100 replies to this topic

[Wuzak]

George Russell was penalised for rejoining the track unsafely after reversing out of the escape road into oncoming traffic.

 

For this he was penalised 5 seconds to be added to his race time.

 

Is such a penalty fair, too harsh or too lenient? 

 

It seems to be a very dangerous situation, which could have ended a lot worse.

 

 

A few years ago Sebastian Vettel was given a 5s penalty for rejoining unsafely. So it would seem to be consistent.

 

However, in Vettel's case he outbraked himself, and went across the grass and back onto the track, just in front of Hamilton. It lasted a second or two.

 

Russell was up the escape road, had to selected reverse and then back out. He had time to assess the situation and act accordingly.

[AustinF1]

Five seconds for that was a joke and ended up not being a penalty at all. It was an extremely dangerous move and there should be a meaningful consequence for such actions. I've been saying for years that this boilerplate 5 second penalty is completely inadequate and the stewards should have the ability to assess final classification position penalties, among other good ideas I've heard from others.

[Sardukar]

"I couldn't see" is not a reason to go back onto track whenever he wants, if anything it makes the entire situation worse and even more unsafe. Drive through or grid penalty next race imo.

[Mishvili]

Don’t they have team radio to tell him where other cars are?

[TheFish]

Didn't Vettel and Stroll get 5 second penalties for similar things in Monza?

 

Seems to be consistent, so I voted fair penalty. A non-penalty penalty though, F1 seem quite good at them.

[chrcol]

They should be strongly discouraging cars from rejoining the track like that, so yes I feel 5s was too low.

[pacificquay]

Martin Brundle said in commentary said Russell would not have been able to see so had no option but to go for it.

[TheFish]

Martin Brundle said in commentary said Russell would not have been able to see so had no option but to go for it.

 

That's nonsense tbf, they have engineers who can act as their eyes in situations like this.

[New Britain]

Martin Brundle said in commentary said Russell would not have been able to see so had no option but to go for it.

 

No option - except not 'to go for it'!

[Chillimeister]

That's nonsense tbf, they have engineers who can act as their eyes in situations like this.

 

Indeed. Imagine that he'd been in a Ferrari though ... 

[Lights]

I think Russell was very lucky to only receive a 5 second penalty.

 

Let's start by saying that I fully understand the arguments regarding his limited visibility. In that angle he must have been blind. However he had some better options:

 

1. He could instructed his race engineer to give him a 'Go' whenever his race engineer knew from the timings that it would be safe.
2. He could have steered onto the outside line of the corner instead of cutting directly across the track as he did. He had plenty of space on the outside, reducing the chances for contact if another car arrives.

 

He didn't do either, so he did not take the concept of a safe rejoin very seriously in his hurry to get back into the race. Which is exactly the mentality that causes dangerous crashes and should be penalised.

Ultimately though as we know this 5 sec penalty didn't cost him anything.

 

Btw, in Monza 2019 Vettel got a 10 second stop & go penalty for the combination of rejoining unsafely and causing a collision. So Russell really got away with it here, he's very fortunate to end up 5th.

 

Edited by Lights, 29 May 2023 - 07:11.

[RedRabbit]

It's madness that Russell gets 5s for something blatantly dangerous, while Hulkenburg gets 10s for not serving a penalty correctly.

Then Sainz and Stroll get a B&W flag for driving standards after bumping other cars, while Hulkenburg gets an 5s penalty for the same thing.

Stewards were really inconsistent this race.

[ensign14]

It's madness that Russell gets 5s for something blatantly dangerous, while Hulkenburg gets 10s for not serving a penalty correctly.

 

I've said it before - F1 focusses on objective penalties because there is no argument about them.  You either are stationary for 5s or you are not.  You are in your grid slot or you are not.

 

The stewards get paralysed with fear with things like chopping because it depends on informed opinion.  And evidently the stewards are not confident that they are competent to rule on such things.

[Rumblestrip]

It made me think of Hamilton at Imola 2021 when he reversed out. In that case he explicitly had the help of the team over the radio to let him know what was going on.
https://www.planetf1...-reverse-legal/

 

Russell just appears to have stuck it in reverse and hoped he didn't hit anything...

[TheFish]

 

Btw, in Monza 2019 Vettel got a 10 second stop & go penalty for the combination of rejoining unsafely and causing a collision. So Russell really got away with it here, he's very fortunate to end up 5th.

 

 

I misremembered, I thought they both got 5 second penalties for that incident. Given Vettel got a 10 second stop and go I'd say this penalty was too light.

[flyboym3]

Yeah its seemed too light but luckily noone was hurt.
Russell didn't really seem to care about the dangerous situation. It came across as so selfish that if cars were coming he was still to hell with it and expected them all to brake for him.
Its not as if the wdc or race win was on the line for him either.

Not sure he's fit to be gpda chairman when he's pulling lunatic desperate moves.

[SenorSjon]

We would have a 15 minute uninterrupted radio from Russell if it was the other way around.

Cars have screens, a reversing camera shouldn't be too hard to implement.

Edited by SenorSjon, 29 May 2023 - 09:00.

[ANF]

I need to see the onboard from Pérez's car.

[Ali623]

I think Russell was very lucky to only receive a 5 second penalty.

 

Let's start by saying that I fully understand the arguments regarding his limited visibility. In that angle he must have been blind. However he had some better options:

 

1. He could instructed his race engineer to give him a 'Go' whenever his race engineer knew from the timings that it would be safe.
2. He could have steered onto the outside line of the corner instead of cutting directly across the track as he did. He had plenty of space on the outside, reducing the chances for contact if another car arrives.

 

He didn't do either, so he did not take the concept of a safe rejoin very seriously in his hurry to get back into the race. Which is exactly the mentality that causes dangerous crashes and should be penalised.

Ultimately though as we know this 5 sec penalty didn't cost him anything.

 

Btw, in Monza 2019 Vettel got a 10 second stop & go penalty for the combination of rejoining unsafely and causing a collision. So Russell really got away with it here, he's very fortunate to end up 5th.

 

 

Vettel's Monza one was worse than Russell's in my opinion, he literally drove back onto the circuit in clear view of other cars coming, was no excuse for that. But I agree that Russell got off way too lightly with a 5s penalty

[Muppetmad]

I'd also like to see Pérez's onboard; given that yellow flags were being waved (we can see this from Russell's onboard), I'd be interested to see how he approached the corner and whether he was suitably cautious. To be clear, I think Russell deserved a penalty, but I'd want to see the full picture before judging precisely which one was warranted.

[GentlemanDriver091]

Not sure he's fit to be gpda chairman when he's pulling lunatic desperate moves.

He’s doing it every other race and always has an excuse, it’s never his fault.

How does this guy not have the maximum penalty points on his license yet? He worse than Stroll.

[Ivanhoe]

I'd also like to see Pérez's onboard; given that yellow flags were being waved (we can see this from Russell's onboard), I'd be interested to see how he approached the corner and whether he was suitably cautious. To be clear, I think Russell deserved a penalty, but I'd want to see the full picture before judging precisely which one was warranted.

It was a single yellow, no? So Perez ‘only’ had to reduce speed and be prepared to change direction. The only way he could have prevented a collision was to stop his car, which he would have been required to be prepared to do so under double yellow.

[Muppetmad]

It was a single yellow, no? So Perez ‘only’ had to reduce speed and be prepared to change direction. The only way he could have prevented a collision was to stop his car, which he would have been required to be prepared to do so under double yellow.

That's a fair point, it was a single yellow as Russell approached (and then went off). I wonder though if it became a double yellow when Russell reversed back and tried to rejoin.

[TomNokoe]

I found it strange the incident wasn't replayed in any capacity until way after the penalty was given. Makes me wonder if the stewards were even aware of the collision, given their propensity to make decisions based solely on the world feed.

Also, Russell "isn't that type of driver".

[pdac]

It's this continued lax attitude to rules associated with safety that means we don't have people like Bianchi around anymore. Fine to be light on rules that are more about general sporting behaviour, but those which are there to protect everyone should be very severe in my opinion.

[southernstars]

He’s doing it every other race and always has an excuse, it’s never his fault.

How does this guy not have the maximum penalty points on his license yet? He worse than Stroll.

 

Because he has a weird penchant for the stewards just ignoring whatever he does. That collision with Schumacher in Singapore was an absolute shocker from the stewards, should have been a slam-dunk penalty, and they didn't even investigate.

[Nobody]

We would have a 15 minute uninterrupted radio from Russell if it was the other way around.

 

funny cos its true

[Gareth]

I think Russell was very lucky to only receive a 5 second penalty.

Let's start by saying that I fully understand the arguments regarding his limited visibility. In that angle he must have been blind. However he had some better options:

• He could instructed his race engineer to give him a 'Go' whenever his race engineer knew from the timings that it would be safe.
• He could have steered onto the outside line of the corner instead of cutting directly across the track as he did. He had plenty of space on the outside, reducing the chances for contact if another car arrives.

He didn't do either, so he did not take the concept of a safe rejoin very seriously in his hurry to get back into the race. Which is exactly the mentality that causes dangerous crashes and should be penalised.
Ultimately though as we know this 5 sec penalty didn't cost him anything.

Btw, in Monza 2019 Vettel got a 10 second stop & go penalty for the combination of rejoining unsafely and causing a collision. So Russell really got away with it here, he's very fortunate to end up 5th.

Oops, I should have read the thread before voting.

I voted fair because, whilst it’s lighter than I think I’d want, I thought it was consistent with past decisions.

The point about unsafe rejoin + collision is a really good one though and in hindsight I’d change my vote.

[timmy bolt]

This here makes it look like had Russell just stayed left probably would have been fine for Perez to get through. It's not actually the reversing that was the issue.

I thought at the time Russell got away light and this looks that way even more.

That said thought Perez got away with overtaking off track and "giving the place back" routine as well (not that two wrongs make a right and all that).

[HighwayStar]

I think a 5 second penalty is sufficient punishment for the act of rejoining the track unsafely alone, but the subsequent collision with Perez should have been punished and comparison with the penalties meted out to Vettel and Stroll at Monza in 2019 makes me think that Russell was not only given a lenient penalty but that he was in effect penalised for the wrong offence (for rejoining unsafely rather than causing a collision). I think Russell was fortunate that Perez was effectively out of contention by this stage of the race and didn't lose any points as a result of the incident. I'm not sure I want to imagine what this thread would have been like if he'd collided with Verstappen!

[Wuzak]

That said thought Perez got away with overtaking off track and "giving the place back" routine as well (not that two wrongs make a right and all that).

 

Yes, that one was a bit odd.

 

I guess outbraking ones self is equivalent to ceding position now.

[Wuzak]

I think a 5 second penalty is sufficient punishment for the act of rejoining the track unsafely alone, but the subsequent collision with Perez should have been punished and comparison with the penalties meted out to Vettel and Stroll at Monza in 2019 makes me think that Russell was not only given a lenient penalty but that he was in effect penalised for the wrong offence (for rejoining unsafely rather than causing a collision). I think Russell was fortunate that Perez was effectively out of contention by this stage of the race and didn't lose any points as a result of the incident. I'm not sure I want to imagine what this thread would have been like if he'd collided with Verstappen!

 

What has been the harshest penalty given for causing a collision in the past few years?

 

Hamilton for hitting Verstappen at Silverstone in 2021, a 10s time penalty?

 

I think Russell got 5s for taking Sainz out at the first corner of the USGP last year.

[MKSixer]

The more I are exposed to regarding, "George Russel, Formula One Driver", the less impressed I am with him.  From the radio calls with regard to HAM, the comments and his increasing catalog of dodgy moves, he's looking more sketch all the time.

Edited by MKSixer, 29 May 2023 - 12:19.

[MasterOfCoin]

He was very lucky to only get 5 seconds.....Lewis got a drive thru in 2011 Hungary....

[Primo]

It is hard to penalize someone for what's on their mind, if that is not known at the time. Had Russel exclaimed "I don't see anything so I just back out blind and hope for the best", in the radio, I assume his penalty would've been reflecting that. If I was a steward, I'd assume he did confere with pit wall. On the other hand, I also assume they have access to his radio traffic, so...
 

[Wuzak]

It is hard to penalize someone for what's on their mind, if that is not known at the time. Had Russel exclaimed "I don't see anything so I just back out blind and hope for the best", in the radio, I assume his penalty would've been reflecting that. If I was a steward, I'd assume he did confere with pit wall. On the other hand, I also assume they have access to his radio traffic, so...
 

 

Leclerc got penalised for blocking Norris though the stewards put the blame on the team because they did not inform him that someone was approaching on a hot lap.

 

So I don't see how the team assisting him, or not, should change the penalty.

[Wuzak]

It is hard to penalize someone for what's on their mind, if that is not known at the time. Had Russel exclaimed "I don't see anything so I just back out blind and hope for the best", in the radio, I assume his penalty would've been reflecting that. If I was a steward, I'd assume he did confere with pit wall. On the other hand, I also assume they have access to his radio traffic, so...
 

 

They don't give drive-throughs anymore.

 

It does boggle the mind that the penalty for having a tyre on the side line of the start box is the same as for recklessly rejoining the track.

 

Also, Russell was reported to the stewards for a starting irregularity, but no investigation was deemed necessary. That seemed odd too, since the starting issues are largely automated, and normally a notification is soon followed by a penalty..

[Myrvold]

Can I just say I don't think the thread title and poll fits very well together.

 

"Russells penalty: Was it too light?"
"Yes - it was a fair penalty"
"No - not severe enough"

 

I know there is a poll question in a smaller font, and the different poll options are explained. But when the question is "Was it too light". I would assume "yes" to be "yes it was too light".

[Rumblestrip]

The more I are exposed to regarding, "George Russel, Formula One Driver", the less impressed I am with him.  From the radio calls with regard to HAM, the comments and his increasing catalog of dodgy moves, he's looking more sketch all the time.

 

I don't think he's massively different from the majority of drivers on the grid tbh, he's just getting more media coverage now. I'd agree that he's been a touch aggressive in his moves recently but when the moves come off it makes a significant difference to his results. It's a risk/reward thing.

 

That's not to say that reversing in the rain at Monaco when he doesn't know what's behind him is to be applauded.

[Disgrace]

He was very lucky to only get 5 seconds.....Lewis got a drive thru in 2011 Hungary....

 

I think that just reflects the sort of penalties handed out in the past. Drive through penalties were once the most lenient available, now it's time penalties. He would probably get the latter now.

[Wuzak]

Can I just say I don't think the thread title and poll fits very well together.

 

"Russells penalty: Was it too light?"
"Yes - it was a fair penalty"
"No - not severe enough"

 

I know there is a poll question in a smaller font, and the different poll options are explained. But when the question is "Was it too light". I would assume "yes" to be "yes it was too light".

 

You have a point.

 

I'll do better next time.

[AustinF1]

No option - except not 'to go for it'!

Yep. Imagine telling the police officer at the crash scene that "I couldn't see, so I went for it"!

[pUs]

Wow. 10% actually thinks this wasn't even worthy of a penalty. Fascinating. 

[AustinF1]

Wow. 10% actually thinks this wasn't even worthy of a penalty. Fascinating. 

Yeah, beat me to it. I'd love to hear that rationalization.

[Zmeej]

The more I are exposed to regarding, "George Russel, Formula One Driver", the less impressed I am with him.  From the radio calls with regard to HAM, the comments and his increasing catalog of dodgy moves, he's looking more sketch all the time.

 

 

He's a jerk.

 

Whenever he qualifies and places in races higher than Lewis, I'm non-plussed. Whenever the opposite occurs, I'm happy.

Edited by Zmeej, 29 May 2023 - 17:37.

[Zmeej]

Can I just say I don't think the thread title and poll fits very well together.

 

"Russells penalty: Was it too light?"
"Yes - it was a fair penalty"
"No - not severe enough"

 

I know there is a poll question in a smaller font, and the different poll options are explained. But when the question is "Was it too light". I would assume "yes" to be "yes it was too light".

 

Very glad that Precisianism is alive and well here too.

[Sam1]

He is British what you expect when most of the panel are British or English speaking countries

[Myrvold]

Very glad that Precisianism is alive and well here too.

 

More that I know people only read headlines etc.

 

Thread title

Yes

No

 

Very easy to click wrong

[Zmeej]

He is British what you expect when most of the panel are British or English speaking countries

 

I'm not British, and English is my third language, but I'm a Precisian.

 

Can't really pull it off in French anymore, but I luxuriate in Ukrainian and English precisianism.

Edited by Zmeej, 29 May 2023 - 17:39.

[pdac]

He is British what you expect when most of the panel are British or English speaking countries

 

I'm British and I believe that this sort of infringement deserves very close to DSQ. It's a safety issue. The rule is there to protect people. You can't just let things like this go.