Coulthard suggests a whiff of something a bit off is swirling around the Hamilton/Alonso stewards visit in Maylasia. So Massa can move to block and squeeze freely whilst anyone in Ferrari's way must not defend a position? 
Let's hope the only fishy course served in China at the stewards office is at dinnertime. 
I was already at Kuala Lumpur’s airport, bound for Phuket and a couple of days R&R with my partner Karen, when news reached me of the stewards’ decision to award both drivers 20-second penalties; Fernando for causing the collision, and Lewis for ‘weaving’ in front of the Spaniard a lap earlier.
I was surprised about the latter penalty because I had not seen any weaving myself, but that is not to say it did not happen. In the commentary box we rely on the international feed and unless the director or a cameraman sees an incident, it is not broadcast.
The race director, Charlie Whiting, obviously did not spot it at the time, or did not deem it worthy of investigation. So clearly Ferrari and Fernando raised the issue when he went to see the stewards about the collision.
As always – and particularly, it seems, when these two drivers are involved – conspiracy theories did not take long to surface; Hamilton was ‘brake-testing’ Alonso and should have been held responsible for the collision, screamed Alonso’s fans.
Nonsense, countered supporters of Hamilton, the McLaren man was not only hit through no fault of his own, he was then punished for an entirely separate incident simply because Alonso happened to be going in to see the stewards.
On this last point I do not disagree. It seems a fair assumption that Fernando only reported Lewis’s weaving since he was already in trouble himself.
But that does not make his complaint any less valid. And once reported, the stewards have an obligation to uphold the rules.
The important thing — and this is my key point — is that they are consistent with their interpretation of the rules.
Fernando’s culpability was clear cut as far as I was concerned. I said as much on the BBC. Lewis’s weaving was less clear, and not just because I didn’t see it.
For a start, the rule in question is not an exact science. It says that “one defensive change of direction” is allowed but does not specify how large that change of direction might be. And if you then drift back slightly towards your original line, how much is too much?
It will be very interesting to see how the law is interpreted the next time it comes about.
I know quite a few people, including McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh, were of the opinion that both drivers had been punished enough by dropping to sixth and seventh respectively.
But surely that is immaterial. Stewards cannot make decisions based on subjective analysis or the system really will be open to abuse.
By David Coulthard, telegraph.co.uk, April 12.
Welcome
Guests: 263
Hidden: 0
Users: 1
Users Online:
