During the Formula 1 Dutch Grand Prix, Williams driver Carlos Sainz Jr. was given a ten-second penalty and handed two penalty points on his FIA Super License for causing a collision with Liam Lawson. When he was notified of the decision, Sainz predictably voiced his displeasure with the ruling.
In a decision released on Saturday, Sainz’s frustration proved fruitful.
Williams filed a petition requesting a Right of Review under Article 14 of the FIA Sporting Code. Following a pair of hearings on Friday, race stewards ultimately held that the collision in question was a racing incident, removing the two penalty points from Sainz’s FIA Super License.
You can see the collision in question here, as well as Sainz’s immediate reaction:
When informed of the penalty during the race, Sainz asked his team “[w]ho gets a penalty? Me? Are you joking? You’re joking. I mean, it’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in my life.”
As a matter of procedure under Article 14 of the FIA Sporting Regulations, the first point to be decided was whether Williams had produced any “new” evidence that was not available to race officials at the time of their initial determination. Specifically, Article 14.1.1. requires that the team requesting the Right of Review submit evidence that was “significant,” “relevant,” “new,” and “unavailable to the party seeking the review [Williams] at the time of the original decision.”
Williams submitted three pieces of new evidence: Footage from the 360-degree camera on both Sainz’s car and Lawson’s car, and testimony from Sainz himself.
As outlined in the initial decision, race stewards reviewed “video, timing, telemetry, team radio and in-car video evidence” when handing the penalties to Sainz at the Dutch Grand Prix. That evidence did not include the 360-degree camera views from both Sainz’s car and Lawson’s car, nor did they include Sainz’s testimony.
Race stewards noted in their decision on Saturday that while they had reservations regarding Sainz’s testimony — and whether that was “significant” under the guidelines outlined in Article 14.1.1 — they held that the 360-degree camera footage from both cars satisfied “all of the Review Criteria.”
Therefore, the stewards decided to “re-examine the Decision.”
At the conclusion of the initial hearing, the race officials commenced a second hearing to re-examine the initial decision. Williams “referred to the available video evidence which appeared to show [Sainz] attempting to overtake [Lawson] on the outside of the long radius turn 1 and the collision between the two cars occuring between the apex and the exit.”
According to Williams, Sainz “was entitled to attempt to race alongside [Lawson] through turn 1,” and the team described the collision as a “racing incident.”
Furthermore, Williams was not seeking any penalty for Lawson, just to overturn the penalty handed down to Sainz. As noted in the decision, Williams “were at pains to make clear that they were not suggestion that [Lawson] should be penalized, only that the penalty to [Sainz] was unjustified.”
Sainz “acknowledged that he was not strictly entitled to space on the outside of turn 1 and that [Lawson] could have used the whole of the track at the exit forcing [Sainz] to yield or take evasive action and go off track.” The Williams driver testified that he would have been required to give a position back if the went off the track and rejoined in front of Lawson, but that what he was not ready for was Lawson “having a moment mid corner and colliding with his car.”
A team representative from Visa Cash App Racing Bulls, relying on the Driving Standards, argued that Sainz “had no right to space on the outside” but that Lawson “had nonetheless left significant space for [Sainz].” Lawson testified as well, denying that he lost control of his car mid corner and said only that he incurred a “slight snap of the type which occurred is not unusual when cars are racing closely side by side.”
Ultimately, race officials agreed with Williams’ description of the collision as a “racing incident.” Finding that the collision was “caused by a momentary loss of control by [Lawson,” stewards found that “no driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for that collision.”
Regarding the penalties handed down to Sainz — a ten-second time penalty and two points on his FIA Super License — officials noted that the Williams driver had already served the time penalty. Noting that they have “no power to remedy that served time penalty by amending” the race finishing order, the stewards pointed to the fact that the gap from Sainz to the car that finished ahead of him in the final race classification (Lawson, as luck would have it) was 17 seconds.
However, regarding the two penalty points, the race officials determined that those would be removed.
That drops Sainz’s total number of penalty points down to two. Those were handed out at the Bahrain Grand Prix this season when race officials judged that the Williams driver forced Oliver Bearman off the track.
Those two penalty points will expire next April.
