A decision by the Formula 1 stewards had a major bearing on who won the last race – as they did on several occasions last year.
But more often than not the stewards are required to rule on incidents which don’t even affect the points-scoring places.How well do they judge the minor cases compared to the major ones? Have they made the right calls on the various racing incidents which attracted investigations so far this year? Here’s a look at each of them.
A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When these poll are closed the results will be displayed instead of the voting form.
Chinese Grand Prix: Sprint race
Doohan: Five-second penalty for collision with Bortoleto
The first incident to trigger a penalty this year didn’t occur until the final lap of the second race, when Jack Doohan made a last-ditch attempt to pass Gabriel Bortoleto’s Sauber. The stewards judged that under F1’s Driving Standards Guidelines, Doohan had not won the right to the corner and “should have backed off.”
Doohan's penalty for colliding with Bortoleto was:
- No opinion (9%)
- Far too lenient (0%)
- Slightly too lenient (4%)
- Correct (72%)
- Slightly too harsh (16%)
- Far too harsh (0%)
Total Voters: 57
Loading ...Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Lawson: No penalty for Doohan collision
The stewards chose to take no action over a similar incident at the same corner where Doohan was passed by Liam Lawson. The Red Bull driver made contact with the Alpine but the stewards ruled Lawson had won the right to the corner and Doohan should have left space for him.
Should either driver have been penalised for the Lawson-Doohan collision?
- No opinion (13%)
- Strong penalty for Doohan (0%)
- Moderate penalty for Doohan (6%)
- No penalty for either driver (48%)
- Moderate penalty for Lawson (33%)
- Strong penalty for Lawson (0%)
Total Voters: 48
Loading ...Chinese Grand Prix
Doohan: 10-second penalty for forcing Hadjar off
Doohan picked up his second penalty of the season in the main race at Shanghai. The stewards ruled he ran into Isack Hadjar while regaining his position from the Racing Bulls driver, forcing him off the track at turn 14.
The stewards chose not to investigate whether Doohan also changed his line too late while defending his position.
Should either driver have been penalised for the Lawson-Doohan collision?
- No opinion (13%)
- Strong penalty for Doohan (0%)
- Moderate penalty for Doohan (6%)
- No penalty for either driver (48%)
- Moderate penalty for Lawson (33%)
- Strong penalty for Lawson (0%)
Total Voters: 48
Loading ...Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Bahrain Grand Prix
Sainz: 10-second time penalty for forcing Antonelli off the track
There was some confusion over Carlos Sainz Jnr’s penalty for his incident with Andrea Kimi Antonelli at turn 10 during the Bahrain Grand Prix. He was issued a 10-second time penalty during the race, which the stewards later incorrectly claimed he had not served, and therefore issued him a replacement penalty for the next race. That was quickly rescinded when they realised their mistake.
Sainz was unimpressed the stewards did not investigate Yuki Tsunoda for making contact with him at turn one, damaging his car so badly he had to retire.
Sainz's penalty for his incident with Antonelli is...
- No opinion (3%)
- Far too lenient (0%)
- Slightly too lenient (1%)
- Correct (45%)
- Slightly too harsh (27%)
- Far too harsh (24%)
Total Voters: 67
Loading ...Lawson: Five-second time penalty for collision with Stroll
Lawson, now driving for Racing Bulls, collected his first of two penalties in the same race when he made light contact with Lance Stroll. The stewards noted the contact was minor, and accordingly gave him only a five-second penalty. Stroll went on to finish the race.
Lawson's penalty for his incident with Stroll is...
- No opinion (6%)
- Far too lenient (0%)
- Slightly too lenient (6%)
- Correct (53%)
- Slightly too harsh (24%)
- Far too harsh (12%)
Total Voters: 34
Loading ...Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Lawson: 10-second time penalty for collision with Hulkenberg
The stewards took a dimmer view of Lawson’s later collision with Nico Hulkenberg in the same race. The Sauber driver also saw the chequered flag, though was later disqualified due to excessive plank wear on his car.
Lawson's penalty for his incident with Hulkenberg is...
- No opinion (6%)
- Far too lenient (0%)
- Slightly too lenient (9%)
- Correct (56%)
- Slightly too harsh (21%)
- Far too harsh (9%)
Total Voters: 34
Loading ...Saudi Arabian Grand Prix
Tsunoda: No penalty for collision with Gasly
Tsunoda tangled with another rival in Jeddah, albeit more destructively. He and Pierre Gasly spun into the barriers on the first lap of the race, leading both to retire. The stewards ruled it “should be treated as a lap one incident with no further action.”
Should Tsunoda or Gasly be penalised for their first lap collision?
- No opinion (2%)
- Strong penalty for Gasly (2%)
- Light penalty for Gasly (5%)
- No penalty for either driver (72%)
- Light penalty for Tsunoda (15%)
- Strong penalty for Tsunoda (5%)
Total Voters: 65
Loading ...Verstappen: Five-second time penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage while overtaking Piastri
Undoubtedly the most controversial incident of the season so far, as it potentially decided the outcome of the race. Max Verstappen was given a five-second penalty for leaving the track in order to get ahead of Oscar Piastri at the start of the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. The stewards pointed out such an incident would ordinarily receive a 10-second time penalty, but reduced it as the incident occured on lap one.
Piastri said the penalty was correct and George Russell also indicated he felt Verstappen should not have kept the place he gained by going off.
Max Verstappen's five-second penalty for his first-lap incident with Oscar Piastri was:
- No opinion (1%)
- Far too lenient (17%)
- Slightly too lenient (34%)
- Correct (39%)
- Slightly too harsh (4%)
- Far too harsh (4%)
Total Voters: 163
Loading ...Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Lawson: 10-second time penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage while overtaking Doohan
Lawson was penalised under the same rules as Verstappen later in the race and he received the tougher 10-second penalty. He passed Doohan as they approached turn one but failed to stay within the track limits at the corner.
Liam Lawson's 10-second time penalty for his incident with Jack Doohan was:
- No opinion (2%)
- Far too lenient (1%)
- Slightly too lenient (0%)
- Correct (57%)
- Slightly too harsh (24%)
- Far too harsh (15%)
Total Voters: 94
Loading ...A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When these poll are closed the results will be displayed instead of the voting form.
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
Debates and polls
- Poll: Are Briatore or Symonds welcome in F1 so long after Crashgate?
- Doohan out, Colapinto in: Have Alpine made the right call?
- Should Mercedes re-sign Russell for 2026 – even if it leaves no room for Verstappen?
- Vote for your 2025 Bahrain Grand Prix Driver of the Weekend
- Lawson out, Tsunoda in: Have Red Bull made the right change – at the right time?
SteveP
28th April 2025, 10:48
As far as I can see – all of them.
Max on Saudi T1 is probably the most polarising, but it is probably the most perfect match of penalty to offence that we have seen in recent years. Max fans will think it too much, Oscar fans will think it too little.
What you have to consider is that the stewards gave a half penalty, an effective slapped wrist, for an offence that he thought he could get away with – “gaming the system” if you want a label – and in giving that penalty they levelled the playing field.
An Sionnach
28th April 2025, 12:21
They’ve been doing a dexenty job. There might have been one or two times I scratched my head, but then shrugged. Luckily there haven’t been too many involving conflict between two top drivers. The Max one seems about right and probably put things back to how they should have been. There is a question of whether a penalty should make them worse off than they should be, as you had back when a penalty was either a stop-go or a black flag. It’s tricky this time because it’s unclear as to whether they believed they were right or were just being cynical. The more liberal penalty regime we have perhaps means many smaller penalties. Perhaps harsh penalties could be meted out for dangerous behavior? Examples: Tsunoda on Ricciardo or move two (desperate lunge) by Max on Lando in Mexico.
We’ve seen plenty of drivers get away with taking positions off track on the first lap without consequence in the past. This complicates things a little. I think a line has to be drawn so that this can be left behind. Having relaxed or no rules for the first lap means it is the most beneficial time to try it on, which must lead to more incidents. I think this should be done clearly and agreed with the drivers – no first lap leniency any more and forget about who didn’t get penalised enough or at all in the past.
An Sionnach
28th April 2025, 12:22
*decent* job!
Robert (@lekkerbek)
28th April 2025, 18:39
In my opinion it was no different to Mexico 2024 turn 4 where Max, who was on the inside this time, got a 10 second time penalty and 2 penalty points. Norris also cut the track and kept his position.
So either this one is correct and the other one incorrect, but both can’t be true.
Davethechicken
28th April 2025, 21:38
The rules changed over the winter, if the overtaking driver is on the inside and significantly alongside, they don’t need to leave room on exit.
There is a good article in “The Race” F1 website explaining the changes.
Zach Bigalke (@bigalke)
28th April 2025, 22:07
Yeah, that was a good explained. Any precedent from last year regarding this type of incident can effectively be thrown out due to the new rules the drivers themselves demanded.
Robert (@lekkerbek)
28th April 2025, 22:12
Bizar that not only does a rule change mean the complete opposite, but also not considered “dangerous” anymore (2 penalty points last season
Jere (@jerejj)
28th April 2025, 11:13
Correct
No penalty for either driver
Correct
Correct
Far too harsh
Far too harsh
No penalty for either driver
Slightly too lenient
Far too harsh
Avro Anson (@avroanson)
28th April 2025, 11:31
There’s a problem with the voting on
“Chinese Grand Prix
Doohan: 10-second penalty for forcing Hadjar off”
The options all relate to Doohan & Lawson (not Hadjar) and don’t react when clicked.
Ferdi
28th April 2025, 11:38
Correct from which perspective I wonder. What are the criteria? It certainly isnt the rule book nowadays, but rather a beauty contest based on fandom and Netflix viewer numbers.
SteveP
28th April 2025, 11:56
NB. My preferred drivers (plural) have had penalties too. Justified.
A set of volunteers, referencing a set of regulations, without “British Bias”
Regulations: simple as that
osnola
28th April 2025, 18:49
nope interpretations..
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
28th April 2025, 12:32
Honestly, I can’t remember most of these incidents which were more than a race ago and only for minor positions, so there’s only really two that stick in my memory. Max on Oscar obviously, which I thought was too lenient given that the advantage gained was likely greater than the amount offset by the penalty, which encourages rule breaking. I don’t think lap one leniency should apply where there are only two cars involved in the incident. But, I don’t think it should be a race destroying penalty like a drive through or stop-go penalty, so I voted ‘slightly too harsh’ here.
The other one I think they got wrong was Lawson’s pass on Doohan and subsequent leaving of the track. In general, I think this is how the rule should be applied if you only stay ahead or maintain track position by leaving the track, but in this particular example it was clear that Lawson was past Doohan half way down the straight, and therefore leaving the track at turn 1 was not part of the overtaking manoeuvre. I would just put this as a strike against track limits, but no penalty for the actual overtake as I don’t believe he gained any advantage.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
28th April 2025, 14:06
I don’t care. I love the sport because I wanted to be a driver, not a steward.
Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
28th April 2025, 17:16
I think Norris’s penalty positioning his car wrong at the start one race should also be here. That was just a 5 second penalty. That to me was a far bigger mistake and deserving of a more harsh penalty that what Lawson did on Stroll the same race. Lawson should not have even got a penalty for this in my view.
Edvaldo
28th April 2025, 18:54
Most are fine, as they happened in the midfield or the back and a penalty there actually means something.
Max on the other hand was handed a chance to still win the race by keeping the lead and running on free air.
10 secs should be the norm from now on, if it happens not to be enough, then kudos for whoever was fast enough to cancel it.
Coventry Climax
29th April 2025, 9:35
Does it matter which ones were right or wrong?
The fact that there is a difference between events and occasions is the actual issue here and it is that which should be solved.
Bickering over this one or that just distracts from that real issue.
Mircea
29th April 2025, 12:27
the fact that we have entire articles and discussions on how penalties are given is the biggest sign that this sport has lost its meaning…
some other signs are:
– Bahrain, where we had every other driver on different tyres and nobody was overtaking, just a basic tyre management procession;
– Suzuka, a historic circuit with a beautiful fanbase where, we had no overtaking because of “bla bla circuit is at fault”, again a tyre management procession but;
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
2nd May 2025, 1:29
People who believe in money are fools. And need other people to behave foolishly.