Charles Leclerc, Ferrari, Monza, 2019

FIA answers Hamilton’s claim lack of penalty for Leclerc was ‘inconsistent’

2019 Italian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

FIA race director Michael Masi has explained why Charles Leclerc was not given a penalty for failing to leave sufficient space for Lewis Hamilton during an incident at the Roggia chicane between the pair.

Hamilton questioned why Leclerc went unpunished for the move after he took to the run-off as the Ferrari drivers squeezed him approaching the corner. Previous similar incidents, including one between Max Verstappen and Valtteri Bottas at the same track last year, have been punished with time penalties.

“We’ve constantly asked for consistency,” said Hamilton. “There was a rule put in place and it wasn’t abided by today. They used different consequences for the rule today.

“I don’t really know why that was the case. I guess the stewards woke up on a different side of the bed this morning.”

Verstappen was given a five-second time penalty for his incident with Bottas 12 months ago. However ahead of the last race Masi said the black-and-white flag would be used to warn drivers for ‘unsportmanlike’ conduct. Leclerc was shown the flag at Monza.

“Then Verstappen should have got that last year,” said Hamilton. “We’ve asked for consistency so the same rule should apply each time.”

Masi said the Leclerc incident was also treated more leniently than Verstappen’s because the Ferrari did not make contact with the Mercedes. “There was contact last year with Max, so that’s one part of it,” he explained.

He added that the revived use of the black and white flag was another reason the two cases were treated differently.

“We need to remember a couple of elements: The discussion with the drivers in Bahrain about ‘let them race’ [and] subsequent discussions which have been ongoing with team principals, drivers [and] sporting directors.

“Then you look at it particularly in the context of Spa where we said we’re going to reintroduce the use of the bad sportsmanship flag. Pierre Gasly, for a very similar incident in Spa, received the bad sportsmanship flag.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2019 F1 season

Browse all 2019 F1 season articles

104 comments on “FIA answers Hamilton’s claim lack of penalty for Leclerc was ‘inconsistent’”

  1. Ok, consistent inconsistency.

    Move on, nothing will ever change.

    1. Looks like consistent “Ferrari International Assistance” has returned to F1. It disgusted me before, and it disgusts me again…!

    2. The consistency is that for the second time Masi used the argument that Leclerc did not hit anyone. He also used this argument in the obvious unsafe release in Germany. Quite strange to reward the perpetrator for the evasive action of his opponent.
      Maybe Masi and the stewards can just try to be a bit more objective?

      1. That’s what I’m saying. Hamilton not risking the contact is hardly a good reason, I think they were afraid of the CanadianGP fall out.
        Vettel deserved that Pen and Le Clerc deserved a pen today. Both were driver cognisant blocks, I honestly don’t care if my CanadianGP opinion is unpopular, it wasn’t about getting around the corner safely after his (Vettel’s) mistake, it was about getting out in front of Hamilton and he was whining because the thought he got away with it. Monaco BTW with the pitlane issue should also have been a pen on Verstappen and the contact there also should not have been the reason because that then gave them the excuse to give Le Clerc the ferrari team fine in the wet in Germany(because Roman avoided the crash), unsafe released is an unsafe release and it’s because of the pitcrews out on the pitlane. FIA seem to honestly be afraid of the Tefosi and Ferrari backlash.

      2. As far as I can see everyone is missing the point here. Leclerc was effectively given a yellow card for the first offense of not leaving a cars width and forcing another car off the track. Nearly all of which have been punished by the stewards this season. But he then committed another two offences, gaining an advantage by leaving the limits of the track and moving around under braking (which should be punished every time because it’s dangerous). Its clear favouritism corruption and it’s always been the same where Ferrari are concerned. In my opinion the inconsistent application of the rules anytime ferrari are in a good position should be looked at by fraud and corruption police. Its blatant !

        1. If the fia wanted better racing they wouldn’t keep changing the regs hoping that ferrari will interprate the rules better than the rest..

    3. I think with the points Ham had ..just little hit on the chicane will do.

  2. The discussion with the drivers in Bahrain about ‘let them race’ [and] subsequent discussions which have been ongoing with team principals, drivers [and] sporting directors.

    If drivers want rules to be followed strictly whatsoever without any considerations, then agreeing to the concept of ‘let them race’ doesn’t seem wise. Grievances such as the one Lewis had one are bound to come up due to the element of subjectivity involved.

    In hindsight, if Charles was given a 5 second penalty, that would have certainly robbed us of a good race and probably left us debating the stewards’ decision even more. As a fan of the sport, i am fine with this. I was entertained.
    Waiting for yet another stunning Q3 lap from Lewis in Singapore…

    1. I disagree. The move was terrible and we can not accept those types of things in return for having a good race. Not only that but then the second incident where leclerc clearly gained an advantage by going off the course while already under a warning flag is ludicrous! I want to see good racing but clear penalties are clear penalties and they ought to be consistent on them.

      Add that to vettel being let off for going off track in qualy and it looks very suspicious.

      1. It seemed to me they(the stewards)were afraid to make any penalty toward the leading Ferrari in fear of back lash…

        1. I thought exactly the same regarding the backlash. There were 3 incidents, 2 of them would normally be a penalty based on most of what I’ve seen. I don’t agree with the stewards point about “No contact”, This is not bumper cars! If there’s contact the chances are you’ve destroyed someone’s race completely. If the only reason for no contact is a car taking evasive action leaving the track then that’s silly…. When stroll restarted hafter his accident and forced a car onto the gravel trap he got a penalty… There was no contact there, but it was dangerous and yielded a penalty. It does sometimes rob os of good racing, but needs must.

          1. A penalty might have ‘robbed us of good racing’, but that ignores the excellent racing we’d have seen if Leclerc had given Hamilton room, been overtaken, and had to fight back.

        2. Makes sense, they’d also have backlash from non-ferrari fans (like me) for ruining another race had they done that.

        3. Its corruption simple. This has been going on as long as I’ve watched f1. I.e. Kimi locking brakes down the hill out of tunnel at Monaco and destroying adrian sutil’s force India and his race. No penalty. Any time ferrari have a chance of a championship the decisions become inconsistent towards them, it’s so wrong.

      2. Leclerc did the same corner cutting in Spa but since no one was around attacking him he got away. Yesterdays corner cutting and then hanging in middle of curva grande was the worst example of his dirty driving and getting away with offense becuase Stewards.

    2. Fans, teams and drivers only debate penalties because it isn’t clear what the rules are.

      Whilst there will always be some exceptions come up due to unforseen circumstances, that require interpretation, if they were very strict about basic rules like “leave a car’s width” or “don’t move in the braking zone” then 95% of penalties would no longer be controversial because the consequences are very clearly known.

      The current situation suggests that “let them go racing” means not applying basic rules consistently. This is done because people wrongly believe it improves the racing. If the rules are sensible and consistently applied, the bad behaviour would very quickly cease.

      1. this is too logical for the average human. There will always be someone who believes that in a particular instance the penalty is too harsh, or too lenient. The outcome of an incident would fair well more in determining the penalty applied in an instance. This is where the current stewarding seems to disregard. You can’t apply basic rules consistently but you can apply penalties that are consistent with the nature and the severity of the outcome, of an offence.

      2. @simon999

        The current situation suggests that “let them go racing” means not applying basic rules consistently.

        My point exactly. There is too much room for interpretation and deliberation. And then there is a certain clamoring for considering the race itself (where was he supposed to go, what was he supposed to do, etc.). Some could be very logical as Brundle mentioned yesterday that Sebastian probably had no way to see Lance coming up towards him. Fortunately or unfortunately, rules are meant to look beyond that. Better to let go ideologies that give more room for ifs and buts.
        @gufdamm: Just out of curiosity, is the current system ‘skewed’ in which penalties are themselves driven by the rules that determine the seriousness of the offences ? Are you trying to suggest a system where the penalties are driven by the impact irrespective of the cause ??

  3. It’s a joke to say the case was treated leniently because there was no contact. That actually suggests the driver behind is incentivized to allow contact so a penalty falls on the person fauling him.
    I’d propose rules to favour those that do everything to avoid contact. Moving under braking would not be obeying this rule, and hence would get rightly penalized.

    1. joe pineapples
      8th September 2019, 19:07


    2. +1, but if you look at explanation of why Seb got a harsher penalty than Stroll, they also used contact versus no contact. Personally I think using whether there was contact or not in these rulings is wrong, but I’m just a schmuck in an arm chair.

    3. There was no contact because Hamilton swerved off the track.

      Forcing an opponent off the track under braking is the most dangerous move in motorsport. Had Verstappen pulled that move, you would all be crying.

  4. I think Ham would have got this one if he wasn’t 60+ points ahead.

    1. Hamilton’s such a baby here.. i saw the incident multiple times. Hard racing was what it was. Move on.. and im a Hamilton fan..

      1. Ofcourse you’re a Hamilton fan….

  5. Just to put this out there, not to moan on about Leclerc’s win. If the black and white flag is supposed to act as Formula 1’s ‘yellow card’, then that surely means – if it’s to be worth anything – that any subsequent ‘yellow card’ incident should be a ‘red’ (or some kind of penalty, I take it). You can’t pick up two ‘yellows’. So for me the question during the race, after they’d flagged Leclerc, was that he continued with his dodgy driving, including cutting a chicane and weaving under braking, both of which are penalizable, depending on the precise circumstances.

    Basically I just felt the ‘warning’ was worthless as Leclerc continued with more of the same.

    1. +1 I’m a huge Leclerc fan but the stewards were very weak today. I hate to say it but I seriously believe if this wasn’t a Ferrari in Monza that would be a penalty.

      1. I also wanted Charles to win, but his moves were very dodgy. I’m OK without penalties for cutting the chicane and then for moving under braking in isolation, but forcing another driver off the track while the other car was alongside you in the braking zone, is a penalty in any circumstance.

        Just like with Ferrari’s unsafe pitlane release earlier this year that was left unpunished except for a meager fine, the FIA exposed its incompetence, hypocrisy, and corruption.

      2. Ofcourse you’re a Leclerc fan….

    2. I didn’t see the race so I am not able to give an opinion on Leclerc, but when Masi mentioned the ‘yellow card’ concept I commented that it would only have relevance if there was the ability to escalate to a ‘red flag’ situation and remove the driver from the race. Otherwise, claiming the black and white flag equivalent to a yellow card is meaningless.

      1. Indeed. It should be there for minor infractions. Clear penalties should still be punished. Contact alone should not count towards the decision either. In some incidents then I can see the point but in situations where it was just luck or skill of the victim that contact did not occur then it should be ignored as a mitigation.

      2. @nickwyatt I guess the Formula 1 equivalent is a penalty not a disqualification! The latter obviously is a recourse under extreme circumstances. But yes, that’s what I felt. When Leclerc drove Hamilton off track (intentionally, as he basically admitted) I doubted he’d be penalized, being Leclerc at Monza with Ferrari desperate for a win there, but after the flag, I did assume a (small) penalty would be applied if a similar infringement happened. Cutting a chicane to stay ahead and weaving under braking both count.

        All said and done, it shows Leclerc may be a nice guy out of the car, but he’s just as ruthless as all the top drivers (and I mean that as a compliment, more or less). He’ll exploit the situation at hand to get a win. Hamilton did right, had he returned the favour this race, he’d have been penalized for the same reasons Leclerc wasn’t. But Leclerc should know he’s now on Hamilton’s ‘safe to send into the dirt when necessary’ list. And no, not all drivers are.

        1. But the black flag is indeed a disqualification. The black and white flag is supposed to be a yellow card in that respect (ie another infringement will lead to a black flag)


          “Black and White Flag:
          A warning, to the driver that his behaviour is suspect and that he may be Black-flagged on further reports. This flag is always displayed with a board showing the relevant competitors car number.”

          “Black Flag:
          The driver must stop at his pit within one lap of receiving the signal and report to the Clerk of the Course. A penalty of exclusion may be enforced by display of the Black flag. This flag is always displayed with a board showing the relevant competitors car number.”

          So we must assume that if Leclerc had another infraction then he would have been disqualified…

          I am pretty sure you can also get a black and white flag and a penalty at the same time. Bascally the flag is not a replacement for a penalty it is a warning that you are close to being taken out of the race. In all other motorsport the Black and white flag is a very serious reprimand. It is not a replacement for the normal penalty systems, it is more for things like Vettels incident where the driver has posed a danger on the track. Now I would accept it for incidents like Leclercs if it was cumulative so if you got another one at another race then you were disqualified although I would think that a bit harsh and would rather that incident be punished with time penalties.

          1. Thanks Lee, that’s an interesting point. The quote I read from Masi seemed to be along the lines of using the b+w flag as a warning that another such instance would generate a penalty, not a disqualification. If so, that would be just another example of introducing more confusion and inconsistency, making the rules up as they go along, in effect.

            I’m not sure it’s worth us delving further, though. Hamilton summed it up: ‘It’s Monza.’ Deliberate or not, the crowd decided the penalty or lack of one. Not much else to it.

          2. What is strange is that if the Black and White flag is now going to be used as a mere statement that “please don’t do that again or we might have to give you a minor penalty” what will happen in the situation where you want to tell someone that they are about to be disqualified? We already have stewards warnings for penalties so why the need for the B&W flag? It is just bizarre.

    3. Duncan Snowden
      8th September 2019, 21:25

      Precisely. Hamilton’s right about Verstappen/Bottas last year, but I can accept that now the black-and-white flag has been reintroduced, it’s deemed to be a minor offence that only merits a warning. And I like the idea of a “yellow card”. But while the later first chicane incident obviously wasn’t as dangerous as Vettel’s at Canada earlier this year, in terms of maintaining position by missing a corner it was identical. I’d say it was a B&W incident too. So…

      1. Stewards are often about safety though, they will sometimes only give penalties to the more dangerous accidents of the same type.

      2. That is not what a Black and White flag actually means though. In all other motorsports it is a highly serious warning that you are about to be disqualified!

  6. “I don’t really know why that was the case.”
    Well that is obvious. Because FIA always favours Ferrari. Jean Tods son is Leclerc manager. You just should not consider this sport as a fair sport. It is the classic example of the old boys netwerk sport

    1. Yeah… let’s just discount the other 50 times Hamilton has been favored by rulings, because those don’t suit our narrative.

  7. As much as I’m not Hams biggest fan, I think they got this wrong today.
    You’re not allowed to crowd another car off the track and Lec didn’t leave a cars width. But the same happened in Austria for example, and obviously Vet was penalised for it in Canada.
    (I think Canada was harsh as Vet wasn’t in full control, so Ham is 1 up and 1 down with this rule).

  8. Isn’t the purpose of leaving sufficient space, to not only leave a place for a car to pass, but also to avoid exactly what Leclerc did in this race. Leclerc squeezing Hamilton off the track is a clear break of this rule not so? Him leaving the track is the consequence of not having space to remain on the track, why does having contact have anything to do with it. Once again Stewards are inconsistent for no real reason.

    According to Masi no painful penalty was given, because there wasn’t contact. Therefore the offending driver has less to lose by squeezing a driver off the track, its up to the other guy to cause contact or back out. in either scenario the innocent party has more to lose.

    Whats interesting to me is that in both instances, contact or not the on track results were the same. Which is why i feel the Steward’s reasoning is flawed. Contact, in the case of Bottas and Max, had no more of an impact on the outcome of their incident, as the lack of contact had here. We agreed the penalty was because the rule was clearly broken, with consequences for the offended driver, not that there was contact, in the case of Bottas and Leclerc. That applies here, also, contact or not.

    This isn’t letting them race, this is making stuff even more complicated.

    1. 100% agree. Well written.

    2. This isn’t letting them race, this is making stuff even more complicated.

      It’s letting some drivers race under certain conditions. We all know that if this was a championship decider, those moves wouldn’t have been allowed. Three of them: driving off track when Hamilton was alongside, weaving under braking (high speed corner) and cutting a chicane with a clear advantage. I mean, it’s not even borderline, 3 ducks in a row.

      1. And then Ferrari International Assistance ride to the rescue…

    3. After the “let them race” discussion and what happened between Max and Charles back in Austria, these kind of contacts are considered harsh but within the limit. Leclerc learned the lession in Austria and behaved consequently…I don’t see where the fuss is all about…

    4. @gufdamm, as you note, it feels as if Masi’s approach towards stewarding has introduced a more subjective element into their decisions, as now the weighting of the penalty is being adjusted based on the consequences of the act, rather than the act itself. There is nothing in the regulations about taking contact into consideration – Masi has used it here to justify not applying a penalty here, as well as using it to adjust the severity of the penalties meted out to Stroll and Vettel, but I think that there are some who wonder whether he will be consistent with that rule.

      We’ve already had one instance of the teams complaining because they felt that Masi’s application of the rules was inconsistent – the fine for Ferrari in Germany for their unsafe release, with the team revolt being so large that Masi reportedly had to agree to always giving time penalties for that now – and, if there is a sense that Masi is introducing unwritten criteria to them adjust the penalties, I can see more complaints being made.

      1. Hamilton’s response was also to say that he’d talk to Leclerc afterwards in private. So maybe that’s the way FIA want it to go, the drivers sort it out themselves, Leclerc either heeds the warning or ignores it, Hamilton decides to treat him accordingly next time. Driver etiquette ‘works’ for precisely those cases of contact or near contact, pushing other drivers off track, weaving and so on where some kind of mutual respect, or a lack of respect, is involved – i.e. (paradoxically and maybe worryingly) the most dangerous incidents. Treat others like you want to be treated. It doesn’t work for the less dangerous incidents like corner cutting where another driver isn’t directly involved and basically everyone will do it all the time if allowed.

    5. Agreed. Reckless and dangerous driving is NOT racing either.

    6. Say the same thing to LEC in Austria.

  9. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this Mr. Michael Masi anymore since his absurd reasoning and telling of lies after German GP incident in the pits:

  10. GtisBetter (@)
    8th September 2019, 20:11

    The very idea that the penalty of an action depends on the evasive action of the driver who’s race is being compromised makes no sense.

    Unfortunatly it has been the theme of stewarding. Unsafe release, but the other driver brakes? No problem. Unsafe entering the track, but another driver has the reaction to avoid it? That is a penalty, but not as bad that other one, where the guy couldn’t. Pushing people of track on a straight? No biggie if the other driver just moves on to the grass. But if he didn’t it would clearly be a penalty, like causing a collision. Charlie whiting would never think this way.

    1. We miss Charlie that’s for sure.

  11. While I find it annoying to constantly see complaints about the stewards, there is definitely a case to be made about inconsistency. By what I thought were the rules Charles probably deserved a penalty. However, I am glad he didn’t get it. Otherwise we would have been in for another 2 months of stupidity and platitudes from fans like we had in Canada. Also, the race was fantastic. That being said, we need clarity about this particular rule, because (1) it’s applied very inconsistently and (2) if not clarified it could lead to some very dangerous moves

    1. In Canada, the leader cut a corner and then came back on the track and was properly penalized because there wasn’t a danger of the Canadian fans of burning the place down. Today, as in other racers in Europe, the racers with hooligan fans are allowed to violate the rules because the stewards are afraid, rightfully so, that the fans will burn the place down. LEC squeezed HAM, cut a corner, and moved during braking and got 2 warnings. I guess as long as you keep breaking different rules and you are considered a “home” driver, whatever that is, then it is ok. Just don’t break the same rule twice in a race.

      1. Ricciardo got penalized for not slowing down enough with red flag in practice in australia 2018 and there’s other examples.

      2. HAM cut the corners too! Or that applies if it’s about the 1st place battle?!?!?!

  12. It is called wheel to wheel racing. Nothing wrong, in any of the moves today. They are in a car travelling at 300 kph and have to brake in 100 meters. Brsides that, they need to judge space left to Ham.

    Should we have a look at Ham and Vet last year?

    I think F1 is becoming to…Ham related. F1 tv speakers, management, etc. And there is Toto Wolf that tries hard to get best return of investment for his money, by influencing rules, sport, evrything he can.

  13. Martin Elliott
    8th September 2019, 21:14

    Whilst the FIA Race Director can issue Briefing Notes and even as Safety Director Technical Directives, how are these allowed to to advise on interpretation (maybe) of Approved Regulations or even override them (contact with track or over the track).

    Similarly, why is Masi explaining the Stewards Decisions. The whole point of the regulatory system is that there are approved rules and INDEPENDENT Stewards!!

    1. Mr. Masi is just trying to save Stewards against an obvious critic for their another mistake like he did in 2019 German GP for no penalty for Leclerc after Leclerc had Unsafe pit release. It has become a habit for Mr. Masi. How right were they who said that Vettel crying after Canadian GP will lead to no penalty for Ferrari drivers in the future!

  14. Pandora’s box was opened in Austria unfortunately.

  15. Dangerous precedent.

  16. I wonder how he feels about the Canadian GP penalty when we’ve got a proper example of unsafe rejoining today.

  17. It is so obvious, that Mercedes / Hamilton have obliterating race pace and in theory they should have won all races this year apart from Austria maybe. If by any circumstances Hamilton is not leading a race from the start, you can be sure he will put immense pressure on the slower car in front of him ( Canada / Hungary / Spa / Italy all perfect examples).

    In Canada FIA went correctly by the rule of the book and everyone (apart from Mercedes) was upset. If they sticked to the rule of the book today, we would have a joke Mercedes 1-2 with Leclerc crossing the line first. In Italy. In Monza. With Hamilton already 60+ ahead in championship. With Mercedes already 150+ ahead in championship and one of the most boring and criticised seasons of F1 since years.

    Anyone who thinks the stewards could have given different ruling, especially after Canada outrage are naive. Was this fair defending? No. Was lack of penalty common sense? Hell yes.

    1. No one wants Mercedes to win by a huge margin except themselves.

      However, sport is meant to have a fair ruling system that is applied consistently, not because not applying penalties will make it more entertaining. I can’t think of ANY sport where this is deemed acceptable.

  18. Charles cut the chicane and also didnt leave a car’s width when Lewis was alongside. He was lucky to get away with just a black and white flag. Maybe stewards were scared of Tifosi reaction. A penalty like the one Vettel got in Canada would have been the consistent thing to do. Dont change the rules according to venue and fans thats what Lewis said. Be consistent. Stewards did similar thing with Max win at Redbull Ring when he clearly made a dirty move for the win.

    On the straights the acceleration and power of Ferrari engine is just something else. Lewis couldn’t get close with the tow+DRS and this year tow has been the strongest.
    Now at all upcoming tracks with long straights (Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Abu Dhabi) Ferrari will be very strong. They had the fastest car (pole+win) in 2 races in a row now.

    1. “Stewards did similar thing with Max win at Redbull Ring when he clearly made a dirty move for the win.”
      Please clarify upon this statement!

      To my knowledge, MadMax was handed the win, after pushing LEC off the track.
      At the next race, in Silverstone, he got the same treatment back, obviously considered being within the rules.
      HAM should not moan either…

      1. Dont change the rules according to venue and fans reaction. In Italy Stewards were hesitant to give the home team a penalty and only gave warnings. And similar thing they did at Austria. Max in Redbull, the home team got away with a dirty move.

    2. It’s not just the Ferrari engine. It’s the lack of downforce on that chassis also. I doubt that the Ferrari engine is substantially stronger than the Mercedes.

      Also, Max didn’t break any rules in Austria :) He ran Charles wide AFTER the corner (on the exit), which has always been considered tough and aggressive but legal.

    3. These rulings are setting up a scenario where F1 racing could be renamed fast-weavy-punt-it-skip-chicane-dogems.

      Might improve market penetration in the trump states.

  19. And they gave a penalty to Albon for gaining a lasting advantage. What Charles did was much worse, cutting a chicane right in front of Lewis and gaining a lasting advantage and also moving under braking.
    Very questionable decisions by the stewards today.

    1. Some very questionable decisions indeed. The most I’ve seen all in favour of a single driver in a single race for many years I think.

    2. It wasn’t a more lasting advantage than HAM in Mexico 2016 for sure. Actually, that must the record for cutting the track and getting a lasting advantage. Basically corner2 did not even exist for HAM, he faked the entrance in corner1 and landed directly in corner3.

  20. HAM, be glad and grateful you got the win in Canada, when VET was given a 5s penalty; but that’s it!
    After MadMax vs LEC in Austria, wheel-to-wheel fights are allowed and accepted. So, show you’re a manned do your winning on the track!

    1. Although HAM said after the race that he isn’t looking at winning the season, he is definitely looking at the big picture which is why he backed off in all of the races including Canada. He has his priorities straight. I can’t wait for HAM or BOT running flat through corners and see what the opponents and their fans have to say about “letting them race.”

      1. Oh, but he did it a lot more obvious in Mexico and did not get any penalty. Just because it was lap1.

  21. isn’t a rule that forbids the pitcrew to fake out a pitstop? Mercedes has done it alot this season…

    1. Never enforced.

    2. They do it every freaking race.

    3. The team can easily claim that they changed their minds. It’s impossible to disprove.

    4. Yes but it is quite vague and open to significant interpretation as there are legitimate reasons for pit crews to come out and the car not come in. The team can not force the driver to obey them and also things happen on track in the tie it takes the pit crew to come out. It is almost impossible to enforce and I am not sure it ever has been. That is very different from someone forcing another driver off the track though which is both far more serious and has far more precedent on penalties handed out.

    5. No, there no rule such as that. There is a rule about having mechanics in the pitlane unnecessarily, but it’s easy to argue it was necessary as long as you don’t do it too often.

  22. One telling thing today was that the stewards were under orders to not penalize Ferrari was that on one of the infractions the stewards ruled no foul within 30 seconds of the incident and then the announcers stated the fact that the stewards have multiple camera angles and multiple metrics that they can use to make decisions. But we know they didn’t use any of that because the decision was made during the same lap the incident occurred. It usually takes the stewards about 3 laps to make a decision (if they actually take a look at what happened.) Today all they needed to know in the decision tree was, is it a Ferrari? Go directly to warning. If any other car, review actual data and video.

  23. As far as I remember there has NEVER been a penalty for cutting the chicane while driving into it in 1st position and still being 1st after it. And I’m quite sure nobody wants an F1 where that’s the case either!

    1. William Jones
      9th September 2019, 0:00

      Er…. Canada…. This year…

    2. So a driver takes the pole and then can cut every chicane for the entire race. Sounds fair. /sarc

    3. Hamilton in Spa 2009? He was given a 25 second penalty for simply leaving the track!

  24. If they are going to use a black and white flag for unsportsmanlike behavior, should it not be carried over to the following races? Then at least it would have more meaning and possible consequences for drivers who persistently push the boundaries of what is acceptable. Personally i thought Leclerc cutting the chicane not a big deal but veering all over the road on the next corner before, and under braking should have got him a penalty but there you go. What really annoys me is changing or interpreting laws differently half way through a season. Fix the laws and penalties at the start and if it needs changing wait until the end of the season. It is not as if F1 has not been around very long!

    1. True, but then carrying over the effects of a b+w flag to future races would basically be a vague version of the points system. If so, Leclerc should have had a points deduction with the warning. Not saying he should have, just that the stewards are messing up their own system with ad hoc inventions to duck the hostile response of fans and critics. traumatized by Ferrari’s excessive response to the Canada ruling. Not ideal behaviour all round.

      1. Fully agree. It has already complicated things. It could come back to bite them and F1 in a big way in the future (fingers crossed it doesn’t). As for contact/no contact penalties, what if Stroll had avoided Vettel but gone straight in to the barriers. Would Vettel have received a lesser penalty as there was no contact? Or does the outcome of an incident have a bearing on the penalty?
        Here is a great idea, why not put it to a public vote limited to 1 minute after the incident, with a second follow up vote if the driver is found guilty by the majority to determine the penalty. And you would also be entered into a draw to win a signed photo of a local D list celeb and 1 months free Sky subscription? Please note that i thought of it first!!

  25. I’m really happy Leclerc won today. The kid deserved it after losing out earlier this season. He’s also showing up Vettel as a one (exhaust blown diffuser) trick pony.

    However, I do think the stewards were overly lenient on both Ferrari drivers today. It made for a great race though, plus Bottas had a shot at the win after Lewis had used up his tyres.

    Having watched both F2 races, I did expect some black & white flag controversy in the F1… and we got it. Hopefully the drivers sort it out among themselves in the next briefing.

    1. I think the penalty on vettel was fair, in fact he didn’t even need a penalty, he ruined his own race, not sure he’d have made the points, but with a 25 sec loss penalty that’s gone, want to give him a black flag? Doesn’t change much.

  26. Hamilton is absolutely right.

  27. Racecar is racecar backwards
    9th September 2019, 2:21

    Was Carlos Sainz penalised or flagged for pushing Albon off?

    1. No, because Sainz did nothing wrong. He was on the inside and took the racing line, which meant that Albon on the outside had nowhere else to go. This is hard but fair racing when the driver with the racing line forces the other driver to back off on the EXIT of the corner.

    2. No because he didn’t push him off. Albon was not far enough alongside and had plenty of chance to back off. Leclercs move on Hamilton was with both cars alongside each other in a braking zone.

  28. Excellent race. I’m glad some actual defending is allowed now. Was it dangerous? Yup. Are these drivers good enough to not need coddling? Yup.

    The moves seen yesterday have been a common theme throughout F1 history, despite what the occasional professional nostalgia peddler may claim.

    Hamilton and Wolff’s constant politicking and insinuations of x, y and z make me uneasy and remind me of Ferrari in the early 2000s when the FIA really was in their pocket, unlike today.

  29. NeverElectric
    9th September 2019, 5:11

    The stewards appear to have given Leclerc a massive “curve” for whatever reasons. It was hilarious to hear Leclerc’s engineer on the radio, a few laps after Charles weaved all over the track to block Hamilton, telling him “Hamilton s 1.4 seconds behind, please don’t change direction under braking” or words to that effect.
    I doubt too many fans minded a lot that Charles won, but a precedent has been set and, as always happens, Leclerc will be on the receiving end of similar treatment in the very near future – and then the stewards will be well and truly scr…d: damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    1. Ahaha, that makes sense actually!

  30. Masi is making a mess of the rules. If one day an offence is punished and the next day it is not, then the rule has been radically changed.

    Masi seems, to quote Churchill, ““Decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. ”

  31. If this ruling is consistently applied in the future it effectively gives a driver a freebie to crowd a competitor off the track.

  32. So are we saying the drivers should touch each other just to make sure that the steward do penalise the other party?? There is no Logic in it. Touch or not should not be the matter of consideration.

  33. There’s been relatively little mention about LeClerc’s quite ridiculous defence of position in Curva Grande after he’d gone of the track. With Hamilton closing after LeClerc lost momentum from his excursion, he moved/weaved across Hamilton twice, whilst under a caution from the stewards. Not only is it very dangerous as Hamilton pointed out on his team radio, its against the rules to move twice to defend a position. There is no excuse from the stewards for not penalising this incident, other than it was a Ferrari leading at Monza.

    The penalty situation of the past couple of season’s has lead to us seeing some firm but fair, fantastic racing and finally some overtaking at the front. The teams have by and large accepted the penalties because of consistency. I suspect the FIA has now created a monster for itself in that teams will now rigoulsly defend their drivers of future penalties- through the courts if necessary (as we’ve seen in the past), referencing this race as defense as to why its driver has been unfairly treated.

    1. spot on!

Comments are closed.