Daniel Ricciardo, Renault, Red Bull Ring, 2020

Stewards take no action against Stroll over Ricciardo incident

2020 Styrian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Lance Stroll has been cleared following an investigation into his overtaking move on Daniel Ricciardo, which led to both drivers leaving the circuit.

The Racing Point driver dived down the inside of Ricciardo at turn three later in the race, both drivers running wide. The move prompted complaints from Ricciardo on the radio, who said he had to swerve away from Stroll to avoid a collision.

However after inspecting video of the move, the stewards ruled “the incident is considered a race incident”.

No other incidents are under investigation following the race. However 11 drivers had lap times deleted for running wide at turns nine and 10.

Don't miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

60 comments on “Stewards take no action against Stroll over Ricciardo incident”

  1. Following for too many laps, you know a lunge was coming.

    1. @fletch And clearly, Norris saw it coming too, was ready to pounce.

      Does make me wonder whether the stewards still look closer at the top than at those behind, Ricciardo did seem to have a solid argument for getting the place back, but I am fine with a return to ‘let them race’ I think.

      1. Me as well @bosyber. Which is perfect because the midfield is gold at the moment. If only the broadcasters camera people knew that…

        1. To be fair, we didn’t see much of Hamilton, Bottas and Verstappen (or Albon) unless there was something to show, sticking to where the fights were quite well today @fletch, but indeed, let’s hope the TV direction keeps on that track.

  2. Very lucky to avoid a penalty there. Took a lunge on the inside, carried too much speed to take the corner and ran fully off the track, forcing his opponent to go with him. Then kept the place afterwards. Looked like a slam dunk penalty to me – either give back the place to Ricciardo for making an illegal overtake (which would have lost the place to Norris too), or 5 second penalty at the end of the race. Curious why the stewards decided not to penalise this.

    1. Yeah, 5 second penalty at the end would have sufficed, so Ricciardo at least finishes ahead of him.

    2. Likewise.
      Overtaking outside the white line (and/or running right off the track) are penalty inducing offences normally.
      Ricciardo got two of them in France last year.

    3. Totally agree, a slam dunk penalty. The only reason there was none is the steward’s “no harm, no foul” policy, which in this case should have been renamed “no contact, no foul” and has been pushed to the point of nonsense.

      Also bizarre that Perez was not penalized for the contact with Albon. It looked almost like a carbon copy of Hamilton vs Albon 7 days earlier. Perez was even further behind. “No spin, no foul” ?

      When I first read that Renault was protesting both Racing Points, I thought it was for those incidents. I forgot that the stewards were immune to protests.

      1. @palindnilap From past incidents I’m sure the stewards take into account the consequences of the incident, and not just the actions which took place. So if you cause a collision and come off worse, while not affecting the other car’s race, then no penalty is given, such was the case with Perez vs Albon. If Albon had spun I’m sure it would be a penalty for Perez.

        Likewise i think stewards often don’t apply penalties when a driver takes out his teammate, unless this was in an obvious two horse race championship. For example if Leclerc has taken out a driver other than Vettel with the same move as this race, I would expect a penalty for the following gp (grid drop). Otherwise the team on the receiving end would feel hard done by and may protest.

        1. Indeed. The stewards generally won’t penalize a driver when he has come second best in the incident. But is it the right way to go ?

          On the one hand, that way they minimize the number of penalties, which has been asked by many fans. On the other hand, they sacrifice consistency, but consistency has also been asked by many fans. One must say that the stewards are between a rock and a hard place.

          1. Obviously it’s the right way to go. In essence they penalise a driver for taking somebody else out, not for a bit of car bumping

        2. @keithedin Perez did not damage Albon’s race in any way, whereas the contact caused Perez to fall back probably much further than the stewards would have penalized him. Also there was no spin and no change of position. When there are literally no consequences of contact, I don’t think penalties should be issued.

          1. @neiana I agree with that. I think if you compromise your own race only then there is no need to issue a time penalty, as you are already facing consequences for your action. Although you could make an argument for applying penalty points for these incidents to discourage consistently poor or reckless driving.

          2. F1oSaurus (@)
            12th July 2020, 21:52

            @neiana When you run a red light and you are caught by the police. Do you get a fine if you didn’t cause an accident?

            It’s not just the results of the accident it’s the offence itself which is the what they should get the penalty for. Or not. There still was an avoidable collision if they insist on penalizing racing incidents like that and the case Hamilton with Albon.

            Even if you look only at there being consequences then it’s just daft that there is no penalty just because Ricciardo concedes the place just to avoid damage to his car. The consequence is still that he lost a position.

      2. @palindnilap Only reason it was a no harm no foul was Ricciardo drove off the track to avoid the collision and both cars ended up off track!!

    4. If Stroll didn’t force Ricciardo off the track he certainly passed Ricciardo by leaving the track. Stewards got it wrong.

    5. RIC should have held his line and let there be an accident, Stroll deserved penalty points and to be laughed out of the “sport”

  3. I don’t think I agree with this. Stroll was so far back and then went off-track because he didn’t brake enough.

    1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      12th July 2020, 16:42

      Yeah he was never making that corner. Wrong decision for me

  4. That was more deserving of a penalty than what Lewis did last week. Stroll didn’t even try to turn. He forced Danny to not even try to make the corner.

  5. This is why F1 needs a video assistant steward, F1’s equivalent of VAR.

    1. but they do that, they just fail…

    2. How exactly do you think F1 stewards work, by watching the track with binoculars?

      1. It’s not an unreasonable conclusion to make based on this decision. It looked like a pretty clear-cut penalty to me.

  6. I hope Renault appeal this.

    1. Is it even possible to appeal a ruling by the race stewards? I can’t see any way such an appeal would succeed, because there’s no additional evidence that the team can provide which is likely to change the stewards’ decision.

  7. Stewarding is a joke this race!

    If Lewis-Albon was not a facing incident, this and Ferrari’s tangle are also not racing incidents. Period

  8. I thought it was deserving of a penalty personally. Stroll just bulldozed his way and was not even close to making the corner. It was akin to Hamilton in turn 1 of Fuji in 2008 and far worse than what Rosberg did in Hockenheim 2016, which got him a penalty.

    1. Hamilton and Kovalainen you mean because they both ran Kimi off.

    2. F1oSaurus (@)
      12th July 2020, 21:56

      @mashiat Pretty much the whole field went wide in that first corner. Kovalainen actually was the one hitting Raikkonen and Hamilton alone got a penalty. Man those were the dark days of Alan Donnely, the Ferrari contractor and Mosley lackey as the sole steward for a whole season. Making up his own rules as he went along.

      1. @f1osaurus I was referring to Hamilton’s lunge down Raikkonen’s inside at Turn 1, where he locked up badly and just ran off the track, taking Raikkonen with him. If you watch the start again, Kovalainen was not the one who pushed Raikkonen wide and off the track. It was a deserved penalty for me on that occasion, as it is for Stroll.

        1. F1oSaurus (@)
          13th July 2020, 15:09

          @mashiat Yes I’m talking about the same situation. There was no “lunge” from Hamilton though. At least half the field outbreaked themselves and ended up on the outside of the corner. Apart from Raikkonen. Also Raikkonen was still on track, but it was Kovalainen who pushed Raikkonen off track. Massa also slid off track behind Raikkonen.

          It was an absolute farce to give Hamilton a penalty for that. Or there should have been at least 10 drivers penalized for going wide off the racing line.

  9. Rubbish. Absolute (expletive verb beginning with f) rubbish.

    Let’s recap.
    Stroll was behind.
    Stroll didn’t leave room.
    (These two got HAM a penalty last week.)
    And then
    Stroll went completely off track.

    1. @jimfromus

      Albon was going to win with that move
      Hamilton actually touched Albon
      Albon spun and lost many positions.

      Ricciardo may have taken back one spot but definitely would have lost both before the end of the race, anyway.
      Ricciardo did not get touched.
      Stewards issue penalties based on contact, usually, and that’s been an argument for several years.

      1. F1oSaurus (@)
        12th July 2020, 21:58

        @neiana That makes no sense. So since Ricciardo jumped out of the way there is no penalty. While Albon actually turns ion on Hamilton (while he had at least a meter to his left and could also have avoided the accident whikle even staying on track) and then Hamilton does get a penalty.

        I remember when Massa was causing incidents on purpose on Hamilton like that. He just turned in on Hamilton every time he tried an overtake. At some point it got so incredibly obvious that they penalized Massa. After that he stopped doing it …

        1. @f1osaurus

          While Albon actually turns ion on Hamilton

          Kay, we’re done here. Ciao.

          1. F1oSaurus (@)
            13th July 2020, 14:57

            @neiana He did!

            He had at least a meter to his left and could also have avoided the accident whikle even staying on track

            But if you’re too blind to see that then sure, bugger off.

        2. @f1osaurus Of the five incidents that Hamilton and Massa had in 2011, Hamilton was to blame for three of them in Silverstone (where he understeered clean into the side of Massa), Japan and Singapore. And only in Monaco did Massa turn-in on Hamilton and not receive a penalty.

          1. F1oSaurus (@)
            13th July 2020, 15:01

            @mashiat Well there is always some shared blame when accidents happen.

            Just see the Albon Hamilton incident. The exact same situation arose on lap one. Hamilton was ahead of Albon yet he backed out preventing a collision. Albon does not back out and even takes a tighter line when he’s on the attacking end and a collision ensues.

            Same thing in Monaco. Hamilton and Schumacher fight at Casino and both survive because Hamiltpon takes his loss. Same situation, Massa just turns in.

            At some point it just became too obvious that Massa was leaving the door open and turning in on Hamilton on purpose so they started penalizing Massa instead.

  10. Lance just wanted to replicate Verstappens move on Leclerc in last year’s race, but didn’t get it quite right.

  11. I didn’t find anything wrong with that. It was a great, hard, and long battle between them.

    1. @jerejj Stroll barged into the corner, cut Ricciardo off (literally drove in front of him), then ended up completely off the track on the outside of the corner (he was entirely outside the rumble strip at corner exit). How is that not forcing Ricciardo off the track?

  12. Stroll just has zero race craft. That was one of the ugliest, most amateur moves I’ve seen in a while. He can be quick at times, but around other cars he is just out of his depth.

    1. @dot_com yet not 5 minutes earlier (or later) he had a brilliant little race with Perez where the two went side by side through several corners.

  13. Neil (@neilosjames)
    12th July 2020, 20:07

    Very confused by this decision, as I thought it was an obvious penalty. He took a highly unconventional line into and through the corner and forced another driver off the track, while leaving the track himself, to gain a position. Don’t think that’s ever been OK.

    1. @neilosjames it’s almost always been okay. “Forcing another driver off the track” means contact. This particular argument has existed on this very forum for many years.

      1. F1oSaurus (@)
        12th July 2020, 22:04


        “Forcing another driver off the track” means contact.

        It doesn’t though. That’s “Causing a collision”.

        Rosberg got a “Forcing a driver off track” for Germany 2016 after forcing Verstappen off track. While doing the same with Hamilton in Austria gave him a “Causing a collision”. With the only difference being the contact with Hamilton in Austria (because Hamilton kept his car on track)

        1. Neil (@neilosjames)
          12th July 2020, 23:22

          @f1osaurus +1.

          Contact may occur, but the offence still happened even if the ‘victim’ has the awareness to avoid a collision.

        2. @f1osaurus Exactly – the two rules are not synonymous, for good reason.

      2. @neiana Even if you ignore the fact that Stroll forced Ricciardo off-track, Stroll only made the ‘pass’ stick because he ended up off-track too. Textbook case of leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage – which I’m sure you remember is the rule breach for which Ricciardo was penalised 5 seconds in France last year.

  14. Gained a lasting advantage by leaving the track…. stewards were just lazy on this one. Sets a terrible precedent too because that allows drivers to dive bomb and leave the track to gain a position.

  15. Absolute farcical stewarding after the penalty they gave Hamilton last week. This move was out of control and it was only because of Ricciardo swerving off track there was not an accident. When you do not penalise drivers because of no contact you’re endorsing that driving behaviour for the future. At the very least this should have been penalty points so if he keeps driving poorly he can be suspended in the future.

    Same with Perez, the outcome is irrelevant, the driving was exactly the same as Hamilton last week and hence worthy of a penalty apparently.

    Either issue penalties consistently and fairly or don’t issue them at all…

  16. Tracked down Appendix L of the Code specifically Chapter 4  CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT
    2 b) contains A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason. And further down in the section: manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards.

    Again, Stroll deliberately left the track without reason as he was not being crowded out AND drivers are strictly prohibited from crowding a car beyond the edge of the track. Stroll did that. He also left the track to gain a position on RIC by causing RIC to slow.

    Apparently strictly prohibited actions aren’t strictly prohibited. There is nothing in 2 b) stating a collision needs to occur which is why it is a penalty to cut corners and drive outside the track when a driver is all alone out there.

    1. Dodgy stewarding is a hallmark for F1. Can’t have the new Stroll money get upset, need to pad his sons resume a bit.

      Anyone who has any idea at all about racing (and even those who don’t) can see how dodgy that move is.

  17. Unbelievable ! When I think back to when LH went off track making a pass, gave the position back before passing again and still got a penalty, I can’t see any reason I can’t see how Stroll could barge Ricciardo of the track (costing 2 places) and not get a penalty, no wonder Renault are protesting the legality of team Pink’s cars.
    I often sympathise with Lance (poor little rich boy) due to some peoples eagerness to criticise, but I do notice that most people employed in F1 ,including journalists, tend to lean the other way, makes me wonder if Stroll Snr. might be very generous with the Harrod’s picnic hampers.

    1. Hamilton in spa hardly gave the position back, he gave enough back only so he could get a slipstream, he didn’t reverse the situation as much as he should have considering his mistake. so he deserved a penalty as did stroll here.

  18. How on Earth is that a racing incident? How blind do you have to be to see that as one?

  19. Track limits, he completed a pass off the track, while at the same time driver another driver completely off track. Unacceptable that the stewards didn’t penalize stroll.

  20. Tommytintop (@)
    13th July 2020, 9:35

    Stroll should have had a 5 second penalty. Simply as that.

  21. F1 2019 French Grand Prix

    On http://www.formula1.com

    Ricciardo – France 2019 F1 GP

    Quote: Stewards
    “Left the Track and gained a lasting advantage passing another car

    5-second Penalty”

    F1 2020 Styrian Grand Prix

    Stroll runs Ricciardo off track,
    Stroll runs off track at same time.
    Stroll gains a place, that is a lasting advantage.

    Quote: Stewards
    Racing incident.
    No penalty for Stroll.

Comments are closed.