Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

Webber and Alonso gets reprimanded; 10 place grid penalty for WEB


  • Please log in to reply
535 replies to this topic

#501 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:47

did anyone catch the 'Sky f1 midweek report' this Tuesday??? in that, mark gillan and will buxton reviewed why the penalty was justified. Mark gillan even said regarding the Tweet of Webber afterwards and made the point that Mark webber is a member of GPDA and he along with others are responsible for making the sport safer.

 

will buxton made the point that

 

1. the FIA didn't punish webber with a 10 place penalty, they issued a reprimand which caused it to happen (fans should get this straight)

2. what the situation would've been if lewis hit webber or rosberg hit the back of the stationary Ferrari

3. they also review the incident that happened earlier in the slow down lap in GP2 where one car hit another after the end of the race and how it affected the judgement of the stewards

 

and i agree with their analysis  :up: the penalty/reprimand was justified beyond doubt. 

 

please see it on Skyf1, should be there, or you'll find it in youtube, just do some searching. 



Advertisement

#502 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:52

btw, here's the account of events from derek warwick  himself (according to the F1 show)

 

before seeing CCTV footage

 

 

"Obviously I have seen what everyone has seen on the world feed and everyone has seen Mark being driven back by the Ferrari and what is wrong with that?" 

 

"I have to say there is nothing wrong with that and I have taken lifts in the past and given lifts in the past.

"Whether or not the FIA do something about that I don't know, but I personally, and the stewards, saw nothing wrong with that."

after seeing CCTV footage

 

 

"We were about to leave the room when race control gave us some more footage of the way it had been executed and when we saw the footage I have to say it was dangerous - dangerous on several levels.

 

"First of all the rules state that you cannot leave the side of the circuit if you have broken down or blown up - as Mark did - without the permission of the marshals and Mark left without the permission of the marshals.

 

"He ran to the edge of the circuit and waved down Kimi [Raikkonen] and Fernando and they both slowed down. Kimi obviously just went on, but that left Fernando in the centre of the circuit, on the exit of a third-gear corner and then Mark ran across the track to get on the left-hand side of the Ferrari, then in came Nico Rosberg in the Mercedes, just missing him.

 

"Mark then climbed onto the Ferrari and then Lewis arrived and nearly went up the back of the Ferrari. So there were two potential dangerous situations there for Mark."


Edited by eronrules, 28 September 2013 - 03:55.


#503 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,790 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 September 2013 - 09:28

Typical FIA sucking any personality from the sport that may have remained. How many memorable F1 moments have there been similar to this? Senna getting a ride back with Mansell after the Brit won the 1991 British GP? Alesi riding aloft Schumacher's Benetton after Jean took his one and only victory in the 1995 Canadian GP with his fist in the air? Can't have that now, though in the current sanitised "sport" we now have, can we? :rolleyes:

 

You noticed that FIA explicitly said that taxi rides are still allowed (though discouraged)?



#504 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 6,301 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 28 September 2013 - 18:04

Typical FIA sucking any personality from the sport that may have remained. How many memorable F1 moments have there been similar to this? Senna getting a ride back with Mansell after the Brit won the 1991 British GP? Alesi riding aloft Schumacher's Benetton after Jean took his one and only victory in the 1995 Canadian GP with his fist in the air? Can't have that now, though in the current sanitised "sport" we now have, can we?

 

  :clap:

 

It is even more dangerous today, since a sanitized sport means that a driver isn't prepared for the unexpected. In the past they all know they had a weapon in their hands. Today they don't.



#505 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 29 September 2013 - 10:26

This whole giving a lift issue is so stupid by the FIA and all the whiners with their strict rule books.

 

The FIA is worried about the drivers' safety, men who smack 300km plus in circles, but hey, lets prevent this gesture from happening which gave something to a rather meh race.

 

And no ways Rosberg or Hamilton would have hit Alonso considering how they're trained to miss larger objects at higher speeds.

 

As for Warwick... fail, considering he did the same incidently on Berger's Ferrari back in 88.



#506 Lucass

Lucass
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 29 September 2013 - 16:39

This whole giving a lift issue is so stupid by the FIA and all the whiners with their strict rule books.

Maybe the rules about giving someone a lift are stupid but surely the way FIA are enforcing their rules is even more stupid.

 

Clearly FIA doesn't want drivers to pick up anything or anybody on the victory-lap.

So if they really are serious with that they only have to announce that from now on breaking that rule will lead to an automatic DQ for that and/or the next race,

Never ever will we see a driver break that rule again.

 

If you want people to abide by the rules you must make the alternative very unattractive



#507 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 September 2013 - 17:26

This whole giving a lift issue is so stupid by the FIA and all the whiners with their strict rule books.

 

The FIA is worried about the drivers' safety, men who smack 300km plus in circles, but hey, lets prevent this gesture from happening which gave something to a rather meh race.

 

And no ways Rosberg or Hamilton would have hit Alonso considering how they're trained to miss larger objects at higher speeds.

 

As for Warwick... fail, considering he did the same incidently on Berger's Ferrari back in 88.

 

I guess that's the same as how there was no way Rosberg or Hamilton could hit a stationary Ferrari waiting at the red light at the end of a pitlane...oh wait.

 

I'm amazed that after 500 posts on the subject, some people still seem to think that the "taxi ride" itself has anything to do with the penalty, or even the repremand.



#508 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 29 September 2013 - 17:49

This whole giving a lift issue is so stupid by the FIA and all the whiners with their strict rule books.

 

The FIA is worried about the drivers' safety, men who smack 300km plus in circles, but hey, lets prevent this gesture from happening which gave something to a rather meh race.

 

And no ways Rosberg or Hamilton would have hit Alonso considering how they're trained to miss larger objects at higher speeds.

 

As for Warwick... fail, considering he did the same incidently on Berger's Ferrari back in 88.

com'on mate, FIA  didn't reprimand either of them for Taxi-riding, they only said that they discourage this (and welcomes it if done in a safe manner like earlier this year), they reprimanded

 

Alonso   for parking at a blind corner and forcing other drivers to take avoiding action

Webber for ignoring Marshals and running into the circuit on the path of a moving F1 car

 

we can expect blind fanboys/intentional trolls to jibe on about how unfair FIA is, but a Knowledgeable F1 fan should see through it all, we all slated DTM officials when Mattias Ekstrom was stripped of his win before the images of the water-bottle-gate were published, but after those photos, all accepted. if the FIA didn't act on the evidence of the CCTV footage, your comment would've been valid, but since we've seen the video, we should applaud the stewards for doing their job properly.


Edited by eronrules, 30 September 2013 - 03:23.


#509 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 30 September 2013 - 09:34

The point is that this incident is something that should be treated seriously and with the appropriate gravity by the FIA and by the other drivers. 

 

No the point is that it absolutely shouldn't be. 

 

There are 100 sanctioned things that happen during the course of the GP weekend that are way more dangerous than this that should be looked at, from the warm up lap procedure to pitstops, grandstands to track access... but because its not a racing driver involved, doing what most of us would do in the same position, it doesn't motivate people to be pathetic about it.

 

How can people honestly say that one person running near a F1 car doing about 70 miles per hour is "extremely dangerous/endangering other peoples lives" and must be stopped/penalised etc, but the FIA sanctioning of at least 100 occasions during a GP weekend, 20 times a year, where an F1 car arrives into a very small area populated by about 20 people plus petrol and other dangerous materials with an incentive to do so as fast and therefore riskily as possible, is completely fine "because they sign up to the dangers".



#510 Vepe1995

Vepe1995
  • Member

  • 162 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 30 September 2013 - 11:48

No the point is that it absolutely shouldn't be. 

 

There are 100 sanctioned things that happen during the course of the GP weekend that are way more dangerous than this that should be looked at, from the warm up lap procedure to pitstops, grandstands to track access... but because its not a racing driver involved, doing what most of us would do in the same position, it doesn't motivate people to be pathetic about it.

 

How can people honestly say that one person running near a F1 car doing about 70 miles per hour is "extremely dangerous/endangering other peoples lives" and must be stopped/penalised etc, but the FIA sanctioning of at least 100 occasions during a GP weekend, 20 times a year, where an F1 car arrives into a very small area populated by about 20 people plus petrol and other dangerous materials with an incentive to do so as fast and therefore riskily as possible, is completely fine "because they sign up to the dangers".

 

The main difference is that "one person running near a F1 car doing about 70 miles per hour" is something that isn't expected, but when "an F1 car arrives into a very small area populated by about 20 people plus petrol and other dangerous materials with an incentive to do so as fast and therefore riskily as possible" it is expected. So why are you thinking they're the same thing?



#511 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 October 2013 - 13:10

The main difference is that "one person running near a F1 car doing about 70 miles per hour" is something that isn't expected, but when "an F1 car arrives into a very small area populated by about 20 people plus petrol and other dangerous materials with an incentive to do so as fast and therefore riskily as possible" it is expected. So why are you thinking they're the same thing?

I'm staggered. Pit stops are safe because they are "expected"??? Where is the logic that they are even allowed if one guy looking, listening then running to a stationary F1 car is "a serious danger to others". Even if pitstops are expected they are obviously seriously dangerous to many peoplein the first place. What Hamilton swerved out of the way of because he was not expecting, was ALONSOS car. Not Webber. I can just about understand a reprimand for Alonso, at least he can be considered to have made a driving infringement by plonking his car in the middle of the track. Webber didn't even have his car about his person at the time and only risked himself. Yet what he did was "seriously dangerous" because it wasn't expected. Webber running to a car is more dangerous TO OTHERS than an expected pit stop? Plot and Lost mate. 



#512 drunkenmaster

drunkenmaster
  • Member

  • 325 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 02 October 2013 - 13:53

I'm staggered. Pit stops are safe because they are "expected"???

 
Yes, exactly. I'm really wondering if you just play dumb or if you really don't see the difference. :rolleyes:  During pitstops every crew member has his assigned place, the cars are expected to rush in with a certain speed and they have their assigned parking spaces. But no driver expects that another driver is so stupid to park his car in the middle of the track after a blind corner.
 
 
 

Webber didn't even have his car about his person at the time and only risked himself.

 
So what? It doesn't matter at all if he "only" risked his own life.
 
What you're saying is:
 
"I can walk over red traffic lights, doesn't matter that it's forbidden, because after all I'm just risking my own life, so police has no right to issue a fine to me"
 
"I don't have to wear seat belts, doesn't matter that it's forbidden, because after all I'm just risking my own life, so police has no right to issue a fine to me"
 
- It was against the regulations, he knew that
 
- FIA doesn't want to see dead drivers on the track, because it's really bad PR
 
- And he very well risked Rosberg's, Hamilton's and Alonso's lives: What if Rosberg or Hamilton had swerved out of his way, not to hit him, and hit Alonso's car instead? They could have been severely injured due to Webber's stupidity.

Edited by drunkenmaster, 02 October 2013 - 13:54.


#513 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 22,901 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 03 October 2013 - 05:34

Just as well they don't look at MotoGP. There riders cross the track after falling of quite often. They slap eachother after races, and outrageously, they stand up on the bike and do wheelies. Horrible stuff!



#514 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:28

 

Webber for ignoring Marshals and running into the circuit on the path of a moving F1 car

 

 

 

just to clear one thing - Webber said he did not ignore a marshall - there was no discussion.


Edited by Raelene, 03 October 2013 - 06:28.


#515 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:43

Which is just as bad.



#516 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 6,110 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:58

I disagree.

 

Ignoring their instructions is worse than not asking them. Not excusing what he did though.



#517 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:20

I disagree.

 

Ignoring their instructions is worse than not asking them. Not excusing what he did though.

I mean from a rules standpoint. A governing body wouldn't accept not knowing the law as an excuse and wouldn't be any different to intentionally breaking one.



#518 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 2,014 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:26

Webber didn't deserve a sporting penalty for what he did. If Alonso had pulled off track to pick him up I bet neither would've been reprimanded. Anyways they're grown men, I think a quiet word would've sufficed.



#519 Raven8

Raven8
  • Member

  • 705 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:33

RBR should have got a reprimad for making unreliable cars



Advertisement

#520 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:26

Anderew Hope

 

wasn't debating the rights or wrong - just trying to ensure the right "story" is told and not embellished.

 

Anyway, I agree with Loud Howard - a quiet word would have been enough.

 

Thanks



#521 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:43

 
Yes, exactly. I'm really wondering if you just play dumb or if you really don't see the difference. :rolleyes:  

 

Ok, you're doing a fine job of embarrassing yourself now. These pit stops that you say are safe have caused numerous fractures and concussions in recent times. I suppose you think racing itself its safe because its "expected". You seem to have missed the fact that I am NOT arguing Alonsos penalty, but Webbers. If Alonso causes danger/an accident that's his fault, not Webbers. There are two separate offences here.



#522 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:49

Which is just as bad.

You have forthright views on this subject - but I wonder, had Webber and Alonso not been reprimanded - would you have noticed these procedural errors and dangers, and been quite so fulsome in your coverage on why it was just so bad/dangerous yada yada yada. I seriously doubt it.



#523 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 5,373 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:47

Webber didn't deserve a sporting penalty for what he did. If Alonso had pulled off track to pick him up I bet neither would've been reprimanded. Anyways they're grown men, I think a quiet word would've sufficed.

A reprimand is pretty much a quiet word.



#524 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:05

You can doubt whatever you want, and you're probably correct, because I don't usually feel I have anything worthwhile to contribute to 99% of the threads on this board. But from time to time one like this is made, a thread that is peppered with people showing an active unwillingness to understand the context of the story, and it is supremely important to take it slow and try to create a well-reasoned argument, whichever side of the story you fall on. 3/4ths of the first few pages of this thread were from people who clearly just wanted an excuse to whine about rules ruining racing and revealing themselves to be the same kinds of people who get mad at soccer referees who have to stop the game 20 times to hand out yellow cards because the players aren't playing by the rules.

 

When something like this happens you need that grace period to take in as many different angles as you can and that is never done on here by the majority of the posters. They see "Webber gets 10 place grid drop" and instantly assume it was because he got a ride back to the pits. Well, no, it's because he ran across a live race track and got a reprimand, and was unlucky enough to already have a pair of them. In the haste to **** on the stewards that flows in from all corners of this sport's fan base that succedes nearly every penalty of any kind, very few people could be bothered to spend literally two or three minutes to check what the penalty was for. The penalty was for having 3 repremands. There are people on the 11th page of this thread still saying what a shame it is the evil anti-fun demons that run F1 handed out a penalty for something it was established a week and a half ago wasn't the case.

 

I have far less of a problem with anything that happened at the Singapore GP than I do with people going out of their way to be ignorant. It's much easier to think "stupid old FIA" and leave it at that, so that's what a lot of people do. And the FIA is stupid and old, as I mentioned a few times in this thread already. So those people aren't wrong about that. But it can be immensely frustrating to see anyone drag out the same old "modern day F1 is a nanny state" type of arguments in situations that don't call for it, and this didn't call for it. The only people who think it is are the ones who don't understand what the penalty was for, or those that are under the ridiculous impression that walking across a race track could never possibly be dangerous. I provided examples that show this not to be the case.

 

Those arguments bug me because they are the same kind of lazy attacks that will discourage support and prevent people agreeing with that argument when it is actually correct. It's like the crazy feminist figures that shriek about misogyny at every opportunity, desensitizing their allies and alienating people who would potentially support them. It's stopping to crush every ant you see and then you can't fight the elephant when it shows up.The same happens in these kinds of situations when people squawk about nanny states: the next time we see the F1 powers that be do something deserving of being questioned or mocked, the nanny state argument has lost a bit of it's power.

 

I don't particularly like or dislike any driver. I don't have a dog in this race, and the people who continuously turn every debate into my driver vs. your driver are cancerous to the real debate, and from both directions. Wanting a harsh penalty on Webber because you think he's a sulky, petty git is just as bad as wanting no penalty because you feel sorry for him or because you like Australians or whatever else.

 

You should never overlook an action from any driver deserving of praise, but you shouldn't be afraid to call shenanigans when something looks a lot like bullshit to you. And I'm sorry, but a lot of the reaction to this looked like bullshit to me. I know the examples I talked about were more serious than what happened here, as evidenced by the fact I repeatedly said that while I was listing them. The whole point of mentioning those incidents from years past was to show that Bad **** happens on the regular when you drive really fast, and that when people are putting their lives on the line even for something as frivolous and ultimately meaningless as car racing, we had all damn well be prepared to understand and recognize a potential disaster and to make sure it doesn't happen again. And there are at least two sides to all of it, which is one more than just saying "**** the FIA" takes into account. Webber riding on Alonso's car endangers only Webber: that means it's okay. Probably why the penalty wasn't for that. It was for the things he did which weren't okay, and hating the nanny state that doesn't want fancy helmet designs and donuts after races doesn't make them so.



#525 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 26,228 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:21

Webber's latest thoughts:

 

"I'm in the escape road so I can see down to the kink. I saw all the guys arriving. Lewis passed me at a grand speed of 56km/h..."

 

If he knew where the two Mercedes cars where, why not wait at the side of the track until they had both driven by? Like the marshals do when they need to run onto the track to collect debris. Even if he knew where they were, did they know where he was, or know there was a parked Ferrari on the exit? Lewis suggests not. And the reference to 56km/h is just weird. I'm pretty sure being hit by a moving car at 56km/h is going to hurt. And even if Lewis went into the back of Alonso at 56km/h, that would still have sent Webber falling to the ground with some force. 


Edited by pRy, 03 October 2013 - 10:22.


#526 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:58

Webber's latest thoughts:

 

"I'm in the escape road so I can see down to the kink. I saw all the guys arriving. Lewis passed me at a grand speed of 56km/h..."

 

If he knew where the two Mercedes cars where, why not wait at the side of the track until they had both driven by? Like the marshals do when they need to run onto the track to collect debris. Even if he knew where they were, did they know where he was, or know there was a parked Ferrari on the exit? Lewis suggests not. And the reference to 56km/h is just weird. I'm pretty sure being hit by a moving car at 56km/h is going to hurt. And even if Lewis went into the back of Alonso at 56km/h, that would still have sent Webber falling to the ground with some force. 

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/110284

 

Webber should just shut up, his comments ar not doing any favor to him. If he would have checked this thread  he knew that there is this different video apart from the cctv images that also shows what he did, and it didn't look much better, it looked worse. And if he really "laughed" about that 56KPH he is really stupid, being sucked under the sticky rear tyre at 56 KPH surely will break your back and severe your organs. Also hitting the driver at 56KPH will surely will do damage. All in all I sadfully think Mark Webber is sour loser and that he is definitely not very savvy.

 

for all who havent seen it (hello Mark!)

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1HO91FVHIRY



#527 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:38

Webber's latest thoughts:

 

"I'm in the escape road so I can see down to the kink. I saw all the guys arriving. Lewis passed me at a grand speed of 56km/h..."

 

If he knew where the two Mercedes cars where, why not wait at the side of the track until they had both driven by? 

Because he judged it to be safe and it proved to be so. 

Just as you don't always wait until there are no cars in sight before you cross a road.



#528 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,144 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:56

 

Webber should just shut up, his comments ar not doing any favor to him. If he would have checked this thread  he knew that there is this different video apart from the cctv images that also shows what he did, and it didn't look much better, it looked worse. And if he really "laughed" about that 56KPH he is really stupid, being sucked under the sticky rear tyre at 56 KPH surely will break your back and severe your organs. Also hitting the driver at 56KPH will surely will do damage. All in all I sadfully think Mark Webber is sour loser and that he is definitely not very savvy.

 

 

Is this really your effort at a coherent argument or is your agenda to just bash a racing driver.

Taking all the reprimand waffle out of it, at its core you are simply saying Webber risked the safety of himself and others, potentially fatally.

I assume you think this every time you cross a road, think twice and find a bridge?

Since Webber is not known to be suicidal, I just don't see how you are in any position to say what Webber judged to be safe enough, was so incredibly dangerous from the comfort of the internet.



#529 Suntrek

Suntrek
  • Member

  • 1,796 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:05

Does any of this latest discussion/Webber statements really matter?  He was punished because he didn't have marshals permission to enter the track.

 

No matter if he had x-ray vision and could see all oncoming cars or if track was simply devoid of  cars altogether.  It's a very written down rule in the sporting regulations (which - IMO, is a good thing, you don't unneccessarily want drivers - or anybody! on track) and if you want to change that rule to "driver himself deem whether it's unsafe or not - it's all down to driver's judgement and we'll go by that" -  tell FIA.


Edited by Suntrek, 03 October 2013 - 12:20.


#530 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:29

Is this really your effort at a coherent argument or is your agenda to just bash a racing driver.

Taking all the reprimand waffle out of it, at its core you are simply saying Webber risked the safety of himself and others, potentially fatally.

I assume you think this every time you cross a road, think twice and find a bridge?

Since Webber is not known to be suicidal, I just don't see how you are in any position to say what Webber judged to be safe enough, was so incredibly dangerous from the comfort of the internet.

Yes, of course he risked his life and the safety of others. Also the tolerated activity of riding shotgun on a side pod of an F1 at 100KPH is so stupid and dangerous, that you would not want to think about what could go wrong.

 

(Suicidal Webber or just bad judgement? Was is deemed by him safe taking the downhill racing line with his mountainbike and crashing with oncoming traffic (he was on the wrong side of road, what he apparently forgot because he thought the road belonged to him)?)

 

I don't bash Mark Webber I just say his behavior in Singapore and his comments about the incident are dumb and stupid. If you have been GPDA director and talked a lot about safety and safety concern regarding various things at Grand Prix, you can't do this kind of stunt and then afterwards act like a pouty kid about it when you get riprimanded for it for obvious reasons (see ALO and WEB twitter).



#531 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:55

Because he judged it to be safe and it proved to be so. 

Just as you don't always wait until there are no cars in sight before you cross a road.

Webber is not qualified to make that judgement on behalf of other drivers.

 

Every day we see one pedestrian killed on UK roads.  Even if your analogy were relevant, it's probably not a good one.



#532 Suntrek

Suntrek
  • Member

  • 1,796 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 03 October 2013 - 13:44

Yes, of course he risked his life and the safety of others. Also the tolerated activity of riding shotgun on a side pod of an F1 at 100KPH is so stupid and dangerous, that you would not want to think about what could go wrong.

 

(Suicidal Webber or just bad judgement? Was is deemed by him safe taking the downhill racing line with his mountainbike and crashing with oncoming traffic (he was on the wrong side of road, what he apparently forgot because he thought the road belonged to him)?)

 

I don't bash Mark Webber I just say his behavior in Singapore and his comments about the incident are dumb and stupid. If you have been GPDA director and talked a lot about safety and safety concern regarding various things at Grand Prix, you can't do this kind of stunt and then afterwards act like a pouty kid about it when you get riprimanded for it for obvious reasons (see ALO and WEB twitter).

Yes you DO bash Mark Webber (for reasons unknown to me) and on topic for the  -  umptillionth time:

 

Mark Webber got a reprimand because he didn't ask marshal's permission before he ran out on track.  That is a FIA rule.  You have to ask permission first and it matters **** all if track'´s crowded like M1 or of It it's a sad place in the Bharain desert or if you have had any bike incidents in the past.  Is that so hard to understand?



#533 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 2,014 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 04 October 2013 - 00:02

Pretty much a technicality they got him on rather than a real offence, again if Fernando had pulled out onto the escape road to stop, I guarantee the stewards would've had no problem with what Webber did. Conversely, if he'd stopped his car on the track side of the barrier he would've been fine right? Even though the "offence" that everyone is pissed off about would be exactly the same. 
 
Ultimately for Webber the moral of the story is, if your car is on fire, better to park it half on the track and rather than ignoring the marshals, just become one yourself.
 
And no a quiet word isn't a reprimand because it carries with it a sporting penalty (or part of one).


#534 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 6,110 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 04 October 2013 - 01:21

Webber is being a dick now.

 

He did something wrong, got the slap on the wrist it deserved. And because he's had that 2 times before fell foul of another rule.

There is really no argument.



#535 V3TT3L

V3TT3L
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 05 October 2013 - 06:37

:p Now, revisiting the Singapore event, it would be funny IF...

 

Alonso came to tweet: 

The savy Samurai seizes every opportunity to conquer more ground.

Even after the race is finished, the modern warrior tricks the powerful enemy weakest link by offering an innocent ride to a two offence bearer driver.

The fool fell right into the the trap and got a 10 grid penalty.

Now the Samurai savours a position gained in the grid, onto the clean side of track.

Kampai.



#536 jstrains

jstrains
  • Member

  • 3,219 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 October 2013 - 17:55

#UpForAFreeRide - Win an F1 Taxi Ride with Lotus F1 Team