[Mattk]

The thing with 1997 is that Schumacher ended up wrecking his car and lost everything, while Villeneuve finished in the points (3rd, I believe). In Canada, both drivers ended up with wrecked cars. Schumacher's unsportsmanlike conduct resulted in little disadvantage for Villeneuve.

Most drivers' form directly correlate with confidence. Lose a few, and you start getting a bit nervous. Win a few, and you're on top of the world. Alonso, for instance, was languishing mid-pack until he got a win, then another, and finished on a high.

Now, let's look at the contexts of each of those incidents. Schumacher's hit on Villeneuve was a racing incident. Hamilton's hit on Raikonnen was a pit lane incident. On the race track, people crash all the time. Schumacher was ruled to have done it deliberately. Such malice would obviously cop a massive penalty. Losing everything was his just deserts. In the pit lane, on the other hand, people don't crash all the time. Speeds are low and everything is highly regulated so as to prevent crashes. Like real roads, there are traffic lights, which Hamilton apparently didn't see. He caused an accident and his idiocy cost Raikonnen the race. The question is, was it deliberate? Is it a mere accident if you plough into a stationary car, piloted by a close championship rival? Question marks remain.

Put together, the Hamilton incident echoes the Schumacher incident. His culpability may not be as self-evident, but losing everything compared to a 10-place grid penalty for the next race is worlds apart.