Heres the Glock Hamilton .gif, cant post it cos its over the limit, but hey, i thought it was funny...

http://s1.subirimagenes.com/imagen/1386821hamilton-f1.gif

And TSC, how can you say Massa didn't deserve it?

What If The Stewards Hadn't Interfered
Monday 13th October 2008


Never before has the decision-making of race stewards played such a pivotal role in the destiny of a World Championship.


In their headline, The Guardian claims that 'the stewards will decide the title race'. But have they already? Here, PF1 reviews the decisions this season that have directly affected the battle between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa...


Canada, June 8
Stewards' Ruling: Ten grid-slot demotion against Lewis Hamilton for the French GP after he crashed into the back of Kimi Raikkonen's Ferrari at the end of the pit lane after failing to spot a red light.

Controversial? No. Even Hamilton admitted he could have no complaints with the ruling. "I have no argument with the stewards," he told reporters.

Points Difference: None.




France, June 22
Stewards' Ruling: A drive-through penalty against Hamilton after he was adjudged to have gained an advantage by leaving the track in the process of overtaking the Toro Rosso of Sebastian Vettel on the opening lap.

Controversial? McLaren - and their driver - were adamant that Hamilton had already passed Vettel when he left the track (although his critics responded by claiming that the overtake was only possible if he then left the track). Hamilton spoke darkly afterwards about the penalties being levelled against him, while Ron Dennis pointedly refused to rubbish suggestions that stewards were victimising his team.


Television footage of the incident was inconclusive, neither proving nor disproving that Hamilton was in front of Vettel and had not - in the summary of Dennis - "gained any road position".


In hindsight, the ruling's significance is that it was Allan Donnelly, Max Mosley's representative and the chief executive of a company with links to Ferrari, who 'led' the investigation, along with the absence of any sort of explanation from the stewards.


As PF1 reported at the time:


'According to ITV, who supply coverage of F1 in Britain, the only footage of the Hamilton incident provided by the FOM TV host broadcast was an on-board shot from the Englishman's McLaren that apparently showed Hamilton past Vettel before he approached the Nurburgring chicane.


'They claim that 'No exterior shot of the incident was offered', but cite the FIA reporting that 'its stewards, led by Max Mosley's number two Alan Donnelly, had access to the circuit's closed circuit TV cameras when making their decision'. The Times reports that the stewards adjudged Hamilton's offence to be "very clear". It is unclear, however, why this footage has not been made available.'

Points Difference: Hamilton finished out of the points but, minus the 25 seconds a drive-through penalty is reckoned to be worth, he would probably have finished sixth, if not fifth. A conservative estimate, then, is that the penalty was worth two points.




Valencia, August 24
Stewards' Ruling: No penalty - other than a paltry fine and a reprimand confirming his guilt - against Felipe Massa for his unsafe release into the path of Adrian Sutil's Force India from his second and final pit-stop. Massa bizarrely blamed Sutil for the incident, but in doing so underlined its danger by confirming "we came very close to the wall".

Controversial? Only mildly controversial at the time, the ruling assumed a different perspective two weeks later when the three stewards at Spa opted against maintaining the sort of 'common-sense' outlook used by the stewards in Valencia. A month later at Singapore, the critics were given further ammunition when, in a near-identical repeat of his unsafe release in Spain, Massa was given a drive-through penalty for the same offence. As the Brazilian was already trailing at the back of the field, the ruling had no impact in terms of points.

Points Difference: Had the stewards in Valencia added on 25 seconds to Massa's time, he would have been relegated to second and Hamilton promoted to first - a swing of four points.




Belgium, September 7
Stewards' Ruling: A retrospective drive-through penalty against Hamilton for being deemed to have gained an advantage by cutting the corner before he overtook the ailing Ferrari of Kimi Raikkonen.

Controversial? Branded the "worst judgement in the history of F1" by former World Champion (and former Ferrari driver) Niki Lauda, the ruling continues to cast a dark shadow over F1. In their defence, McLaren revealed that they had been advised - twice - by race director Charlie Whiting that Hamilton's move was legitimate and provided telemetry to prove that Hamilton had lifted in order to let Raikkonen re-pass him. There was further consternation when it was revealed that, with the rulebook not providing any reference to the offence of 'gaining an advantage', Hamilton was technically punished for leaving the track - an offence that countless drivers, including Massa, had committed during the race.


McLaren's appeal was ruled inadmissible, but not before a hearing had been convened at considerable expense in which Ferrari's lawyer made the case for the prosecution and the governing body was alleged, by their former chief steward, to have fabricated his evidence in order to deter McLaren from pursuing their claim.


Points Difference: Six - Hamilton lost four when he was relegated from first to third, while Massa was handed an additional two in being gifted the race win.




Japan, October 12
Stewards' Ruling: A drive-through penalty against Hamilton for his manoeuvre into the first corner.

Controversial? Punishing a driver for essentially out-braking himself into the first corner is believed to be without precedent in the sport's long history ( the rulebook makes no reference to 'stupidity' or 'brain fade'). "Drivers miss braking points, they run wide; these things happen. Any experienced motor racing person sees it as a racing incident," commented Ron Dennis. "We were a bit surprised that Lewis was given a penalty simply because we've all seen similar first corner incidents that triggered no such penalty."


Article 16.1 of the sporting regulations stipulates that drivers can be punished for forcing a competitor off the track. However, notwithstanding the point that Kimi Raikkonen escaped punishment for punting Adrian Sutil out of the Monaco GP, replays of Sunday's first-corner incident suggest that, although Hamilton forced Raikkonen wide, it was Heikki Kovalainen, one of many drivers to out-brake himself into the first corner, who forced the Ferrari off the track. Incredibly, in their race notification, the stewards confirmed that they did not even investigate Kovalainen's role in the mayhem.

Points Difference: With his tyres cooked, Hamilton would have had to pit on the first lap regardless - making a race victory impossible. However, according to Dennis, "Without the penalty, we would have still got points, that's for sure". Given that his car was damaged in his collision with Massa - that, as a first-corner incident, would have still occurred in our alternative history - it is difficult to see, however, Hamilton finishing higher than eighth. But that might have been sufficient to keep Massa point-less. So we'll settle on a two-point swing.




Japan, October 12
Stewards' Ruling: A drive-through penalty against Felipe Massa for cutting the chicane as he punted Hamilton into a spin.

Controversial? Massa remains in a minority of one in believing that he did not deserve the penalty and it was the McLaren driver's fault. That said, an emotional Hamilton was probably equally wayward in alleging that Massa "deliberately" collided with him.

Points Difference: None.




Japan, October 12
Stewards' Ruling: A retrospective drive-through penalty against Sebastien Bourdais over his collision with Massa.

Controversial? Arguably the most inexplicable decision of any given by the stewards this season. With Bourdais tucked into his side of the track, the general expectation was that, if any penalty was to be applied, it would be against Massa. To add to the sense of injustice, it has since emerged that the stewards' judgement was issued in direct contradiction of the advice given to drivers beforehand by Race Director Whiting that 'the car exiting the pits has right of way'.

Points Difference: One - Bourdais punishment was wholly unwarranted.


Were the stewards to have followed this course of action, and applied the rest of the 'Points Difference' set out above, the current World Championship standings would be very different. Felipe Massa would enter the final two races of the season knowing that he had to win both to have any chance of the title while Hamilton, leading 93-73 in our alternative, would require just a single point to clinch his first title.

neither driver showed anything this year to say I am the best in the world.

[quote author=Mushroom_Farmer link=1225132929/75#78 date=1225786534]

And yes it was Lewis who had the cat toy thingy thrown at him, it's a bad luck charm nothing more done as a joke by two local radio DJ's. Lewis saw the funny side of it, so did the crowd, I believe some papers in this country as usual thought, hmmm juicy story here lets blow it out of proportion.