Printable View
But the fact that there were precedents to doing exactly what Hamilton did and not being punished — even you must agree that the similarity with the Alonso/Klien one shown on ITV was striking — is an equally powerful argument in the other direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Weel if this was any driver and the track conditions were wet, I would agree, even initially did so agree as to LH.
But then I listened to his post race interview, and then the later comments about his superior braking and kimi's lack of balls, so applying the LH own standard to his own driving, then you can not say there is anyone else or another incident that you can compare Hamilton to, as clearly his driving talent is beyond being comparable to any other driver. Just so much better.
At least that is the gospel according to Saint Hamster.
So based on that, then the penalty should stand (and Easy Drifter has so carefully pointed out the justification). Besides just cause many people get away with murder, does not justify one person going forth and doing some killing on somebody else......
I'm sorry but they didn't show all that much of the Alonso Klien incident. I sky+'ed qualifying so I'll watch it again though :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I thought they showed all of it. Anyway, do watch it again. The one difference, of course, was the track conditions (I'm sure my grammar is wrong there.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
What about gandpa, is he wrong also? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No, that's the Gospel according to those who look for any opportunity to pick at, criticise and bash one of the best young talents to come into F1 for many years. It's a very thick book, which has a number of contributors, and it's very repetitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Still, for a throwaway airport paperback it's quite entertaining :p :
More from the English media referring to the LH case:
"Were the stewards right in investigating Hamilton’s move? Absolutely. Most of the drivers agree that he gained an advantage by taking the escape road rather than fully negotiating the corner. Hamilton is a bit too fast and talkative to garner much support from his envious rivals, although they mostly thought the penalty was harsh."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle4738521.ece
So, here you ahev an other article published by the TIMES. And after reading this srticle, it looks like that the majority of F1 specialists (except for Lauda but including James Allen - go figure) agrees in admitting Hamilton's wrongdoing. They feel the punishment was too harsh but that's a different story. The "only" ones who stubburnely negate the evidence are the McLAren's fans. That say it all, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Upon that I would agree, for all but the master since his balls are very large, so it is not necessary to be making allowances for wet conditions on track or off...... so there. But there are times when wet is more fun.....
If it ain't fun, it ain't worth doing (unless the pay is much deniro dollars, the kool aid good, and you get get your chicks for free)Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
"and it's very repetitive" Well, Sorry dude, Really. I am doing the best I can, but sometimes the Hamster does get a little bit repetitive. I promise to work harder and listen closer. I do. Every year I am getting stronger and stronger. I'll just do the best job I can.......you work on your approach and you work on yourself. I'm comfortable where I am.......so I can't really complain. It's just part of the way it goes. It's just one of those days, I'm taking it on the chin, keep your head high and keep pushing.......... :arrows:
Besides it ain't costing nothing, but i wish I was getting money for nothing and my chicks for free :love:
Are you suggesting that Ron make a timely decision during a race whilst there is no apparent onus on the stewards to do the same? Even if that thought crossed Ron's mind who was Lewis going to yield to? Kimi was already packing his bags for Monza a short time after the incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If Lewis drove slower when it started raining couldn't that be considered an attempt to yield to an absent driver? ;)
I don't believe that the stewards HAD to make a decision ie. They could've simply ignored Lewis' indiscretion and got on with the after-race party.
OK, I just watched the intro to qualifying at Monza and heard what has to be the stupidest quote on this whole situation. Steve Rider was summing up all the interviews and said that the decision was, "quite possibly correct, but was it for the good of the sport?"
Can you imagine a situation in ANY sport where the correct decision is made by the officials, but the decision to carry out the rules/penalty are not taken "for the good of the sport?" Imagine in baseball, for example, if a long ball is hit out of the park but passes just outside the foul marking pole, but the officials declare it a home run "for the good of the sport."
So now, our governing rules must be politically correct?
Of course it was on the ITV coverage who will soon be changing their name to the ILL (I Love Lewis) network! ;)
well i don't think there are that many sports out there where the ruling is this inconsequent..Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Just Spa alone...Bourdais running in the back of trulli..Not even investigated...KR leaving treack in the first corner...either he gained advantage or not...never investigated....situation with Rosberg getting back on track...very dangerous move of rosberg..and he should at least gotten a warning for it...even in these wet conditions...Did Kimi overtook under yellow yes or no ? was there actualy a yellow flag yes or no ?....situation..never investigated...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
I think I agree with Rider.
The verdict is probably correct but the decision to penalise the behaviour probably isn't - considering the inflexibility and impact of the sentencing protocols surrounding this incident.
The stewards didn't have to penalise the indiscretion and probably wouldn't if the had their time over - especially if it means that they might lose their gig. :)
I think the difference is that baseball doesn't require a team of engineer's to decide whether it had the potential to actually be a "foul" ball, a team of lawyer's to argue whether "foul or not" is the right question to be asking and a giggle of passionate fans to peck over every piece of data so's to argue the point long after the actual ball has decayed to its base parts and the bat that hit it has been turned to dust by termites.Quote:
Can you imagine a situation in ANY sport where the correct decision is made by the officials, but the decision to carry out the rules/penalty are not taken "for the good of the sport?" Imagine in baseball, for example, if a long ball is hit out of the park but passes just outside the foul marking pole, but the officials declare it a home run "for the good of the sport."
If Baseball was this complicated they'd never get to the second innings.
:)
anyone just saw the porsche supercup race at Monza ? Just wondering if they race under the same FIA "track behaviour" regulations as F1 does ? i mean..well if you saw the race you know what I mean... *scratching head* lol
Yes, but maybe there are different FIA rules, depending on the series/Championship.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
I'm glad they have clarified the rule, it will be easier to determine for future races.
I bet they'd do the same thing again and again and again and again :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Alas, all it has achieved is Massa being unfairly penalised for a perfectly good pass on Rosberg. I know it didn't matter in the end points-wise, but even so, it was absurd to ask him to give the place up.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
Actually I have to agree, I feel Massa was unfairly penalized for the move on Rosberg.
Yes it was for good of sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Right or wrong does not matter, but the fact that it happenned caused many people to watch the Monza race, got a petition going of some sixt thousand fans to righ the injustice and so on and so....
Face it, if not for such stuff, F1 would shrink big time, because 90% of the race involving track action has been very boring the last few years and just ain't enough to keep the average fan interested.
Rubbish. We should show people that it's OK to cheat and as long as it's for the good of the sport you'll get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
You're a drug cheat and you're not competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? You're banned!
You're a drug cheat and you are competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? Come right in! We couldn't lose you! We can tolerate people thinking we allow people to cheat as long as you're up at the pointy end of the field :up:
That's the sort of attitude people are asking for from the stewards.
I must admit that was a stupid thing for him to say. The rights and wrongs of the penalty have been debated to death, but if a penalty is justified then it shouldn't matter one iota whether it is unpopular.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
No i think you missed my point of irony. It is the controversy that has become "good for the sport" because of the publicity and interest generated. Sad thing to say, but in the absence of all the fussing of last year as well as this year's Spa, not so many people would be paying attention......
Now as to what that particular commentor subjectively meant was probably this particular penalty is not good for the sport, especially when your hero is the one that suffers, and upon that, well you are correct as said above, popularity should not be the determining factor
:up: Although I suspect I disagree with you in regards to whether the penalty is justified but at least we agree that rules is rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
well, as i've pointed out in another thread, having all four wheels on the inside of the "face" of the kerb is, in the eyes of just about every race steward on earth, viewed as short-cutting the circuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
and, in light of recent events, moves have been made to clarify what needs to be done in what situations.
the one that i was confused about was massa straight-lining the same chicane when defending from hamilton with no questions asked.
I think there's a big difference between taking a lot of kerb and short-cutting a chicane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
in almost every drivers' briefing i've been in - and i've been a works driver - that's how it's been (and continues to be) defined.
and, especially on circuits with tight but furniture-free chicanes, the stewards always stress they will be watching for anybody who does it.
Why do you think it didn't matter points wise. The incident cost him at least 3-4 seconds (he had already moved away from Rosberg). If you look at the end result, I reckon 4th place was absolutely his, barring that incident. That's worth 2 points in my book, 2 very important championship points.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
If it wasn't for him having to hand back the place and lose 4 seconds he would have been in front of the pack after his stop instead of being behind it.
But that's life, there is a rule and it should be respected even if it was on the very limit of stretching it.
I was very glad to see Massa push like that and makng passes in the wet, on top contenders (2x Rosberg and 1x Heidfeld, 1x Webber) not bad for someone considered to be a "bad" driver in the wet! :D
Yeah that's life. But at least Massa has the good grace to take it like a man and deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I agree! So let's line every track with armco. You can place it at the point where going over a kerb becomes cutting a chicane and you won't need stewards to make judgements on this point! The human portion will be taken out of whether the driver cut the chicane - the armco will decide. (But then we'll have the stewards deciding if so-and-so forced so-and-so into the armco so there it goes again...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Here's a thought. If this thread ever finishes, we can take all the posts and add them to the Stepneygate posts, bind them in a book, sell it and split the earnings among all the forum members! All we need is a title. I'm suggesting "F1 - IF"
PM me when my check is ready! :)
I think - 'chinless wonders talk cohones all day long' is a much more fitting title.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Honestly, this place is getting worse for crap than a bus stop outside a council estate. Does no-one ever engage their brains before typing any more?
:down:
In theory I agree with you, but in reality I don't. If the Stewards aren't going to consistantly penalise drivers on issues, or even find them guilty and still let them off for not gaining a sporting advantage, surely not gaining a sporting advantage should be let off at all cases?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
Not just when its a red car involved.
And then we have past history showing the FIA and Stewards notion of everything has to be 100% certain and proven before they find someone guilty.
While I can see why some people think he gained a slight advantage (which was ultimately none considering Kimi crashed), its not a fact, its a pure guess. And the Stewards shouldn't be making such decisions on guesses. Decisions which will ultimately affect the title.
To be honest anyone who disagrees with what Dave said in that post should be banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
If someone does something wrong they should be penalised regardless of where they are in the title race. It's a pity when it affects the title race but rules is rules. I see no room on this forum for people who have a favourite driver and want them to get special treatment.
Well, as I pointed out, in theory I agree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
But in reality you have to look at the facts. Unsafe pit releases, Ferrari was punished. If they class that as unsafe, then countless of other pit releases have been unsafe this season and gone unpunished.
Why is it fair that Ferrari get penalised and the others don't? They all broke the rules, yet only Ferrari got punished.
So yeah, I believe if you break the rules, you should be punished no matter what, but its got to be consistant, you can't choose to randomly punish rule breaking, its got to be continous.