more room to hand out appropriate penalties, as well as having a means to overturn a penalty which is deemed not to fit the crime.

          2. That “if” is literally confirmed in the same Sporting Regulations:

            Article 18.1

            “The stewards may inflict the penalties specifically set out in these Sporting Regulations in addition to or instead of any other penalties available to them under the Code. ”

        3. So let me get this straight: Schumacher broke the rule, but only because they didn’t know this one applied. Having broken the rule, you can’t leave him in 6th place, but instead of using 152 and 153 they penalise him as if it had been a blatant cheating manoeuvre?

          Madness. I only hope that the stewards didn’t know of the rule, because if they did and ignored it, that’s very poor – but entirely typical of a stewarding system that rarely takes into account the context of the situation (except, bizarrely enough, Senna having to cross the pitlane exit line to avoid Button’s stopped car).

          1. I’m surprised, Usually they would have penalised him anyway….

      3. One option is to allow him to have his sixth place back.

        Schumacher shouldn’t get any punishment for poorly written rules.

        1. So why should Alonso lose his 6th place when him and everyone elses understanding of the rules was that you couldnt overtake?

          The only sensible thing to do is for the FIA to admit they were wrong and change the rule for the future.

        2. Fully agree. If Alonso had defended his position properly he wouldn’t have been overtaken in the first place…And as everyone thought the race was commenced after the messages and the green flag, Schumi should be rewarded for his move, which was also very entertaining.

      4. why webber was not penalised for speeding in the pit lane ?

        1. He was, he got a fine (it was before the race started).

      5. when i was watching the coverage and jake said that they found a gap on the rules that penalises shumacher it was clear that that rule was not clear was previous to the new overtaking after the last corner rule cause the rule says that on the last lap cars cant overtake and that obvious if you only are able to do that after the checkerd flag

    2. The FIA cannot rule retroactively. If they change the rules governing the safety car they cannot apply them to the Monaco GP results. Unless there is an appeal (which there is not), the result will stand.

      1. That’s true of course, but the point is they admitted SC rule was unclear, which has been Mercedes’ point all along.

        1. Poor Schumacher he made a wonderful pass under the circumstance but won’t get any reward.

    3. My words exactly. They know it was a shambles, Schumy should get his place back.

  2. The rules were “not very clear” is a huge understatement.
    That’s ridiculous that despite FIA admitting to their own failure, they still punished the driver/team who have falled victim to their failure.

    If this is not a mitigating circumstance, then what is?!

  3. And they did not look at other things happened in the race such as Barichello’s crash and Massa’s exit from pits…

    1. I think Massa only appeared to cross the line because of the camera angle. It is a difficulty pit exit at Monaco and there were other drivers who touched the line but didn’t cross it.

      The Barrichello thing is covered here: Two crashes in costly race for Williams (Monaco GP team-by-team)

      1. Here is the real reason why it was not investigated (they might have looked into it and found nothing wrong). They had spent so much time and energy looking at Schumi VS Alonso, they sort of forgot about him!

        1. I’m a bit dubious about that report. I’ve no idea how reliable the original (Swiss) source is, it’s been translated, and we all remember what happened with Pitpass and the ‘Nick Fry leaving Mercedes story’ this year.

          1. You are probably right about the original source. I had a look about it and it seems to be in line with the German “Bild”.

            Not the most reliable source then.

        2. What’s the deal about Button being upset there was a remote control left in his car?

          Isn’t he the one who has that thing in his hands? ie shouldn’t he have put it out of the car before he left? Bit odd to blame that on the mechanics.

          1. why on earth did he have a TV remote in his car in the first place? Can someone enlighten me – or tell me what “tv” this is supposed to control…?

          2. It’s for the timing monitor that they watch whilst in the garage.

          3. It appears that bung duty also falls to the man responsible for the remotes.

  4. Lets hope they have a serious look at those rules as well as the penalties available to the race Stewards.

    I suppose there is a lot of unclear rules between them.

  5. I think it’s a shame Schumacher got punished this severely (he should have just got his old position back moving up Alonso), but it’s a great sign the FIA handles it this way. They took responsibility almost right away and assured they’re going to fix it.

    Too bad it’ll still take until June 23rd to make it official, but then again it’s perfectly clear already at this point. I like this new FIA, you only hear from them when there something that can be done better it seems.

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      20th May 2010, 10:55

      Yes, I think the FIA have handled it much better under Todt than under Mosley.
      With Max it would have been ‘admit nothing, blame everyone else and threaten anyone else who might complain’. But with Todt, it seems to be ‘ okay, we messed up. Let’s try and make that clearer . . .’.
      But I also agree that Schu got the brown end of the stick on ths one and didn’t deserve so harsh a penalty.

      1. Mark Hitchcock
        20th May 2010, 11:44

        Completely agree.
        Obviously the way this bad rule was exposed and the fact that Schumi lost out because of it is bad. But the grown-up, sensible way the FIA have reacted is very refreshing.

  6. Prisoner Monkeys
    20th May 2010, 10:28

    I don’t think the problem is that the rules are unclear. If there’s a “problem” – and I hesitate to use that terms as it’s one that can never really be resolved – it’s that there are loopholes in the rules. You can change them, but there’s still going to be loopholes. And, very occaionsally, someone will slip into that grey area. Just as Schumacher did. When that happens, all the stewards can do is interpret the rules and amend them to prevent it from happening again.

    Because it’s impossible to cover every conceivable outcome for every last rule in the book.

    1. The only problem was that race control had the SC signs removed and green flags waved.

      Had they not made that mistake there would have been no discussion at all.

      1. Exactly, it’s not the rules, it’s the way the end of the race was handled. All they need to do is modify 40.13 to read “…To signify this, yellow flags and Safety Car boards shall continue to be shown, and the SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP message shall not be displayed [or, “a message stating the race will end under safety car conditions shall be distributed”], or some variant.

        1. hehe – no matter how we might see it, it will never be that simple – that’s like applying common sense to it.. like i said, it’ll never happen

  7. well i think they shouldn’t have changed the regulations regarding what flags and signage are waved after the SC dives into the pits… last year the same happened in Australia, and no one overtook in the last meters because yellow flags were kept…. i hope they will be able to reverse the order, but that will open a whole barrel of worms with retro-active modifications….

    1. Well, back than there was no overtaking before the start/finish line so they could have waved green flags all the wanted.

      But still, I agree that a race finishing under the safety car should have SC signs out and not green flags waved. Just like they did in Australia.

  8. I wonder is this a situation where the FIA should make use of crowdsourcing?

    One thing that is clear from reading the comments here and on other F1 blogs is that there are fans out there with a better understanding of the rules than the FIA does

    Now that they have admitted that the rules are unclear they should take advantage of the situation and have a place on their website where fans can highlight bits of the rules that don’t make sense

    then they can change them before such controversies arise – they can call it FIA F1 rules consultation or something like that to make it less embarrassing but it might work well where one rule change impacts another in an obscure way….

    1. Mark Hitchcock
      20th May 2010, 11:48

      Or the teams could avoid all this themselves by properly reading the rules and thinking about any situations where loopholes may arise. Then tell the FIA.

      If a bunch of people on the internet can see the problems then surely professional racing teams should be able to as well.
      That’s assuming they haven’t already tried and been ignored.

    2. Donal, I think that is an excellent idea for the FIA to take a crowdsourcing approach. It is cheap and many eyes looking from different angles at the rules will certainly flush out discrepancies, vagueness, contradictions, etc. And it would fit in very well with the new dare-I-say transparency of the FIA.

      Reminds me of open source and wiki approaches in other fields.

  9. Seeing as the FIA make the rules, why not make a rule that says that when they are wrong, they can reverse unfair punishments dished out to someone who exposes a fault in the rules?

    (sorry for the long sentence). All they do is quote from a faulty rule book instead of implementing commonsense.

    1. The FIA can reverse those penalties. They did so with Trulli in Australia 2009.

      Even that could not rectify the situation though. It would put Schumacher ahead of Alonso.

      1. If I’m reading things correctly, putting Schumacher back in front of Alonso would be the right thing to do.

        If the FIA are says that Mercedes interpretation of the rules was correct, this also mean that the other teams interpretation was incorrect.

        It now appears the Schumacher was free to race after the safety car line and that penalty should be overturned.

        1. No. You are wrong.

          The FIA have acknowledged that the rules were unclear, leading to the possibility that they could be interpreted in different ways. What they have not said is that all interpretations are equal.

          In other words, Mercedes interpreted the rules incorrectly, but the FIA have acknowledged that the unclear rules were one of the causes of the misunderstanding. Nonetheless a rule was still broken and should be punished accordingly.

          1. That’s the same as adding a rule 40.15:
            No driver may act contradictory to the intentions of Race Control. Race Control is by no means obligated with notifying competitors of its intentions.

            Make the entire thing a guessing game.

          2. But that’s the thing – which rule? The one that says no overtaking even though the safety car has come in, or the one that says race on when safety car comes in and green flags are waved? This isn’t a question of one rule being unclear, but of two rules being contradictory….

          3. 40.13 makes no mention of flags or lights. It only talks about cars.

            The rules are not contradictory – it is just the “common sense” perception that green flags should not be displayed if overtaking is still not permitted, that caused the confusion in Monaco. I guess that the rules will be changed so that if the race finishes under the safety car, yellow flags and SC boards will continue to be displayed.

          4. 40.4 and 40.13 combined with the procedure that was followed are clearly contradictory.

          5. FWIW, I think Mercs interpreted the rules correctly! Unless the Race Control specifically told the teams that they are bringing the SC in as per article 40.13, then the team should interpret what is going on based on what they see on the track.
            It’s a simple if then situation. If ‘the race ends’ while ‘SC deployed’ and on the ‘last lap’, then ‘SC will enter pitlane’.
            The race ends when end-of-race signal is given as soon as the leading car has covered the full race distance (article 43.1). I ask anyone who thinks that he/she interpret the rules correctly by saying as per article 40.13, SC should always comes in on the last lap and race should run without overtaking.. did the Monaco race ended with a SC? If it is indeed the original intention of 40.13, then from my POV, they used the wrong words to make the rule.

            Even if the SC line is the same as the start finish line, they could still bring the SC into the pit lane under article 40.11 as long as the track is clear, but the effect would probably be the same as using article 40.13.

            Just ask your lawyer to interpret the whole Monaco SC situation based on the rules, I believe he will say that Mercs is correct with their interpretation and the FIA/Race control/Official is wrong.

      2. Shumi did nothing wrong, then why is he being punished? He should be put ahead of Alosnso.

        1. Apparently the FIA sees things differently. So from their point of view it’s not possible. Putting schumacher behind Alonso isn’t possible either.

          Personally I agree that Schumacher did nothing wrong though.

        2. But Alonso did nothing wrong, so why should he be punished?

          Clarification of the rules and race control procedures so everyone understands them in the same way will be a very good outcome. It would be nice if they put the operative rules close to each other so you don’t have to go through two whole documents to find them.

          There is scope using rules 152 and 153, as Vincent outlined above, to put Schumacher back just behind Alonso, and it would be the right thing to do, in my opinion.

          1. ‘But Alonso did nothing wrong, so why should he be punished?’

            Alonso would not be punished. If they were racing under a green flag (which they were), then Alonso was simply beaten by the better man. It is not a punishment to be overtaken on the track during a race.

          2. Yeah, but Alonso was told that he couldn’t be overtaken. So you can’t really fault him for not defending his position either.

          3. Which was the fault of his team… he should blame them.

      3. As I recall, the decision to reverse Trulli’s penalty for Australia last year was made by the Aus GP stewards reconvening in Malaysia. I suppose, in theory, the same thing could happen here. But the intent of the FIA’s statement appears to be to close any apparent loopholes in the rules, rather than revisit the original decision.

  10. I would say this shows clearly that the correct and only punishment from the stewards should have been to return Schumi to 7th.

    However, Mercedes have accepted the punishment given on the basis the rule is clarified, and that is what really matters.

  11. The FIA have handled this well. They have seen a gap in the rules and will now sort it.I hope Schumacher is given 7th place back. The rubbish thrown in the direction of all involved was nothing more than embarrassing.
    Now to throw (or put) an elephant in the room (please correct me here, I love this expression) several papers today here have talked about Brawn replacing Domenicali next year. It’s been said that Brawn is not overwhelmed by Mercedes and their operation.
    He and Montezemolo were together after the GP and apparently Brawn selling his share back to Mercedes was top of the agenda.?????

    1. If this were to happen, could Schumacher be far behind?

      1. Funny you should mention that. On the Gazzetta dello Sport website, there is a nostalgic Montezemolo saying that at times he misses Schumacher!

        1. la Gazzetta,Tuttosport and La Republica all featured it. It would be interesting to see what happens although I don’t think Domenicali has done a poor job. Ferrari’s success was a combination of Brawn, Todt and Byrne along with many others. If it was to happen I would be more than happy for Schumacher to say where he is. He was the greatest in number of titles and points but teams and drivers have to move on(don’t want to start another 300+ post on Schumacher).

    2. OMG that would be brilliant. Brawn and Schumacher back at Ferrari. LOL

      Schmacher has a 3 year contract with Mercedes though.

      1. Can one even think of Schumacher and Alonso on the same team?

        1. Well Alonso has just said things at Ferrari are more free without him…

        2. I think thats a more explosive combination that Alonso-Hamilton.

      2. Alonso would leave, he is a monumental Sook!

  12. Maybe they aren’t saying enough, but the fact that they are saying anything at all is testimony to the changes since Moseley left. I admit I may have greatly underestimated Todt.

    1. My sentiments exactly! I should have read this before making my own similar comment…

  13. Under Max Moseley the FIA would have never admitted they were wring, told All the teams they were idiots for not correctly understanding the rules and then clarify the rules anyway! So a good move here from Jean Todts agenda!

  14. As clear as mud is a phrase that comes to mind!

  15. If MSC got his penalty removed, they would have to re run a race from SC line to SF at Monaco because every other team seemed to understand the rule the way it was enforced at the time. The rule is not “unclear.” The rule speaks in plain terms. The availability of alternative plausible interpretations of 40.13 based on alternative interpretatios of other rules does not nullify the provision. This is a silly path to do down for the FIA and it will end in more confusion. The only controversy resulting from this rule is due to one driver’s ability to apply post-hoc sophistry to cloud an issue that was clear enough to everyone else at the time. Anyway, “mistake of law” is the worst reason possible for giving someone a pass on a violation, unless the rule was in fact so unclear that it gave no reasonable person a way to know whether he was in compliance, or that key related aspects fo the rule were not public. The fact that everyone else knew better at the time defenestrates Michael Schumacher’s lame ploy. Regarding the 79 pecent, that is not a reflection of people who said he is innocent, but those who want a different penalty. Unless those who don’t believe Schumcher is innoocent are also claiming that the penalty provisions are also unclear, they don’t have a leg to stand on in their view.

    1. Ah, you’re one of the people that Red Andy was talking about.

      Just wondering though, what does a green flag mean in your mind?

    2. Schumachers lame ploy??? The TEAM advised him to overtake if it was possible, the TEAM advised him he was racing to the line.

      I think its weak of Nico to make it seem like he didn’t recieve the same instruction, did anyone else see him trying to get a run on Alonso too?

      Then he tries to say he thought what MS did was wrong. Ross Brawn stated quite clearly that he told both drivers that overtaking was ok on the run to the line, so what’s the story with Nico?

  16. So the almighty FIA admits it set up ambiguous rules which a smart guy like Ross Brawn and others would find and exploit only to penalize them for doing so.
    In most sports the benefit of the doubt created by the rule makes would go to the participants and not some body who is paid to apply the faulty rules.
    The FIA should voluntarily overrule the stewards and reinstate MS and Mercedes to the positions they had at the end of the race.
    Just more Mickey Mouse administration by the FIA

  17. All I can say its one good thing about Old Schuey’s return that it has actually prompted the FIA to start looking again at the rule book.
    Its just a shame they haven’t felt the need to do it for the three seasons he hasn’t been racing…..

  18. I actually think Schumacher deserves a 6th… atleast he shows that he’s trying his best… I was really impressed at his move…Alonso took it easy and almost paid for it…too bad the FIA dont want drivers to be aggressive at all.

    1. Yeah well lets just give karun chandhok the championship. coz i think he is trying harder than anyone in the field right now.

      Unfortunately, there are no points given trying your best, or for overtaking drivers who think the race is over.

      Im finding it hard to believe that people are impressed by a move created by one driver thinking that the race is over, and another clearly breaking the rules. It would be impressive to see Schumi overtake Alonso fair and square, and I do no think thats gonna happen ever again for Schumi.

      1. Isn’t that what every sport involves…you capitalising on your opponent’s mistake…unfortunately the FIA does not want to wake up a sleeping driver

  19. The rules are indeed unclear.

    Now, to summarize, there are 3 rules which are under scrutiny here. 40.7, 40.11, 40.13.

    40.7 allows drivers to race from the first safety car line itself instead of the start-finish line (a change from last year). If this were reversed back to its original form, then there won’t be any necessity of different rules 40.11 and 40.13 at all.

    40.13 is a special case of the 40.11. Now, having a special case for the last lap is ok, but teams must know how they can differentiate between the two cases. Since, the safety car goes in on the last lap irrespective of whether the track is clear or not.

    My suggestion is to scrap 40.13 completely. Let 40.11 govern the last laps too. It is a lot more appealing for the fans to have a one-third mile sprint race to the finish. It will be great to see drivers taking positions off each other at the very last corner of the race!!

    Or, if 40.13 is to be preserved, then add footnotes to both 40.11 and 40.13. For 40.11: Green flags will be shown and SC boards will be taken off.
    For 40.13: Yellow flags will be shown and SC boards will display. This way, teams can easily differentiate between the 2 scenarios.

    There you go, there’s your solution. Now why on earth should we wait till 23rd June to change this rule? Can’t it be done before the next race starts!!

    Can’t wait for the next Jean Todt approval ratings article. I hope to see a lot of dis-approvals this time.

    1. The fact that SC boards are shown for safety car situations and green flags for racing conditions already exist. Why would they need to repeat that in the rules?

  20. I’m afraid at one point we will see a driver being fined for accelerating way too much on the main stright, because some “lack of clarity”.

  21. Personally, I applaud the FIA for admitting their mistake. It should have never happened, but the FIA under Mosley would NEVER have made such an admission, and I see this as a sign (albeit a small one) of progress.

  22. I find it very nice to see this kind of factual reflection from the FIA, especially as it seems to be focus on the right factor, which is that “the application of the rule” (i.e. 40.13) lacked “clarity”. They seem to have understood that the fact that green flags were waved and the “SC” boards were pulled in could have caused a misunderstanding. They also appear to have come to the conclusion that they should probably come up with an addition to 40.13 that spells out precisely how the procedure is supposed to be when the race ends under safety car conditions.

  23. I think that it is positive that the FIA are listening to the concerns, and taking steps to address the situation. I mean, this would never have happened under S&Max. It’s just unfortunate that Schuey’s penalty is the horse that bolted, and the barn door is now being firmly bolted behind him.

    Personally, since it appears that Ross Brawn is the one to spot all of these loopholes and ambiguities, why don’t they get Brawn to draft all the rules and regulations? They’d be water tight then, methinks.

  24. First of all it is only my opinion. I think this whole discussion has no sense at all. If you would read the information from FIA and knew something about the rules that would lead you to only one conclusion. Maybe the rule was unclear but the statement “you are not allowed to pass anyone” is true.
    AFAI remember that was the first time we ended the race in such conditions right? Usually when we had some laps after the SC had been sent back to the pits, still they could only pass after the start/finish line (and also green flags are shown before they reach this line). Why it should be different in this case? And sumedh I think your propositions are not good enough – there should be one point on the track after which you can try to pass oposition – otherwise the signal is the key just like in case of green lights on start… And that key could be not clearly visible for all. And for ex. how on earth you will manage to controll the “falstart” on the whole circuit with more than 20 cars in motion?

Comments are closed.