I'm pretty sure that if you try to read my direct quotes from the Sporting Code you'll find the answer to most of your questions.
But, since I'm already baited - hook, line and sinker ...let me see how I can rephrase myself...
Project Four wrote:Also, can you explain why the following did not happen then: -
F1 Sporting Regulations16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed:
a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors
So, if I have read this correctly the stewards should have highlighted that the event was suspect and a penalty was going to be imposed during the race then at least Hamilton and McLaren had an opportunity to Raikkonnen re-re-pass him so they wouldn’t have been penalized. Very hard to do this four hours after the race has finished.
Now as generally agreed McLaren contacted the race director to ask clarification that Hamilton had let Raikkonnen re-pass and was this okay. The race director told McLaren twice yes this was okay but as highlighted it was the stewards decision not the race director decision.
My understanding of your question is that "Why did the stewards not inform the race director that they were imposing a penalty on LH during the race". And from what you said, if this had happened, McLaren "could've" told LH to give the place back again. Is this right?
I'm not going to pretend that I know what happened behind the scenes during those last 2 laps of the race in question and immediately before the decision was printed, signed, sealed and delivered...or what conversation transpired between the stewards, the chief of stewards, the race director, the clerk of the course and McLaren.
But what I can do is point out facts of the case as were taken and pointed out as TRUE in the ICA's decision. This is because anything other than what is on that ICA document is moot and open to debate and is considered irrelevant by that document.
Now based on what you said above...
Just reading those highlighted phrases inside the quote box sums it up.
The stewards, through the race director, did give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned. It was even handed to McLaren and signed by them on the day of the GP.
Now you would wonder...why did they come up with the decision for the penalty four hours after the end of the race? Honestly, I do not know. And I would be sure enough that no one here in this forum knows exactly why and can give hard facts to back up that big "why".
But, see, the thing is, I'm also not so sure if the sporting code prescribes a certain amount of time after the end of the race for the stewards to complete an incident investigation and/or to make the decision, print it, sign it and make sure the parties involved receives it. I'm not sure if the sporting code prescribes any time on the application of penalties at all. If you can find one in the regs, I'd appreciate if you can share it here with links to the document.
So as far as I know (I'm grasping straws here...), the stewards are not bound to any time restrictions in investigating incidents and handing out penalties. Again, let me state that I MOST DEFINITELY CAN BE VERY WRONG on this.
What I do know is this:
International Sporting Code wrote:Article 141: Authority of the stewards of the meeting
-They may amend the classification (see Article 168)
Article 168: Amendment to the classification and Awards
In such cases as are provided for in Article 167, the stewards of the meeting shall declare the resulting amendment in the placings and awards, and they shall decide whether the next competitor should be moved up in the classification.
The stewards CAN amend race classifications. If you would allow me to give my opinion on this, I think this says that stewards are also allowed by the sporting code to hand out classification-affecting penalty decisions.
About the second part of your own Sporting Code quote: "The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.".
I can only give my opinion on this as I have not seen the timing monitors as seen by all TEAMS, by RACE CONTROL and the STEWARDS.
The matter might already been under investigation during those last two laps...BUT!!!... Even so, does any one here know of any incident investigation by any panel of stewards, on any previously concluded GP, that have been started and completed, less than a LAP's worth in time immediately after the incident? I would prefer just as you would that this would be true. Though, in race situations, wouldn't you think that any panel of stewards would take time to discuss facts before handing out penalties? Most especially for probable controversial ones...?
In the 2008 Belgian GP, the incident happened with only 2 laps to go. That's what? 5 minutes at most for 2 laps of Spa? How long does it take for any panel of stewards to notice (or be given notice of) a possible incident which had just happened and then decide to start an investigation? Frankly, I do not know. And I do not have hard facts about it to make much less defend any position.
About the third part:
Project Four wrote:2,5 The race director must be in radio contact with the clerk of the course and the chairman of the stewards at all times when cars are permitted to run on the track.
So now I am getting confused, the stewards imposed a penalty on Hamilton after the race had finished, but according to the Sporting Regulations the stewards could / should have notified the competitor that a penalty was going to be imposed either written or on the timing monitors, and McLaren contacted the race director for guidance, and was told yes Hamilton had let Raikonnen repass so yes it is okay, but he wasn’t the one who imposed the penalty, but was in contact with the race stewards (or should have been) who did impose the penalty.
Does any one here have hard proof to the contrary of the quote above? I don't.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, we don't have any publication of the transcripts for any conversation that transpired (if any) between the Race Director, the Clerk of the Course and the Chief of the stewards from the time that the incident happend and the penalty was printed, signed, sealed, delivered. The much publicized "conversation" between Race Control and a McLaren representative was not even printed and included as facts of the case in the published ICA decision.
We can't just deduce that there were no communication that happened between those party mentioned in the previous paragraph.
We can't even say for sure that the the RACE DIRECTOR asked the stewards if the LH move was OK and not a breach of code, then relayed that information to McLaren. We just cant.
THERE ARE NO HARD FACTS. JUST PURE SPECULATION. So, there is no point of contention here.
Project Four wrote:And it transpires that within their regulations the race director is in contact with not only the clerk of the course but the chairman of stewards as well, so he is ideally positioned to relay all information and decisions to the teams or to ask the clerk of the course or the stewards.
And so he might or might not have been in contact. But as I stated above, we can't contend anything FACTUAL about any transpired conversation between all of the parties involved since we have no real facts about the conversation at all. We can't even say a conversation did or did not take place. Anything outside hard facts (w/c we don't have) are JUST PURE SPECULATION.
Project Four wrote:Maybe then decisions which affect the outcome of the race will be made during the actual race and not after the race has finished.
Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but the Sporting code does have provisions which allow the outcome of the race to be "made" (more appropriately, amend the classification) after the race has finished.
Which now brings us back to one of my previous posts stating that the teams can have the rules changed...
This exercise really reminds me of of the large,17-mile diameter, "black-hole generator" underneath the Franco-Swiss border. It goes round and round and round then KABOOM! ...then it restarts all over again...