I am open to arguments that the world would be a better one where the penalty wasn't a think (so the rules that led to it being amended) - I just read on twitter from Mark Hughes:
https://twitter.com/SportmphMark/status ... 7735359488
That might be an interesting new twist, though I am sceptical that a fair and safe rule might be found to go differently, but we will see, I suppose, and perhaps Ferrari can provide us with the marvel they so far this year have hardly been able to provide on-track.
But, no argument I have seen that tried to make the 'penalty was wrong even with the rules' point so far actually holds cogently and
sticks to the facts.
No, not from drivers either - Ricciardo's "Monaco Hamilton on me was more of a penalty" misses several things and is somewhat self-serving, if in looking in the back mirror, same goes for Verstappen's similar one; Norris "well a crash would be more entertaining" at least doesn't go to the penalty but the rule itself, though it seems maybe he needs to step back from sim racing mindset there. The Sky and motorsport discussions seem to not want to stick to the actual facts because they want the penalty to not have been given, though they should have all the info the stewards wrote, by now.
In fact, Vettel got off track, was on throttle, but not full throttle while there, which is probably the best way to go; he got on track without fully losing the car; yes Hamilton was clearly well besides
Vettel at that point, and the reason he was behind, as he moved off track with all four wheels
, was that he braked
to avoid an accident - all shown in available footage
that proves that yes, the fact is Hamilton was squeezed by Vettel
who came on the track - either unsafely, or intending to squeeze. The stewards looked at all their data and decided he could have avoided that squeeze (so that makes it intentional then). Let's see if Ferrari add pertinent new facts today.