FIA clarifies Verstappen’s Reduced Penalty Was Due to Opening L

FIA Clarifies Verstappen’s Reduced Penalty Was Due to Opening Lap Chaos, Not… read more

Reigning Formula 1 World Champion Max Verstappen was at the center of a controversial decision during the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, after a first-lap incident led to him receiving a time penalty. While many in the paddock voiced strong opinions about the ruling, including Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner, the FIA stood by its call. The governing body later issued a detailed explanation, clarifying why Verstappen avoided a harsher penalty—unlike fellow driver Liam Lawson, who was penalized more severely for a similar infraction during the same race.

Verstappen started the race in pole position in Jeddah, but his aggressive defense against Oscar Piastri in the opening moments of the race triggered scrutiny. The Dutch driver was investigated for leaving the track and gaining an advantage at Turn 1 during a side-by-side battle with the McLaren driver. After reviewing the incident, stewards handed Verstappen a five-second time penalty, which he served during a pit stop on lap 15.

The ruling immediately sparked backlash, particularly as Liam Lawson—Verstappen’s former teammate—received a 10-second time penalty for a comparable incident later in the race. Lawson, currently racing for the Racing Bulls team, was battling Alpine’s Jack Doohan when he too went off track and gained a position. Unlike Verstappen, however, Lawson did not return the position he had gained, resulting in the harsher penalty. This dropped him from P11 to P12 in the final standings.

Christian Horner was seen presenting printed images to the stewards in a passionate attempt to contest the decision, arguing that the penalty was unfair. Nevertheless, the FIA maintained their stance, explaining that Verstappen’s penalty was actually mitigated due to specific circumstances.

In an official statement regarding the Verstappen-Piastri incident, the FIA said: “Ordinarily, the baseline penalty for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage is 10 seconds,” referencing the standard procedure for such violations. However, they added a crucial detail that worked in Verstappen’s favor: “Given that this was a lap one, turn one incident, we considered that to be a mitigating circumstance and imposed a five-second time penalty instead.”

The FIA typically shows leniency in first-lap incidents due to the close-quarter racing and higher likelihood of unavoidable contact or mistakes. These scenarios are treated with some flexibility, as long as they do not involve reckless behavior or significant advantages being deliberately retained.

On the other hand, the FIA’s explanation of Lawson’s penalty highlighted a critical difference in context and execution. “While he completed the overtake before Turn 1, the speed that he carried into the turn meant that he could not navigate Turn 1 without leaving the track,” the statement said. “He therefore could not successfully overtake Car 7 [Doohan] without leaving the track and thereby gained a lasting advantage which he did not give back.”

Because Lawson didn’t return the place he gained, the stewards decided there were no mitigating factors, and so the standard 10-second penalty was enforced.

The discrepancy in penalties led to speculation among fans and commentators, with some claiming Verstappen received preferential treatment. However, the FIA’s transparency in publishing detailed justifications for each penalty helped clarify the decisions.

While the debate continues over consistency in stewarding, the FIA’s explanation underlines the importance of context in each racing incident. In this case, Verstappen’s reduced penalty was not due to favoritism, but because it occurred during the chaotic conditions of the race’s opening lap, which stewards traditionally handle with more nuance.