Jump to content


Photo

Barrichello/Schumacher Incident


  • Please log in to reply
1903 replies to this topic

#1601 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:07

how can anyone refute such a devastating avalanche of evidence..... :drunk:


Hyperlink to steward's interview was not included because location and setting it was conducted could reveal my identity which I am not prepared to do.

With Warwick it's actually not a conspiracy. Try after 6 to 10 years hence find a hyperlink to some statements which Brundle makes today during broadcasts, or random inteviews with him. Your memory shall be remaining you of content as a reference, but you might find pretty hard to research time, and occassion, which is what I am experiencing with Warwick. Simple Googgling did not help me.

Edited by Sakae, 04 August 2010 - 11:20.


Advertisement

#1602 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:19

@others

Racing is inherently dangerous endeavour, and to start judging drivers how they drive is a slippery slope in my view. There are thousand variants of cases during a season, which could uses a scrutiny, but, who will guarantee fairness how we apply judgements? Is sport going to turn into a Sunday funeral procession? If Hungary is a case for penalty, I do suggest then that there are more of those this year behind us, and without penalty. Randomness in application is overwhelming, and I am suspicioous that in this case what had trigerred all was because more of a personality behind this, rather than situation alone.

Edited by Sakae, 04 August 2010 - 11:21.


#1603 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:24

what?

if by arrived again you mean he's back to his old ways, then yes. But not form wise. He could prove everyone wrong and be great next year, but I am thinking it's less and less likely every day. Even Petrov has now improved more over the season than schumacher. How long do we have to give him?

Gap between Petrov racecraft and Renault could be closed by Petrov imporoving himslef this year 2010.
Gap between BAR/Honda car and Michael Schumacher could be closed by building a new car in 2011.

#1604 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:28

sakae claimed to have evidence of unfair critisims by warwick and evidence of abuse of stewardship, that link proves neither. All that says is "driver gets angry when crashed into"

Interesting; please include a post number where did I say that. Thanks.

#1605 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:36

Racing is inherently dangerous endeavour, and to start judging drivers how they drive is a slippery slope in my view.

Oh, come on :rolleyes: We judge people in sports everyday from a foul in football to throwing a racket in tennis. The principle is the same in every sport on the planet though; it's not allowed and therefore should induce some kind of penalty. Shumi broke a rule and was penalised for it, where's the problem.

Edited by VresiBerba, 04 August 2010 - 11:37.


#1606 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,227 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:52

Why do you think Shumi was penalised if you think no rule was broken. Of course a rule was broken:



THE ARGUEMENT THAT THERE IS NO RULE IS STUPID.

Is there a rule that says you can't kick another competitor in the balls before or after the race? Do you think it should be punished if a driver did it?

How about a specific rule against taking a knife and puncturing another guy's tires on the grid?

Some things are just obvious.

#1607 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,010 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:56

The rule that was broken "illegitimately impeded a competitor whilst overtaking".

Schumacher himself has accepted this rule was broken.

#1608 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:58

The rule that was broken "illegitimately impeded a competitor whilst overtaking".

That's a good one, but I do not know what it means, unfortunately.

#1609 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,010 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:00

Schumacher does, though: "I accept that the FIA stewards saw it as too hard".

#1610 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:00

The rule that was broken "illegitimately impeded a competitor whilst overtaking".

That's a good one, but I do not know what it means, unfortunately.

It means that Shumi forced Rubens off the track while Rubens was overtaking him. What is there to not understand.

#1611 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,240 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:01

The rule that was broken "illegitimately impeded a competitor whilst overtaking".

Schumacher himself has accepted this rule was broken.

I think there's also a 'crowding' rule in the same section.

#1612 Ellios

Ellios
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:04

THE ARGUEMENT THAT THERE IS NO RULE IS STUPID.

Is there a rule that says you can't kick another competitor in the balls before or after the race? Do you think it should be punished if a driver did it?





think he went for the kick in the balls there - what do you reckon?

I forget now....did they ever get fined for this?

#1613 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:04

Schumacher does, though: "I accept that the FIA stewards saw it as too hard".

You may have noticed that Vettel speaks in similar tones. Accept a decision is not implying congruence. Just Ok, it’s over, let’s move on.



#1614 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:06

Schumacher himself has accepted this rule was broken.

I wouldn't put much faith in Shumi 'accepting' anything, to be honest. Shumi is very adapt at diplomacy, which could be seen in Austria 2002 when he first punched the air after his 'win' but reverted to some sort of embarrassment-state when he saw the reactions. He did the same thing in the USGP 2005 when he first explained that he was trying to fix a dead-heat but later changed his mind to say he didn't know where the finish-line was. In Monaco 2006 he let us all know he was even sure what the turn he parked was called.

I wouldn't trust Shumi to carry a bag of shit.

#1615 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:08

I think there's also a 'crowding' rule in the same section.

But according to Autosport, Shumi was penalised for "illegitimately impeded car 9 during an overtaking manoeuvre."

#1616 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:25

If legitimate denotes legal (manouver), than my answer is yes, it was.


After thinking about it, I have to agree.

Schumacher came out of the last turn knowing Rubens would want to have to go up the inside to have a shot. Rubens knew this as well.

They both also knew Schumacher was NOT going to leave the inside open.

Schumacher started closing the inside line before Rubens decided to pass.

*Rubens took advantage of the way the track is built: the pit wall moves away from the track at the point where he tried to pass.*

My point about the white line being, if it weren't for the fact that the pit wall construction moves away from the track at that point, Rubens wouldn't have had the room to attempt the pass in the first place. He effectively drove off the track, Schumacher didn't move over on him - Schumacher was already moving over. If you watch the replay, Schumacher was already closing the door before Rubens pulled out from behind Schumacher. At that point there absolutely wasn't room to pass
. Rubens knew the pit wall moved out, and was aiming to take advantage of that.


If Schumacher had waited until Rubens was alongside, that would be different. Otherwise, it's sort of disingenuous I think of Rubens to act "surprised" that Michael closed the door on the inside line. Had the it been 10 meters earlier, the pit wall would be where the white line is - and Rubens wouldn't have had room to begin to make the pass in the first place. IMO effectively Rubens drove off the track to pass Schumacher. Rubens was bullying his way through, it was his decision to try that.

/ dons fire suit










#1617 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,631 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:37

I've just realised that because there isn't going to be a Grand Prix for a month, this thread will go on and on and on :rolleyes:

One thing I have learned is that the persistence of a fanboy on the face of overwhelming evidence is greater than any other natural force known to man :down:

#1618 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:40

A statement from the FIA read:

From: The FIA Stewards of the Meeting
To: The Team Manager Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team
Document: 50
Date: 01 August 2010
Time: 17:19

The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, have considered the following matter, determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor named below and impose the penalty referred to. No / Driver 3: Michael Schumacher
Team: Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team
Time: 15:37:00
Session: Race
Fact: Illegitimately impeded Car 9 during an overtaking manoeuvre.
Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 16.1 of the 2010 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations


____________

Wonderful. Now I need the same people to explain to me difference between this incident and some others we have seen on the track over the years, and that remain unnoticed.



#1619 Imuhcs

Imuhcs
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:47

im surprised that nobody has blamed michael for rosberg losing his tire... Anyways its sad that all the hasbeens are teaming up for some good ol bullying...

Advertisement

#1620 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:55

After thinking about it, I have to agree.

Schumacher came out of the last turn knowing Rubens would want to have to go up the inside to have a shot. Rubens knew this as well.

They both also knew Schumacher was NOT going to leave the inside open.

Schumacher started closing the inside line before Rubens decided to pass.

*Rubens took advantage of the way the track is built: the pit wall moves away from the track at the point where he tried to pass.*

My point about the white line being, if it weren't for the fact that the pit wall construction moves away from the track at that point, Rubens wouldn't have had the room to attempt the pass in the first place. He effectively drove off the track, Schumacher didn't move over on him -


So you believe that Schumacher had a right to continue moving right at this point? This is the crux of the legality/illegality of his defence.

Posted Image

Edited by Dunder, 04 August 2010 - 12:56.


#1621 JVi

JVi
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:16

im surprised that nobody has blamed michael for rosberg losing his tire.


I blame Schumacher for the fog this morning; a plant dying in the garden and crows squawking in the trees. Blame goes with the territory when one takes on the role of GOD! Live with it.

#1622 marchi-91

marchi-91
  • Member

  • 440 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:20

So you believe that Schumacher had a right to continue moving right at this point? This is the crux of the legality/illegality of his defence.

Posted Image


It's called a blindspot. F1 cars have them aswell

#1623 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:21

It's called a blindspot. F1 cars have them aswell

You're not seriously arguing that Shumi didn't see him, are you.

#1624 SimMaker

SimMaker
  • Member

  • 771 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:23

It's called a blindspot. F1 cars have them aswell


Now the bullshit gets deep.

#1625 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:23

It's called a blindspot. F1 cars have them aswell


With respect that does not answer the question posed and does not explain why he continued moving right long after the 'blind spot' could conceivably be an issue.


#1626 eff1fan

eff1fan
  • Member

  • 298 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:32

Michael has apologised and accepted his penalty,” competition boss Haug is quoted by Der Tagespiegel. “It should now be accepted from everyone else and a final line be drawn under this topic,” added the German.

Actually Mr. Haug, no! Apologizing means nothing.

For this incident Michael deserves to be treated exactly like the shameless menace he displayed himself to be. What he did was reckless and dangerous, and if the FIA had any real balls, they would have suspended him for a number of races. Had this been done by any of the new drivers they would have crucified him by now.



#1627 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,717 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:32

Oh, come on :rolleyes: We judge people in sports everyday from a foul in football to throwing a racket in tennis. The principle is the same in every sport on the planet though; it's not allowed and therefore should induce some kind of penalty. Shumi broke a rule and was penalised for it, where's the problem.

no problem IF it will be applied in the future also
it was allowed until now.

#1628 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,465 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:37

____________

Wonderful. Now I need the same people to explain to me difference between this incident and some others we have seen on the track over the years, and that remain unnoticed.


Well Barri and Schumi were racing each other at 290 km/h near the pit wall.

Lewis and Vettel were only racing at 100 km/h..............................in the pitlane. :rolleyes:



The difference is enormous ....................... the are more Schumi haters.

Edited by Diablobb81, 04 August 2010 - 13:42.


#1629 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:41

Interesting; please include a post number where did I say that. Thanks.



I am lost over criteria that were applied for rendered judgment.

On what precedent, and which rule was contravened?

What comments by Warwick really mean, when he states: "new stewards will not tolerate such driving" or something to that effect.

I am asking then, what about these "new stewards"? Did we fire all old ones? Has FIA issued new guidelines which I haven't read? It's possible.

Then accidentally I came across a statement made by one of the stewards who was working last race, and I dare to say if FIA is worth a nickel, this man should never work on races again, and his ethics should be investigated. Well, thats' what I would do.

I do not want to hyperlink the interview for my privacy reasons, but I am telling the truth, that in the interview he was laughing at Schumacher that he was looking innocent, but "we have showed him", that there will be no repeats of past (implying Jerez and Adel.). So what I get out of this is, that this particular individual shafted Schumacher this time, because over the years MS was looking too many times innocent and he (with his friends and fellow stewards) was going to give him a lesson.

Wow, what a jurisprudence masterpiece.

I am scare and also disinterested to follow on what the others said. To me it's a joke. Joke at the same level when Brundle declared to whole world that Schumacher parking Ferrari in Monaco was intentional, and deliberate, without having slightest clue about true condition of the equipment. That was not important? I would be interested to know more.

On positive side, Michael has truly arrived again, and his "friends" have something to talk about while drinking warm beer. Cheers!





#1630 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:43

im surprised that nobody has blamed michael for rosberg losing his tire... Anyways its sad that all the hasbeens are teaming up for some good ol bullying...



Following His Highness and our Lord, Race Director for a few decades, I am sure sooner or later he will.

#1631 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:44

no problem IF it will be applied in the future also
it was allowed until now.

The rule isn't exactly new so, no, it wasn't allowed until now. Umpires, stewards, judges and referees will always rely upon human interpretations and therefore it will never be consistent.

#1632 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,010 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:45

no problem IF it will be applied in the future also
it was allowed until now.

When have drivers got that close to the wall before?

#1633 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:48

Following His Highness and our Lord, Race Director for a few decades, I am sure sooner or later he will.

Among the most ridiculous penalties I have seen in the past decade, was Alonso in Monaco 2006 for blocking Massa, Montoya for being crashed into by Shumi in Malaysia 2002 and Lewis for not giving back the position the correct way in Belgium 2008. Please, this penalty isn't even close to be 'incorrect'.

#1634 frp

frp
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:49

Schumacher came out of the last turn knowing Rubens would want to have to go up the inside to have a shot. Rubens knew this as well.

They both also knew Schumacher was NOT going to leave the inside open.

Schumacher started closing the inside line before Rubens decided to pass...
...Schumacher didn't move over on him - Schumacher was already moving over. If you watch the replay, Schumacher was already closing the door before Rubens pulled out from behind Schumacher.

Schumacher ran wide at the apex of the last corner, severely reducing his exit speed onto the straight, leaving him no chance of defending his place. The footage clearly shows that he moved from the exit of the corner to the centre of the track, watched his mirrors to see which way Barrichello went, and then moved the same way. If Rubens had gone left, then Michael would have pushed him off onto the grass.

The clip is still on the BBC website for those in the UK:-
http://news.bbc.co.u...one/8875352.stm


#1635 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:50



I think I have explained sufficiently my position on both issues earlier on. There are several posts that needs to be linked together, to get the context of the exchange.

In the case of Warwick v Schumacher, I did not claimed that I have an evidence, just recollection on strenuous relationship between those two men from the past.

#1636 frp

frp
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:50

Motor sport is dangerous and we have accidents and moments where our hearts are in our mouths, that's what draws us to it.

Only some of us, thankfully.

#1637 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:51

When have drivers got that close to the wall before?


This is the point, it's not a question of squeezing a rival it's the extent to which he was squeezed and the conditions of that manouvre.

If you shove a man, it's no big deal, shove him into a wall and crack his head, you'll get done for assault, shove him into the path of an oncoming car you'll get done for attempted murder.

Schumacher didn't just squeeze Barrichello, he squeezed him within inches of a concrete wall at 180 mph, into the pitlane and over an exit kerb. It the extremity of the manouvre that is the problem.

#1638 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:54

In the case of Warwick v Schumacher, I did not claimed that I have an evidence, just recollection on strenuous relationship between those two men from the past.

These biased-stewards arguments are becoming tedious. The same thing were argued in Monaco and then it was Hill who got the blame for Shumi's penalty.

#1639 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:55

Among the most ridiculous penalties I have seen in the past decade, was Alonso in Monaco 2006 for blocking Massa, Montoya for being crashed into by Shumi in Malaysia 2002 and Lewis for not giving back the position the correct way in Belgium 2008. Please, this penalty isn't even close to be 'incorrect'.


add Hamilton at spa (racing a ferrari) and Montoya at indianaoplis when barrichello ran into him 03 or 04 (again against a ferrari)


Advertisement

#1640 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 August 2010 - 13:57

I think I have explained sufficiently my position on both issues earlier on. There are several posts that needs to be linked together, to get the context of the exchange.

In the case of Warwick v Schumacher, I did not claimed that I have an evidence, just recollection on strenuous relationship between those two men from the past.


whether you had evidence or just recollection doesn't alter the fact that you were casting aspertions on his ethics and ability as a steward and implying his abuse of position.

#1641 razno

razno
  • Member

  • 82 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:07

For this incident Michael deserves to be treated exactly like the shameless menace he displayed himself to be. What he did was reckless and dangerous, and if the FIA had any real balls, they would have suspended him for a number of races. Had this been done by any of the new drivers they would have crucified him by now.


Of course.. like they excluded Kubica in montreal for dangerous driving... sure... :rolleyes:


#1642 Buzz47

Buzz47
  • Member

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:08

All this arguing is lovely, but imagine if Barichello HAD crashed as a result. And imagine if he had been injured or even killed as a result of Schumacher's move. Here's a an accident much like what could have happened:Van Der Drift crash, Brands Hatch

#1643 frp

frp
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:09

Back in 1989 or 1990, when Schumacher was driving for Sauber-Merc and Warwick for Jaguar, at Silverstone in Group C practice Schumacher had Warwick off-track. Delboy was incandescent.

Yes, it was 1991, at the Nurburgring. If I recall, they had to hide Michael away to stop Big Tom biting his head off! It was Silverstone '90 that the Mass/Schumacher Sauber was excluded for receiving outside help after stopping on track during qualifying. I remember the news of that coming on the circuit commentary and being disappointed that we were losing one of the leading cars from the race for something so trivial. (Sorry, this is a bit TNF).
I was just checking whether Sakae was referring to an incident 19 years ago, or one in his head.

Andy

#1644 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,287 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:29

All this arguing is lovely, but imagine if Barichello HAD crashed as a result. And imagine if he had been injured or even killed as a result of Schumacher's move. Here's a an accident much like what could have happened:Van Der Drift crash, Brands Hatch

Again "could have" "killed" "if if if"

People here are all speculating on what could have happend etc etc. Stick to the facts. Even the smallest accident can be fatal. What about surtees son that had that wheel bouncing against his head? What about Massa almost being killed by a spring off Barrichello's car. I even saw a motorcycle rider sliding off the bike which would normally result in him walking back to the bike and getting on again, now he got hit in the head and died.

Schumacher needs to be punished (and has been) about what he has done not what "could" have happend.

#1645 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:31

Michael has apologised and accepted his penalty,” competition boss Haug is quoted by Der Tagespiegel. “It should now be accepted from everyone else and a final line be drawn under this topic,” added the German.

Actually Mr. Haug, no! Apologizing means nothing.

For this incident Michael deserves to be treated exactly like the shameless menace he displayed himself to be. What he did was reckless and dangerous, and if the FIA had any real balls, they would have suspended him for a number of races. Had this been done by any of the new drivers they would have crucified him by now.



Ban him, suspend him, take him hostage. Just get him off the track before it is too late! MS is a menace who is just getting worse as his talent leaves him.

Todt, Haug .... this is on you now if someone gets hurt.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 04 August 2010 - 14:32.


#1646 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:31

People here are all speculating on what could have happend etc etc. Stick to the facts.

Then allow me; IT WAS DANGEROUS! How's that for a fact.

#1647 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,287 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:36

Sure but a lot of things are dangerous as i said. Im not denying there was a possibility of a crash but everyone here is already blaming schumacher for things that didn't happen.

#1648 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:51

Sure but a lot of things are dangerous as i said.

Which is a damn good reason not to needlessly make it worse. What Shumi did was dangerous on its own, on-top of the already dangerous situation in place. When Charles Lindberg flew over the Atlantic he didn't feel the need to go doing loops and other acrobatic flying, because what he was doing was already dangerous as it was. And with that pretty inane analogy....

#1649 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:53

Rubens can handle himself!!!

 ;)

Posted Image

#1650 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,465 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 04 August 2010 - 14:54

"Tonight we whine in hell" would be more appropriate. :rotfl: