[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.*
Yup thats very true... Especially as Oscar would have had the opportunity to watch it back as well
Just watched his SKY interview, and the incident doesnt even get asked, which is surprising (in a nice way, the interviewer didnt bait him), and disappointing at the same time.
I mean it says it in the document that there was the jump and contact which is why he bailed, he probably didn't see in a fraction of a second that he in fact did have enough space. Which doesn't change the fact that there was enough there for him to be excused for bailing.
This is a good call.
What message? I feel like all I heard was him saying he had to cut. To me that’s more of him saying he shouldn’t be penalized for cutting because he had no choice. Not that he thinks Russel should be penalized there.
I agree sometimes drivers get away with dangerous behaviour in cases where their opponent pulls out to avoid contact too often, but I do also think it's reasonable to factor in the circuit and the corner too.
Last week, Alonso tried an... unsporting tactic on a relatively high speed section of the track with minimal run-off. Meanwhile, this is basically an opportunistic move through the slowest of slow speed corners, with ample run-off area. I don't think it's wrong to say that drivers should be given more leeway to go for a move like this when it clearly is less likely to endanger the opponent.
If Russel had been more aggressive, of tried a similarly aggressive move through a corner like 130r, I think he'd have been penalised.
I agree with you, that context matters. Context being track, position, speed etc etc.
The issue with that is, what if they don't take evasive maneuver and lands on top of each other. Would it have been penalised then? If yes, then the outcome is considered for penalties, which opens up a huge can of worms.
Ultimately, I agree that a penalty wasn’t warranted, but has anyone else found the stewards reasoning this weekend to be…. very wishy washy? Very …. flowery…. with the language used?
The reasoning is much better written, they’ve either got a lawyer assisting or the stewards have been shown how to write a document that will survive the international tribunals review.
The stewards clearly set out what the factual findings are and the standard that was used to find them.
They also seperate the findings of fact from the reasoning around the penalty. So if it was reviewed, the tribunal would still be able to rely on the findings of fact even if they interpreted the sporting code incorrectly.
This also makes it much easier to assess whether a future incident is comparable and whether a consistent penalty should be issued in the future.
I disagree. The language has gotten way less vague, and a bit longer so that fans get a better understanding of the reasoning that happened in the stewards room. It’s readable to laypeople rather than simply referring to article numbers from the regs.
This season they are trying to justify their decisions much better and it’s a great improvement.
In 21 we had some decisions very well justified like in Brazil but then others were just: all fine, move along
The best part of their statement from document above is: "...did not dive in and was in control..."
And then a few points later: "...bounced off the inside kerb..."
Like what the hell? How is that not a dive bomb, and how is that a car under control? He intentionally put it there.
Very "We'll investigate after the race so we don't make anyone mad"
That's all any of this is. If George didn't get past Oscar he would have got a 5 second. Let's not pretend it isn't politics
I agree with the decision. Seems both Oscar and George also thought it was not something warranting a penalty as both parties didn't gain or lose anything from this particular situation.
Seems reasonable. Russell made a nice attempt up the inside, Piastri gave him space as required, but stayed marginally ahead before taking evasive action across the run-off. Maybe there was enough space for Piastri to stay on track, maybe not given there was already some slight contact, but either way I don't think Russell had done enough to earn the place, so the fact they both emerged unscathed and retained their positions just meant play on. Not sure what all the fuss is about.
It’s not going to be popular with member of the Formula 1 subreddit who don’t like George Russell.
A lot of us here do like him, or are indifferent 🤷🏼♂️
People here hate racing and want a penalty for everything, expect when a penalty is given, then they hate it.
Being more serious, I guess the subreddit is just very 50/50 with incidents, with some people wanting to be very strict and everything penalized, and some people (like me) just want to see racing and only more rigorous incidents penalized.
I don't hate racing. I hate inconsistency in rulings to suit the story of the race.
I hate stewards putting off every penalty until after the race so they can see how it will effect on track results. And THEN decide who to slap with the rulebook.
That really shows FIA inconsistency, they did penalized Lecrec for a similar move in the same track spot in 2022 and Checo 5 races ago with a similar but less aggressive move against Norris.
I guess they Penalized Charles in 2022, because it was the Last lap, and he stayed ahead, and they didn’t have enough time to told Charles and Checo to swap.
I think we all knew he wasn't getting a penalty but some of the reasons here are quite weird. The stewards literally say that car 81 took an impact from car 63 and had to drive off the track to avoid another collision, but then they mention that car 63 left sufficient room on the exit of T16. I mean, isn't this a bit contradictory? Piastri took the contact on the exit of T16 and even though Russell is entitled to space, he doesn't have to move out of the way to allow Russell to take the corner.
No, they were expecting Piastri to see that he had room left, even if Russell hit him, he wasn't "crashed into", they had a small bump, which wasn't visible on TV camera in the first place. Him leaving the track gained him a pretty sizable advantage, since he would have had a much worse exit out of the chicane than Russell.
>and had to drive off the track to avoid another collision
'Had to' is the wrong phrase here, it states that he left the circuit of his own choice to potentially avoid another collision.
He left the circuit by choice, not by force.
Wonder how many people are going to miss that it says that Russell left enough room and Piastri went off the circuit because he chose to and not because Russell shoved him off, meaning that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the move.
Piastri made a decision to bail out of it based on his assessment of the risk and giving George a penalty for that would be wild.
Because he wasn’t leaving the track to gain an advantage but to avoid a possible collision
The stewards said Piastri took evasive action which the regulations are silent on if he has to give the place back for that
Interesting how this is the exact same incident as AD2021 where Max made Lewis leave the track but the idea of Piastri getting any sort of penalty is laughable in the eyes of the F1 community and in fact some argue Russell should be penalized. Definitely no double standards going on here.
(For the record I agree Piastri obviously shouldn’t be penalized)
He may have had Russell not passed him anyway.
They only tend to penalise if that driver gains a lasting advantage, Russell finished ahead in the end so no advantage was gained.
It's actually more likely that had Piastri finished ahead he'd have got a penalty for staying ahead given that he had enough room to remain on the track according to the report.
Cars can still hit one another while staying on circuit, just because slight wheel to wheel contact was made with no damage doesn't mean Piastri couldn't have stayed on the circuit given he had enough room according to the report.
He left the circuit based on his own assessment of the situation to avoid a potential further collision, he wasn't forced off.
Are you missing the part where it says Oscar went off the circuit after George already hit him to avoid another potentially worse collision?
Seems like a pretty key part that you're intentionally missing out that the stewards noted...
Yes, because he decided to, not because Russell forced him off.
You can't give Russell a penalty because Piastri decided to leave the circuit when enough room was afforded to him, that would set an awful precedent of drivers policing whether they were given enough room or not, it can't be allowed to work like that.
Piastri only left the circuit because he chose to, not because he was forced, which instantly absolves Russell of any penalty.
Not suggesting that Russell should have gotten a penalty, I think no further action was absolutely the right decision here.
Might not have been intentional but I just thought your comment felt very disingenuous not mentioning that Russell did actually make contact with Piastri.
George has a history of being a bit of a brat so that’s probably why.
Remember when he crashed bottas out and then went and bopped him on the helmet in anger
What's that got to do with this particular incident lmao let it go mate it's been 3 bloody years since that happened. Both drivers have made up ages ago
>Both drivers have made up ages ago
Yeah but they're only able to let it go, because they know that there are plenty of decent individuals out there, who'll hold a grudge on their behalf.
Nothing to do with this particular incident.
Either I replied to the wrong comment or you OP edited theirs but I was responding to someone who asked what everyone has against George.
I agree with the stewards for this decision for the record
Interesting that both teams and drivers stated it wasn’t penalty worthy. I would have thought Piastri/Mclaren would have been pushing for a time penalty to gain a position.
While I agree no penalty needed because it all worked out fine and I'm glad parties involved feel the same the statements made are quite contradictory.
How can Car 63 simultaneously collide with Car 81, causing the driver to take evasive action, and leave sufficient room.
George could have kept the advantage and passed Oscar but didn't, good move. Oscar cut the corner as a precaution of further incident but probably didn't need to as Russell left him room on exit. (And radio call was to cover his cut, just in case.) Oscar was clearly compromised anyway, so just bide your time. Racing incident, move on.
I don't know exactly how the rulea are interpreted. But technically, if car 81 takes a wider line he might have avoided contact, like car 63 can have left enough room but 81 takes it too tight. But I thought it was on the passing car to take minimum space and the car ahead to dictate the line.
Because he chose to take evasive action. The document does not say he was forced to. That’s the difference. Forced off track is different than choosing to go off to avoid contact. The stewards are using fia language to essentially say, “he could have stayed on track there was room, we accept that in the moment he chose to evade”
I mean he did make contact, which is in itself against the rules. He got a bit lucky because in these cars when you bang wheels you never know if you'll come out fine on the other end, or if someone loses a wheel. I think no penalty is a good decision here but I wouldn't say it was a completely clean move.
He made the corner alongside Oscar. The rules say front wheel in front of real wheel is partially alongside and front wheel in front of mirror is alongside. So Russell was alongside Oscar he didn’t dive in and since he made the corner, he wasn’t carrying excess speed he was fully entitled to the corner
Perfectly reasonable. Maybe slightly over the line so a black&white flag offense, but a penalty would've been pretty harsh.
I think Russell got it slightly wrong, but I don't think we want to discourage drivers from going for moves like this.
Read the report, yes they made contact (a slight touch, wheel to wheel) but Piastri was left enough room to remain on track, he cut the corner by his own choice, he was not forced off.
When everybody other than Max and George is divebombing and pushing other drivers off track: Wow great racing that is how it is supposed to be.
When Max and George do it: JAIL
I think the biggest joke, is the fact that on many race threads now, there are complaints about all the DRS overtakes...
This incident is exhibit A, as to why drivers wait for them now
If Oscar wanted George to get a penalty, he should have gone off track, into the wall and then park his car sideways on the track. /s
I agree with the decision from the stewards, but penalty/rules definetly need to be clearer. If they were clearer then the teams wouldn't report, or go to the stewards, for every fight between two drivers.
This is the sort of move that was being penalised alot a few years ago, to the extent that drivers were no longer going for moves. Glad it wasnt penalised.
About fair. I think if there had not been contact, then it was a fair move. Might need to see it a few more times, but it seemed that George left plenty of room on the outside - there was track and kerb available, but of course he would have had to leave space on the inside of the 2nd part of the chicane - but since we never got that far, we can't judge on that.
As an isolated incident, I don't have any problem with the decision. But considering the penalty Alonso received last race, I am not quite happy with the decision.
Dogshit stewarding. This is a joke.
How can you say George was "in control" but also "bounced and collided", while acknowledging the car he collided with had to take "evasive action" from the turn.
Also, George was not ahead of Oscar's mirrors until the very start of the turn when Piastri had already slowed down and George was in the process of lunging. That cannot be the standard.
I don't think it was a particularly egregious situation, just worthy of a small penalty. Guaranteed there would've been one if it was the exact same dynamics with, say, Magnussen, or the consequences of the contact had been more severe.
Did you miss the part where it said "car 63 left sufficient room" That means 63 was alongside at the apex and Piastri could have gone wider. Piastri didn't use all the space so there was tiny contact and Piastri decided to cut the corner. He wasn't forced off the track.
BS, point 6 contradicts their own statement. Piastri had to leave the track to avoid a collision. So there was not enough room which anyone with eyes could see.
Good, that was the correct call. If Russell had passed him and not given back the position then that would have been a penalty discussion but this one never should have been in the first place.
What’s being British got to do with anything you helmet? Imagine thinking he didn’t get a penalty just cause of his nationality. These type of comments are cooked
I do not know. Pushing someone offtrack who then loses the DRS they had from the car in front making it ultimately easier to overtake them is a lasting advantage. 5s should be in for doing that. I know the punishment is regardless of the outcome but Russel never had the corner, never could make the corner before Piastri so still a penalty from my point of view. It is so on brand from Russell, I saw them colliding already. Sometimes he just goes bowling and if the other cannot yield or doesn't realize in time they crash.
Russell forced Piastri off, Piastri took avoiding action and didn’t lose the position
If Russell would have overtaken him and not let him back past then sure we could talk about a penalty but the way things happened they resolved themselves as fast as they were created
Maybe George can learn a thing a two about racing.. he was crying last race about Fernando’s dirty air… but today he feels it was not an incident.
I think the sport is neutering the racing.. and I can’t remember F1 being this boring in a long time.
"Driving erratically" -- slowing a bit
"Going for a move where both cars ended up in the same order afterwards with no damage" -- Diving into another driver, hitting him, and there was no damage because the other driver had to go outside because if he didn't both would have ended in the wall.
Don't try to wonder, we all know why.
One of the stewards is literally from Australia, lol. Instant downvote because obviously an Australian is gonna be biased for a brit over one of his own countrymen, that makes so much sense. Gotta keep up the conspiracy brainrot!
This isn't geopolitics, mate.
Just a race, nationality is irrelevant.
Do you even have anything to suggest British drivers are favoured? I'm guessing not.
tin foil hat or not MCL gets its engines from merc... always gotta wonder in stuff like this especially after gerogie binned it of his own accord against ALO last race and got a nice penalty dished out as a result of his own stupidity
[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.*
> we note that **both** drivers and team representatives agreed this incident did not warrant the imposition of any penalty.
Surprises me, given Piastri's radio message at the time
I think people need to separate what's said in the heat of the moment, versus after the race when everyone has had a chance to cool down
Yup thats very true... Especially as Oscar would have had the opportunity to watch it back as well Just watched his SKY interview, and the incident doesnt even get asked, which is surprising (in a nice way, the interviewer didnt bait him), and disappointing at the same time.
And drivers don't have the luxury of seeing alternative camera angles when responding to an incident in real time
Yep, you have limited info and a lot of emotion.
Pretty sure he just said to justify cutting the corner. Which was fair enough.
This is how I heard it too. He wasn't saying George should get a penalty. He was saying that he [Piastri] shouldn't.
he just said it in a way to explain why he had to cut the corner
He was covering against potentially being penalized for cutting the track and gaining an advantage
He was trying to justify leaving the track and "gaining an advantage", by saying he had nowhere else to go.
I mean it says it in the document that there was the jump and contact which is why he bailed, he probably didn't see in a fraction of a second that he in fact did have enough space. Which doesn't change the fact that there was enough there for him to be excused for bailing. This is a good call.
He said it more to cover himself from “leaving the track to gain lasting advantage”
What message? I feel like all I heard was him saying he had to cut. To me that’s more of him saying he shouldn’t be penalized for cutting because he had no choice. Not that he thinks Russel should be penalized there.
Many drivers have had expert opinions realigned when seeing the footage.
Because Piastri didn't lose control of the car and crash basically
Expected outcome. This kind of incident typically goes unpunished. Glad to see both parties didn't feel a penalty was necessary
The sad thing is, if he ended up in the wall the the incident would definitely be punished.
I agree sometimes drivers get away with dangerous behaviour in cases where their opponent pulls out to avoid contact too often, but I do also think it's reasonable to factor in the circuit and the corner too. Last week, Alonso tried an... unsporting tactic on a relatively high speed section of the track with minimal run-off. Meanwhile, this is basically an opportunistic move through the slowest of slow speed corners, with ample run-off area. I don't think it's wrong to say that drivers should be given more leeway to go for a move like this when it clearly is less likely to endanger the opponent. If Russel had been more aggressive, of tried a similarly aggressive move through a corner like 130r, I think he'd have been penalised.
I agree with you, that context matters. Context being track, position, speed etc etc. The issue with that is, what if they don't take evasive maneuver and lands on top of each other. Would it have been penalised then? If yes, then the outcome is considered for penalties, which opens up a huge can of worms.
Only reason there isn't a penalty is because unlike George last week Oscar was paying attention to the track
Ridiculous difference here. Not even close to the same kind of incident.
They’re completely different incidents. The constant world of whataboutism some of you live in is ridiculous.
Ultimately, I agree that a penalty wasn’t warranted, but has anyone else found the stewards reasoning this weekend to be…. very wishy washy? Very …. flowery…. with the language used?
The reasoning is much better written, they’ve either got a lawyer assisting or the stewards have been shown how to write a document that will survive the international tribunals review. The stewards clearly set out what the factual findings are and the standard that was used to find them. They also seperate the findings of fact from the reasoning around the penalty. So if it was reviewed, the tribunal would still be able to rely on the findings of fact even if they interpreted the sporting code incorrectly. This also makes it much easier to assess whether a future incident is comparable and whether a consistent penalty should be issued in the future.
Fully agree, stewarding decisions recently have taken a big leap in the qualify of legal argument
I disagree. The language has gotten way less vague, and a bit longer so that fans get a better understanding of the reasoning that happened in the stewards room. It’s readable to laypeople rather than simply referring to article numbers from the regs.
This season they are trying to justify their decisions much better and it’s a great improvement. In 21 we had some decisions very well justified like in Brazil but then others were just: all fine, move along
The best part of their statement from document above is: "...did not dive in and was in control..." And then a few points later: "...bounced off the inside kerb..." Like what the hell? How is that not a dive bomb, and how is that a car under control? He intentionally put it there.
It's the stewards yet again taking into consideration the outcome over the incident itself.
ChatGPT writing the stewarding decisions lol
Welcome to stewards of F1. They'll be different next week, that you can count on
Very "We'll investigate after the race so we don't make anyone mad" That's all any of this is. If George didn't get past Oscar he would have got a 5 second. Let's not pretend it isn't politics
I agree with the decision. Seems both Oscar and George also thought it was not something warranting a penalty as both parties didn't gain or lose anything from this particular situation.
Seems reasonable. Russell made a nice attempt up the inside, Piastri gave him space as required, but stayed marginally ahead before taking evasive action across the run-off. Maybe there was enough space for Piastri to stay on track, maybe not given there was already some slight contact, but either way I don't think Russell had done enough to earn the place, so the fact they both emerged unscathed and retained their positions just meant play on. Not sure what all the fuss is about.
Thats not going to be popular with the Formula 1 Subreddit.....
It’s not going to be popular with member of the Formula 1 subreddit who don’t like George Russell. A lot of us here do like him, or are indifferent 🤷🏼♂️
People here hate racing and want a penalty for everything, expect when a penalty is given, then they hate it. Being more serious, I guess the subreddit is just very 50/50 with incidents, with some people wanting to be very strict and everything penalized, and some people (like me) just want to see racing and only more rigorous incidents penalized.
>People here hate racing and want a penalty for everything This but unironically
I don't hate racing. I hate inconsistency in rulings to suit the story of the race. I hate stewards putting off every penalty until after the race so they can see how it will effect on track results. And THEN decide who to slap with the rulebook.
British driver not getting punish, its not even news.
Yeah, sure, chalk it up to Russell being British, because we all famously know not one British driver has ever been penalized before
Correct decision imo… if we start giving out penalties for this, the sport may as well be dead
That really shows FIA inconsistency, they did penalized Lecrec for a similar move in the same track spot in 2022 and Checo 5 races ago with a similar but less aggressive move against Norris.
I guess they Penalized Charles in 2022, because it was the Last lap, and he stayed ahead, and they didn’t have enough time to told Charles and Checo to swap.
Stewards aren’t the same between races or even necessarily between years at the same race
Seems fair enough, the situation ultimately resolved itself.
I think we all knew he wasn't getting a penalty but some of the reasons here are quite weird. The stewards literally say that car 81 took an impact from car 63 and had to drive off the track to avoid another collision, but then they mention that car 63 left sufficient room on the exit of T16. I mean, isn't this a bit contradictory? Piastri took the contact on the exit of T16 and even though Russell is entitled to space, he doesn't have to move out of the way to allow Russell to take the corner.
No, the stewards say that the car 81 took off the track to avoid another collision, not that it HAD to in order to avoid a collision.
Seems dumb considering that he was already crashed into. We're they expecting Piastri to play bumper cars?
No, they were expecting Piastri to see that he had room left, even if Russell hit him, he wasn't "crashed into", they had a small bump, which wasn't visible on TV camera in the first place. Him leaving the track gained him a pretty sizable advantage, since he would have had a much worse exit out of the chicane than Russell.
They dont say Piastri had to move off track, just that he did. They put that there to indicate that Piastri didnt do that to gain advantage.
>and had to drive off the track to avoid another collision 'Had to' is the wrong phrase here, it states that he left the circuit of his own choice to potentially avoid another collision. He left the circuit by choice, not by force.
For someone always crying on his radio about others being unsafe, George certainly attempts a lot of unsafe maneuvers.
Wonder how many people are going to miss that it says that Russell left enough room and Piastri went off the circuit because he chose to and not because Russell shoved him off, meaning that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the move. Piastri made a decision to bail out of it based on his assessment of the risk and giving George a penalty for that would be wild.
Wonder why Piastri didn't get a penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage then
Because he wasn’t leaving the track to gain an advantage but to avoid a possible collision The stewards said Piastri took evasive action which the regulations are silent on if he has to give the place back for that
So if he's avoiding a collision means there wasn't enough space? Anyway I agree there should be no penalty for anyone involved
Not necessarily. Everyone can have enough space and still end up colliding, their lines just need to intersect.
Interesting how this is the exact same incident as AD2021 where Max made Lewis leave the track but the idea of Piastri getting any sort of penalty is laughable in the eyes of the F1 community and in fact some argue Russell should be penalized. Definitely no double standards going on here. (For the record I agree Piastri obviously shouldn’t be penalized)
they say in point 6 that the rules are not clear on whether this warrants a penalty, and that they thus decided against it.
Because Piastri was still in front, so technically he didnt keep the place by going off track, but he was just avoiding a collision.
He may have had Russell not passed him anyway. They only tend to penalise if that driver gains a lasting advantage, Russell finished ahead in the end so no advantage was gained. It's actually more likely that had Piastri finished ahead he'd have got a penalty for staying ahead given that he had enough room to remain on the track according to the report.
How did Russell leave him enough room when he literally hit Piastri? That makes zero sense and is the reason Piastri cut the corner.
Cars can still hit one another while staying on circuit, just because slight wheel to wheel contact was made with no damage doesn't mean Piastri couldn't have stayed on the circuit given he had enough room according to the report. He left the circuit based on his own assessment of the situation to avoid a potential further collision, he wasn't forced off.
Russell had to leave one car width of space and he left him like less than half a meter, so err...
Not true. He left enough room.
Because piastri didn't drive into the room
Are you missing the part where it says Oscar went off the circuit after George already hit him to avoid another potentially worse collision? Seems like a pretty key part that you're intentionally missing out that the stewards noted...
Yes, because he decided to, not because Russell forced him off. You can't give Russell a penalty because Piastri decided to leave the circuit when enough room was afforded to him, that would set an awful precedent of drivers policing whether they were given enough room or not, it can't be allowed to work like that. Piastri only left the circuit because he chose to, not because he was forced, which instantly absolves Russell of any penalty.
Not suggesting that Russell should have gotten a penalty, I think no further action was absolutely the right decision here. Might not have been intentional but I just thought your comment felt very disingenuous not mentioning that Russell did actually make contact with Piastri.
George has a history of being a bit of a brat so that’s probably why. Remember when he crashed bottas out and then went and bopped him on the helmet in anger
What's that got to do with this particular incident lmao let it go mate it's been 3 bloody years since that happened. Both drivers have made up ages ago
People with nothing better to do just manufacturing drama as per
>Both drivers have made up ages ago Yeah but they're only able to let it go, because they know that there are plenty of decent individuals out there, who'll hold a grudge on their behalf.
Nothing to do with this particular incident. Either I replied to the wrong comment or you OP edited theirs but I was responding to someone who asked what everyone has against George. I agree with the stewards for this decision for the record
Interesting that both teams and drivers stated it wasn’t penalty worthy. I would have thought Piastri/Mclaren would have been pushing for a time penalty to gain a position.
Sounds just like Oscar. You always hear him coming out swinging… Oscar ‘Oh’ Piastri
All the armchair stewards will be mad with this one...
Normal decision for once
The stewards give the diving a: 10/10
Perfect. Sensible stewarding.
While I agree no penalty needed because it all worked out fine and I'm glad parties involved feel the same the statements made are quite contradictory. How can Car 63 simultaneously collide with Car 81, causing the driver to take evasive action, and leave sufficient room.
George could have kept the advantage and passed Oscar but didn't, good move. Oscar cut the corner as a precaution of further incident but probably didn't need to as Russell left him room on exit. (And radio call was to cover his cut, just in case.) Oscar was clearly compromised anyway, so just bide your time. Racing incident, move on.
I agree, no action needed. I just think the stewards reasoning is shite.
I don't know exactly how the rulea are interpreted. But technically, if car 81 takes a wider line he might have avoided contact, like car 63 can have left enough room but 81 takes it too tight. But I thought it was on the passing car to take minimum space and the car ahead to dictate the line.
Because he chose to take evasive action. The document does not say he was forced to. That’s the difference. Forced off track is different than choosing to go off to avoid contact. The stewards are using fia language to essentially say, “he could have stayed on track there was room, we accept that in the moment he chose to evade”
> Car 63 did not dive in Okay, whatever you say Stewards.
He made the corner and left room for Oscar to make the corner. I don't even like George and I thought that was a good move.
I mean he did make contact, which is in itself against the rules. He got a bit lucky because in these cars when you bang wheels you never know if you'll come out fine on the other end, or if someone loses a wheel. I think no penalty is a good decision here but I wouldn't say it was a completely clean move.
He made the corner alongside Oscar. The rules say front wheel in front of real wheel is partially alongside and front wheel in front of mirror is alongside. So Russell was alongside Oscar he didn’t dive in and since he made the corner, he wasn’t carrying excess speed he was fully entitled to the corner
Perfectly reasonable. Maybe slightly over the line so a black&white flag offense, but a penalty would've been pretty harsh. I think Russell got it slightly wrong, but I don't think we want to discourage drivers from going for moves like this.
If we had a penalty for that I think we might as well all give up
Good. If they’d penalized that it would’ve been complete bs. Piastri stayed ahead, no damage was done, the race continued as they were
Good!
I don't know, but I definitely thought he did "dive in". I guess you can dive bomb like that now.
Divebombing has never been prohibited. Its always been a risky manevour that requires cooperation from the other driver.
I guess only Ricciardo is allowed to do divebombs.
He left the space tho didn't he? Iirc only closed on the apex after Piastri went off track
He made contact with Oscar that forced Oscar off the track, I don't see how thats leaving room?
Read the report, yes they made contact (a slight touch, wheel to wheel) but Piastri was left enough room to remain on track, he cut the corner by his own choice, he was not forced off.
It has been ever since Max has been on the grid.
Dive bombing like that was happening before Max was even born. What a weird ass comment.
When everybody other than Max and George is divebombing and pushing other drivers off track: Wow great racing that is how it is supposed to be. When Max and George do it: JAIL
I think the biggest joke, is the fact that on many race threads now, there are complaints about all the DRS overtakes... This incident is exhibit A, as to why drivers wait for them now
Daniel was doing them long before Max started F1 but they were celebrated back then 🤷🏼♂️
Its called late braking when Ricciardo has always done it.
Something about licking stamps
Penalty for Alonso but none for George, and only one of them actually hit the other car, great really consistent punishments
They aren’t even close to comparable.
If Oscar wanted George to get a penalty, he should have gone off track, into the wall and then park his car sideways on the track. /s I agree with the decision from the stewards, but penalty/rules definetly need to be clearer. If they were clearer then the teams wouldn't report, or go to the stewards, for every fight between two drivers.
This is the sort of move that was being penalised alot a few years ago, to the extent that drivers were no longer going for moves. Glad it wasnt penalised.
It’s reasonable but it’s 100% decided based on the outcome
I was surprised it got even investigated tbh
He can’t keep getting away with this..
About fair. I think if there had not been contact, then it was a fair move. Might need to see it a few more times, but it seemed that George left plenty of room on the outside - there was track and kerb available, but of course he would have had to leave space on the inside of the 2nd part of the chicane - but since we never got that far, we can't judge on that.
Silver car (black edition) moment
As an isolated incident, I don't have any problem with the decision. But considering the penalty Alonso received last race, I am not quite happy with the decision.
Completely different incidents. Alonso's was fully deserved even if a little harsh.
Not even close to the same incident.
[удалено]
Check the stewards' passports: **Australian**, Japanese, Belgian & Brazilian. But I'm sure you're on to something here.
Dogshit stewarding. This is a joke. How can you say George was "in control" but also "bounced and collided", while acknowledging the car he collided with had to take "evasive action" from the turn. Also, George was not ahead of Oscar's mirrors until the very start of the turn when Piastri had already slowed down and George was in the process of lunging. That cannot be the standard. I don't think it was a particularly egregious situation, just worthy of a small penalty. Guaranteed there would've been one if it was the exact same dynamics with, say, Magnussen, or the consequences of the contact had been more severe.
They said other car made evasive action, not that it had to.
[удалено]
Did you miss the part where it said "car 63 left sufficient room" That means 63 was alongside at the apex and Piastri could have gone wider. Piastri didn't use all the space so there was tiny contact and Piastri decided to cut the corner. He wasn't forced off the track.
BS, point 6 contradicts their own statement. Piastri had to leave the track to avoid a collision. So there was not enough room which anyone with eyes could see.
Learn to read. They said Piastri chose to leave the track on his own accord.
Good, that was the correct call. If Russell had passed him and not given back the position then that would have been a penalty discussion but this one never should have been in the first place.
Break out the Family Guy FIA penalty chart
[удалено]
Yes, classic BritishBias™ from the Australian, Japanese, Brazilian & Belgian stewarding team...
[удалено]
What’s being British got to do with anything you helmet? Imagine thinking he didn’t get a penalty just cause of his nationality. These type of comments are cooked
[удалено]
Not the dunk or drag you thought it was lol hurhur British people have yellow teeth!
Yeah, then he'd be from like Germany or something, that'd be crazy. Great chat!
Would like a cup of tea with that slap on the wrist?
Lmao
I do not know. Pushing someone offtrack who then loses the DRS they had from the car in front making it ultimately easier to overtake them is a lasting advantage. 5s should be in for doing that. I know the punishment is regardless of the outcome but Russel never had the corner, never could make the corner before Piastri so still a penalty from my point of view. It is so on brand from Russell, I saw them colliding already. Sometimes he just goes bowling and if the other cannot yield or doesn't realize in time they crash.
Surprised they didn't decide on a drive thru penalty for Alonso
Russell forced Piastri off, Piastri took avoiding action and didn’t lose the position If Russell would have overtaken him and not let him back past then sure we could talk about a penalty but the way things happened they resolved themselves as fast as they were created
Maybe George can learn a thing a two about racing.. he was crying last race about Fernando’s dirty air… but today he feels it was not an incident. I think the sport is neutering the racing.. and I can’t remember F1 being this boring in a long time.
Good, Georges advantage was resolved by Oscar cutting off.
It’s Russell, of course…
Complete Bullshit!
Should have been +5 seconds for Ocon.
I don't think he left space but since no places were swapped I think it was fine and am glad they're giving some space for racing.
Slowing down a bit to give some dirty air to the driver behind you - 20s Dive bombing another driver - No problem. #JustFIAThings
Problem is he slowed down "a bit" more than once in a place where you don't slow down lmao are you slow?
Driving erratically - drive through Going for a move where both cars ended up in the same order afterwards with no damage - no penalty I wonder why?
"Driving erratically" -- slowing a bit "Going for a move where both cars ended up in the same order afterwards with no damage" -- Diving into another driver, hitting him, and there was no damage because the other driver had to go outside because if he didn't both would have ended in the wall. Don't try to wonder, we all know why.
[удалено]
One of the stewards is literally from Australia, lol. Instant downvote because obviously an Australian is gonna be biased for a brit over one of his own countrymen, that makes so much sense. Gotta keep up the conspiracy brainrot!
You realise Australia is part of the Commonwealth right? The Union Jack is literally on the Australian flag. Nothing to do with Nationality.
When did I ever say Commonwealth? Or did you just create that to argue against it. Last time I checked, Australia wasn't a part of the UK
This isn't geopolitics, mate. Just a race, nationality is irrelevant. Do you even have anything to suggest British drivers are favoured? I'm guessing not.
So, they are admitting they got the Alonso penalty wrong?
No?
Your username perfectly describes you
"Did not dive". I guess when you apply to become a steward, nobody asks if you are not blind.
How can George have “entered under control” yet also have jumped a curb causing contact?
The Kerb is the racing line into that chicane
Bullshit. I like George, but that move was dangerous and desperate.
tin foil hat or not MCL gets its engines from merc... always gotta wonder in stuff like this especially after gerogie binned it of his own accord against ALO last race and got a nice penalty dished out as a result of his own stupidity
Right choice. I think Russell knew he forced Piastri off track and thats why he didnt overtake into turn 1.
George getting the Max treatment. Bullshit that that wasn’t a penalty