I worked that out from your alias, thanks.
Maybe you have a superiority complex or something, but to say the winner, on merit, in Belgium for example, was Magnussen, is ludicrous. He achieved that on track result by driving in a way that was against the rules. It was against the rules because it was an unfair advantage. So how can the unfair advantage be ignored and the win given when your supposed to be judging driver performance? (As opposed to simply data capturing who physically finished in front). This is even more insane than giving him the win when he artificially started in front due to a penalty advantage - at least the defence here can hide behind we don't know what might have happened. But if the gap starts at 5 places and ends as 3 the lead car has lost out relatively speaking. Tell me if I am not being objective. And finally if Magnussen is given a win despite crashing, well, lets just say a footballer that is red carded is seldom considered the man of the match...
Button retired in Singapore a few laps before the end, still you gave him the win because he would've finished ahead. The same thing happened to Magnussen in Monaco. So you give Button the win in Monaco and Magnussen in Signapore or Button in Singapore and Magnussen in Monaco. Giving Button the win in both races is very unfair.
You gave Button the win in USA, because he finished not far off Magnussen while having a 5 place grid penalty. He drove a better race than Magnussen, fair enough. Magnussen drove a better race than Button in Italy and Belgium, but got penalized. Still you give Button the win for those races. Giving Magnussen the win for USA and Button for Belgium and Italy is also fair.
Edited by Button4life, 24 November 2014 - 19:22.