The FIA’s decision to replace one of its four drivers’ advisers to the stewards has put the spotlight back on the quality of the decisions they make.
Stewarding is always going to be contentious and many high-profile calls were disputed as Max Verstappen and Lando Norris’s championship fight intensified. But some of the more debatable decisions made during the course of 2024 involved drivers fighting further down the field – and one occured before the race weekend even started!The stewards issued hundreds of decisions over the course of 2024, and while many were straightforward calls, these 10 rulings were notable for being too harsh or too lenient:
Chinese Grand Prix sprint race: Fernando Alonso
Fernando Alonso made a valiant defence of his third place in the sprint race at the Chinese Grand Prix. But with four laps to go Carlos Sainz Jnr finally got him, sweeping by on the inside of the long turn eight, despite the Aston Martin driver making contact on the way in.
The pair made contact again when Alonso attempted a lunge on the inside of the following corner. That left him with a race-ending puncture and Sainz’s car was damaged, leaving him fifth. Alonso was at fault but his penalty outweighed the seriousness of the error. It was by far the mildest incident which earned a driver three penalty points on their licence.
Chinese Grand Prix: Logan Sargeant
The following day Logan Sargeant received an excessively severe punishment for a minor error. He incorrectly took up a position ahead of Nico Hulkenberg behind the Safety Car after reaching the pit lane exit after the Haas driver.
From behind the wheel, Sargeant was poorly placed to know whether he had committed any infringement, and his team failed to advise him. Two penalty points for that seemed excessive, particularly as Lance Stroll received the same for crashing into Daniel Ricciardo while the field was neutralised, hitting the RB so hard it struck into Oscar Piastri’s McLaren ahead of it.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Miami Grand Prix sprint race: Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton was fortunate to avoid a penalty after triggering a multi-car incident which put Lando Norris out of the Miami Grand Prix sprint race on the first lap. The Mercedes driver made a lunge for the inside of turn one and ran slightly wide, forcing the two Aston Martin drivers together and ultimately into Norris.
Although the stewards routinely take a soft line on turn one incidents, this was hard to justify in the case of Hamilton, who had clearly over-committed himself on this occasion. A mild sanction was deserved.
Spanish Grand Prix final practice: Charles Leclerc
Acts of retribution are rare in Formula 1, especially outside competitive sessions, so it was a shock to see Charles Leclerc swerving his car towards and into Norris’s after the McLaren driver briefly held him up in practice at the Circuit de Catalunya. Although it was completely out of character for Leclerc, drivers using their cars as weapons must always draw a stiff reaction, and this deserved a grid drop instead of a reprimand.
Austrian Grand Prix qualifying: Oscar Piastri
This is a controversial one. Footage of Piastri’s line at turn six during qualifying for the Austrian Grand Prix indicated he had ventured beyond track limits and his time was therefore disqualified, costing him a front row start.
However the same footage was not available for all other cars on their qualifying laps. Previously the FIA has refused to penalise drivers when that is the case, as in the 2023 United States Grand Prix. McLaren justifiably felt aggrieved that Piastri was penalised in a manner which appeared to contradict a recent precedent.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Austrian Grand Prix: Max Verstappen

Verstappen’s defensive moves became increasingly borderline when he came under pressure for the lead of the Austrian Grand Prix from Norris. But the stewards took no action and the pair eventually collided.
Later the FIA admitted Verstappen’s driving had been sufficient to earn him an official warning, through a black-and-white ‘unsporting conduct’ flag. Had this been shown at the right time, this significant early moment in the championship fight might have ended differently.
Azerbaijan Grand Prix: Sergio Perez
Two F1 cars being driven along a straight should not hit each other. Sainz was ahead and, as the stewards noted, on his usual line. Perez, behind, was the only driver with full sight of the other car and caused the collision. The lack of a penalty was a mystery.
Singapore Grand Prix: Max Verstappen
Verstappen’s penalty for swearing during an FIA press conference became a saga which continues to rumble on. If the FIA wish to enforce a ban on swearing in their conferences, that is not unreasonable, but there has been a striking absence of consistency.
Team bosses Toto Wolff and Frederic Vasseur were warned for swearing in an FIA press conference in Las Vegas in 2023. Leclerc swore in the post-race press conference in Monaco and got nothing. Verstappen was sentenced to “public work” for his comments in Singapore. Leclerc swore in Mexico and copped a fine, but when Norris did the same in Qatar no one seemed to care.
Perhaps a swear jar next to the press conference sofa would be a quick and easy fix?
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Mexican Grand Prix: Max Verstappen
Verstappen copped two penalties in the space of four corners as he fought Norris during the Mexican Grand Prix. Although both received 10-second penalties they were quite different incidents, and the stewards assessed the first one correctly, as Verstappen clearly illegitimately forced Norris off while he was being overtaken.
The second was different: Verstappen came from a ludicrous distance back at a high-speed corner where he never stood a chance of making a legitimate pass stick. Norris had to take evasive action to prevent a collision, losing a place both to the Red Bull and Leclerc’s Ferrari as they did so, which was obviously Verstappen’s intention.
Naively, the stewards ruled Verstappen left the track and “incidently [sic] forcing Norris off”. Besides the leniency of a 10-second penalty for such a cynical move, the absence of any penalty points made this one of the weakest calls of the season.
Mexican Grand Prix: Franco Colapinto

During the same race, Franco Colapinto picked up a surprisingly harsh penalty for a minor clash with Liam Lawson. The Williams driver went around the outside of the RB at turn one and was forced wide, but remained alongside his rival in turn two. They squeezed through, but Lawson’s front wing made contact with Colapinto’s right-rear wheel as he passed.
The stewards claimed Lawson left Colapinto enough room to stay on the track, but footage of the incident showed this was not the case. Colapinto had earned the right to space and if any driver deserved a penalty for the exchange it was Lawson.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
The tough-but-fair calls of 2024
F1’s stewards have an unenviable job. Despite the accusations of fans and some drivers, they do strive to make decisions that are fair, impartial and consistent. However they are wielding a complex rule book at drivers who never pass up an opportunity to claim an advantage over a rival.
There were other occasions last year when the stewards made calls which, despite the controversies they provoked, were reasonable.
One of the clearest examples occured in Australia when Alonso performed a bizarre move while trying to prevent George Russell from closing within DRS range of him. Had they not taken action against this unprecedented manoeuvre it would surely have spawned imitators with potentially dangerous consequences, given the crash Russell suffered as a result. The stewards were right to jump on it and a 20-second time penalty was the minimum it deserved.
McLaren fumed over the stewards’ penalty for Norris in the United States Grand Prix when he passed Verstappen off the track. However the stewards adhered to the driving standards guidelines which were agreed upon previously (though they may change for the upcoming season).
Finally, Verstappen was livid about the penalty he received for impeding Russell during qualifying for the Qatar Grand Prix. This was an unusual case, but given the precedent the stewards set the day before when issuing reprimands to Perez and Yuki Tsunoda, Verstappen’s one-place grid penalty was the mildest sanction he could have got.
Over to you
Which decisions do you think the stewards should have made differently during last season – and how? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Formula 1
- How much F1 will you watch in another packed, 30-race season?
- Hamilton won’t last two years at Ferrari, predicts Ecclestone
- “No doubt” Herta is quick enough for Formula 1 – Ericsson
- I’m not the “really angry guy” I sound like on the radio – Hadjar
- Which of Formula 1’s six rookies will sink or swim in 2025?
Jere (@jerejj)
3rd February 2025, 13:01
Chinese GP sprint race: Zero justification for a penalty
The same GP race: He should’ve been given a chance to give up the position himself.
Miami GP sprint: Definitely penalty-worthy regardless of lap.
Spanish GP FP3: Indeed penalty-worthy due to clearly using the car as a weapon.
Austrian GP qualifying: Difficult to judge, although the same trackside stationed cameras tend to point towards every single passing car regardless of which part of the circuit gets live world feed coverage a any given moment.
Austrian GP race: I was more or less okay with considering this particular contact as a mere racing incident, but I would’ve also been okay with a warning at the very least.
Azerbaijan GP: A racing incident per se, but Checo definitely had a better chance to avoid contact as it solely happened due to his marginal leftward movement, just like against Massa in the 2014 Canadian GP when he marginally veered rightwards in a consequential manner.
Singapore GP: The most ridiculous matter.
Mexican GP: The lunge at T8 was definitely a red-mist moment due to what happened just three corners earlier & also because of him not bothering to leave any space, just like against Sainz at T1 or in the previous race also against Lando, & I still think that an immediate black-flagging should’ve been the resort, while the other cases of not bothering to leave any space when required should’ve also led to a penalty & the same with Checo against Liam.
Colapinto’s penalty was fully justified as he deliberately caused front wing damage even though T2 is wide enough for two car widths, so he also should’ve bothered to turn more sharply to avoid contact.
Somehow both the US & Mexico City GPs last season featured this obsession of not bothering with a full steering-lock or otherwise sharper turning angle unnecessarily excessively.
Turning more sharply shouldn’t be too much to ask for professional racing drivers, especially as nothing or no one ever prevents them from performing full steering-lock turns, so solely a matter of bothering rather than being able to.
Alonso didn’t deserve his Australian GP penalty at all as Russell lost control solely because of not focusing on the road ahead, so Alonso’s presence had literally nothing to do with him going off track.
Likewise, Max didn’t deserve anything for getting cheated in Qatar GP qualifying.
Stewards should definitely take a harsher stance on the matter of deliberately forcing off because of not bothering to turn the steering wheel more, which is probably the biggest single racing etiquette issue.
SteveP
3rd February 2025, 18:19
Well, maybe someone should blame the “British Bias” factor?
(Note: There wasn’t a Brit on that panel)
You either do, or you don’t, penalise. Waving the first lap excuse card for some and not others is plain wrong.
Not having the same footage for other cars was the reason for not giving Albon a penalty on numerous occasions – massively so in 2023.
Which was Max to blame, and Max was treated very leniently for the red-mist moment
Maybe someone should blame the “British Bias” factor?
(Note: There was a Brit on that panel – who? Well, the one he loves to hate)
Moshambles (@moshambles)
4th February 2025, 11:33
Don’t agree about the Alonso move. Drivers expect the cars ahead to act in a predictable manner. That’s why they can brake right behind a driver in front and race closely in general. When cars lift off, accelerate and brake 100m before they usually lift, in an attempt to to put-off the driver behind, you should expect to get a penalty of some kind, despite what happens to the driver behind. That type of manoeuvre has never been considered a legitimate form of defensive driving.
Moshambles (@moshambles)
4th February 2025, 11:44
I should add that I think the penalty was probably too harsh, perhaps a reprimand or something. I just don’t like this kind of thing being ignored.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
5th February 2025, 22:24
Max in the Austrian GP, drove Lando off the track, intentionally, then veered in to him, after the corner, forcing Lando off the track.
He should have been banned a race and told to box, stop racing. You can’t veer in to other drivers, when you have a blown tire, just because you want them to stay behind you. That was DANGEROUS driving and intentional completely. Using his car as a weapon, when he knew he had no real control over the car due to his flat tire.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
5th February 2025, 22:31
For reference, the first two moves he made, 1st to drive lando off the track, the 2nd, while off track, destroyed his tire, the 3rd occurred 100 meters plus after the corner on the straight, when he turned in to Lando while he was trying to pass, when Max had a blown tire.
Like if that happened on a road, with normal people driving, and someone intentionally steered in to another driver, when they knew they were incapacitated or had broken car, that’s pretty much a criminal offense. It’s one thing to try to block, its another when you know your car is broken and you have no legitimate means or reason to try and block, and when what you are doing is dangerous on the fact that your car is broken/not operating correctly.
And he finished in front of Lando. Says everything about the FIA, how fraudulent they are and what a joke the stewarding is. Now that they are going full fasch with the rules threatening to ban drivers who dare speak out about criminal driving, tells us they are the antithesis of what they were originally set out to do, and that is ensure racing is well regulated and safe. But this, today, only applies to the stakeholders and entertainment complex, they are insurance for big money, not safety oriented.
we will see if Mumtalakat Holding Company appears to continue to get favorable treatment by the FIA/MBS.
Matthijs (@matthijs)
3rd February 2025, 13:01
I pretty much agree with all Keith’s verdicts.
I don’t like the blame game. Without these stewards there would be no GP to begin with. However, when a team spends millions and millions on gaining tenths of seconds, it is very hard to digest if all your hard work is swept away by a ‘wrong’ steward call. So consistancy is very important.
If I had a say in this, then I would make ‘intent’ a bigger factor, if possible. In this overview there are a few examples where there was no malicious intent, just bad luck. I would be more lenient in that case. On the other hand, when there is a malicious intent (for instance Verstappen Mexico), I would punish more severely.
But I am aware that ‘intent’ is very hard to measure, opening the possibility of making F1 even more of a ‘jury sport’ than it is already.
An Sionnach
3rd February 2025, 13:07
Incredible calls:
Alonso in Australia. It took careful navigation of the rulebook to find this one after the data showed he had not brake tested Russell. Russell later admitted he hadn’t been paying attention while following Fernando Alonso of all people.
Max in Qatar. Again, bizarre penalty.
Unwritten rule of 2024: Let George past.
Jonathan Parkin
3rd February 2025, 19:01
It might have been a bizarre penalty but Max’s response to it was unnecessary, given that he had a) Already won the title and b) Despite the penalty he still won the race
Red Andy (@red-andy)
3rd February 2025, 13:33
Alonso’s penalty in Australia was not remotely justified, whatever after-the-fact contortions have been made up to spare Russell’s blushes. I hesitate to say “unprecedented” because Alonso has of course been penalised before for the egregious offence of driving ahead of another car (Monza 2006), but that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
Grapmg
3rd February 2025, 19:02
Agree. In general I am not in favour of all those penalty s but that penalty was the most redicoulous of all.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
4th February 2025, 0:01
I also find it ridiculous and I’m surprised the author defended it.
El Pollo Loco
4th February 2025, 2:51
Especially since at the time they even published multiple articles discussing it and even had a pole/debate article in which a majority thought the penalty was undeserved. For my money, it wasn’t even so much that he got a penalty which attracted my attention, but the fact that the severity of the penalty and an unprecedented 20-second time penalty which seemed to be pulled directly out of their glasses. The fact Herbert, whose personal animus for Alonso was very well known as well as his bromance for George, made it all the more suspicious.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
3rd February 2025, 13:50
Please can f1 not go down the football road of over analysing referee/steward decisions, good bad and indifferent. Its the dullest and most subjective aspect of F1. Arguing for against a decision is a fools errand bent by our own inherent biases. Why cant we accept that the stewards will do the same. Theres enough of footballs triabilsm, abuse and even physical aggression from a minority of fans that has seeped into F1 from football. There is no need to feed it further
anon
3rd February 2025, 14:35
There certainly does seem to be a tendency for some to always prefer to criticise the penalty instead of the driver, particularly when it comes to the more popular drivers near the front of the grid.
In the vast majority of these cases, it’s drivers near the front or drivers with a major fan base where people are complaining about and this article focused on. It also raises the question of whether the real problem was the penalty itself, or rather that they didn’t like a popular driver getting that penalty – I doubt that many would rush to complain if a less popular driver was hit by the same penalty under the same circumstances.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
3rd February 2025, 16:57
Its 100% the major fan base drivers but its only a tiny % of them its just they have more fans. It leads into referees, in other sports, getting death threats. Herbert, a fine driver and experienced hand in TV punditry as well as a steward for 15 years get singled out for blame and some degree of hate on fan boards even though he is part of a committee decision based on rules the teams and drivers agree on. Its imperfect, of course. Its also just sport, to us. Not real life.
Jungle
4th February 2025, 10:08
Nice comment Tony
Alesici
3rd February 2025, 19:55
I have to disagree that analysing the stewards’ decisions is the dullest part of the sport – I love it!
Incidentally, one aspect that the public often fail to understand is the importance of considering the drivers’ visibility blind spots, and e.g. their ability to know that they are 3 abreast on lap 1, unknowingly squeezing the car in the middle.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
5th February 2025, 22:16
Unfortunately stewarding arguments were common in 1994, 2004 and 2014. That there have been times between those years where there have been relatively few disputes indicates this should be a solvable problem. We just haven’t worked out how to solve it consistently and still have a sport worthy of the name.
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
3rd February 2025, 14:08
I feel the racing decisions improved over the season especially when the ahead at the turn argument was given a qualifier that you need to be able to make the turn within limits at the speed and trajectory you are on.
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
3rd February 2025, 14:12
I hate the qualifying decisions but have no idea what to do. I am thinking there should be no penalties in qualifying except for collisions. The track evolution effect causes all drivers to be jockeying for the last run of a session so stuff is going to happen. Just let it happen. Instead of the phrase “let them race”, I say, “let them qualify”.
MichaelN
3rd February 2025, 17:22
Alonso’s defense in China wasn’t ‘valiant’, he hit Sainz and ran him off. Both aren’t allowed. It’s thus indeed a mystery why Pérez barging Sainz out of the race in Azerbaijan went completely unpunished. Just Red Bull things, I guess.
As much as I like both Leclerc and Ferrari, it’s just not OK to behave as he did in Spain. He should have been banned from the Grand Prix to make that abundantly clear to everyone, in F1 and lower series alike.
The rest, I guess you can argue back and forth about everything. But in general I’m glad they’re being more strict. The “don’t force others off” is the critical one. It will make F1 racing much, much better if it’s at long last rigorously enforced.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
3rd February 2025, 21:07
I’ve felt for a long time that the stewards seek to find fault every time a car exits the pit lane. Track limits I accept, but wheel to wheel conflict has become so clinical precisely because of the strict guidance. Max in Texas and Mexico was close to and then over the line – but he drives like that because the stewards are determined to give penalties for every slight contact or impedance. This culture is evident in the examples above.
Motor racing is meant to be at close quarters, it’s meant to be rude and it’s meant to be uncompromising. We should draw the line at dangerous or race ending. Penalising fresh air like Alonso in Australia or harsh but fair racing like in China devalues the product. Max’s penalty in Qatar reinforces the idea that the drivers are treated as naughty children ready to be told off rather than respected professional sportsmen.
An example omitted above was Ricciardo under the SC in China. Rear ended by Stroll, Hulkenberg passes under the SC. When Riccardo swaps places back at the next safety car a lap later he’s punished with a grid drop. It’s a total lack of common sense stewarding. By the letter of the law it’s a penalty, but he should never have lost the place in the first instance. A more circumspect approach, where recent former drivers give opinions on what is gamesmanship and what is penalty worthy would be a good step forward. Otherwise, the officious nature just gets us talking about the stewarding instead of the actual racing skill and technique on show.
S
3rd February 2025, 23:26
I disagree. Racing is just as good – if not better – when it’s respectful and clean.
The problem with F1 is that the consequences are more severe when it gets dirty, due to the speeds involved and the limited protections open-wheel/high aero influence cars offer.
Drawing the line at ‘dangerous’ (which is subjective) still means including actions that can end in danger, even if they don’t on a particular given occasion – which is why the regs and penalty system are built around the prevention and discouragement of certain driving behaviours.
There’s also the aspect that F1 is in a high-profile position where people compare other series to it and use it as a kind of benchmark – especially junior categories. If poor driving is encouraged in F1, then that’s an attitude that many juniors will take on themselves – and is not something that the FIA want to be seen to condone.
Talk about what you want to talk about. Complaining about refereeing is pretty common in the sporting arena.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
4th February 2025, 20:08
I agree to an extent S. I certainly enjoy clean racing as much as the next fellow but I think the regulations are geared to encourage DRS style moves and avoid wheel to wheel. That’s a backwards step from what I grew up with in the 90s. Tough but fair, with the stewards intervening when it’s over the line. When was the last time we saw a high profile ‘racing incident’?
The trouble I’ve got with the stewards at present is that they consider potentially dangerous as anything where there is possible dangerous. Track limits, Perez returning his car to the pits in Canada, Ricciardo under the SC in China. It’s as though they look for fault and justify it with, ‘on another day that could be dangerous’. That to me is too timid an approach for top level Motorsport.
I agree that the conduct of top drivers filters down. But frankly, I think that is much more due to the tracks and run off than learning from peers. If I look at shocking junior formulae incidents, it’s normally related to drivers extending corners or rejoining unfairly. I think that will happen regardless of how the top level is penalised. I don’t think it’s condoning poor driving by not penalising Alonso in China Sprint for example.
Finally, if I look at Texas or Mexico GP comments across multiple sites, the traction is on the officiating. Perhaps it’s a reflection of the modern world, where there is always blame to attribute, but I honestly think the stewards have went the wrong way recently. Much too cautious and much too officious.
El Pollo Loco
4th February 2025, 3:54
Yeah, there were stunning examples of the stewards not using the essentially limitless amount of discretionary power to make common sense decisions that adhered to the spirit of the rules while also not necessarily violating the letter of the law.
Let’s also not forget some of the bizarre non-calls like Norris’ jump start in Saudi Arabia and the absurd excuse they used for not showing any consistency or any good reason why he shouldn’t have been penalized.
XM
4th February 2025, 5:43
Well said.
Karen
3rd February 2025, 22:56
Glad to see some acknowledgement of the ridiculousness of Logan’s penalty in China. He and Hulkenberg hit the line almost together, impossible to see from his onboard. Logan then had the natural line into T1. The only way to see who was ahead was an external overhead shot in slo-mo and zoomed in. At that point, common sense should have dictated that the stewards informed Williams and allowed them to correct it. But this one got generally overlooked because it was “only Sargeant, who cares?” which is just frustrating.
The other one omitted from this list is Norris’ flagrant jump start in Jeddah. Ricciardo was penalised for far less, yet Norris wasn’t penalised at all.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
4th February 2025, 9:12
This was because the rules on jump starts were changed between those two cases, likely as a result of Norris’s start in Jeddah looking dodgy while being technically legal:
FIA tackles jump starts and teams not running in practice with new F1 rules
Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
4th February 2025, 12:03
Having seen what Red Bull said about Perez’s car in Abu Dhabi, the retirement was not caused by Bottas, but Perez messing up his clutch. He apparently had an issue before the race started. He has damaged his clutch himself this season several times from reports I’ve seen. What happened here is Bottas misjudged Perez Speed and went for a move on the inside. It was only a slight tap and caused no physical damage at all, just a spin for Perez in which he broke his clutch when returning to the track. I would say a 10 second penalty for a first lap incident like this, that was not the cause of the retirement seems too harsh.
Bottas and his penalty later on was fully justified, but that basically proved why it makes no sense how his collision with Perez was related to Perez retirement. Bottas walloped Magunussen really hard in the same part of the car as he did with Perez and yet Magnussen continued and set fastest lap.
So I do think the first penalty for Bottas was harsh. Especially given what Hamilton got away with in Miami.
Pjotr (@pietkoster)
4th February 2025, 18:23
No penalties, let them go and do their thing. Darwin rules say it will sort itself out.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
5th February 2025, 22:13
@pietkoster Or not, as the case may be. No rules means no definition of victory, meaning there’s literally nothing to race for.
flyingD
5th February 2025, 6:14
They forgot papa’s boy, George, not getting a penalty for what in every day’s life would be undue care and attention and then go and cry so that the guy who set the fastest time got a penalty and lost his pole position.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
5th February 2025, 22:10
The stewards need to be given half a chance by being given a regulation book that is fit for purpose and is possible to apply in a reasonable and sporting manner. Until that happens, stewards will continue to make calls that defeat the point of press conferences (the swearing case), have spectacular inconsistencies (pretty much every time the track boundary rule is enforced) or have difficulties deciding exactly how serious different infractions of the same type are compared to one another (despite some efforts to sort this, crashes have had these stewarding disputes for decades). They will also need to be in a situation that appears to permit the necessary independence of mind a steward requires to do their job. Until then, people looking for fairness in adjudication of physical competition will probably have to look to the Gladiators TV show, go to their local karting track or tune into something like WEC.
Point of order regarding Spain: Leclerc got the same penalty as Stroll in the same session, for moves that, shall we say, had similarities. However it was Stroll who was penalised for turning his car into a weapon (having given the stewards no choice due to admitting his crash was deliberate). Leclerc said he had not intended to crash, but made a misjudgement, and the stewards opted to treat the matter as reckless driving rather than attempt to test this. At no point in either judgement did the stewards clarify why both of these incidents had been granted the same penalty despite being for quite different ways of breaking the regulations. Or why Stroll’s admitted crash didn’t result in a grid drop (given that if the stewards had taken Stroll not attempting to hide his offence as mitigation, it wasn’t mentioned in the judgement).
Jojo
7th February 2025, 10:54
In Mexico, I think that the first incident was actually penalised quite harshly, 10 seconds and 2 penalty points. Yes, Verstappen forced Norris off the track, but Norris gained and kept the position. Russell who forced Bottas off the previous race, was handed 5 seconds and no penalty points and he didn’t lose the position to Bottas.
Verstappen’s second move was dealt with leniently in Mexico, mainly because he must have had no intention of making the corner. So for me the right penalty points were applied to the wrong incident. It’s interesting that they also applied the points to the first incident retrospectively and I wondered if it was to make up for the leniency of the second incident.