TBK-Light.com

If it's like in China I don't have a problem with it, when it's like Austria '02 then I do. That was what the fourth race of the year? They told Barrichello to move over before the line when everyone thought he was heading for the win.

The thing is, as much as people disagree with how this happened in Austria in 2002, Barrichello was a contracted number 2 driver. He knew what was going to happen well in advance of the weekend, in fact well in advance of the season. Rubens was told to move over during the race but chose to make a point by doing it how he did. Ferrari were scorned yet Rubens was actually guilty. In Ferrari's history the second driver has always honored his contract, Pironi aside. See Villeneuve, Irvine, even Schumacher himself for examples of correct conduct.

No one criticised Lotus for asking Ronnie to move over for Mario all year

I think the problem with the Austria 2002 thing was the way it was done. Having Rubens move over 10 or so laps from the end would have been more understandable, but for it to happen after the last corner was a bit like a last-minute swerve and it pissed the fans off. Plus, Michael being all happy until he realised the crowd's reaction didn't do much for the situation either.

Very good example, I couldn't agree more

idem

After the 1998 Australian GP, it was stated that "any future act prejudicial to the interests of competition should be severely punished in accordance with article 151c of International Sporting Code.". When Ferrari swapped the cars at Austria in 2002, ITV repeated this statement, and then at the next race, repeated it again, adding the line "The FIA have chosen not to enforce this rule".

At the end of the day, manipulating the result like this is actually illegal, and was made illegal after cars were swapped. But since this was put in place, nobody has been penalised for it. So what is the point? And if swapping cars is fine, why is parking in your pit stall, holding your team mate not OK? Afterall, that does essentially the same thing - benefit one, whilst screwing the other. And didn't McLaren get investigated for not allowing the drivers to race at Monaco last year?

The problem isn't the team orders, the problem is that we have been told it isn't legal, but it is allowed over and over again, and then randomly it'll get investigated, or even penalised.

It was the sixth race of the year, but Michael already had a 21 point lead in the championship before the switch.

Anyone bitching about Kimi moving over for Felipe on Sunday has got their head in the clouds. It was the sensible thing to do as the championship warranted it.

But it is illegal, and given how anal the stewards have been in 2008, would it be stupid to expect them to start enforcing the rules they actually have written down now?

I'm not saying I'm totally against what Ferrari did, but it'd be good to actually know what the teams can and can't do. After all, McLaren were investigated for not letting the cars race, and yet they have been allowed to swap them?

Whilst we're on the topic of random penalties, how is it that one week someone gets penalised for outbraking himself at turn one in Japan, whilst the next there's not even an investigation when two cars tonk into each other and one ends up facing the wrong way around?

Yes, it would be stupid.

Because it's Ferrari.

No, being serious, what the stewards decide to investigate changes from race to race because it's a different panel of 3 people every time, which partly explains the retardedness of some of this year's decisions (Massa v Sutil in the pitlane- happened twice, two different outcomes).

Different stewards...

I thought team orders were illegal, but if a driver chooses to help another by moving over on his own accord, then it's legal?

Austria 2002 doesn't compare with this incident. For obvious reasons, Kimi had to cede to MAssa so that the Championship still remains within reach.

Austria 2002 was a blatant and unnecessary move by Ferrari to extend Michael's lead, eventhough it was clear that no team in the paddock was going to beat them. Michael would still have a 20+ point lead had he finished 2nd. Rubens gave away a WIN that he deserved since he had beaten Michael fair and square all through the weekend, and to have it taken away like that was truly unforgivable.

But then we get into silly areas. Everybody who watched that race knows, for a fact, that Kimi did not decide to move over. We all seen the podium and Kimis body language. Ferrari told him pre-race that he would move over if the situation came up. Just because he wasn't told over the radio, doesn't make it any less an order.

And the statement from the FIA did not say that it had to be given out by the team. "any future act prejudicial to the interests of competition should be severely punished in accordance with article 151c of International Sporting Code.".

And surely keeping cars in a position is a "team order"? After-all, McLaren were investigated for that last year.

How did he beat him fair and square? There was no racing. He simply lead whilst Michael hung around behind him. It was a false pretence that was created.

Yeah...Michael knew all the time what was going to happen at the end.

Exactly.

I don't know about the "Motorsport is dangerous" warning logos on the back of tickets, but sometimes I think people need a "Motorsport isn't fair" warning logo as well

Aye, which adds weight to the FIA having a group of stewards that they take from race to race.