You are about to report the comment below to the Crash.Net moderators as being abusive. An abusive comment may contain profanity, personal attacks or commercial SPAM.
Please do not report this comment as being abusive if you simply disagree with the comment posted. If this is the case then you can click on the "disagree" icon () in the upper right of the comment's post to show your dissatisfaction.
Crash.Net moderators will view all reported comments and will act as they deem necessary. This may be editing the comment or total deletion.
realfan. first of all, merc did not get the green light from Charlie, and that is the main problem! merc got the QUALIFIED OPINION from Charlie, but the issue was never brought to the fia. Charlie did not have the right to approve ANY breach of rules. merc (mistakenly or otherwise) took the OPINION as the go ahead, despite not even adhering to the qualifications stated.
as far as Pirelli goes, it is in the contract with fia, that Pirelli are required to abide by the sporting regs and rules (and that includes not running a 2013 car). they didn't, and that is why they were also found guilty!
the decisions and rulings are quite clear, and I cannot understand why the confusion.
Charlie is NOT the rule maker, and had no authority to make a decision (which he didn't anyway). that is why fia were also found to be partly responsible.