Carlos Sainz, driver for Williams, viewed the reversal of his penalty at the Dutch Grand Prix as a pivotal moment in Formula 1 amid ongoing disputes about race adjudication. The incident occurred at Turn 1 in Zandvoort when Sainz’s car collided with rookie Liam Lawson’s Racing Bulls vehicle during an attempted outside overtake.
Initially, Sainz received a 10-second time penalty and two penalty points, as stewards ruled Lawson had right of way, since his car was ahead at the corner apex. Williams challenged the decision, and after a protest, the stewards removed the penalty points, although Sainz’s finishing position remained unchanged due to his time deficit.
Calls for Permanent Stewards to Improve Consistency Across the F1 Calendar
Speaking before the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, Sainz expressed satisfaction with the successful appeal, calling it a “breakthrough” because it marked the first time he could introduce new evidence and secure a hearing. He stressed the importance of the system in place being accessible for clear-cut cases like his.
However, Sainz also criticized the current stewarding system, which relies on volunteers who officiate on a race-by-race basis rather than throughout the entire season. He advocated strongly for appointing full-time stewards to enhance consistency and reliability in officiating.
“We tried before and we never managed in other teams, so it shows that the mechanism is there and is there for a reason, which I’m finally happy that we can use that mechanism in the case where it’s black and white like it was in my case.” Carlos Sainz, Williams
“As a group, FIA, if we all agree, that should be the way forward where at least two of the three stewards are permanent and we have one rotational for teaching purposes and sporting fairness purposes, to have always one rotational but two permanent,”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
Sainz emphasized that financial concerns should not prevent this change, pointing out the sport’s ample resources to fund full-time steward salaries.
“We shouldn’t care about who pays because there’s enough money in the sport to pay those salaries, the same way that there’s enough money in the sport to pay the salaries of all the other people. So if that’s the right way forward, I cannot believe we’re talking about those salaries.”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
Challenges in Achieving Consensus and Clarifying Racing Guidelines
Despite Sainz’s calls for increased professionalism among stewards, he acknowledged that not all stakeholders agree with the proposal, which has delayed its implementation. Moreover, he identified a need for improvements in the existing racing guidelines that are intended to clarify driver responsibilities during incidents but have not fully succeeded.
“Not everyone agrees the same way,”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
He explained that although the guidelines aim to define liability clearly, their application often falls short in live racing scenarios, leading to confusion and inconsistent decisions.
“I think the guidelines have been an effort to make it very clear for the stewards and the drivers to know who is likely to have responsibility for the incident, but I’m not going to lie, I think they haven’t had the impact that we all wished they had in terms of making it clearer.”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
Sainz’s teammate, Alex Albon, echoed this uncertainty.
“I still don’t really know how to properly race.”
Alex Albon, Williams
The Role of Subjectivity and Common Sense in Race Incident Judgments
Sainz suggested that one source of confusion is the inherently subjective nature of some incidents, complicated by guidelines that serve as recommendations rather than strict rules. He emphasized that the term “guidelines” implies flexibility and discretion rather than rigid instructions.
“We cannot forget the fact of a very important word that is ‘guidelines’,”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
He clarified that, for example, there is no rule forbidding an outside pass, but if a driver attempts it and causes contact without fault on their part, the decision should reflect common sense and fairness.
“There’s not a rule that says, ‘I cannot go around the outside of a corner’. There’s a guideline to say if you are at the outside of the corner, you’re very likely to be, and you don’t back out of it and the two cars collide, it’s very likely that you will be the car penalised, but it’s a guideline, not a rule.”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
He cited the Zandvoort race as an example where steering control loss by the inside car contributed to the crash, and the outside overtaker’s move should not be automatically penalized in such cases.
Sainz reflected on his own career experience, noting that his decisions on track are driven more by a sense of clean racing and fairness than by technical reading of guidelines.
“I’ve been racing my whole life, and in the car, if I’m honest, I don’t think about the guidelines. I think more about clean racing and what I think is fair, and I go by muscle memory of my last 20 years of racing, and I always try and keep it fair.”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
He affirmed the need for stewards to apply common sense, especially when he feels he has not committed a fault.
“But when there’s a touch, a crash that I know I haven’t done anything wrong about, I know that in these cases you need to use common sense.”
Carlos Sainz, Williams
How Sainz’s Perspective Could Influence Future Stewarding and Race Management
This episode, combined with Sainz’s forthright advocacy, shines a spotlight on ongoing tensions in Formula 1’s race incident adjudication system. The call for permanent stewards aims to reduce subjectivity and provide consistent, season-long oversight, potentially leading to clearer rulings and fewer contentious penalties.
As this debate continues, the FIA and teams will likely face pressure to address both steward appointments and the clarity of racing guidelines. Future races may see gradual adjustments reflecting these concerns, striving for fairness and better alignment between rules and race dynamics. Sainz’s position as director of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association further amplifies his influence in these discussions, making the outcome of these reforms highly significant for the sport’s competitive integrity.
