Why Vettel penalty backlash exposed what's wrong with F1

There are two ways of looking at what happened to Sebastian Vettel at the end of the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix.

1. Vettel's five-second penalty was wrong because we should let drivers race.

2. The FIA stewards did exactly the right thing in handing out a penalty for the way the Ferrari driver rejoined the track and forced Lewis Hamilton to take avoiding action.

Those two statements may appear to contradict each other, but they don't. In fact, they get to the crux of why F1 has found itself in a bit of a pickle over what happened in Montreal.

I was as upset as anyone else that the epic battle witnessed last Sunday did not build into the expected crescendo. Two weeks on from a Monaco race where the guy in second had a penalty to take at the flag, the lead battle in Canada between Vettel and Hamilton was effectively killed off by the penalty decision.

But the race had been superb up until that point. We had waited all season for the fight between Ferrari and Mercedes to come alive like this; for the two leading drivers to trade sector times and each make their own mistakes as they pushed each other harder and harder. And it was Vettel cracking that triggered the biggest controversy of the season so far.

Once the penalty was given it was game over. Vettel did not have the pace (nor the fuel) to put the hammer down and extend his advantage to negate the sanction, and Hamilton did not need to risk an overtake because he knew the win was his if he stayed close enough.

Fans watching at home and in the grandstands had to see Vettel cross the finish line first knowing full well that it was Hamilton who was the winner. That wasn't good for anybody.

It was the combination of the climax of a sensational race being taken away, the winner not crossing the line first, and Vettel's post-race theatrics on the team radio and in parc ferme that served to stir up emotions and prompt the kind of outcry F1 has not seen for a while.

In the absence of any official detail from the FIA about why the stewards had made the decision they did, it was all too easy to come to the conclusion that Vettel was the innocent party in all this and that his actions were far from being anything that warranted a punishment.

But this is where there are huge contradictions surrounding the matter - because what happened was both right and wrong.

Explanations for stewarding calls are important for a better understanding of why decisions are made, and stopping suggestions of hidden agendas or favouritism

On one side - based on F1's rules, historical precedents and penalty options available - the stewards were correct in handing out the five seconds, which was the smallest sanction available.

The rules are clear about what a driver needs to do if they leave the circuit. Article 27.3 of F1's sporting regulations states: "Should a car leave the track the driver may rejoin, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage."

In coming back on track in the way he did (remember there is no requirement at the first chicane to go around a 'slow down' bollard like at the other chicanes in Montreal), and then, according to steering wheel data, drifting out wide when the stewards felt he was in control and could have left more room, Vettel was viewed to have broken the rules.

After Max Verstappen was penalised in Japan last year for something similar when he understeered into the side of Kimi Raikkonen and forced the 2007 world champion wide following a moment at the chicane, it would have been inconsistent for Vettel to have avoided a penalty on this occasion.

The Vettel sanction is right in one way. But in a much wider sense, it is wrong that F1 has reached a point where Vettel's actions were in breach of the regulations in the first place - and also that he was punished in the way that he was.

The matter could have been dealt with differently. Why, if Vettel was in the wrong, could he not be offered the opportunity to give his advantage back by letting Hamilton through so the racing could resume? Or, in such a fine-margin case, why was it not automatically investigated afterwards instead of during the heat of the moment?

Even if the same result had been arrived at (which is what most likely would have occurred), those different approaches would probably have eased some of the fan anger at what happened. The lack of an immediate official detailed explanation about the reasons behind the ruling also caused people to interpret what had happened in ways that fitted with their own beliefs.

Some digging in the paddock after the race revealed the details about Vettel's secondary steering wheel movements and extra camera angles that were key to understanding why he was punished. But by then many people's opinions were already firmly set, and the television coverage was long over.

It was hugely unfair that the Montreal driver steward - Emanuele Pirro - was singled out by the F1 world feed

A few years ago, there was a period where lengthy stewards' explanations of the reasoning behind decisions were produced. And last year the late F1 race director Charlie Whiting began giving a regular Sunday night briefing to go through the events of the day and explain things in detail.

Having such explanations is important for a better understanding of why decisions are made, and they stop suggestions of hidden agendas or favouritism.

It was also hugely unfair that the Montreal driver steward - Emanuele Pirro - was singled out by the F1 world feed last week. It gave the wrong impression that he was central to the decision to punish Vettel. Any race steward sat in his seat, using the rule book in front of them and the precedents available, would have made the same decision.

All fans want to see is great racing in F1. They want to see great overtaking, the odd bit of wheel banging and titanic battles between the very best drivers gunning for victory.

A free-for-all with no driving standard rules would unlock the door to anarchy, but what has happened too much in recent years is that every single situation is micro-managed to deliver black-and-white rules that cover everything. Drivers and teams have pushed the FIA for more and more rules, and the governing body has followed their requests.

There have been constant demands for consistency too. So even if the stewards may sometimes feel that an incident should not be the subject of a penalty, if a precedent has been set then a failure to follow through would be wrong.

The consequence of all this is that teams and drivers now use the rule book to try to gain a competitive advantage - they often complain about what their rivals are up to in the hope that the stewards will impose a penalty. It was no different on Sunday when Hamilton complained that what Vettel did was wrong, even though he himself later admitted that he would have done the same thing if their positions had been reversed.

As Canada proved, F1 has ended up in a situation where there is no wriggle room left for interpretation. Letting an incident go as pure 'racing' cannot happen because of claims of 'inconsistency'. Almost every incident now must be investigated.

On Sunday night, Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto was asked if he felt that the Vettel decision had given grounds for F1 to have a wider rethink about the scope of its penalties and if a more open approach to letting the drivers race should be returned to.

"I think if there had been no wrong decision today we would not have argued [for] that," he said.

That can be turned around. By making the right decision in punishing Vettel, the FIA has actually exposed everything that's wrong with the way the rule book is hurting the racing.

It cost F1 a great spectacle in Canada. Let's hope the controversy becomes a catalyst for a new approach that can stop fans being robbed again.