Why F1’s inconvenient penalties have to stay

Some penalties are inconvenient but necessary. Was it annoying that Formula 1 fans didn’t get to see Max Verstappen start alongside title rival Lewis Hamilton in the 2021 Qatar Grand Prix? Yes. Was his five-place grid penalty correct? Also yes.

There seems to be a feeling in some quarters that penalties should be overlooked for the entertainment factor, particularly with one of the most engaging F1 championship fights in years heading towards its climax. On the face of it, that sounds appealing – we all want to see the main protagonists battle it out on-track – but it’s a very flawed position.

Any sport, particularly one with as long (and controversial) a history as F1 needs rules to ensure, among other things, as level a playing field as possible and to prevent competitors overstepping the mark.

Some have suggested that F1 is over-regulated and to a point that is true, but you have to acknowledge why that is the case. Over its seven decades, there are countless examples of teams or drivers pushing the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable, whether it be technical controversies, on-track clashes or matters involving safety. Many have forced decisions that have then become enshrined in the rulebook. That’s how sports react to new challenges and is one of the reasons things shift over time.

In defence of: Tightly-defined regulations in F1

Whether or not you agree with a particular rule is not the point at this stage – the important thing is that everyone knows the name of the game at a given moment, which is why recent events have thrown up some issues.

Let’s deal with the easy one first. It was right that Verstappen got his penalty in Q3 for not backing off under double waved yellow flags. It doesn’t matter if the marshal waving them made an error (as Red Bull boss Christian Horner suggested, before making a subsequent apology) or not (as F1 race director Michael Masi contended it was justified). The fact is that drivers are meant to slow down or be prepared to stop if yellows are out.

Verstappen's Q3 yellow flag penalty was only applied shortly before the Qatar Grand Prix

Photo by: Jerry Andre / Motorsport Images

It’s a long-established rule that drivers have often played fast and loose with, in F1 and all the way down to grassroots racing. There have been some near misses in UK club events this year, leading to suggestions that any instances of marshals being on track should be covered by safety cars because yellows aren’t enough. To allow drivers at the top of the sport to get away with ignoring them, even in error, would set a bad example, quite apart from the safety risk.

There’s another matter of principle to consider. Going back to the point about all sports needing rules, they need to be applied consistently (more of that shortly!). You can’t just say, ‘That would spoil the fight at the front, so we’ll let that one go’ because that would be unfair on those who did play fair, in this case by backing off.

And where do you draw the line? Which rules are you prepared to overlook for the sake of the entertainment factor? Can someone turn up with a bigger engine?

As if to try and avoid setting a dangerous precedent – that it’s OK to run someone off the road like that ­– while at the same time not allowing a review of the incident, the FIA suggested to the drivers that different decisions could happen with different stewards

That last question is, of course, an exaggeration. But the point is that nobody would expect the tech rules to be ‘tweaked’ or relaxed at the end of a campaign. If anything, when competitors are pushing to the absolute limit in the closing stages of a tight championship contest, the referees need to be even more on the case. Why it took the stewards in Qatar so long to confirm the grid penalties is a different matter – something that does need to be addressed.

Analysis: 10 things we learned from the Qatar Grand Prix

From an enthusiast’s point of view, it was great that Verstappen wasn’t given a penalty for running Hamilton off the road while they battled for the lead of the Sao Paulo GP. Hamilton recovered, got the job done and went on to record one of his most memorable victories. That’s much more satisfying than if the climax of Hamilton’s charge through the field had been him inheriting the win because the Red Bull driver was given a penalty that dropped him behind.

But, if we’re honest, Verstappen probably should have been censured. First of all, drivers – including Hamilton (think 2020 Austrian GP) ­– have been penalised for far more mild or debatable moves. It seemed pretty clear that Verstappen had little intention of taking the left-hander normally, even before the onboard footage became available.

Analysis: Why F1's stewards denied Mercedes a right of review into Verstappen's Brazil defence 

As if to try and avoid setting a dangerous precedent – that it’s OK to run someone off the road like that ­– while at the same time not allowing a review of the incident, the FIA suggested to the drivers that different decisions could happen with different stewards.

Not penalising Verstappen's defensive move on Hamilton in Brazil left F1 drivers unsure where they stood when it came to wheel-to-wheel racing in Qatar

Photo by: Charles Coates / Motorsport Images

Quite apart from leaving the drivers confused about where they stood (and therefore not helping to outline the rules of the game), this could also be used to make a strong case for having permanent stewards…

Insight: How F1 has penalised pushing off-track incidents 

That ambiguity is also not firm enough given Verstappen’s on-track behaviour. He has toned down some of the more wild excesses of his early F1 campaigns (remember the moves under braking that upset other drivers?), but he has so far shown little intention of giving Hamilton racing room when they go wheel-to-wheel.

Just this season, Verstappen has forced Hamilton to take avoiding action or go off track at Imola, Barcelona, Monza and Interlagos. Hamilton was adjudged to be at fault for the Silverstone crash, in which neither driver decided to avoid the accident, and Verstappen also picked up a penalty for their Italian GP shunt.

PLUS: How Verstappen is ruining his F1 title battle with Hamilton 

All the other instances have been allowed to slide, perhaps as part of the ‘Play-On’ clause that we’ve just heard about. That might be acceptable if the rivals involved were equally marginal in their moves but mostly it’s been Verstappen operating in – if we’re being generous – the grey area. He still has yet to show he can be clean with Hamilton, unless you count him not tanking into the back of the Mercedes when it did decisively come past in Interlagos.

Saying 'play on' in Brazil and then doubling down by refusing the right to review on the most minor technicality, then also refusing to make a clear call on what's acceptable suggests the FIA is basically refusing to admit to a mistake and tacitly making F1 potentially more dangerous by holding onto that position.

Why is this important? Aside from the safety aspect, it’s also significant because it’s looking increasingly likely that the championship fight will go down to an Abu Dhabi showdown. If last weekend’s result was repeated in Saudi Arabia, Verstappen would have a two-point lead going into the final GP.

If he was then able to lead Abu Dhabi from the front, as he did in 2020, there’d be no problem. But what if Hamilton and Mercedes are quick again and start from pole? At which point, might Verstappen be tempted to think a clash would be better than watching Hamilton disappear into the distance for an eighth crown?

Hamilton's recent upturn in form has put Verstappen under pressure

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

This is surely what Mercedes boss Toto Wolff was referring to when he talked of the Interlagos decision potentially inviting “dirtier driving”.

“We don't want to have a messy situation in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, because that would be really bad,” he said.

By being lenient with Verstappen, F1 runs the risk of a 1990 Suzuka or 1997 Jerez-style finale. While both crashes made headlines, it hardly showed the sport in the best light. And those moments were not fitting ways for such engaging title fights to finish.

If Hamilton and Mercedes are quick again and start from pole in Abu Dhabi, might Verstappen be tempted to think a clash would be better than watching Hamilton disappear into the distance for an eighth crown?

We all hope to avoid that situation in 2021. Hamilton and Verstappen have both been brilliant this year and their rivalry deserves a proper conclusion.

Analysis: Ranking the top 10 rivalries in F1 history 

F1 allowed Ayrton Senna to keep the 1990 title following the Japanese GP outrage. It removed Michael Schumacher from second in the 1997 standings after his (failed) clash with Jacques Villeneuve in the European GP. Would it strip Verstappen of a crown if he employed the same ‘tactics’ in 2021? Is that a call it wants to have to make?

Given how long it took to make a decision on two yellow-flag qualifying infringements in Qatar, probably not.

Will the Hamilton vs Verstappen fight have a clean conclusion?

Photo by: Steve Etherington / Motorsport Images