F1 » Whiting: If a move is wrong, it is wrong


Charlie Whiting has explained just why Nico Rosberg escaped sanction for his moves on Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso in Bahrain, and why current safety standards may prompt risk-taking.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

whoelse - Unregistered

June 13, 2012 9:30 PM

@Taipan, you really DO like the attention, dont you?

I mean, the guy(whiting) just explained the two scenarios, in not so much so actually mentioning it, but using enough words, to more than just hint that the dicussed rules are anybody's(read, 'Stewards') interpretation.

Now, if only you had 'ranted' against the rules themselves, i'd give you a point --- hmmm, make that half a point! BUt you needlessly had to use all the comment space, to just point out something that the guy had already given his views on, irrespective of whether his views are valid or not! It is like pointing out to a judge that he has to make a decision, when he's already ruled on that!!

richard

June 13, 2012 9:48 PM

whoelse. ty has made a fully valid point. irrespective of what charlie is saying, the ultimate decision was totally debatable. as ty, sunny and others have pointed out, ONE of the two drivers did something wrong. therefore there is every reason to challenge the outcome, where neither driver was punished. the rules are there, whether or not we like them.
if nico was in the clear, then lulu deserved a penalty for breaking a rule. if lulu was forced totally off the track, then nico deserved a penalty.

but charlie has made a number of questionable decisions this year, and other than the tyres, he has the most influence on the results. HE is king, and we shouldnt question him!!

Taipan

June 14, 2012 12:01 AM

"Whoelse" (wonder what your name will be next) If you had actually made a sensible argument against the points that I had made I might have given you a point, mmm make that half a point, but your issue is clearly not my point but the fact that I made a point, my first in 48 hours I might add.

If Lulu wasn't wrong do you think that overtaking with your car off track is now within the rules?

If Rosberg wasn't wrong do you think leaving no room for a passing car is now within the rules?

From what I've read of the rules both are illegal, do you know different?

As for your attention suggestion, yes I do, and thank you for your attention giving post..... :)

s - Unregistered

June 14, 2012 12:53 AM

I'm struck by the seeming similarity between Whiting's "If a move is wrong, it is wrong" summation, and NASCAR's "We'll know it when we see it" response when asked to quantify the exact circumstances of when a driver has crossed the safety and/or "racing etiquette" line.

While I really don't expect anything else from the orchestrated "race theatre" that is NASCAR, it's really a disappointment to see this approach expressly adopted by F1, as if the contrivances with tires and DRS weren't enough of a "fix" to the racing, now they can openly meddle with the race results.

rob01

June 14, 2012 1:07 AM

That was one big non answer from someone that is suppose to be in charge. It's now perfectly clear to me that he has no clue as to how he will call the next incident on the track.

Tommo - Unregistered

June 14, 2012 1:29 AM

Christian Horner spots Charlie Whiting across the F1 Paddock and Yells out

"hey Charlie....CONSISTENCY!!!!!"

Charlie turns and replies "ha...what? whats that????"

Christina Horner with a smile walks off and mutters to himself "...yeah thats what i thought"

Bob - Unregistered

June 14, 2012 8:37 AM

He should be a referee and have 3 laps to take action, after that it is too late.If he cant make up his mind quickly than it means that the incident is debatable.

Otherwise it looks like he is fixing the race with his late decision. His job is not to make sure a car finish at the position he think is right.

Bruiser - Unregistered

June 14, 2012 1:12 PM

This ridiculous rule that allows deliberate swerving in front of a following car needs to be scrapped. Apart from being extremely dangerous, it spoils the actual racing when two cars needlessly collide, as has happened too many times in the past. How this rule is tolerated amazes me. It belongs to dodgem-cars, not Formula 1.

Page 2 of 3
« 1 2 3  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.