Edwards calls for consistency in judicial process

Daniel Herrero

Saturday 25th March, 2017 - 1:40am


Tim Edwards

Tim Edwards has questioned the consistency of the judicial process which saw Chaz Mostert penalised with a drive-through penalty after a clash with Shane van Gisbergen at Albert Park.

Mostert tagged van Gisbergen during the second race of the weekend, resulting in head-on contact between the Red Bull HRT Commodore and an unsighted James Moffat, which ended the pair’s races.

The Supercheap Auto Racing driver was issued a drive-through penalty, in contrast to events which transpired during the last event in Adelaide when contact between Jamie Whincup and Mostert’s team-mate Mark Winterbottom saw the latter spin.

In what was  the first test case for Supercar’s new judicial system, officials investigated the matter post-race and determined that no breach of driving standards had been committed.

While Edwards did not express a particular opinion on the verdict itself, the Prodrive Racing Australia team principal called into question the process which saw one incident dealt with post-race and the other during the race.

“It was similar to what happened in Adelaide, but I think they did the right thing in Adelaide and I said that at the time,” Edwards told

“They waited until after the race to have all the evidence, get the in-car footage from both cars, (and) potentially speak to the drivers, but they haven’t done it in this instance and I don’t think there was that big a difference between the two (incidents).

“There’s no point me having an opinion about the penalty because we’ve already served it, so it is what it is – it’s just that they didn’t actually look at it.

“We may well have got the same penalty after the race but then, in my opinion, at least we’ve had a fair chance.”

Mostert echoed his boss’s calls for consistency but did not feel that the outcome was especially harsh.

“As long as there’s consistency, it’s as simple as that,” he told said when asked for his thoughts.

“After Adelaide, I was unclear with the Jamie and Frosty incident, I don’t understand that (it) wasn’t a penalty.

“I can probably understand mine was a bit more (worthy of penalty, given) where the contact was made on the car, so as long as there’s consistency going forward.”

The 24-year-old also expressed his disappointment at the events, which came after he had been applying significant pressure to van Gisbergen.

“The braking of my car this weekend felt quite strong, so I thought I’d try to get the nose in there and if not, try and get him to run a bit wide as you kind of do.

“But the funnel kind of got smaller and smaller, I tried to bail at the last second and I’ve just nipped the back of him and it’s enough to flick him quite violently.

“It’s not the way that I wanted that race to end and I’m glad that it’s not a championship round because I’d hate to have someone have a bad race like that.”

Nevertheless, Mostert was satisfied with his raw pace, which saw car #55 set the fastest lap of the race with two laps remaining while running at the rear of the field.

“That last race we did the quickest lap of the race, which is pretty cool.

“Those DJR (Team Penske) guys have been pretty quick but we’re trying to edge up on them as well so we’re making little gains.

“I think even this weekend we’ve taken a little bit of a step forward again so we’ll keep moving forward.”

Mostert qualified fourth for Race 3, which will be run today from 1520 local time. comment policy

Comments require approval before being published. reserves the right to deny any post that is abusive or offtopic.

Users are encouraged to flag/report comments which should be removed.

Some comments may require approval before being published which can take up to 48 hours.

For support, please contact [email protected] has been established to provide a daily motorsport news service to the industry and fans in Australia and internationally.

Read the promise

Subscribe to our daily newsletter, the best way to get your news first, fast, and free!