I’m confused. In the Canada thread people were saying that you shouldn’t listen to the opinions of former drivers when they spoke out about Vettel’s penalty. Do we listen to them now that they’re saying things that support Hamilton? 
Poll: Italian Grand Prix 2019, Monza - Race 14/21
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,129
I’m confused. In the Canada thread people were saying that you shouldn’t listen to the opinions of former drivers when they spoke out about Vettel’s penalty. Do we listen to them now that they’re saying things that support Hamilton?
Completely different scenario.
How so? Both are instances where former drivers are giving their opinion. People said to ignore it before. What’s changed?
What's changed is The Messiah™ would benefit
May the Lord bless fandumb...'cause no other bugger would...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,775
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
NO but u should look at the incident and determine of leclerc gave ham enough spaceI’m confused. In the Canada thread people were saying that you shouldn’t listen to the opinions of former drivers when they spoke out about Vettel’s penalty. Do we listen to them now that they’re saying things that support Hamilton?
I think the issue is the stewards changing the rules essentially, halfway through a season.
They've clearly been more relaxed this half and breaking out the black and white flag. If they wanted to react to the issues with leniency from the first half of the season, they shouldn't have changed their stance part way through the season and just waited for the next.
They've clearly been more relaxed this half and breaking out the black and white flag. If they wanted to react to the issues with leniency from the first half of the season, they shouldn't have changed their stance part way through the season and just waited for the next.
In the first instance the Vettel got penalised for breaking the rules, and the drivers said "rules are bad". In the second instance, Leclerc broke the rules and didn't get penalised, and now some drivers like Palmer are saying "he broke the rules, should have been punished".
One instance advocates not applying the rules, and the other advocates applying the rules. Can you not see the difference?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,584
- Location
- La France
Rules should be applied equally or altered if found unsuitable.
LeClerc ran Hamilton into the dirt and later cut the chicane after locking up, maintaining a lead he would have lost at any other corner.
Zero penalties applied.
LeClerc ran Hamilton into the dirt and later cut the chicane after locking up, maintaining a lead he would have lost at any other corner.
Zero penalties applied.
Yes I can see the difference but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a former driver giving an opinion which everyone said should be ignored after the Canada race.
It’s more like “former drivers said something we don’t agree with, they should be ignored. Now they’re saying something we agree with, they shouldn’t be ignored.”
That's not what was said though. It was "former drivers want to break the rules because drivers push the limits on every rule no matter what, so they are not necessarily the best people to listen to regarding breaking the rules". In the second case, the drivers were advocating actually obeying the rules because they should be the same for everyone, not changed willy-nilly depending on the who and where the racing is.
You're deliberately ignoring the context to make it much more simplistic than it is.
I'm not at all, you've even said it there that former drivers aren't the best people to listen to regarding breaking rules...
So if a driver speaks out against a penalty then we don't listen but if they speak out saying that someone (not Hamilton
) should get a penalty then we listen. Got it. That's all I needed to know.I'm not at all, you've even said it there that former drivers aren't the best people to listen to regarding breaking rules...
So if a driver speaks out against a penalty then we don't listen but if they speak out saying that someone (not Hamilton
Stop being obtuse to the point of trolling. There's a big difference between saying "we don't need to follow the rules we've agreed to" and "why aren't we following the rules we've agreed to". And you know it.
I agree there is a big difference between saying "we don't need to follow the rules" and "why aren't we following the rules", however none of them said "we don't need to follow the rules", they said that they didn't agree with the penalty because, in their view as a driver, Vettel didn't break any rules. It's exactly the same as them saying in their view as a driver that Leclerc broke the rules and should have got a penalty.
I’m confused. In the Canada thread people were saying that you shouldn’t listen to the opinions of former drivers when they spoke out about Vettel’s penalty. Do we listen to them now that they’re saying things that support Hamilton?
People: Drivers are biased and we should take their biases into account when considering what they say.
Timmeh: People were saying that you shouldn't listen to the opinions of former drivers!
People: ...
Heh, if only that was what people were saying
FTFY
I think I'm done here. I made a tongue in cheek comment and it got the exact response I was expecting
Last edited: