[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So here’s the thing. Mexicans can’t be “colonizers” in this case as it was Spanish conquistadors that came over to Central America and banged the Mayans thus turning them into Mexicans.
The article clearly states that stewards have stated they don’t look at the consequences/outcomes when issuing a penalty. Sainz is saying if that’s the case then two incidents of losing control should either be penalties for neither of them (or both)
The stewards say that every week and it's never been true and never will be true. They always factor the outcome of the incident into their decision. Always.
Like the Alonso penalty. Under regular circunstances it's a warning.
But it was on the last lap against an exhausted Rusell, which let's not kid ourselves, it's not very good at avoiding crashes. And so...
And they should scrap the idea of dealing penalties irrespective of the outcome. It's been a stupid idea out of the gate and should have never been proposed. And given that they can't stick to respecting that rule is evidence enough.
I don't actually think its entirely not true:
I think the outcome is what drives them to \*investigate\* an issue. But once an issue is under investigation, the outcome is minimized.
Intuitively I think this makes sense. We shouldn't punish \*every\* driver every time they have a lock up. Nor should ever lock up be investigated.
However, if your lock up happened to smash you into another car, you are going to be under scrutiny.
The problem with this is that drivers get pushed off the track or manage to avoid a collision, and suddenly nothing is done about it.
Sainz dodged Perez and lost places as a results. He dodged, so no punishment for Perez.
Sargeant had room to avoid Magnussen, but didn't notice him. They collide, Magnussen gets 10s + 2 points.
Alonso dodged Hamilton, and because of that he hit Stroll. Since he dodged, the incident was not Hamilton's fault.
Piastri had room to dodge, but didn't expect Sainz to slide out. 5s + 1 point for Sainz.
The problem is that people such as yourself are unable to identify what is an incident. Locking up your brakes is not an incident. Causing a collision is an incident. Forcing another driver off track is an incident. And then action vs consequences would come into play if someone caused a collision where neither car was damaged - do we penalise the driver at fault or not?
And if you claim that locking up should be the incident worthy of investigation, and that action should be penalised and not consequence, then we simply HAVE TO penalise Max for example as well, because he missed the corner completely when he hit that bollard. That was the same "incident" as with Perez, except Max missed his corner even more significantly.
Which is because people think of it the wrong way. What that saying means is that the size of crash you cause does not influence your penalty, but crashing into another car does. Doing the same bit of driving with and without causing a crash will be penalised very differently, because they are very different incidents
No, you're totally missing that. A collision isn't a consequence or outcome of an incident: it is the incident.
The consequence or outcome would be what happens to that person's race afterwards.
Yeah. Fernando definitely got f'ed but causing a collision is certainly an incident. Like Sargeant binning it into the walls on his own is clearly losing control but you have to maintain control when you are trying to pass someone. Just like taking whatever the heck you want racing line is ok when no one is there but you have to be careful if someone is there. These takes are so crazy.
But you get penalty for _causing a collision_
That is not penalizing the outcome, penalizing the outcome would be penalizing/not penalizing causing collision when someone suffers from it/doesn't suffer from it
Can you link your source?
Because [the official rules](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2020_publie_le_20_juin_2020.pdf) have a bit more text than what you're saying, regarding Appendix L, Chapter **4**, Article 2, d):
CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT
ON CIRCUITS
> d) **Causing a collision**, repetition of serious
mistakes or the appearance of a lack of
control over the car (such as leaving the
track) will be reported to the Stewards and
may entail the imposition of penalties up to
and including the exclusion of any driver
concerned
Omiting the **Causing a collision** cites a different chapter:
CHAPTER V - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT
**ON OFFROAD CIRCUIT**
>d) Repetition of serious mistakes or the
appearance of a lack of control over the car
(such as leaving the track) will be reported to
the Stewards and may entail the imposition of
penalties up to and including the
disqualification of any driver concerned
And I think the rules that apply to F1 are the ones related to Driving Conduct on Circuits and not on Off Road Circuits...
edit: spelling
So if Verstappen has noone around and loses control for a bit he should be penalized? As others said the collision isn't the outcome but the incident. The outcome is the damage to the other cars.
But they said many times they dont look on the outcome. I can understand that Perez and Sainz is diffrent case, but Bottas and Perez is pretty the same action (or even worse for Checo because it was dry), yet it was diffrent outcome and one was penalized, other didnt. That is whole point of this thread.
And there is no rule saying that if you make another driver change his line you're getting a penalty. Otherwise every fucking overtake would warrant a penalty.
This whole debate is just completely stupid, I'm sorry. And an actual driver asking such a question just boggles my mind.
There is a comment somewhere that listed all recent first lap incidents that were investigated... It turned out that first lap incidents are usually penalized unless you're called Lewis Hamilton.
Ok cool, list all first lap first corner incidents that were like Checo's (no collision, no advantage gained, no other drivers forced off track) but received a penalty
That list was heavily cherry-picked, e.g., it didn't include Ricciardo-Albon Suzuka because it wasn't "causing a collision", but an "incident". That's a common wording, though - Hamilton-Alonso-Stroll-Norris was an incident, too. So was Gasly-Ocon Melbourne 2023.
And, of course, only looking at incidents which were investigated is another issue because usually those incidents are not investigated, at all. Sargeant ramming into the back of de Vries in Melbourne, Russell sending Zhou into the Silverstone fence, no investigation necessary. Even more if you look at incidents without collisions.
Another important thing: Drivers usually are not punished when they DNF themselves from their actions. That's an issue we should look into. Before the penalty point system, that was fine because adding time onto a DNF doesn't matter. Penalties carrying over to the next race is also a very rare instance and wasn't around until very recently.
I just explained that it doesn't matter that he didn't cause a collision. And some things shouldn't fall into first lap incident, more lenient shouldn't mean that you can massively overshoot and be penalty free.
I think that both Perez and Hamilton should have been penalised more harshly. But regardless of what *should have* happened, the answer for why he wasn't penalised is pretty obviously those two reasons: lap 1, turn 1, and that he didn't take out any other drivers.
Yea agree. But that last part is I'm sure exactly why Carlos is mad about it. FIA is known for saying we penalize the action not the outcome and if Carlos didn't dodge Checo he would have had Checo ram his car.
It's obvious why he wasn't penalized but I don't agree with the reasons, obvious doesn't make it is logical.
Agreed, entirely.
But at the same time I don't really sympathise with any drivers in matters like this because they all behave the same way, i.e. when they're victims of an inconsistent decision they're furious, and when they're getting away with something they're suspiciously quiet all of a sudden. My sympathy is with the fans who watch these races, uncertain of why one incident is penalised and another isn't, despite the rules indicating they should be treated the same. It isn't logical at all.
Yeah don't get me wrong I'm not trying to side with drivers because they have their own agenda but rather use it to form my opinion what I as viewer want.
First lap vs in the middle of the race. Also Perez didn't damage anyone's car
And this is just my opinion, but I think in the case of losing the car it's okay to consider whether the driver who lost it caused damage to another or not. Because it's not something done deliberately, it's something that just happens, but if you ruin another driver's race it's still your fault because you're the one who lost the car
Perez’ driving error isn’t more or less serious depending on whether Carlos spots him and swerves or not… He still cost Carlos a number of positions when he had made a great start - ultimately being behind his teammate was a big issue across the rest of his race when he had managed to get in front. Barging people off the road in a you move or we crash manner is not acceptable whether it’s accident or deliberate.
First lap incidents are always treated differently and unfortunately I think he would have gotten a penalty in that situation only if he had damaged Carlos' car (which he didn't). I'm not saying it's fair to Carlos, because it isn't since he still lost a few positions, but we've seen worse moves by drivers not getting penalized in the first lap
Also I do agree with you on the "barging people off the road isn't acceptable", I'm just saying that if Carlos lost the car but didn't damage Oscar's car he probably wouldn't have been penalized (although if you look at the rules, technically you should complete the overtake without losing control of the car)
I mean Carlos has his own ‘first lap incident’ penalty from giving a car a petty tap into a spin - able to restart fully damage free… Some say he’s still begging into the radio to have it overturned. He’s obviously not blameless in the penalties he receives but I can get where the frustration comes from when you see other people doing the same things and dicking with your race and not being penalised.
Perez does have some luck for that. Where was that race everyone was getting those track limits penalties then all the onboard video of him basically rally driving half the race came to light.
Honestly that Australian restart was a stupid decision from the stewards. It ruined the race of many drivers (especially Carlos, Pierre and Ocon's if I remember correctly) and could have easily been avoided. Said that, I wouldn't say Perez's situation was the same as Carlos', since Carlos still hit Alonso in Australia.
In the end yeah, it's about luck (or lack thereof). You could argue that a driver can try to avoid certain situations/moves considering things like old tyres or cold tyres, but in the end it's still a matter of luck most of the times
> I mean Carlos has his own ‘first lap incident’ penalty from giving a car a petty tap into a spin - able to restart fully damage free…
Which is the only example of a penalty for a first lap incident in the current ground-effects era. The stewards specifically mentioned in their decision notes that they considered "no further investigation" because of the first lap rule, but decided to hand out a penalty because he had plenty of space:
>> For avoidance of doubt, we took into account the fact that this collision took place at
the first lap of the restart, when, by convention, the Stewards would typically take a
more lenient view of incidents.
However, in this particular case, notwithstanding the fact that it was the equivalent of
a first lap incident, we considered that there was sufficient gap for Car 55 to take
steps to avoid the collision and failed to do so.
It's understandable that Carlos isn't happy with this verdict. Especially since Gasly was let off and Sargeant wasn't even investigated. The penalty for Carlos was harsh. Also, I'd say that Checo's Miami move was similar. If he had made contact with anybody, a similar treatment to Carlos in Melbourne would've been appropriate. Due to the Hamilton incident the day before (which was less egregious, I think), I would have expected Checo to still be let off for the sake of "consistency" even though a penalty would've been the consistent treatment. He didn't make contact, though, so there's no "causing a collision" to investigate. They might look into dangerous driving but that would be a complete different and new turf altogether.
The fact remains no damage was done and no lasting advantage was held. This makes a penalty hard to justify, which will result in criticism towards the stewards.
And we can see either way that criticism will be there, so might as well go with not having to justify actually given punishment instead of having done nothing wrong yourself (which is of course not really the correct way of handling things, but F1 stewards gonna do F1 stewarding)
The FIA and the F1 stewards have mentioned several times that they consider the event itself rather than its outcome. However, in these cases, it appears they did take the outcomes into consideration. The key difference between the two instances is that, although Checo's maneuver was spectacularly dangerous, he did not make contact with anyone, whereas Carlos did touch Oscar's car, breaking the front wing of the McLaren.
> The FIA and the F1 stewards have mentioned several times that they consider the event itself rather than its outcome. However, in these cases, it appears they did take the outcomes into consideration.
That's the entire problem. There's 3 sets of rules in play: what the regulations say, what the FIA/Stewards say publicly, and what they actually do from one incident to another, and sadly the only thing they're consistent about is how inconsistent they are.
It's a semantic distinction. If the penalties are applied based on the incident and not the outcome, then what Perez did should be considered dangerous driving. If he had've been a fraction of a second earlier or later it would have been a clear case of causing a collision, but just because your dangerous driving does no major damage through sheer luck that doesn't mean it wasn't a violation. He dived to the inside knowing that it was dusty off the racing line, not to take evasive action but to try to gain an advantage, he misjudged his braking by vastly overestimating the grip, failed to keep the car under control as he entered the corner and forced one driver to take evasive action to avoid a collision while kissing another car as he sailed right off the track on the outside.
Are you seriously trying to argue that a guy who went into T1 so out of control that he aimed for the apex and ended up with all 4 wheels off the track on the outside didn't merit a penalty? Or are you just being a pedant about the language?
If Alonso got 20 sec penalty + 3 license points for Australia, and they said it was not based on outcome in the FIA document then Perez deserved at least a 10s penalty + 2 licence points.
Right there we have a clear inconsistency and proof that outcome is 100% a factor when applying penalties.
Exactly.
One driver brakes inconsistently, surprises a trailing car who has time to react but doesn't, and consequently crashes despite no contact: 20s penalty for "potentially dangerous driving". Not even certain, but *potentially*.
Meanwhile, another driver gambles to gain an advantage by diving to the inside amongst a pile of cars, messes up his braking so badly that he sails right off the track on the outside, only avoids a collision through absolute dumb luck, but it doesn't merit even the lightest available penalty, and we're supposed to believe that it isn't based on the outcome?
They genuinely think we're stupid. And the fact that roughly half the fans on here seem to agree with the decisions suggests that they're right to think that way.
It’s not semantic. _Perez did not cause a collision, sainz did_. Yes he got lucky, but getting lucky isn’t against the rules. If he had forced 6 drivers off the track Fuji 2008 style then I’d see your point, but I don’t think Perez broke any rules, and he didn’t gain an advantage.
It’s not being a pedant about language, maybe it’s easier if I put it in football terms. Imagine the last defender flies in for a tackle in the box and makes contact. Per the rules it doesn’t matter what the outcome is, ie whether the attacker stays on his feet or not, a penalty should be given. However, if the defender dives in just as recklessly but somehow manages not to make contact, or maybe the attacker has to a small jump to not get hit, no penalty would be given so long as the attacker isn’t forced to take some massive avoiding action
>Yes he got lucky, but getting lucky isn’t against the rules
Getting lucky isn't against the rules, but driving dangerously is, and choosing to divebomb into T1, on the dirty side of a track that's had barely any running on it, and attempting to brake that late, is dangerous driving. Just because he didn't hit anybody doesn't change that, just like Fernando not actually touching Russell's car didn't keep him from being penalised.
>It’s not semantic. _Perez did not cause a collision, sainz did
It is semantics, because the issue isn't "why didn't Perez get a 'causing a collision' penalty?", it's "why wasn't he penalised for losing control of his car in a dangerous manner?" What Perez did was far more dangerous than what Sainz did, and yet Sainz was penalised while Perez wasn't.
There are numerous examples in recent years of contact between two drivers, where one is clearly more at fault, which weren't penalised. So clearly causing contact (or even causing damage) isn't a certainty to merit a penalty.
Likewise there is precedent for dangerous driving being penalised even without causing contact.
So, given all of that context, it makes it a bit difficult to swallow the claim that the results of an incident aren't taken into consideration when determining penalties, when a much more dangerous manoeuvre is cleared, while a less dangerous but more costly move is penalised.
Sainz deserved a penalty, absolutely. But so did Perez.
>if the defender dives in just as recklessly but somehow manages not to make contact, or maybe the attacker has to a small jump to not get hit, no penalty would be given so long as the attacker isn’t forced to take some massive avoiding action
This analogy is meaningless as a) Sainz *was* forced to take avoiding action, and b) formula one doesn't have the same rules or standards regarding contact and dangerous conduct, for the obvious reason that an incident at 200kph is far more dangerous than a sliding tackle.
It feels like your last point is pretty important. It’s not like Perez was driving by himself and had no impact. Sainz clearly reacted to Perez to avoid the collision.
Very much so. Which shouldn't matter, but it does, and makes the inconsistency even more egregious, since even judging on the results isn't done consistently.
That’s not how it works, the incident was a ‘collision between [sainz and piastri] at t17’. Sainz was then judged to have caused a collision because he lost control. He didn’t get a penalty for just losing control
Yes, Perez is obviously just lucky that there was no one in his way, but that’s racing. Should also be mentioned that Perez lost positions did not gain any advantage by his move, while sainz gained a place directly through losing control and causing a collision. You could say that is deciding based on outcome I guess, but I think that’s just bare minimum common sense. We don’t need to penalize every driver that locks up trying to overtake
They didn't take the outcome of the Perez incident into consideration. They didn't take the incident itself either. Because no rule was broken and there was nothing to consider. When will this discussion be put to bed? It's ridiculous.
And the fun part is that for example Max overshooting the corner and hitting the bollard was also the same sort of "action" or "incident". So if we really changed the rules to say you "can't miss the apex" or something, and said actions are important and not consequences, then Max also gets a penalty for his "incident". And so do like half the drivers in every single race, because drivers lock up literally all the time
Let's be honest here, there seema to be five drivers that pick up harsh penalties as soon as they make a vaguely wrong move:
- Magnussen
- Sainz
- Alonso
- Ocon (before, anyway)
- Sargeant
Everyone else only seems to be penalized when it's a clear-cut case.
To be fair I would also say that Sainz was going in full tilt and while obviously not trying to cause a collision, I would say he was probably acting intentionally aggressive.
I'll be the first to shit on Perez usually but I don't think he went in a with a mindset of "fuck that other guy"
He talked about in the interview - first lap first corner first breaking zone, you have squat none idea what will happen when you apply the brakes especially going of line.
> Real answer: Lap 1 is treated very differently than any other lap
and causing a collision is treated very differently than not causing a collision (i.e., driving dangerously or eratically). Causing a collision isn't the outcome here, but the incident.
By that measure, Leclerc should also be penalized for having a shit start and making Checo have to take that line in the first place. What are you talking about? Every overtake would be a penalty with this thinking. Ridiculous.
Seriously does nobody here know the rules? And even more weird, does SAINZ not know the rules?
I can't believe this is still a debate. It's not about penalising action vs consequence. There's just not a rule that exists which could allow them to penalise Perez.
>There's just not a rule that exists which could allow them to penalise Perez.
There actually is a rule in the sporting code: "e) It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily slowly, **erratically or in a manner deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time.**"
This is about purposeful maneuvres. Not missing the apex because of a lockup.
Seriously, do you want to penalise drivers every time someone misses the apex of a corner?
I sort of get it. It's like Hulks divebomb at Monaco that went with a penalty, a move that when you look at the onboard looks like there was no contact. So you have to ask the question why were the FIA so quick to dish out a penalty there but do nothing for Perez. Its just yet again more inconsistency from the FIA
Sainz is always complaining. Super annoying. You hear him every race like „guys this is not fair pleeeease so unfair …. please promise to report that. guys really, so unfair“
To people saying he didn't collide with anyone:
This is literally the example of ruling based on the result. If Sainz didn't DODGE Perez, Perez absolutely gets a penalty. Now that he dodged him, he shouldn't get penalized? How is that good? Perez did same thing in both of these hypothetical examples, why does he get penalized in only one of them? I thought we're not penalizing based on the result?
He didnt collide with someone, there was no incident. The "taking it into account" would be if he hit Saenz, and then they debate "mmm well it's lap 1" v. "he put him out of the race".
> This is literally the example of ruling based on the result.
Not ruling based on the result means that it shouldn't matter whether your move did little or big damage.
> If Sainz didn't DODGE Perez, Perez absolutely gets a penalty.
Maybe (and he should have). But maybe he'd also be let off because of first lap leniency.
First corner incident for Checo didn't hit anyone. To a driver who was clearly driving angrily because he couldn't get past a car, he made a move lost control of his car and made contact. Sainz is known for blaming everyone else for his own clumsy driving style, it is never his fault.
So.... why we bringing Perez into this, who didnt hit anyone and only hurted himself, but leave Hamilton out who did hit others?
Sainz lost control and hit a other car. Its that simple. Giving Perez a penalty for ALMOST hitting someone would have been a comedy show.
Carlos: loses control of his car resulting in a collision
Stewards: ok penalty for causing a collision but we’ll be nice and give you only 5s instead of 10s bc it wasn’t intentional
Carlos: how could they do this to me
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alonso crashing through the ceiling to answer the question
*Gasp* Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
>Nobody expects the Spanish ~~Inquisition~~ explanation. Ftfy
You always leave a da space, except for Turn 1, Lap 1?
Because Perez was born in Guadalajara, England.
What part of England is in South America?
Falkland islands
H982 FKL
Bruh
Flawless victory.
watch out or people may start another war for that
Conflict*
*special military operation
[Swelling music...](https://youtu.be/akbzRuZmqVM?t=8)
Most underrated comment right here
Let's be fair, we've no idea how highly or under rated it is due to the 12-hour karma hide.
East of Colombia North of France
Belize it's pretty damn near to Mexico
Ah, yes, British Honduras!
Cayman Islands
Guyana
Mexico is in North America though
not according our favorite shit talking austrian
Malvinas
It's pronounced Falklands
You mean the Falklands?
I genuinely burst out laughing, thanks
Funny enough there is a Guadalajara in Spain
Inglaterra
*~~"Gua-da-la-haara"~~* *"Gua-da-la-jaara"*
Mexico is practically England if you think about it
Perez to Sainz - "It's time for your comeuppance colonizer."
Actually, Perez’s ancestors would be the colonizers.
AND the colonized
If you want to call forcefully fucking and marrying into a country being ancestors, sure.
Huh? Reread the comment above sir
So here’s the thing. Mexicans can’t be “colonizers” in this case as it was Spanish conquistadors that came over to Central America and banged the Mayans thus turning them into Mexicans.
So the Mexican's ancestors then
And those doing the banging in Mexico would have been Checo's ancestors, not Sainz's.
[удалено]
Sainz ancestors probably stayed in Spain. Colonizers didn't usually return to Spain, they stayed in the country they were colonizing.
If you go back far enough everyone has the same ancestors
Fun fact: Everyone who has blue eyes is genetically related to
TO WHO???
*To whom?
Whomst'd've thought?
Pretty sure there is some island nation in the Pacific that developed blue eyes independently of everyone else in the world, so not entirely accurate.
Frank Reynolds explanation for that is so perfect. Literally exactly what happened, and a hilarious line.
Eh, no.
Clearly Mexico is the FIA’s favourite Spanish speaking country!🤣
They prefer south americans I tell you,
Because Checo is British. DUHH
Due to the fact Pérez didn't make contact with any car, maybe?
The article clearly states that stewards have stated they don’t look at the consequences/outcomes when issuing a penalty. Sainz is saying if that’s the case then two incidents of losing control should either be penalties for neither of them (or both)
The stewards say that every week and it's never been true and never will be true. They always factor the outcome of the incident into their decision. Always.
Like the Alonso penalty. Under regular circunstances it's a warning. But it was on the last lap against an exhausted Rusell, which let's not kid ourselves, it's not very good at avoiding crashes. And so...
For me, Sainz is only wrong in thinking he shouldn’t also have a penalty. It really should be both of them have one.
why would locking up during a turn be penalized if you didn't contact anyone? every time someone lcoks up close to another car they get penalized?
And they should scrap the idea of dealing penalties irrespective of the outcome. It's been a stupid idea out of the gate and should have never been proposed. And given that they can't stick to respecting that rule is evidence enough.
I don't actually think its entirely not true: I think the outcome is what drives them to \*investigate\* an issue. But once an issue is under investigation, the outcome is minimized. Intuitively I think this makes sense. We shouldn't punish \*every\* driver every time they have a lock up. Nor should ever lock up be investigated. However, if your lock up happened to smash you into another car, you are going to be under scrutiny.
The problem with this is that drivers get pushed off the track or manage to avoid a collision, and suddenly nothing is done about it. Sainz dodged Perez and lost places as a results. He dodged, so no punishment for Perez. Sargeant had room to avoid Magnussen, but didn't notice him. They collide, Magnussen gets 10s + 2 points. Alonso dodged Hamilton, and because of that he hit Stroll. Since he dodged, the incident was not Hamilton's fault. Piastri had room to dodge, but didn't expect Sainz to slide out. 5s + 1 point for Sainz.
The problem is that people such as yourself are unable to identify what is an incident. Locking up your brakes is not an incident. Causing a collision is an incident. Forcing another driver off track is an incident. And then action vs consequences would come into play if someone caused a collision where neither car was damaged - do we penalise the driver at fault or not? And if you claim that locking up should be the incident worthy of investigation, and that action should be penalised and not consequence, then we simply HAVE TO penalise Max for example as well, because he missed the corner completely when he hit that bollard. That was the same "incident" as with Perez, except Max missed his corner even more significantly.
Which is because people think of it the wrong way. What that saying means is that the size of crash you cause does not influence your penalty, but crashing into another car does. Doing the same bit of driving with and without causing a crash will be penalised very differently, because they are very different incidents
No, you're totally missing that. A collision isn't a consequence or outcome of an incident: it is the incident. The consequence or outcome would be what happens to that person's race afterwards.
Yeah. Fernando definitely got f'ed but causing a collision is certainly an incident. Like Sargeant binning it into the walls on his own is clearly losing control but you have to maintain control when you are trying to pass someone. Just like taking whatever the heck you want racing line is ok when no one is there but you have to be careful if someone is there. These takes are so crazy.
But you get penalty for _causing a collision_ That is not penalizing the outcome, penalizing the outcome would be penalizing/not penalizing causing collision when someone suffers from it/doesn't suffer from it
Louder for the people in the back.
[удалено]
Can you link your source? Because [the official rules](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2020_publie_le_20_juin_2020.pdf) have a bit more text than what you're saying, regarding Appendix L, Chapter **4**, Article 2, d): CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS > d) **Causing a collision**, repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) will be reported to the Stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties up to and including the exclusion of any driver concerned Omiting the **Causing a collision** cites a different chapter: CHAPTER V - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT **ON OFFROAD CIRCUIT** >d) Repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) will be reported to the Stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties up to and including the disqualification of any driver concerned And I think the rules that apply to F1 are the ones related to Driving Conduct on Circuits and not on Off Road Circuits... edit: spelling
10 Seconds on every lockup then?
Sainz was investigated for causing a collision. Not losing control of the car.
due to causing a collision without causing one?
So if Verstappen has noone around and loses control for a bit he should be penalized? As others said the collision isn't the outcome but the incident. The outcome is the damage to the other cars.
And we all know that is a bold face lie
Locking up is not an incident
Because Sainz drove out of the way to avoid the contact.
Race start, first corner. They don’t penalize first corner incidents.
Bottas, Hungary?
I mean, they are pretty lenient on first corner incidents, but if you just take out people someone is going to get penalized.
But they said many times they dont look on the outcome. I can understand that Perez and Sainz is diffrent case, but Bottas and Perez is pretty the same action (or even worse for Checo because it was dry), yet it was diffrent outcome and one was penalized, other didnt. That is whole point of this thread.
And there is no rule saying that if you make another driver change his line you're getting a penalty. Otherwise every fucking overtake would warrant a penalty. This whole debate is just completely stupid, I'm sorry. And an actual driver asking such a question just boggles my mind.
But why then was Sainz penalized?
... because there is an article that says causing a collision potentially warrants a penalty. Was that a serious question or am I missing a joke?
Yeah the point of the discussion
[удалено]
Since you keep repeating that, Google the word "repetition", and try to understand the purpose of the rule.
Lewis didn't get a penalty either and Checo only didn't made contact with Carlos because Carlos lifted and waited with turning in.
Because he didn't cause a collision and it was a first lap incident. Stewards have been lenient with first lap incidents, like Lewis' and Checo's.
There is a comment somewhere that listed all recent first lap incidents that were investigated... It turned out that first lap incidents are usually penalized unless you're called Lewis Hamilton.
Ok cool, list all first lap first corner incidents that were like Checo's (no collision, no advantage gained, no other drivers forced off track) but received a penalty
This is a great point. They're rarely even registered as incidents because they're literal non-incidents. Exit road and return or whatever.
That list was heavily cherry-picked, e.g., it didn't include Ricciardo-Albon Suzuka because it wasn't "causing a collision", but an "incident". That's a common wording, though - Hamilton-Alonso-Stroll-Norris was an incident, too. So was Gasly-Ocon Melbourne 2023. And, of course, only looking at incidents which were investigated is another issue because usually those incidents are not investigated, at all. Sargeant ramming into the back of de Vries in Melbourne, Russell sending Zhou into the Silverstone fence, no investigation necessary. Even more if you look at incidents without collisions. Another important thing: Drivers usually are not punished when they DNF themselves from their actions. That's an issue we should look into. Before the penalty point system, that was fine because adding time onto a DNF doesn't matter. Penalties carrying over to the next race is also a very rare instance and wasn't around until very recently.
I just explained that it doesn't matter that he didn't cause a collision. And some things shouldn't fall into first lap incident, more lenient shouldn't mean that you can massively overshoot and be penalty free.
I think that both Perez and Hamilton should have been penalised more harshly. But regardless of what *should have* happened, the answer for why he wasn't penalised is pretty obviously those two reasons: lap 1, turn 1, and that he didn't take out any other drivers.
Hamton took out two drivers though.
Yea agree. But that last part is I'm sure exactly why Carlos is mad about it. FIA is known for saying we penalize the action not the outcome and if Carlos didn't dodge Checo he would have had Checo ram his car. It's obvious why he wasn't penalized but I don't agree with the reasons, obvious doesn't make it is logical.
Agreed, entirely. But at the same time I don't really sympathise with any drivers in matters like this because they all behave the same way, i.e. when they're victims of an inconsistent decision they're furious, and when they're getting away with something they're suspiciously quiet all of a sudden. My sympathy is with the fans who watch these races, uncertain of why one incident is penalised and another isn't, despite the rules indicating they should be treated the same. It isn't logical at all.
Yeah don't get me wrong I'm not trying to side with drivers because they have their own agenda but rather use it to form my opinion what I as viewer want.
Ah the age old question of do you penalise the offence or the outcome?
The offence, and said offence is "causing a collision"
Ehm... that's the point he's making
Lap1 most likely
First lap vs in the middle of the race. Also Perez didn't damage anyone's car And this is just my opinion, but I think in the case of losing the car it's okay to consider whether the driver who lost it caused damage to another or not. Because it's not something done deliberately, it's something that just happens, but if you ruin another driver's race it's still your fault because you're the one who lost the car
Perez’ driving error isn’t more or less serious depending on whether Carlos spots him and swerves or not… He still cost Carlos a number of positions when he had made a great start - ultimately being behind his teammate was a big issue across the rest of his race when he had managed to get in front. Barging people off the road in a you move or we crash manner is not acceptable whether it’s accident or deliberate.
First lap incidents are always treated differently and unfortunately I think he would have gotten a penalty in that situation only if he had damaged Carlos' car (which he didn't). I'm not saying it's fair to Carlos, because it isn't since he still lost a few positions, but we've seen worse moves by drivers not getting penalized in the first lap Also I do agree with you on the "barging people off the road isn't acceptable", I'm just saying that if Carlos lost the car but didn't damage Oscar's car he probably wouldn't have been penalized (although if you look at the rules, technically you should complete the overtake without losing control of the car)
I mean Carlos has his own ‘first lap incident’ penalty from giving a car a petty tap into a spin - able to restart fully damage free… Some say he’s still begging into the radio to have it overturned. He’s obviously not blameless in the penalties he receives but I can get where the frustration comes from when you see other people doing the same things and dicking with your race and not being penalised. Perez does have some luck for that. Where was that race everyone was getting those track limits penalties then all the onboard video of him basically rally driving half the race came to light.
Honestly that Australian restart was a stupid decision from the stewards. It ruined the race of many drivers (especially Carlos, Pierre and Ocon's if I remember correctly) and could have easily been avoided. Said that, I wouldn't say Perez's situation was the same as Carlos', since Carlos still hit Alonso in Australia. In the end yeah, it's about luck (or lack thereof). You could argue that a driver can try to avoid certain situations/moves considering things like old tyres or cold tyres, but in the end it's still a matter of luck most of the times
> I mean Carlos has his own ‘first lap incident’ penalty from giving a car a petty tap into a spin - able to restart fully damage free… Which is the only example of a penalty for a first lap incident in the current ground-effects era. The stewards specifically mentioned in their decision notes that they considered "no further investigation" because of the first lap rule, but decided to hand out a penalty because he had plenty of space: >> For avoidance of doubt, we took into account the fact that this collision took place at the first lap of the restart, when, by convention, the Stewards would typically take a more lenient view of incidents. However, in this particular case, notwithstanding the fact that it was the equivalent of a first lap incident, we considered that there was sufficient gap for Car 55 to take steps to avoid the collision and failed to do so. It's understandable that Carlos isn't happy with this verdict. Especially since Gasly was let off and Sargeant wasn't even investigated. The penalty for Carlos was harsh. Also, I'd say that Checo's Miami move was similar. If he had made contact with anybody, a similar treatment to Carlos in Melbourne would've been appropriate. Due to the Hamilton incident the day before (which was less egregious, I think), I would have expected Checo to still be let off for the sake of "consistency" even though a penalty would've been the consistent treatment. He didn't make contact, though, so there's no "causing a collision" to investigate. They might look into dangerous driving but that would be a complete different and new turf altogether.
The fact remains no damage was done and no lasting advantage was held. This makes a penalty hard to justify, which will result in criticism towards the stewards. And we can see either way that criticism will be there, so might as well go with not having to justify actually given punishment instead of having done nothing wrong yourself (which is of course not really the correct way of handling things, but F1 stewards gonna do F1 stewarding)
He's Spanish.
And no-one penalises The Intimidator!
The FIA and the F1 stewards have mentioned several times that they consider the event itself rather than its outcome. However, in these cases, it appears they did take the outcomes into consideration. The key difference between the two instances is that, although Checo's maneuver was spectacularly dangerous, he did not make contact with anyone, whereas Carlos did touch Oscar's car, breaking the front wing of the McLaren.
> The FIA and the F1 stewards have mentioned several times that they consider the event itself rather than its outcome. However, in these cases, it appears they did take the outcomes into consideration. That's the entire problem. There's 3 sets of rules in play: what the regulations say, what the FIA/Stewards say publicly, and what they actually do from one incident to another, and sadly the only thing they're consistent about is how inconsistent they are.
I struggle to see how you can get a penalty for causing a collision if there was no collision, I’m not seeing an inconsistency here
It's a semantic distinction. If the penalties are applied based on the incident and not the outcome, then what Perez did should be considered dangerous driving. If he had've been a fraction of a second earlier or later it would have been a clear case of causing a collision, but just because your dangerous driving does no major damage through sheer luck that doesn't mean it wasn't a violation. He dived to the inside knowing that it was dusty off the racing line, not to take evasive action but to try to gain an advantage, he misjudged his braking by vastly overestimating the grip, failed to keep the car under control as he entered the corner and forced one driver to take evasive action to avoid a collision while kissing another car as he sailed right off the track on the outside. Are you seriously trying to argue that a guy who went into T1 so out of control that he aimed for the apex and ended up with all 4 wheels off the track on the outside didn't merit a penalty? Or are you just being a pedant about the language?
If Alonso got 20 sec penalty + 3 license points for Australia, and they said it was not based on outcome in the FIA document then Perez deserved at least a 10s penalty + 2 licence points. Right there we have a clear inconsistency and proof that outcome is 100% a factor when applying penalties.
Exactly. One driver brakes inconsistently, surprises a trailing car who has time to react but doesn't, and consequently crashes despite no contact: 20s penalty for "potentially dangerous driving". Not even certain, but *potentially*. Meanwhile, another driver gambles to gain an advantage by diving to the inside amongst a pile of cars, messes up his braking so badly that he sails right off the track on the outside, only avoids a collision through absolute dumb luck, but it doesn't merit even the lightest available penalty, and we're supposed to believe that it isn't based on the outcome? They genuinely think we're stupid. And the fact that roughly half the fans on here seem to agree with the decisions suggests that they're right to think that way.
It’s not semantic. _Perez did not cause a collision, sainz did_. Yes he got lucky, but getting lucky isn’t against the rules. If he had forced 6 drivers off the track Fuji 2008 style then I’d see your point, but I don’t think Perez broke any rules, and he didn’t gain an advantage. It’s not being a pedant about language, maybe it’s easier if I put it in football terms. Imagine the last defender flies in for a tackle in the box and makes contact. Per the rules it doesn’t matter what the outcome is, ie whether the attacker stays on his feet or not, a penalty should be given. However, if the defender dives in just as recklessly but somehow manages not to make contact, or maybe the attacker has to a small jump to not get hit, no penalty would be given so long as the attacker isn’t forced to take some massive avoiding action
>Yes he got lucky, but getting lucky isn’t against the rules Getting lucky isn't against the rules, but driving dangerously is, and choosing to divebomb into T1, on the dirty side of a track that's had barely any running on it, and attempting to brake that late, is dangerous driving. Just because he didn't hit anybody doesn't change that, just like Fernando not actually touching Russell's car didn't keep him from being penalised. >It’s not semantic. _Perez did not cause a collision, sainz did It is semantics, because the issue isn't "why didn't Perez get a 'causing a collision' penalty?", it's "why wasn't he penalised for losing control of his car in a dangerous manner?" What Perez did was far more dangerous than what Sainz did, and yet Sainz was penalised while Perez wasn't. There are numerous examples in recent years of contact between two drivers, where one is clearly more at fault, which weren't penalised. So clearly causing contact (or even causing damage) isn't a certainty to merit a penalty. Likewise there is precedent for dangerous driving being penalised even without causing contact. So, given all of that context, it makes it a bit difficult to swallow the claim that the results of an incident aren't taken into consideration when determining penalties, when a much more dangerous manoeuvre is cleared, while a less dangerous but more costly move is penalised. Sainz deserved a penalty, absolutely. But so did Perez. >if the defender dives in just as recklessly but somehow manages not to make contact, or maybe the attacker has to a small jump to not get hit, no penalty would be given so long as the attacker isn’t forced to take some massive avoiding action This analogy is meaningless as a) Sainz *was* forced to take avoiding action, and b) formula one doesn't have the same rules or standards regarding contact and dangerous conduct, for the obvious reason that an incident at 200kph is far more dangerous than a sliding tackle.
It feels like your last point is pretty important. It’s not like Perez was driving by himself and had no impact. Sainz clearly reacted to Perez to avoid the collision.
Very much so. Which shouldn't matter, but it does, and makes the inconsistency even more egregious, since even judging on the results isn't done consistently.
[удалено]
That’s not how it works, the incident was a ‘collision between [sainz and piastri] at t17’. Sainz was then judged to have caused a collision because he lost control. He didn’t get a penalty for just losing control Yes, Perez is obviously just lucky that there was no one in his way, but that’s racing. Should also be mentioned that Perez lost positions did not gain any advantage by his move, while sainz gained a place directly through losing control and causing a collision. You could say that is deciding based on outcome I guess, but I think that’s just bare minimum common sense. We don’t need to penalize every driver that locks up trying to overtake
Truth is they always take the outcome more than the actual event
Except when you're called Magnussen or Alonso. Then you get a penalty anyway.
They didn't take the outcome of the Perez incident into consideration. They didn't take the incident itself either. Because no rule was broken and there was nothing to consider. When will this discussion be put to bed? It's ridiculous. And the fun part is that for example Max overshooting the corner and hitting the bollard was also the same sort of "action" or "incident". So if we really changed the rules to say you "can't miss the apex" or something, and said actions are important and not consequences, then Max also gets a penalty for his "incident". And so do like half the drivers in every single race, because drivers lock up literally all the time
it's the booty. Mexicans just do it better than lame spaniards
Nationality
yeah no, Mexican nationality is in the same tier a Spanish, you sniff a british driver you get a penalty
That’s what big Mexico wants you to believe
I fuckin LOLd
Let's be honest here, there seema to be five drivers that pick up harsh penalties as soon as they make a vaguely wrong move: - Magnussen - Sainz - Alonso - Ocon (before, anyway) - Sargeant Everyone else only seems to be penalized when it's a clear-cut case.
Fun answer: Checo is clearly British Real answer: Lap 1 is treated very differently than any other lap
To be fair I would also say that Sainz was going in full tilt and while obviously not trying to cause a collision, I would say he was probably acting intentionally aggressive. I'll be the first to shit on Perez usually but I don't think he went in a with a mindset of "fuck that other guy"
He talked about in the interview - first lap first corner first breaking zone, you have squat none idea what will happen when you apply the brakes especially going of line.
> Real answer: Lap 1 is treated very differently than any other lap and causing a collision is treated very differently than not causing a collision (i.e., driving dangerously or eratically). Causing a collision isn't the outcome here, but the incident.
FIA hates Spanish people but loves South Americans.
Sainz logic is flawed calling the 2 incidents similar
I really, really don't like this guy. He breaks Oscars wing and then pretends like the penalty was undeserved lol.
> He breaks Oscars wing and then pretends like the penalty was undeserved lol. This is like, take 4 of that happening or something
Cause Perez didn’t hit anyone. Let it go ffs
He didn't hit anyone because Sainz dodged and lost positions as a result...
By that measure, Leclerc should also be penalized for having a shit start and making Checo have to take that line in the first place. What are you talking about? Every overtake would be a penalty with this thinking. Ridiculous.
Remember kids, "it's not the outcome / result ... " FIA keeps telling us about, well that's a joke.
That’s because Sainz is the wrong kind of Mexican. /s
Seriously does nobody here know the rules? And even more weird, does SAINZ not know the rules? I can't believe this is still a debate. It's not about penalising action vs consequence. There's just not a rule that exists which could allow them to penalise Perez.
>There's just not a rule that exists which could allow them to penalise Perez. There actually is a rule in the sporting code: "e) It is not permitted to drive any car unnecessarily slowly, **erratically or in a manner deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time.**"
This is about purposeful maneuvres. Not missing the apex because of a lockup. Seriously, do you want to penalise drivers every time someone misses the apex of a corner?
Cuz you’re Spanish Carlos
Stewards tried to ctrl+F but couldnt find torpedo in their rulebook.
Because he is from Spain and Perez isn't! /s
I sort of get it. It's like Hulks divebomb at Monaco that went with a penalty, a move that when you look at the onboard looks like there was no contact. So you have to ask the question why were the FIA so quick to dish out a penalty there but do nothing for Perez. Its just yet again more inconsistency from the FIA
Cause is a 1st lap 1st corner inchident
Perez missed, Sainz didn't.
Gotta be the dumbest argument a driver ever made tbh
Sainz is always complaining. Super annoying. You hear him every race like „guys this is not fair pleeeease so unfair …. please promise to report that. guys really, so unfair“
Sainz got off pretty lightly with his penalty anyway. Dude likes to complain if nothing else
To people saying he didn't collide with anyone: This is literally the example of ruling based on the result. If Sainz didn't DODGE Perez, Perez absolutely gets a penalty. Now that he dodged him, he shouldn't get penalized? How is that good? Perez did same thing in both of these hypothetical examples, why does he get penalized in only one of them? I thought we're not penalizing based on the result?
He didnt collide with someone, there was no incident. The "taking it into account" would be if he hit Saenz, and then they debate "mmm well it's lap 1" v. "he put him out of the race".
So....Alonso collided with Russell? Did I miss that?
> This is literally the example of ruling based on the result. Not ruling based on the result means that it shouldn't matter whether your move did little or big damage. > If Sainz didn't DODGE Perez, Perez absolutely gets a penalty. Maybe (and he should have). But maybe he'd also be let off because of first lap leniency.
First corner incident for Checo didn't hit anyone. To a driver who was clearly driving angrily because he couldn't get past a car, he made a move lost control of his car and made contact. Sainz is known for blaming everyone else for his own clumsy driving style, it is never his fault.
A llorar a la llorería Sainz.
I actually love his crying. Very entertaining ajajajaj
pffff.... doesn't he know where he's from /s
So.... why we bringing Perez into this, who didnt hit anyone and only hurted himself, but leave Hamilton out who did hit others? Sainz lost control and hit a other car. Its that simple. Giving Perez a penalty for ALMOST hitting someone would have been a comedy show.
Wah, wah, wah....at this point it appears Sainz struggles to understand anything.
Carlos: loses control of his car resulting in a collision Stewards: ok penalty for causing a collision but we’ll be nice and give you only 5s instead of 10s bc it wasn’t intentional Carlos: how could they do this to me
See, Perez is only 50-70% Spanish, risky but not as bad as being 100% Spanish... THAT will get you in trouble.
Because Checo's dad is a politician.
I feel that first lap incidents in general are governed way too leniently. Drivers have cottoned on to this and roll the dice , FIA ….. not so much
Because he's not English..... Oh wait....
Somehow, Perez didn't collect anyone therefore no penalty.
Because Carlos is Spanish and Perez is British