slipped through. Miles, to his credit,

FIA race director Charlie Whiting has explained Lewis Hamilton was not punished for going off track at the Mexican GP because the Mercedes driver did not gain a lasting advantage. The decision not to penalise Hamilton at the start of the last race was challenged by Red Bull after Max Verstappen was hit by a five-second penalty for, like Hamilton, missing the circuits first corner.However, as Whiting revealed immediately after the race to Sky F1s Martin Brundle, data showed from Hamiltons car showed that the Mercedes driver immediately slowed upon returning to the track. Verstappen, on the other hand, was defending from Sebastian Vettel when he lost control of his Red Bull car under braking. Whitings explanation was provided in full during a captivating but highly unusual briefing at the end of the traditional pre-event drivers press conference for this weekends Brazilian GP when Whiting joined Hamilton, Vettel, Verstappen, Daniel Ricciardo and Williams Felipe Massa to talk through the incidents.Hours after Whitings appearance, Ferrari announced they would appeal against Vettels demotion, stating that a number of new elements had come to light after the decision that make the decison reviewable. Its understood the appeal was lodged on Wednesday - the night before Whitings appearance. Vettel unhappy with his Mexico penaltyThe conference provided Vettel with his first public opportunity to discuss his penalty in Mexico after the Ferrari driver was stripped of his podium finish over three hours after the race had finished.In an incident which was analysed in depth by Whiting in front of the assembled media and the drivers, Vettel was found guilty of moving in the braking zone when trying to hold off Ricciardo on the penultimate lap of the race. Ironically, Vettel was one of the strongest advocates for the rules surrounding such manoeuvres being tightened up in the wake of sustained criticism of Verstappen for similar perceived offences.But Vettel remained adamant he had done nothing wrong.I dont agree with the decision made, said the Ferrari driver. I gave enough room on the inside, l kept the car straight for the majority of the braking and in my opinion Daniel locked up so badly because there was no grip on the inside. I think it looked worse than it actually was. Whiting accepts Vettel apologyWhiting was himself speaking publicly for the first time since Vettel launched a foul-mouthed outburst aimed directly at the FIA race director after the four-time world champion became exasperated with Verstappens refusal to yield.Its not the first time that bad language has been used and the fact it was directed at me was unfortunate, said Whiting. There were a number of mitigating factors which built up to Sebastians frustrations but the fact he sought me out to apologise...for me, that was enough. I am prepared just to forget it and move on.The FIA investigated the outburst but decided not to levy a further penalty against Vettel after the Ferrari driver wrote a letter of apology to the governing body. I am sorry for what l said, conceded Vettel. I regret what l said, I didnt mean it and I am happy Charlie has accepted the apology. Sebastian Vettel says he doesnt agree with his penalty in Mexico Verstappens lasting advantage or double standards?Vettel wasnt alone in expressing his unhappiness with the stewards post-race verdicts in Mexico.Along with Red Bull boss Christian Horner, Verstappen felt he had been the victim of double standards when he was demoted from third place for cutting the first corner following Hamiltons let-off.But according to Whiting, the telemetry from Hamiltons W07 showed the Mercedes driver had backed off to 80 per cent throttle between turns three and four to give back his advantage. Charlie Whiting joins the drivers press conference to explain the two incidents in Mexico where Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen missed the first corner Turning to the Verstappen incident, Whiting then added: If Max had done the same thing between turns three and four, he would have certainly have lost his place. So the stewards felt he deserved a penalty because he had gained a lasting advantage. Thats the fundamental difference.With Whiting sitting directly in front of him, Verstappen responded: Of course I dont agree with the decision. If you give penalties, give it to both or dont give any penalties. A second Verstappen rule in the future?But Verstappen also argued that a blanket ban on drivers leaving the track should be imposed to avoid similar future controversy.Maybe what we should change in the future is that once you go off you should be penalised instead of the stewards interfering and giving an opinion, said the Red Bull teenager.It would be good if we could somehow automatically get some sort of slowing down, agreed Mercedes Nico Rosberg. Sky F1 pundit Brundle argued along similar lines in his post-Mexico column for Sky Sports, writing: I have believed for many years that in those situations a driver should be made to go through a penalty box area at pit lane speed limit so that he takes some serious pain for his mistake.The Verstappen rule, which outlaws drivers moving in the braking zone, was also discussed at length with Whiting clarifying the circumstances under which a penalty would be imposed: Firstly, if a driver has to take avoiding action, if a driver makes an abnormal change of direction in the braking zone and if it is potentially dangerous to another driver. If those three conditions are satisfied then the stewards will feel a penalty should be applied.Such complexity is likely to confuse rather than excite Formula 1 fans. But as Whiting reflected, simplicity is never simple in F1.The whole sport has become more complex. There are continued requests to make things clearer, but the clearer things become the longer, and the more detailed, the rules.For example, all the rules around driving could be summed up in one sentence: drivers must drive safely.But when you have a simple rule like that, you are continually asked what does that exactly mean, can we do this? and can we do that?, and the rule becomes longer and longer… Also See: The Formula 1 Gossip column Whens the Brazilian GP on Sky F1? Get a Sky Sports weekend pass Red Bull: Vettels demotion right Air Max 270 Schweiz Sale .J. Jefferson has been charged with assaulting his girlfriend. Sale Nike Air Max 270 Schweiz . -- Most satisfying to Russ Smith about No. http://www.airmax270online.ch/ .S. -- Nikolaj Ehlers registered a hat trick for the third straight game and Jonathan Drouin had a goal and five assists as the Halifax Mooseheads hammered the host Cape Breton Screaming Eagles 10-1 on Tuesday in Quebec Major Junior Hockey League action. Nike Schuhe Outlet . -- When the Florida Panthers fell behind by two goals in the first period to the top team in the NHL, it appeared they were on their way to yet another loss. Air Max 270 Schweiz . But the quarterback hopes to stay involved in football after officially calling it quits Tuesday. "Id love to look at those opportunities as they arise," Pierce said in an interview from his Winnipeg eatery. Gloucestershire 332 for 7 (Klinger 106*, Mustard 71, Miles 56, Magoffin 4-62) vs SussexScorecard When Michael Klinger punched Steve Magoffin to backward point, and the Sussex debutant Christian Davis dived forward, appearing to take a very fine low catch, he had 29. But as the fielders celebrated a wicket that would have left Gloucestershire reeling at 92 for five, Klinger was not for moving. He chose to leave the umpires to decide if the ball had carried and, after a lengthy conference, they decided he should stay. Sussexs fielders initially appeared dumbfounded, but their lips loosened just in time for the exchange of some terse words.Klinger, almost inevitably, was still there at the close with a century to his name, with his team in the ascendancy after a disastrous start on a pitch he had elected to bat first on. On fine margins do such games turn.Sussex were within their rights to grumble (just as Klinger had been within his to stand his ground), but by days end they had let their outstanding start go to waste. Steve Magoffin, trotting in from the Sea End, had looked the force of old, picking up the Gloucestershire top three in his first six overs, and Jofra Archer had forced Hamish Marshall to edge to Chris Jordan, who took a fine catch at slip; Gloucestershire were ruinously placed at 34 for four.Magoffin took upwards of 28% of Sussexs wickets during his first four years at the club, but his influence - on pitches often unkind to his art - has appeared to slightly wane this season, even if he still went into this game with his 25 wickets coming at 29. He was immediately into his work here, however, with his line, length and lots of lift making life uncomfortable for Gloucestershire. Will Tavare was bowled playing across the line, while Graeme van Buuren and Chris Dent pushed and were caught behind; the ball after the latter fell, Danny Briggs parried a very hard chance from Marshall in the gully. Never mind, Archers pace did for him shortly after.But then came some vintage Klinger fare; his driving was perfectly precise and his judgment outside off stump perfect, while he was always alive to the possibility of a single. On a day when the outside edge was beaten plenty, it is hard to recall the beaten blade being his. His contentious reprieve was his sole false stroke. He never really needed to put his foot down, but late in the day there was a nonchalant flick for six over midwicket and his cuts had more purpose too.Given the position he went in on, reflected his coach, Richard Dawson, it was a massivve achievement to be there at the end.dddddddddddd He just took it ball by ball. Hes a soldier, he just carries on going. Hes a consistent person, the way he trains, hes very honest, he wants to succeed and is hungry and wants to make big runs. If he gets low scores, he doesnt let it get him down. Its very simple - he knows his strengths and he sticks to them, and the bottom line is that hes a quality bloke.Klinger anchored three vital stands. First, 133 with Phil Mustard, playing his first innings of note for Gloucestershire, a typically roistering affair full of punchy cuts and beautiful off-drives, before he was bowled trying to slog Briggs. Then there was 62 with Jack Taylor, who never fully settled as he looked to open up the offside and, after Taylor and Benny Howell fell in quick succession, an unbeaten 109 with Craig Miles, who had an aggressive half-century by the close of play.It was during the stand with Miles that Sussex seemed to rather drop their bundle. Twice, four overthrows whistled away to the fence and, on a pitch where the new ball is key (as evidenced by Magoffin first thing), their performance with the second one was profligate. As the seamers inexplicably dug the ball in, Ben Brown had to be at his most athletic behind the stumps, and still 18 byes slipped through. Miles, to his credit, batted like a man auditioning for a promotion, accumulating adroitly then feasting on Sussexs flagging seamers late on.It was a niggly day, and one of the most difficult to watch this season, said Sussexs coach Mark Davis, because we were in a good position and it didnt quite go our way on occasions too. We werent good enough to make our own luck. The new ball is key on this pitch because the ball is getting soft quickly and when it does get soft it gets harder to get people out. We didnt bowl well enough with it.On Klingers reprieve, Davis veered on the side of diplomacy. The umpires are there to make a decision, they made that decision and we have to move on, he said. Its done, its massively frustrating - I thought it just went straight to backward point and the umpires conferred and that was that. Its game-changing, and certainly day-changing. It is what it is, that happens in sport, and weve got to move on.He was right, the umpires had made a game-changing decision. But he also knew that going into day two, his side had plenty to bemoan besides Klingers prosperous pardon. ' ' '