TBK-Light.com

I don't care much for Ambrose. I'm a Stewart and Montoya fan

I'm sorry but there have just been too many bullshit decisions in the last few years and thus as a result, as fans we have every right to complain when NASCAR applies a contentious ruling that just happens to allow Johnson to win. This is the same sanctioning body that refused to take any meaningful action against Earl after he deliberately caused what could've been a major incident a few months ago. Come on, if they don't take action against one of their big names after he admits taking out a rival at high speed, why would they take action against another if he had been in Ambrose's position?

As I said earlier, they deserve everything they get just for being totally inconsistent. It is not the call itself that is bad - it's the knowledge that it's not the rules that they look at when they make decisions but the result of any punishment, because that's exactly what they've done too many times in the past

Because Jimmie Jawnson was in 2nd place

Such as?



Wasn't contentious at all. The rule was clarified after Biffle did the same thing 3 years ago. You can't do what Ambrose did. End of argument.



Apples and oranges. Earl v Brad fell under the new NASCAR directive of letting the drivers police themselves. And there was action taken- Earl was parked, given a 3-race probation and a telling off from NASCAR.



When has anyone done what Ambrose did since the Biffle incident and been punished differently?



Examples?

AFAIK, Ambrose was slotted back in at the place he rejoined once he fired the engine up again, which is fair enough in my book.

_________________
Dan Wheldon ¦ 1978-2011
Marco Simoncelli ¦ 1987-2011
Jules Bianchi ¦ 1989-2015
Justin Wilson ¦ 1978-2015

Yeah, I know he's mad and I don't care. I do not care. I did not care then. I do not care now. I'm here to race him.

Oh for God's sake, how long a list do you want?

I've not got an expansive knowledge of all things NASCAR like some have in this thread but even I can think of loads - you could just go through and pick every time someone's been punished for intentionally wrecking someone and then every time someone hasn't been punished for intentionally wrecking someone


If it wasn't contentious, then why are so many people not happy about it?


Which nearly everyone regarded as a nothing punishment for something that could've resulted in serious injury or a fatality

He should've been banned. For a long time. But because he's too big a name to lose, no chance, whereas Carl Long and his team were banned for half a season because of a technical infringement. They may be different offences but the fact is they have a track record of not punishing big names but coming down severely on "less important" drivers or teams. I don't think anyone is disputing this. From experience, it's been the same with most motor racing championships - I could also reel off a list of times it's happened in F1 as well, although it would be irrelevant

And on the Kansas 07 incident - it was clarified by use of the term "reasonable speed". That is such a grey area. What is a reasonable speed? It is open to interpretation

Burden of proof is on you. Don't make claims if you cannot back them up.



Because they're being 3-year-olds spitting their dummies out over JJ winning.



There's the difference. Carl Long's offence was a technical infringement. Carl Edwards' offence was a sporting infringement. NASCAR has always come down like a ton of bricks on all technical infringements. It banned the Jeff Gordon (a big name) T-Rex car even though it wasn't illegal. It banned Chad Knaus (crew chief of a big name) for installing hydraulic devices on his car. It threw the book at Michael Waltrip and Kasey Kahne, among others (both big names) for different offences at Daytona in 2008. It stripped down and searched both the #48 and the #5, both Hendrick cars, for several races in a row at the end of last year because they thought that there was something wrong. They didn't have any real proof, they just thought there was something amiss. It drops penalties on every single technical infringement that occurs, and the punishment almost always fits the crime, regardless of the importance of a driver.

Sporting offences, I agree, were suspect to more irregularity in the past, but that is not the case now that NASCAR have told the drivers to police themselves. The sporting regulation that Ambrose broke was black-and-white. You can't do what he did.

_________________
Dan Wheldon ¦ 1978-2011
Marco Simoncelli ¦ 1987-2011
Jules Bianchi ¦ 1989-2015
Justin Wilson ¦ 1978-2015

Yeah, I know he's mad and I don't care. I do not care. I did not care then. I do not care now. I'm here to race him.

Well there went another 20% of the NASCAR fans in the world..I actually cant wwait to see NA$CAR go bust in a few years. I just dont give a crap anymore. MAYBE i'll tune in for Daytona and Talladega this year, nothing else.

Well there have been loads mentioned in the thread already

The finish to Talladega 2 years ago was a similar situation to this. I wasn't bothered at the time for obvious reasons, but the fact is, had it been Stewart overtaking Regan Smith and not the other way around, it probably would've been called differently, because NASCAR would've argued that Tony needed to go low to avoid a crash like Earl's last year. But even as a Stewart fan, I could and can totally understand why so many people were pissed off about it, even though it was the "right" call

As I said, intentional wrecks often go unpunished or at most a slap on the wrist. There's Edwards on BK obviously. The other one that sticks out in my mind (from before I started following) was Earnhardt's cage-rattling - that was pretty blatant but he was never going to get punished for it because he was Dale Earnhardt. Then there's Kyle wrecking Jr at Richmond a couple of years ago. Montoya's done it as well - can't remember if he was parked for it or not. He pretty much took Logano out yesterday too. There's also been plenty of wrecks caused by aggressive driving that could easily have been interpreted as intentional or at least avoidable, and there have been plenty of instances of the whole payback thing

And technical infringements are always harder. Why? Why should Carl Long be banned for the rest of the year for an engine that was too big and yet Edwards damn near kills someone and gets told not to do it again? It's a mess, totally out of proportion

Don't plead ignorance just for the sake of being obstinate. There have been plenty of occasions out there when NASCAR has bent its own rules to suit themselves. Hence why there are people out there who are at the very least threatening to walk away from following the sport. As I said earlier in the thread, I saw plenty of offences in this race alone that went without a whisper - Ambrose was the only one penalised all day


It's not black and white. NASCAR said after Kansas 07 that you have to maintain a "reasonable" speed. That could be interpreted one way or another, or they could just ignore their own rules again. It's not clear cut

Lock this thread already!!

SHIT OF SHAME

In the past, yes, there's been inconsistencies, I've already acknowledged that, and so have NASCAR. They've put it back in the hands of the drivers, the way it used to be. And that way there's far less controversy. If you're not happy about a way a competitor has been treating you, deal with it yourself in a way that doesn't involve other people and won't get people hurt. Edwards overstepped the line at Atlanta and he was castigated for it. Everyone else this year has done it properly.

If you want the governing body to handle driver v driver spats, you are watching the wrong sport. Does it excuse them from what went on before? Not completely. But it is a step in the right direction.

You can argue that Stewart wouldn't have been penalised at Talladega 08 had he done what Smith did, or that in any one of these incidents had the roles been reversed then the outcome would've been different, but you don't know. No-one does.

The reason why technical infringements are punished harder are because they have always been under the jurisdiction of NASCAR. NASCAR used to let the drivers sort it out between themselves, and then they tried to police it themselves, which didn't work, so now they've gone back to the old way of doing it. Had they approached both sides of the rulebook with equal attention from the very beginning, there would've been less disparity between the two. But they didn't. Which is fine.



Ambrose didn't maintain 'reasonable' speed, he didn't maintain any speed at all! He came to a stop! Had he simply slowed down and continued to move, he would've been fine, but he stopped. Yes, it was for only 0.5 of a second or something, but it all counts. Clear rule break.

_________________
Dan Wheldon ¦ 1978-2011
Marco Simoncelli ¦ 1987-2011
Jules Bianchi ¦ 1989-2015
Justin Wilson ¦ 1978-2015

Yeah, I know he's mad and I don't care. I do not care. I did not care then. I do not care now. I'm here to race him.

overanalyzing itt

I was bored.

_________________
Dan Wheldon ¦ 1978-2011
Marco Simoncelli ¦ 1987-2011
Jules Bianchi ¦ 1989-2015
Justin Wilson ¦ 1978-2015

Yeah, I know he's mad and I don't care. I do not care. I did not care then. I do not care now. I'm here to race him.

rtn is right. Ambrose came to a complete stop and therefore had no right to regain his position. Why in gods name he was saving fuel, we'll never know. Once again James is making claims without any backup.

Even Jimmie says Marcos messed up:



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84651

_________________
"Many people ask me why I always sign off Till We Meet Again, because goodbye is always so final. Goodbye Dan Wheldon." -Marty Reid

What does Casey Mears' mother think of it?

Regardless of how people feel about it, NASCAR truly did make the right call. Don't let disappointment and emotion get in the way of objectivivity. I hated seeing that happen too, but NASCAR had to make that call and they got it right in the end. I'll agree to some extent that NASCAR have been frustratingly inconsistent at times, but on this particular occasion, their decision fit their own rulebook.

Also, concerning Ambrose himself, has there been any word from him or his team about why he was even worried about fuel to begin with? Guys like Robby and Kasey pitted 12 to 13 laps earlier than Marcos, and they were slightly close on fuel (and they ended up making it), so I can't see why fuel would have been even a remote concern for the 47.

This isn't Moto GP. NASCAR fans hate seeing one guy win too much and it kills ratings, so lets lose the conspiracy theories. Ambrose dropped the ball, Johnson picked it up.

Just wanna say, appalling coverage from TNT. They were focused on the leaders the whole time even showing Jimmie run laps by himself out front constantly while I'm squinting to watch all the action a little back in the pack just to have it cut out of view by their excellent camera crew.

Marcos Ambrose has had such hard luck getting his first career wins. First Montreal with Robby Gordon and now this. Its a shame but sorry guys its not a conspiracy

My thing is, even if they though they were too tight on fuel, why in the world would they have him shut the car off going up the hill and not wait til he got to the highest point and then coast it on down.

The point about the money thing I mentioned earlier was evidently lost. I simply meant that just like any other business, they're going to do what's best for $$$, which in NASCAR's case, usually goes hand in hand with winning fans - "making" Jimmie Johnson win is not going to do that. Quite the opposite. The only guy we can blame is Jimmie himself for always putting himself in a position to win.

I still love reading the "NA$CAR" and "I'm not watching anymore" crap. Been there, done that ('08 in particular), but kept coming back week after week. You'll all get over it, and you'll be back at the next thread to bitch about what you didn't like.... about a race you watched.

Exactly what I was thinking... bah. It sucked. But what can ya do.

Nothing, that's what.

Let's just accept that this is a disappointing weekend and roll on New Hampshire.

_________________
Ducks Angels Sounders Spurs