I knwo the track and that's why in my comment I'd raised about how MUCH of grass was cut.
In critical analysis of a system then exploring where thoses limits exist are important. A full vut is clear to everyone. A 50% cut possibly also, a 25% cut ? debatable and repeating THAT is the point about the penalty given. There's no independant evidence and Hamilton's situation is open to huge interpretation and no evidence. So thus the penalty was inappropriate.

Your eau rouge example is a differnet issue. Repeatedly cutting has always been known to be a situation where you will be given a warngin flag adn if you copntinue you'll get a black flag. Different situation entirely.