Thread by @wbuxtonofficial

While Hamilton’s assertion that yesterday’s contact and penalty for Verstappen sets an important precedent, is it the right one?

A thread…

When a driver leaves the pits and other cars are on the straight, the driver exiting is shown a blue light at pit exit and a blue flag is waved as shown here. This is because the onus is on them not to cede position but to re-enter the track mindfully.

After the blend line finishes, Hamilton moves onto the racing line in the braking zone. At this point and given he’s been shown the blue, the onus is still on him. Yet Verstappen isn’t wholly behind and so he should give a cars width, which he does not.

If we rewind a few years, Hamilton was left less than impressed with Leclerc squeezing him in a similar style, in an incident which bought Charles a black and white warning flag. There’s precedent therefore that Hamilton was, perhaps, a bit naughty on Sunday under braking.

The two navigate Turn 1 side by side and cleanly. The onus is still on Lewis as the aggressor to pull the move off, and Max is entitled to defend his position which he does by running a touch faster and deeper.

But this is where it gets sketchy… there’s space for two cars at T2 but the driver who now finds himself on the outside has to give space. A lot of space. Hamilton says he did. The images suggest otherwise.

Could max have backed out and cut to the left across the speed bumps? Yes. Should he have needed to? Arguably not. 50/50? Again, arguably. 60/40 against Hamilton given he closed the door with Max alongside? Again, that’s arguable.

There’s every justification that this was simply a racing incident. And if not, that Hamilton as the driver re-entering the track, the aggressor and the one who needed to pull the pass off and who closed the door mid pass was more at fault. Again, it’s arguable.

So the question I guess we are left with is whether any penalty needed to be given, if racing incidents can still just be racing incidents when it involves championship rivals, and in this case if not, whether blame was apportioned correctly and proportionately.