Blame Versus Responsibility.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Food for thought - if Rosberg wasn't German would he still be in the team? If his nationality helped him get the seat then he's not there on racing merit alone, that makes him the #2 driver, and that is something he's struggling to come to terms with.

Sorry, I don't understand this at all.

Nico beat Michael Schumacher over three seasons. Of course, Michael wasn't at his best and had a fair amount of bad luck but the point is that he still beat the seven times World Champion.

Last year, Nico finished 18 points behind Hamilton (roughly one second place finish). Nico retired from 3 races whilst Hamilton only retired from one and I think it is fairly conceivable that Nico would have been equal if not ahead of Hamilton had he not had more retirements. Nico Rosberg also won more races than Hamilton in 2013.

Nico Rosberg is leading the 2014 Championship, some of it is down to bad luck on Hamilton's but Nico has also been far more consistent and has taken the results as they come. Whereas Hamilton almost ruined his own races at both Germany and Hungary whilst attempting to charge through the field.

Could you please explain why Rosberg would not still be in the team if he was a different nationality?

[Born Racer]

I sense some curious hypocrisy from Mercedes here because Hamilton's chop in Bahrain was worse than Rosberg's fluffed overtake at Spa. Now, either Merc know Rosberg did in fact stop deliberately in Monaco qually and are a bit siding with Hamilton or they aren't (statement of the obvious), in which case Hamilton seems to be swinging things round his way in his position in the team.

One thing's for sure - Hamilton's getting stronger at playing a political game these days (a far cry from the Ali G quote in Monaco some years back). I repeat from a previous thread - he mentioned Monaco as being worse than this in an interview in Spa. Just what is he insinuating? That Nico, found innocent, was guilty? Or does he just mean in how it felt?

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I sense some curious hypocrisy from Mercedes here because Hamilton's chop in Bahrain was worse than Rosberg's fluffed overtake at Spa. Now, either Merc know Rosberg did in fact stop deliberately in Monaco qually and are a bit siding with Hamilton or they aren't (statement of the obvious), in which case Hamilton seems to be swinging things round his way in his position in the team.

One thing's for sure - Hamilton's getting stronger at playing a political game these days (a far cry from the Ali G quote in Monaco some years back). I repeat from a previous thread - he mentioned Monaco as being worse than this in an interview in Spa. Just what is he insinuating? That Nico, found innocent, was guilty? Or does he just mean in how it felt?

I think I get your 'blame' and 'responsibility' distinction, bauble, although I don't think I would've used two different words. Still, I think I can see the butterfly effect of the chain of events leading to the current situation.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Food for thought - if Rosberg wasn't German would he still be in the team? If his nationality helped him get the seat then he's not there on racing merit alone, that makes him the #2 driver, and that is something he's struggling to come to terms with.

But Rosberg's Finnish...

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I think I get your 'blame' and 'responsibility' distinction, bauble, although I don't think I would've used two different words. Still, I think I can see the butterfly effect of the chain of events leading to the current situation.

Thank goodness someone does

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by beau1

Sorry, I don't understand this at all.

Nico beat Michael Schumacher over three seasons. Of course, Michael wasn't at his best and had a fair amount of bad luck but the point is that he still beat the seven times World Champion.

Last year, Nico finished 18 points behind Hamilton (roughly one second place finish). Nico retired from 3 races whilst Hamilton only retired from one and I think it is fairly conceivable that Nico would have been equal if not ahead of Hamilton had he not had more retirements. Nico Rosberg also won more races than Hamilton in 2013.

Nico Rosberg is leading the 2014 Championship, some of it is down to bad luck on Hamilton's but Nico has also been far more consistent and has taken the results as they come. Whereas Hamilton almost ruined his own races at both Germany and Hungary whilst attempting to charge through the field.

Could you please explain why Rosberg would not still be in the team if he was a different nationality?

you've completely misinterpreted my post by concentrating on just one word - 'still'. Remove it if it helps make more sense.

[bauble]

My initial idea was to try and remove the actual incident from the equation and concentrate on the cause and effect of the 'no team orders, let them race' decision.

I hope most would agree (?Yeah!) that it was not a spur of moment, heat of the battle type of event, more the result of a season long rivalry coming to a head.

What I am interested in is how much the MB management are to be viewed as culpable, and why, and where the two drivers stand in terms of 'blame'. Not for the Spa thing, but the reason for it.

I think calling Rosberg 'immature' etc. hardly adds to the discussion, any more than calling Hamilton 'reckless' does.

On the other hand I could just get me coat.

Good to have all of your thoughts.

Cheers,

Bauble.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

But Rosberg's Finnish...

lack of emoticon means I don't know whether you are being disingenuous or simply don't know that he is German (Finnish-born cosmopolitan father, German mother, brought up and lived in Germany, and when faced with a choice has chosen German nationality).

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I think I get your 'blame' and 'responsibility' distinction, bauble, although I don't think I would've used two different words. Still, I think I can see the butterfly effect of the chain of events leading to the current situation.

would Cause and Effect be suitable replacements?

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

lack of emoticon means I don't know whether you are being disingenuous or simply don't know that he is German (Finnish-born cosmopolitan father, German mother, brought up and lived in Germany, and when faced with a choice has chosen German nationality).

You, sir, have brutalised the joke...

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by bauble

My initial idea was to try and remove the actual incident from the equation and concentrate on the cause and effect of the 'no team orders, let them race' decision.

I hope most would agree (?Yeah!) that it was not a spur of moment, heat of the battle type of event, more the result of a season long rivalry coming to a head.

What I am interested in is how much the MB management are to be viewed as culpable, and why, and where the two drivers stand in terms of 'blame'. Not for the Spa thing, but the reason for it.

I think calling Rosberg 'immature' etc. hardly adds to the discussion, any more than calling Hamilton 'reckless' does.

On the other hand I could just get me coat.

Good to have all of your thoughts.

Cheers,

Bauble.

Do you really think, that in the heat of battle, in decision times that are measure in milliseconds, the drivers pause to think...hmm...the management wants me to be careful and not take us both out (or similar). Or do you think they actually think "Hey, chance to overtake and increase my lead in the world championship!"

Once you get on track, it's a race. You vs everyone else. The management doesn't have an awful lot of say once the red lights go out, as we have seen from drivers being told what to do over the radio, and not necessarily doing it.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Do you really think, that in the heat of battle, in decision times that are measure in milliseconds, the drivers pause to think...hmm...the management wants me to be careful and not take us both out (or similar). Or do you think they actually think "Hey, chance to overtake and increase my lead in the world championship!"

Once you get on track, it's a race. You vs everyone else. The management doesn't have an awful lot of say once the red lights go out, as we have seen from drivers being told what to do over the radio, and not necessarily doing it.

In the nicest possible way, I feel you have missed my point, it is my contention that Rosberg went in to the race with the mind set that, if he went wheel-to-wheel with Hamilton he would not back off if push came to shove, at any stage of the race.

That is why I 'blame' Nico for the accident/incident.

My question (if you like) is not could he have done differently on the track, but why did he feel it necessary to not back off?

Assuming I am correct in my assertion, then what brought him to that conclusion? Why take such a stance that could (and did)result in a very damaging 'occurrence' for the team?

In other words is he also 'responsible' for his actions or should Hamilton/management carry the can?

Complex situation I acknowledge, and not one to be considered from an; "He's my favourite driver." point of view.
Not that I am suggesting you or anybody else is, but blaming Rosberg simply because he eliminated Hamilton is not truly addressing this issue.

My hat's on the hat stand, so just say the word .....................

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by bauble

In the nicest possible way, I feel you have missed my point, it is my contention that Rosberg went in to the race with the mind set that, if he went wheel-to-wheel with Hamilton he would not back off if push came to shove, at any stage of the race.

That is why I 'blame' Nico for the accident/incident.

My question (if you like) is not could he have done differently on the track, but why did he feel it necessary to not back off?

Assuming I am correct in my assertion, then what brought him to that conclusion? Why take such a stance that could (and did)result in a very damaging 'occurrence' for the team?

In other words is he also 'responsible' for his actions or should Hamilton/management carry the can?

Complex situation I acknowledge, and not one to be considered from an; "He's my favourite driver." point of view.
Not that I am suggesting you or anybody else is, but blaming Rosberg simply because he eliminated Hamilton is not truly addressing this issue.

My hat's on the hat stand, so just say the word .....................

I would have expected 'Da Management' to have told the drivers to not take each other off. If NR then didn't do what they said, is that a management problem, or something else?

[bauble]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I would have expected 'Da Management' to have told the drivers to not take each other off. If NR then didn't do what they said, is that a management problem, or something else?

I agree, but that instruction is pretty much 'standard rules' in any team, I think there is a little more in play in this instance.

[Dave Brand]

As I have no real interest in F1 I wasn't aware of this incident until I saw the front page of Motorsport News. From all the fuss that's been made I had the impression that it was a deliberate, blatant attempt to force Hamilton out of contention, so I took the trouble to find it on iPlayer.

I'm probably better placed than most who have posted here & elsewhere to take a calm, dispassionate look at the incident, free from all the baggage attached to it. What I saw was a very minor incident - an overtaking driver making a small error of judgment. This sort of thing happens week in, week out, in all forms of racing. In 99.9% of similar incidents both drivers continue with, in the worst case, one having a damaged front wing. It just so happens that in this case the overtaken driver suffered a puncture which effectively ruined his chances of a race win.

Look at the incident, not the consequences & the need to apportion blame fades into insignificance.

[2GRX7]

Funny, Bauble, there's a lot of discussion going on in this thread about where people lay their hat with this on-track incident, but no one's bringing up the one important question: WHY do you take that stance? What, in your past, has caused you to come to this conclusion?

We are all influenced by external forces-my it be the media, observations, family influences, and even past personal conflicts that we may be even currently dealing with. It forms our opinions, how we internalize it and respond-it even determines the athletes who we choose to back.

I say all of this because there are two camps here that have very differing views on race-craft. One group believes that if you're, say, front wheel-to-rear wheel, you should be given room to maneuver for the position, whereas, others in this group believe you need to be along-side (front wheel visable to lead driver) the leading car before you get room to maneuver. To me, this clearly shows our societal divergence and how we'll always have a difference of opinion in these matters (some of ya'll are just trolls and will never acknowledge a "wrong).

While it's GREAT having an international forum to discuss these issues, so much gets lost in translation amongst ourselves.

- Hungury- I SEE: Lewis has a chance for a podium, Nico has a chance for a podium. Lewis acknowledges the team orders that he will not fight Nico's pass but ain't slowing down
- NICO & SUPPORTERS: Why isn't he letting me/him pass? He was given team orders and he's defying them

- My SUMMARY-HELL NO am I loosing several seconds and possibly a podium by slowing down for him to pass. Now, I won't pull a Schumi and block all over the place but I'm not giving him the spot. As a racer, I totally agree with Hamilton's decision. Nico & supporters clearly see this differently.

When the fans attach themselves to a team/individual, whether it be good or bad, they see something that they'll either truly believe, or truly detest. Those feelings come from the core of their beliefs and to have those beliefs challenged or even worse, threatened will only lead to that individual retreating.

It takes a very aware person to accept and internalize such threats, so I question how many people on here can actually allow for that to happen.

Off of soapbox (meaning, off of my self-righteousness ;-) )

[beau1]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

you've completely misinterpreted my post by concentrating on just one word - 'still'. Remove it if it helps make more sense.

Shouldn't have put the word 'still' in there then. You also said he was basically a no. 2 driver. That is also somewhat confusing.

[bauble]

Off of soapbox (meaning, off of my self-righteousness ;-) )

Yup! Unbiased opinion is hard to come by alright. Hamilton fans see it very clearly, Rosberg fans also see it very clearly. Some just see it as, a racing incident.

So in the spirit of my original question there appear to be two interpretations;

A) It was a clumsy overtaking attempt, that went wrong.

B) Rosberg had a personal agenda, designed to 'make a point', to all those who questioned his ability to take on his team mate in a no holds barred scenario.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.


Thank you to all who contributed, as far as I am concerned I go for B.

Cheers.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by beau1

.....You also said he was basically a no. 2 driver. That is also somewhat confusing.

I did not. You may be confused due to a lack of English comprehension; the sentence with #2 driver in it began with the word 'if'. The structure and hence meaning is if-then, or if not-then something different. Either are possible and I raise it for meaningful discussion, in the spirit of bauble's OP.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by 2GRX7

When the fans attach themselves to a team/individual, whether it be good or bad, they see something that they'll either truly believe, or truly detest. Those feelings come from the core of their beliefs and to have those beliefs challenged or even worse, threatened will only lead to that individual retreating.

thats why they call us fan(atics)!

[beau1]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

I did not. You may be confused due to a lack of English comprehension; the sentence with #2 driver in it began with the word 'if'. The structure and hence meaning is if-then, or if not-then something different. Either are possible and I raise it for meaningful discussion, in the spirit of bauble's OP.

Yet the sentence before that you questioned why Rosberg was still in the team. Therefore meaning any following 'if' was loaded with connotations directly from the previous sentence or to be precise the word 'still'.


To be fair, I still don't understand why you used the word still as it does entirely change the meaning of your post.

Now as for English comprehension, if you had said this: 'if Rosberg wasn't German would he be in the team?' that is a point for valid discussion and a very different one to what we are having. However, by putting the word still in the middle of the sentence you change the meaning and suggest Rosberg has done something wrong whilst being part of the team and therefore should not be in the team any longer.

In all ways, your original post doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're saying that in Nico's head he is the No. 2 then why would he considering the evidence I provided? If you're saying that Nico should be viewed as a No. 2 because he didn't get there on merit (a highly subjective statement) then the evidence I provided also shows why this isn't necessarily the case.

As for staying on topic, this is what happens when you ask loaded questions which are not structured correctly.

[Aysedasi]

There are some - plenty I suspect, who are neither Hamilton nor Rosberg 'fans'. Ultimately, I don't particularly care which one of them wins the WDC, as long as I can see some good racing between now and then. And I go for Bauble's A) (with a smidgeon of B)....

But to be honest, I'm more interested now in what happens in Italy than what happened in Belgium.....

[Tucky]

I just came back to see what other interesting opinions been posted, seems this thread's now focused on grammar lessons

[Aysedasi]

Ah, well it clearly serves a useful purpose then!

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by beau1

Yet the sentence before that you questioned why Rosberg was still in the team. Therefore meaning any following 'if' was loaded with connotations directly from the previous sentence or to be precise the word 'still'.


To be fair, I still don't understand why you used the word still as it does entirely change the meaning of your post.

Now as for English comprehension, if you had said this: 'if Rosberg wasn't German would he be in the team?' that is a point for valid discussion and a very different one to what we are having. However, by putting the word still in the middle of the sentence you change the meaning and suggest Rosberg has done something wrong whilst being part of the team and therefore should not be in the team any longer.

In all ways, your original post doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're saying that in Nico's head he is the No. 2 then why would he considering the evidence I provided? If you're saying that Nico should be viewed as a No. 2 because he didn't get there on merit (a highly subjective statement) then the evidence I provided also shows why this isn't necessarily the case.

As for staying on topic, this is what happens when you ask loaded questions which are not structured correctly.

Look why don't you just try to discuss the points I raised, using your understanding of them if it makes it easier for you, rather than keep nit-picking, which no-one wants to read about.
Alternatively I refer you to Arkell v Pressdram (1971).