This was the stewards reasoning:
Fact: Car 5 left the track, re-joined unsafely and forced another car off track.
Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Decision: 5 second time penalty (2 point awarded, 7 points in total for the 12 month period).
Reason: The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
WAS THIS THE CORRECT LEGAL DECISION BY THE STEWARDS?
The sporting regulations objectively say: “Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for an incident no penalty will be imposed.”
It is interesting to note that they say “driver” and not “car”. Vettel makes no major error in going onto the grass with it being his car, specifically rear tyres who failed him.
The significant aspect to look at however is the report saying he re-joined the track in an “unsafe manner”.
Whilst on the grass, Vettel first tries to re-join the track out of the racing line by veering his steering wheel to the left. This is clearly then problematic, as Sky Sports F1 commentator Karun Chandhok notes, due to the possibility of him hitting the left barrier, possibly causing a spin in the middle of the track which is unequivocally more dangerous than the status quo.
Vettel then proceeds to being forced to turn the steering wheel towards the right to balance his car, avoiding the potential for him spin in the middle of the track, again, more dangerous than the status quo.
DID HE HAVE ANY CHOICE?
Vettel ultimately had 3 options:
1 – Stop completely, which would have potentially caused a car driving at 120ish km/h to drive straight into him.
2 – Try veer towards the left side of the barrier, outside of the racing line. But he was very close to the barrier and there would have been a high probability of him hitting the barrier.
3 – The status quo, which has to be taken into high consideration considering it caused no accident.
Ultimately, thus what the stewards call an “unsafe” re-entry, was most probably the safest outcome possible following him going onto the grass. Apart from the legality of the incident, the stewards must take into account that Vettel had approximately 1-2s to make this crucial season defining decision.
IS THE PENALTY CONSISTENT WITH PRECEDENCE?
Let us now look at the 5 second time penalty they placed on Vettel. Admittedly, legally they have no manoeuvre in awarding a lower-scale penalty. However there must be a clear distinction between Vettel’s mistake, and Verstappen’s unsafe release in the pit lane in the Monaco Grand Prix, which compromised a drivers entire race.
Both got awarded the same penalty, yet one driver was trying to avoid crashing into the barriers and creating a dangerous incident, and the other achieved a competitive advantage as well as causing another car to pit again due to damage.
Do both these events merit the same penalty? A rational mind would suggest no, there is a lack of consistency which creates ambiguity and a dangerous future for Formula 1.
There seems to be a legal precedence of forcing a switch of positions if the stewards determine that an unfair competitive advantage was achieved.
However, due to the incompetence of the stewards in their decision making, it took them 10 laps to make the decision. This completely nulled out the possibility as it was thus too close to the end of the race.
This was legally the wrong decision, and there must be a change in the types of penalties the stewards can award.
Student Law Reform 