Should F1's rules be relaxed to find a racing utopia?

In an ideal world, Sebastian Vettel would not have been given a five-second penalty for rejoining the track in an unsafe manner during the Canadian Grand Prix, and he and Lewis Hamilton would have continued their duel to the chequered flag.

That this didn't happen is a consequence of the way Formula 1's regulations have, with some justification, evolved in the real world. The rules are written, interpreted and then applied - and, despite criticism of the FIA stewards in Montreal, that's exactly what happened.

And yet, this is supposed to be an era of 'let them race', where penalties are only used against egregious breaches of the rules. The fact so many professional drivers have criticised the penalty proves that this is the kind of hard, on-the-limit, racing they want to see - and understand.

So, what if F1 did go down fully down a 'let them race' route and allow a little more leeway in such incidents?

Mario Andretti is arguably the most versatile racing driver the world has ever seen and in his response to the Vettel decision on Twitter he laid out what is an effective definition for the job of the stewards when it comes to policing on-track behaviour.

"I think the function of the stewards is to penalise flagrantly unsafe moves, not honest mistakes as [a] result of hard racing," Andretti wrote. "What happened at the Canadian GP is not acceptable at this level of our great sport."

So, if we recalibrate stewarding so that what Vettel did is not seen as a flagrantly unsafe move and is perfectly acceptable - he made a mistake, gathered it up and in doing so ensured he stayed ahead of Hamilton with a manoeuvre that did require some cooperation from his rival - what implications does that have?

First, it would be delivering on what many claim they want to see, a utopia where 'let them race' really does prevail and rules-skimming battles like Rene Arnoux versus Gilles Villeneuve at Dijon in 1979 are celebrated.

That's something everyone can get on board with, but for such an intention to work it requires more than just lofty goals inspired by a now-lost form of racing.

In this utopia, the second consequence is that the onus is firmly on the drivers to show each other respect on track and cut each other a little slack where necessary. That's an unfashionable demand in the 21st century - perhaps one too incompatible with the high-pressure, high-stakes world of professional sport today. Arguably, it's also problematic given the difficulty of following another car and the lack of overtaking opportunities - outside the DRS zones, that is.

Such respect, the willingness to give a little room to a rival, used to be granted automatically in racing simply because of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a collision. One manifestation of the need for respect is the willingness Hamilton did show to lift and not plough into Vettel.

Here it gets tricky, because it also means Vettel must be respectful by being hard but fair. In Canada, he was probably just within this definition as there was just enough room for the Mercedes to survive. But the lines dividing that from going too far are wafer-thin - in this case the Ferrari being a few more centimetres to the right would have changed everything. And had Hamilton simply kept his foot in there would have been an accident.

This is where the desire for this laissez-faire approach to racing would really be tested. How do you stop a driver going too far, simply placing their car somewhere that forces their opponent to stamp on the brakes every time a passing attempt is made? That would be destructive for racing and be a mandate to cause collisions.

Every driver would have done what Vettel did and the laws of physics played a big part - this is what makes hard and fast rules so troublesome

The stewards come in here. Armed with guidelines that are not absolute and with room for the kind of nuance and interpretation that the driver steward should be able to bring to the table, it would be possible to judge whether drivers are taking liberties. Those who transgress will be penalised. That's assuming everyone will accept this new, nebulous line that will require the good judgement of the stewards - ideally a permanent panel - to be accepted by the drivers.

But for this to work, it also requires drivers to be sensible in their reactions to such moments. The temptation will always be there to try to gain an advantage by any means possible and in Hamilton's situation in that race you can't blame him for complaining over the radio. Had the penalty not been issued, who knows what the fallout would have been after the race?

We must also remember that the current rules regime is largely the product of driver lobbying and feedback.

Inevitably, those who feel wronged in battle are frustrated and want retribution. But via the radio we can also witness the unedifying spectacle of drivers either claiming a penalty-worthy offence has been committed by a rival when it hasn't, or trying to justify their own actions with a questionable interpretation of event. It's rather like footballers automatically attempting to claim a throw-in when they have very clearly put the ball out - it has become a reflex.

There's no perfect answer, but it boils down to a choice of two basic positions. One, you regulate F1 to the hilt and penalise to the letters of clearly laid-out laws. Two, you take the laissez-faire approach and allow drivers to self-police with, as Andretti suggests, the stewards stepping in for more extreme cases.

None of this is helped by the design of the tracks. In Montreal, Vettel automatically paid a penalty by being on the grass, costing him momentum then unsettling the car when he returned to the track. This gave Hamilton an opportunity that Vettel, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective, closed off.

But amid the demands for consistency, it's worth noting that at many other tracks this would have been asphalt runoff that Vettel was cutting across. He could therefore have kept his foot in and continued without Hamilton ever getting near him. We've seen little inclination to eliminate disadvantages of drivers doing this, save perhaps for the occasional warnings that drivers will be penalised if they keep doing it, and with asphalt runoff in this case it could be that nobody would have even considered whether Vettel should be penalised because Hamilton would never have got close.

Then there's the added complication of the 'natural' limit of the circuit at Turn 4 being the wall but the technical limit being the white line. Vettel left enough space, by millimetres, judged against the wall, but Hamilton was well off the track judging by the white line. This all mitigates against this idea of consistency.

Some have argued that because Hamilton's move on Daniel Ricciardo in Monaco in 2016 - when he cut the chicane then showed the Australian the wall at the exit - didn't earn a penalty therefore Vettel should also have escaped. But these are dramatically different incidents and Hamilton had completed the phase of rejoining when he made that move.

This is the other complication of the Montreal controversy - at what point is Vettel no longer recovering and 'normal' racing back under way?

The fact is, as proved by the response of the majority of professional drivers who have had their say (but not all, it must be noted), that the penalty was not justified this time. Simply being drivers and in the majority doesn't make them right, but they do have a good grasp on what is acceptable, what is unacceptable and what is on the line. As Hamilton himself said, every driver would have done what Vettel did and the laws of physics played a big part in that.

This is what makes hard and fast rules so troublesome and can lead to the stewards' hands being tied. Circuit design, relative speed, car position, conditions and countless other factors change such incidents and that's why it's impossible to be precise with the rules.

Yet when Emanuele Pirro and his fellow stewards were confronted with the case they had to go with what the sporting regulations and the FIA's International Sporting Code indicated because that is how laws work. They made the right decision, therefore, if you believe Vettel shouldn't have been penalised, then the problem lies with the rulebook.

This is an inexact science and there's never going to be an entirely elegant solution, so it all comes down to what kind of racing you want to see. Given how tough it is to race in F1, it would surely be preferable to give a little leeway and come down on the more extreme violations than to punish everything?

The controversy surrounding the Vettel/Hamilton incident, with compelling arguments on both sides of the 'should he/shouldn't he have been penalised' debate, shows exactly why black-and-white regulations aren't the panacea they are made out to be.

Consistency is an easy term to bandy around, but one that breaks down under the harsh light that reveals every incident is a little different. This is why stewarding can't operate to hard and fast, absolute rules. A little more flexibility is required, and with that there will always be accusations of bias. And when humans are involved, there's always scope for suspicions and accusations.

Will F1 be a better place if the laissez-faire path is taken? It's perhaps asking too much given the stakes and would likely lead to a backlash and the rebuilding of the black-and-white rulebook. But if it worked, it would have made the Canadian GP more spectacular and give the right to drivers to prove that rubbing really is racing in the future.

Maybe that's asking too much and the current system makes the best of a bad job even though black-and-white rules still leave room for controversy and argument. After all, the world 'utopia' derives from the Greek for 'no place'...