Decisions against Hamilton.... etc

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
cosicave said:
Chrispa: for what it's worth, I really enjoyed the battle too!

I think Samurai was getting at what he/she perhaps sees as a discrepancy in the 'refereeing' decision we saw today. There are occasions where the line between right and wrong is rather blurred but one must bear in mind that squeezing another driver off the circuit and/or moving twice (both of which Schumacher did within a short space of time) are against the rules for a good reason.

Focussing on the squeezing; when this forces another driver to take avoiding action by driving off the circuit at 170mph, it is dangerous. And yes; in this case, it really is that simple. Slick tyres have virtually no grip on grass at high speed.

On the second point of a 'double-move'; the rule is clear (whether or not you agree with it).
Click to expand...

Thomsen said:
Slight exagerration here, got to say I enjoyed Schumi defending today, it was a throwback to the good old days of non-sanitized racing. I agree that Schumi made more than one move but that doesn't make him the devil himself, the races would be so much more boring without the likes of Schumi and Hamilton firing people up with their controversial driving styles and tactics.
Click to expand...

As I've already said, I really enjoyed the battle too. But it should be clear that this is not my point.

Chrispa: I think that dragging up other specific incidents - which have been exhaustively debated - to make comparisons; becomes a diversion and is ultimately futile. Each and every case should be looked at (and debated) in isolation. Ultimately we are left with our own opinions; and mine is that Schumacher was very very close to overstepping the boundaries of an established rule. What Hamilton has done in the past is utterly irrelevant to this incident.
 
Surely this thread is incorrectly headed it is called Decisions against Hamilton and then goes on to talk about Schumacher not getting one at Monza.

Rightly or wrongly the steward didn't give Michael a penalty, but that has got nothing to do with Hamilton, Hamilton's situation is a completely different issue, so please try and not post misleading titles, for some reason I see that a lot on this site and would ask a moderator to do something about it thank you.

In fact this is the second misleading thread posted by this OP, maybe I should start a thread called The G.O.A.T and then go on to talk about farm animals specifically COWS
 
Miggins said:
If the one move rule was scrtapped there would be no overtaking, it's far too easy to just weave from side to side on straights. What Schumacher did to hamilton was bannable imo, It's was no different to what he did to Barricello, no different at all, he saw he was about to be overtaken so he tried to barge him off the road, the stewards and the FIA are a ****ing joke if they penalise accidental collisions and let premeditated dangerous driving go unpunished. If he'd done that to me on a race track he'd be visiting a dental proctologist to extract his teeth from his arse where I'd kicked them.

and bob, you don;t have to work to keep someone behind you if you break the rules to do it, that ain't skill, it's the total opposite, it shows a lack of it. Schumacher only has 7 titles because he, and his team principles, were cheats.
Click to expand...

Well you have no problem with Michael Schumacher as a person at all .. do you...
 
My opinion is that yesterdays incident was borderline but ok. I also think it was good for racing.
I believe Hamilton thinks it should be ok as well - but wants consistancy from Stewards as he has been penalised for exactly this in the past.
I say give a little leeway & let them race!
 
cosicave said:

Chrispa: I think that dragging up other specific incidents - which have been exhaustively debated - to make comparisons; becomes a diversion and is ultimately futile. Each and every case should be looked at (and debated) in isolation. Ultimately we are left with our own opinions; and mine is that Schumacher was very very close to overstepping the boundaries of an established rule. What Hamilton has done in the past is utterly irrelevant to this incident.
Click to expand...

@cosicave
Yes that's exactly what I tried to say that I do not like, draging other drivers into it and make comparisons. Hence I wrote this:

"Now I am not entirely sure that I remember when Hamilton got penalized for changing directions more than once so I do not want to compare them. But talking about today only, I agree that MSC came close of braking the rules, though it is far from a crystal clear case if you ask me after looking at the only one angle and camera view BBC provided."

This topic is supposed to be about Decisions against Hamilton, yet you guys talk about and compare with Schumacher. Did you see my other statement?

"I fail to see what the OP is really after. What decision was against Hamilton? If they Marshalls would have deemed MSC's driving braking the rules they would have given him a penalty. But how exactly would that have Favoured Lewis?"

So tell me how you are "Isolating" each incident by dragging Schumi into this topic that is supposed to be about Hamilton? I merely replied to what you guys had already compared.


Btw, sorry for mixing up stewards with marshals :P
 
mephistopheles said:
Yeah so feisty that Button cruised up behind them popped on by without breaking a sweat and said I'll wait for you at the finish line lads after I squirt some champaign about.
Click to expand...

Hamilton lost out yesterday.. laughing looking at the papers and the BBC website. ;)
 
chrispa76 said:
@cosicave
Yes that's exactly what I tried to say that I do not like, draging other drivers into it and make comparisons. Hence I wrote this:

"Now I am not entirely sure that I remember when Hamilton got penalized for changing directions more than once so I do not want to compare them. But talking about today only, I agree that MSC came close of braking the rules, though it is far from a crystal clear case if you ask me after looking at the only one angle and camera view BBC provided."

This topic is supposed to be about Decisions against Hamilton, yet you guys talk about and compare with Schumacher. Did you see my other statement?

"I fail to see what the OP is really after. What decision was against Hamilton? If they Marshalls would have deemed MSC's driving braking the rules they would have given him a penalty. But how exactly would that have Favoured Lewis?"

So tell me how you are "Isolating" each incident by dragging Schumi into this topic that is supposed to be about Hamilton? I merely replied to what you guys had already compared.


Btw, sorry for mixing up stewards with marshals :P
Click to expand...

Schumacher is dragged into everything, his name is worn out here and by the beeb commentators as well as the media. Good on Michael, keep racing the way you do, the FIA has reduced drivers to lifeless 1 movers. In the 90's real passionate racing occured.... Michael refuses to be lifeless.
 
There was nothing wrong with it. If it was the other way around, then nobody (especially the BBC) would care. I dont like either driver but it was fair on both of them. I still want to know why people think Schumacher chopped Hamilton, when Hamilton just tried to go into a gap that didnt exist.
 
Just because the stewards may have made a dubious decision about Hamilton in the past that's no reason to punish Schumacher who I thought had a storming race yesterday. I don't think Schumacher actually did much wrong in his duel with Hamilton. He may have been close to the limit but from what I saw, Schumacher made his defensive move but then returned to the racing line. That's obviously how the stewards saw it and that's why they chose to not take any action. Schumacher may have pushed the boundaries in the past but that's what made him so successful and his supreme competitiveness is what made yesterday's battle with Hamilton so exciting. I hope for the benefit of F1 that Schumacher continues to improve and if Mercedes can further develop the car then that will make for a very interesting season next year.
 
Fred! said:
There was nothing wrong with it. If it was the other way around, then nobody (especially the BBC) would care. I dont like either driver but it was fair on both of them. I still want to know why people think Schumacher chopped Hamilton, when Hamilton just tried to go into a gap that didnt exist.
Click to expand...

It is slightly amusing how in Spa when Hamilton drifted into Kobi he admitted it was his fault, maybe he was hoping for good Karma, turns out it didn't come when Schumacher drifted into him <doh>
 
Simcanary said:
Just because the stewards may have made a dubious decision about Hamilton in the past that's no reason to punish Schumacher who I thought had a storming race yesterday. I don't think Schumacher actually did much wrong in his duel with Hamilton. He may have been close to the limit but from what I saw, Schumacher made his defensive move but then returned to the racing line. That's obviously how the stewards saw it and that's why they chose to not take any action. Schumacher may have pushed the boundaries in the past but that's what made him so successful and his supreme competitiveness is what made yesterday's battle with Hamilton so exciting. I hope for the benefit of F1 that Schumacher continues to improve and if Mercedes can further develop the car then that will make for a very interesting season next year.
Click to expand...

Simple thing is Hamilton tried to go for a gap that didn't exist and stayed behind Michael for around 30 laps....Button got passed with ease.. It is a shame that Michael is ALWAYS framed for the slightest thing.. Brundle was going crazy when Michael made 2 moves (1 for the defense - 1 for the corner) "THAT WAS TWO MOVES" to a neutral person that I have asked today.. he believed the race was excellent and that Schumacher seems to be finding something inside him...blatant bias towards Hamilton from the BBC.
 
MannyF1MSC said:
Simple thing is Hamilton tried to go for a gap that didn't exist and stayed behind Michael for around 30 laps....Button got passed with ease.. It is a shame that Michael is ALWAYS framed for the slightest thing.. Brundle was going crazy when Michael made 2 moves (1 for the defense - 1 for the corner) "THAT WAS TWO MOVES" to a neutral person that I have asked today.. he believed the race was excellent and that Schumacher seems to be finding something inside him...blatant bias towards Hamilton from the BBC.
Click to expand...

If I learnt anything from the 606 days its that the BBC love Button and hate Hamilton. This is because Button buys the press guys steak...... apparently <laugh>
 
Yeah but if Sunday is anything to go by, it's that I would rather wear ear muffs than listen to Brundle-Coulthard and Eddie.. who have all had 1st hand experience with Schumacher and try to get across they don't have a problem with him.
 
MannyF1MSC said:
Schumacher is dragged into everything, his name is worn out here and by the beeb commentators as well as the media. Good on Michael, keep racing the way you do, the FIA has reduced drivers to lifeless 1 movers. In the 90's real passionate racing occured.... Michael refuses to be lifeless.
Click to expand...

Racers raced fairly and didn;t need written rules regarding overtkaing and defending.............until they had to write them because of the start-line chops, dubious moves, squeezing of opponents, drifting on corner exits......... all of which were first brought into the sport by Schumacher.
 
allsaintchris said:
Racers raced fairly and didn;t need written rules regarding overtkaing and defending.............until they had to write them because of the start-line chops, dubious moves, squeezing of opponents, drifting on corner exits......... all of which were first brought into the sport by Schumacher.
Click to expand...

How factually correct is your post? to the last "fact"> wasn't Senna or Prost involved with these?
 
In a way I'm happy Schumi's back of sorts, brings back childhood memories of some good hard fighting.

Didn't like him being brushed aside and I can't wait for 2012 now lol!
 
SilverArrow said:
In a way I'm happy Schumi's back of sorts, brings back childhood memories of some good hard fighting.

Didn't like him being brushed aside and I can't wait for 2012 now lol!
Click to expand...

Well this is it.. he needs a winning car and he would win 90% of the races next season (with Rosberg starting on pole lol). ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back