Why Schumacher broke the rules in Monaco
What is it about Michael Schumacher and Monaco?
The German legend will forever be inextricably linked with the principality and, to some extent, it is for all the wrong reasons.
For all the brilliance Schumacher has displayed around one of Formula 1's most demanding circuits throughout his career, it is the controversy he has created there that makes the headlines.
In 2006, the final year of his first spell in F1, he was involved in one of the biggest scandals of his career when he deliberately parked his Ferrari at Rascasse corner, clumsily trying to make it look like he had made a mistake, and prevented his title rival Fernando Alonso, then at Renault, from beating him to pole position.
Now back in F1 after a three-year retirement, and driving for Mercedes, Schumacher was again at the centre of controversy in Sunday's Monaco Grand Prix. Just a few metres further on from his infamous 2006 stunt, he snatched sixth place from Alonso, now Ferrari's lead driver, into the final corner of the race.
That move was later ruled illegal by the race stewards, a decision that Schumacher's Mercedes team have decided to appeal against.
In the best traditions of F1, that decision itself has generated enormous controversy.
And there was a delicious irony that one of the four stewards was Damon Hill, Schumacher's former arch-rival on the track.
Typically, the row centres around a part of the F1 rule book that, while its intent is clear, leaves room for interpretation.
Article 40.13 of the Formula 1 sporting regulations states: "If the race ends while the safety car is deployed it will enter the pit lane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking."
Clearly, the rule is meant to be read as meaning that if the safety car is out during the final lap then, although it will pull into the pits before the end of the lap, the cars will proceed to the finish line without being allowed to overtake.
The reason the rule exists is simply because it looks better on television not to have the safety car crossing the line in front of the racing cars.
But the problem is that it can be argued by clever people - and they do not come much cleverer than Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn - that the meaning of the rule is clouded by the initial sub-clause: "If the race ends while the safety car is deployed..."
Brawn's argument is that because the safety car had pulled into the pits, the race was back on, and Schumacher was therefore permitted to overtake Alonso once they had passed what is known as the "safety car line".
This line, which is painted across the track before the final corner, is a new development this year.
Previously, when a race was restarted after a safety car period, the cars were not allowed to overtake until they had crossed the finish line at the start of the next lap.
From this year, though, they can now start to race once they pass this line, which at Monaco was on the exit of the Rascasse hairpin as the cars begin the climb up to the final corner, Anthony Noghes.
Those who wrote the rules would argue that the reason Brawn's interpretation is wrong is that the only time article 40.13 can possibly apply is if the safety car is out at the beginning of the last lap.
In that event, the safety car will pull in to the pit lane, for aforementioned aesthetic reasons, at the end of the lap. But the fact that it is in the pit lane is irrelevant - it is still effectively controlling the cars because article 40.13 says they cannot overtake.
Brawn and Schumacher argued that at this point green flags were displayed, meaning they were able to race.
But the rule-makers would say that is the case every time the safety car pulls in. The reason for it is to let all the drivers know, wherever they are on the track, that the safety car has pulled in. But they are still not allowed to overtake until the specified point - which on the last lap means not at all.
This interpretation was shared by all the team managers bar that of Mercedes - I understand that upon seeing Schumacher's move every single one of them got in touch with race director Charlie Whiting to say it was not allowed.
It was also clearly shared by the stewards.
But many an F1 rule has fallen down on the difference between intent and interpretation.
Brawn is a persuasive man, and he has won many battles in the court of appeal of F1's governing body the FIA. Mercedes' lawyers will doubtless field all their arguments convincingly. And they could easily win this one, too.
A final thought. There are those questioning Hill's objectivity in all of this, suggesting that he was taking his chance to get back at Schumacher for things that had gone on in the past between them - particularly when Schumacher took him out to win the drivers' championship at the 1994 Australian Grand Prix.
I have to say that I find that ridiculous, and not just because he was only one among four race stewards.
I know Hill well. His integrity is beyond reproach and he is a thoroughly honest man.
I was in touch with him last night, and while he recognised the humour inherent in the situation, he said after he had heard the arguments from those involved: "Believe me, my only concern is that the right thing is done. If that was the case consistently, things would be better. But there was a wry smile from Michael."
UPDATE 20 MAY, 1510 BST: In the wake of the FIA's decision to reasses article 40.13, some new information has emerged that I wanted to let you know about.
It turns out that the other teams were not quite as clear-cut about Schumacher's move not being allowed as I had been led to believe on Monday.
I am told that of the six teams with drivers in the top 10, three of them told their drivers they could overtake, two of them said the race was effectively over and they could not, and one of them said they could race, but not overtake.
Which all goes to show that the decision to review the rule is the right thing to do.
In that context, though, perhaps the FIA should go a step further and reinstate Schumacher into seventh place. The move may have been in contravention of the intent of the rules. But it seems unfair that he should be penalised for breaking a rule that, the governing body has now effectively admitted, it was impossible to know for sure what that rule meant.