Why the Rosberg short-cut decision was right

Are gaining an advantage and avoiding a disadvantage the same thing?

Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton would probably have approached that question from diametrically opposed perspectives after the German's trip across the final chicane shortcut on lap 25 of the Canadian Grand Prix.

The incident was, quite correctly, investigated by the stewards and, again rightly, responded to with a warning. After all, the fact Rosberg set the fastest third sector time of the whole race on that lap automatically warranted the stewards taking a look, but as per the prescribed interpretation of the rule no action was taken.

It was little more than a footnote to a dramatic race, but does raise an interesting debate worthy of closer scrutiny.

The rule in question, Article 20.2 of the F1 sporting regulations reads as follows:

"Drivers must use the track at all times. For the avoidance of doubt the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.

"A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track.

"Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage.

"At the absolute discretion of the race director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he gained by leaving the track.

"A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason."

Rosberg and Hamilton were in maximum attack mode © LAT

In Rosberg's case, it is abundantly clear that he did leave the track. It was not deliberate as such, for he inadvertently locked his front-right wheel and was carrying too much speed to turn into the corner with reasonable expectation of making the turn.

Once it had happened, he did then commit to cutting the chicane, but this was in reaction to that mistake.

So did he gain an advantage? Hamilton was closing in using the DRS but was not in a position to attack at the chicane, so in that sense Rosberg did not gain an advantage of track position. He was ahead before and he was ahead after. Status quo.

Rosberg did set the fastest third sector time - a 30.810s - of the whole race on that lap. Overall, it was his second fastest lap of the Canadian GP.

That suggests there was a significant time gain, although as the line is so soon after the corner it's reasonable to give the driver longer to cede any advantage.

"It comes from running the brake balance further forward to protect the rear brakes and that just makes it all the more difficult all the time," explained Rosberg after the race.

"I didn't think anything of it. I went straight, didn't get an advantage - well I did initially and slowed down in Turn 1 and 2 as is the norm to do, so as long as I didn't gain an advantage, then it is fine. And thankfully that is how they judged it."

Rosberg did lose a little bit of time in the first sector, although you could certainly argue that as a result of the cut he was a little further up the road. At the start of lap 25, he was 0.564s clear, at the end of the contentious lap, that advantage was 1.184s then, after the next lap, 1.065s.

But Hamilton's 26th lap was also his slowest in that phase of the race, so that also has to be factored in. With such small margins, potentially a gain of a few tenths with factors such as Hamilton's pace also to be considered, it's not a straightforward decision to make.

Derek Daly was on the stewards panel that didn't penalise Rosberg © LAT

And given that other drivers had escaped short-cuts in similar circumstances it would have been inconsistent suddenly to penalise Rosberg just because he was leading.

So the stewards' decision to take no action, save for a warning, was the right one. It was in keeping with the wording if the rules, the instructions given to drivers and the established interpretation of the regulation.

But let's look at this in a wider context. You could argue that even if Rosberg did not gain even a tenth or two advantage over Hamilton, by cutting the chicane he did negate a disadvantage.

He made a mistake, he locked up, so there should be a price for the mistake, which was made under pressure.

Clearly, Rosberg's actions once he had made the initial mistake of locking the inside front wheel were informed by what he knew to be legal. He understood that he could get away with cutting the chicane, keep his foot in and then give away any time gained in the first few corners in a controlled way.

Were the rule different, he would have reacted differently. Was it possible to make the corner? Maybe. So with a more stringent penalty would he have tried to avoid the short cut? Maybe.

Had he turned in, would he have clobbered the kerb and been thrown into the wall of champions? Maybe. Would he have hung on but compromised his exit and been passed by Hamilton in the run to Turn 1? Maybe.

Any answers to these questions are speculative. But they do illustrate how Rosberg was able to eliminate a negative that would usually result from his mistake. By the rules, it was perfectly acceptable, but should it be?

Let's transpose the incident to another part of the track. Had he made the mistake at the hairpin, he would have run wide and Hamilton would either have passed him there and then or Rosberg's exit would have been compromised, making a DRS-assisted pass on the back straight a foregone conclusion.

That is what is troubling about shortcuts in general - that a mistake goes unpunished. The stewarding is not as some claim, inconsistent when dealing with such incidents. But is this the right way to deal with such situations?

Hamilton was penalised for cutting the final chicane in the 2008 Belgian GP © XPB

In principle, no. Ideally, a mistake should be punished. But as discussed above, while it is easy to judge whether or not an advantage has been claimed using the stopwatch, deciding what disadvantage has been negated is unscientific and too subjective.

The status quo is probably the most satisfactory conclusion until such a time as track designers can come up with a safe, consistent, equitable way to penalise those who stray beyond track limits. With asphalt run-off common, and for good reason, this should be a priority.

When you go off the track and cut a chicane over gravel or grass, usually you will lose some time. This is an effect that needs to return without compromising safety. Admittedly, that's something that's very easy to ask for, but difficult to deliver.

For now only when a driver derives a clear time advantage, or a change in position/attack is prevented as a consequence, will penalties be issued. This unfortunately means there will be times when drivers do gain tiny advantages, or avoid a disadvantage, in such situations.

Hamilton's lost victory in the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix is the most controversial example of a more obvious case than Rosberg's. After cutting the final chicane while battling with Kimi Raikkonen in the closing stages of the race and immediately ceding position, he was legitimately deemed by stewards still to have been closer to the back of Ferrari when they reached Turn1.

This allowed him to attack at a place where passes are now rare. The result, a penalty that dropped him to third on the basis that he did not "sufficiently cede" what he had gained.

Given the race circumstances, it would have been sensible to let that one slide as Raikkonen did get back ahead, but once the stewards looked at it they had to apply the letter of the law. After all, stewards are told that any decisions should stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

Champ Car rookie Glock lost Montreal win in 2005 for taking a short-cut © LAT

There was also a superb example in the defunct Champ Car World Series at the final chicane in Montreal in 2005. Timo Glock led under pressure from Oriol Servia late on. With three laps remaining, Servia attacked and Glock took the Rosberg line.

Race control ordered him to cede the position on the basis that he had prevented Servia taking the lead by going off. The result: a lost win.

But with the current situation an imperfect, but workable solution, it seems things will remain unchanged for now. And if the interpretation of the rule is to change, it needs to be done not on the fly because of a high-profile incident, but with the full understanding of the drivers.

But, saying that, this is not a satisfactory situation. Exceeding track limits is a major problem in modern motorsport and ways must be found to tackle such infringements without resorting to endless penalties, as discussed here.

Fortunately, there are only a limited number of corners where this kind of thing can happen, although if you look closely at Daniel Ricciardo's critical pass on Sergio Perez at Turn 1, he was perilously close to exceeding track limits himself.

Drivers will continue to base their on-track decisions on the set parameters. They will take liberties if the rules and the accepted interpretation allows them to. And so they should.

After all, once Rosberg had been warned, he made damned sure it didn't happen again.