Formula 1 2010

[wwwd]

What a f*cking joke.

 

Once Brawn argued his case on the BBC, everyone on the panel (Martin, Coulthard and Jordan) all completely agreed and thought the decision was a forgone conclusion.

 

Something like this (a piece of opportunistic intelligence) would have put the sport in a positive light.

 

Now, it's just an obvious case of an anti-Schumacher (Hill) and pro-Ferrari (Todt) bias.

 

Pathetic.

[escortjas]

In other news Kubica spent the entire weekend driving the wheels of the Renault. Seriously, that man gets my vote for driver of the weekend. Yea, Webber did a great job, but the Red Bull is clearly the fastest car there, unlike the Renault, which is probably the 4th or 5th fastest.

 

Annoyed about the Schumi incident, the pace car was in, and the flags were green, its was after the pace car line, so a legal overtake. Pity the Ferrari Is Awesome board saw it differently.

[rs2k2008]

Can't belive they ruled agains mcs, seem they dont want him to be as famous any more

[Craig855S]

What a boring race..other than the 10 retirements, and Schumis overtake.

Lmao talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

 

Yawn, pull the other one, sick of people saying F1 is boring it clearly isn't

 

HOW can Monaco be jazzed up anymore!? Were your eyes shut when the TV was on today?

 

P.S. It was me who banned re-fueling.

 

 

Show me a video of an overtaking manouver between 2 cars that mattered? Alonso moving past the 6 shitty cars doesnt count... Unless it slipped my attention no-one overtook outside of the pitstops... Therefore, BORING. Yes the retirements were 2 seconds of excitement but there was no fighting for position like there is in other races, partly this is due to the no refuelling rule, but it is also partly because of the high levels of downforce. (They say they are always changing the downforce rules in order to lower cornering speeds and increase overtaking, but the teams just develop the front and rear wings in order to compensate for the lack of sidepod aero and decent diffusers)

[Danzetec]

I'm no Schumacher fan but imo he played it by the rules and this ruling is unfair

[danposs86]

This is the rule he broke:

 

The FIA stewards, which included his old sparring partner Damon Hill, have deemed the German breached Article 40.13 of the Sporting Regulations, which states that “if the race ends whilst 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."

 

Killjoys

[Craig855S]

Why couldnt they just put him 7th and alonso 6th...

[Trig]

What a f*cking joke.

 

Once Brawn argued his case on the BBC, everyone on the panel (Martin, Coulthard and Jordan) all completely agreed and thought the decision was a forgone conclusion.

 

Something like this (a piece of opportunistic intelligence) would have put the sport in a positive light.

 

Now, it's just an obvious case of an anti-Schumacher (Hill) and pro-Ferrari (Todt) bias.

 

Pathetic.

 

Thats a bit unfair. If Hill isnt capable of being professional enough to do the job then he wouldnt have taken it/been offered it. I doubt Hill would have disagreed with what Schumi did given what the understanding of the safety car white line rule. At the end of the day, its the race stweards that look at the rule book.

 

Annoyed about the Schumi incident, the pace car was in, and the flags were green, its was after the pace car line, so a legal overtake. Pity the Ferrari Is Awesome board saw it differently.

 

I thought it was Ferrari International Assistance

[stuey650]

its basically 2 rules that contradict themselves as far as I can see, which is typical of the FIA to have. Every rule in the book has one thats a loophole somehow!

 

As for the penalty, i was confused at that aswell, just dock him the place he gained if the ruling is final. I see they're going to appeal, i hope they win.

[wwwd]

its basically 2 rules that contradict themselves as far as I can see, which is typical of the FIA to have. Every rule in the book has one thats a loophole somehow!

 

As for the penalty, i was confused at that aswell, just dock him the place he gained if the ruling is final. I see they're going to appeal, i hope they win.

I agree with that.

 

The BBC panel (who are knowledgeable) agreed with what Brawn said so I'm surprised with the outcome, and even more surprised they actually penalised Schumacher instead of just swapping the places.

 

F1 was better with Max Mosley in charge.

 

What a f*cking joke.

 

Once Brawn argued his case on the BBC, everyone on the panel (Martin, Coulthard and Jordan) all completely agreed and thought the decision was a forgone conclusion.

 

Something like this (a piece of opportunistic intelligence) would have put the sport in a positive light.

 

Now, it's just an obvious case of an anti-Schumacher (Hill) and pro-Ferrari (Todt) bias.

 

Pathetic.

 

Thats a bit unfair. If Hill isnt capable of being professional enough to do the job then he wouldnt have taken it/been offered it. I doubt Hill would have disagreed with what Schumi did given what the understanding of the safety car white line rule. At the end of the day, its the race stweards that look at the rule book.

Unfair but true.

 

Formula 1 isn't exactly the cleanest of sports. Not as bad as Italian football mind.

[sidrick]

I agree with old drivers being on the stewards panel, but I don't think that recent drivers should officiate races that include drivers that they've had a rivalry with. You can't possibly claim that is neutral.

 

I'm not saying Hill has done it to get one back on Schumacher, but, for example, in a couple of years time would you think that it was fair that Schumacher (by then a guest steward) was allowed to have a say on an incident involving Alonso? Of course not.

[Trig]

What a f*cking joke.

 

Once Brawn argued his case on the BBC, everyone on the panel (Martin, Coulthard and Jordan) all completely agreed and thought the decision was a forgone conclusion.

 

Something like this (a piece of opportunistic intelligence) would have put the sport in a positive light.

 

Now, it's just an obvious case of an anti-Schumacher (Hill) and pro-Ferrari (Todt) bias.

 

Pathetic.

 

Thats a bit unfair. If Hill isnt capable of being professional enough to do the job then he wouldnt have taken it/been offered it. I doubt Hill would have disagreed with what Schumi did given what the understanding of the safety car white line rule. At the end of the day, its the race stweards that look at the rule book.

Unfair but true.

 

Formula 1 isn't exactly the cleanest of sports. Not as bad as Italian football mind.

 

And your proof that Hill was acting in his own interests is what exactly?

 

And arent the ex-drivers there to advise on racing incidents? and this case was one of needing to go and look it up in the rule book, which also states what the penalties are. I think they should have simply reversed the overtake, not dock 20 seconds, but the rules are the rules.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Trig

[sidrick]

Hill might not have been acting in his own interests, and may not have even had a say in the ruling.

 

However, the situation should never have been able to occur where these suspicions could be raised.

[wwwd]

What a f*cking joke.

 

Once Brawn argued his case on the BBC, everyone on the panel (Martin, Coulthard and Jordan) all completely agreed and thought the decision was a forgone conclusion.

 

Something like this (a piece of opportunistic intelligence) would have put the sport in a positive light.

 

Now, it's just an obvious case of an anti-Schumacher (Hill) and pro-Ferrari (Todt) bias.

 

Pathetic.

 

Thats a bit unfair. If Hill isnt capable of being professional enough to do the job then he wouldnt have taken it/been offered it. I doubt Hill would have disagreed with what Schumi did given what the understanding of the safety car white line rule. At the end of the day, its the race stweards that look at the rule book.

Unfair but true.

 

Formula 1 isn't exactly the cleanest of sports. Not as bad as Italian football mind.

 

And your proof that Hill was acting in his own interests is what exactly?

 

And arent the ex-drivers there to advise on racing incidents? and this case was one of needing to go and look it up in the rule book, which also states what the penalties are. I think they should have simply reversed the overtake, not dock 20 seconds, but the rules are the rules.

That's what I was saying.

 

How would I have any proof?

 

Hill might not have been acting in his own interests, and may not have even had a say in the ruling.

 

However, the situation should never have been able to occur where these suspicions could be raised.

What he said.

[Trig]

What a f*cking joke.

 

Once Brawn argued his case on the BBC, everyone on the panel (Martin, Coulthard and Jordan) all completely agreed and thought the decision was a forgone conclusion.

 

Something like this (a piece of opportunistic intelligence) would have put the sport in a positive light.

 

Now, it's just an obvious case of an anti-Schumacher (Hill) and pro-Ferrari (Todt) bias.

 

Pathetic.

 

Thats a bit unfair. If Hill isnt capable of being professional enough to do the job then he wouldnt have taken it/been offered it. I doubt Hill would have disagreed with what Schumi did given what the understanding of the safety car white line rule. At the end of the day, its the race stweards that look at the rule book.

Unfair but true.

 

Formula 1 isn't exactly the cleanest of sports. Not as bad as Italian football mind.

 

And your proof that Hill was acting in his own interests is what exactly?

 

And arent the ex-drivers there to advise on racing incidents? and this case was one of needing to go and look it up in the rule book, which also states what the penalties are. I think they should have simply reversed the overtake, not dock 20 seconds, but the rules are the rules.

That's what I was saying.

 

How would I have any proof?

 

 

You said its an obvious case of anti schumacher stance by Hill then said it was true, so I was just assuming there was proof of this because of the statement you made.