Max Verstappen’s five-second penalty at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix has triggered heated discussions throughout the Formula 1 paddock, with many questioning the consistency of stewarding decisions. Despite Red Bull’s protests and apparent visual evidence, the FIA stood firm, revealing Verstappen narrowly avoided an even harsher punishment.
The Incident on Lap One
Starting from pole position, Verstappen’s hopes of dominating the race were challenged immediately when a first-corner clash with Oscar Piastri put him under investigation. While the Dutchman remained ahead, stewards ruled he had left the track and gained a lasting advantage by not giving the position back, leading to a five-second time penalty.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner was seen confronting officials with printed images to argue against the ruling. Nonetheless, the FIA released a formal statement defending the decision and disclosing that Verstappen’s actions had actually been on the cusp of earning a more severe ten-second penalty.
FIA’s Reasoning: Why Not Ten Seconds?
According to the FIA, Verstappen’s situation was mitigated by the fact it occurred during the opening moments of the race. The statement read: “Ordinarily, the baseline penalty for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage is 10 seconds… However, given that this was lap one and turn one incident, we considered that to be a mitigating circumstance and imposed a five-second time penalty instead.”
This explanation did little to quell dissatisfaction in the paddock, especially after a similar offense by Liam Lawson later in the race led to a full ten-second penalty.
Lawson’s Double Trouble
Liam Lawson, who was demoted from a full-time Racing Bulls seat earlier this year, found himself in a near-identical situation during a scrap with Alpine’s Jack Doohan. The stewards judged that Lawson overtook Doohan but left the track in a way that gave him an advantage he didn’t relinquish. As a result, he was penalized 10 seconds—double that of Verstappen—and fell from P11 to P12.
Explaining the decision, the FIA noted: “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. 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.”
Reaction and Backlash
The differing penalties have drawn criticism from fans and insiders alike, with many accusing the FIA of inconsistency. Horner, visibly frustrated after the race, argued that Verstappen had done nothing wrong and believed the penalty was unjustified. Others questioned why the rules seemed to be applied differently for two nearly identical offenses.
Despite the outcry, the FIA’s position remains that context matters—Verstappen’s infraction came amid the chaos of a race start, while Lawson’s occurred in clear track conditions and involved a conscious decision not to give the place back.
A Lingering Debate
The controversy has reignited ongoing concerns about inconsistent stewarding and the lack of transparency in decision-making. With Verstappen’s penalty having minimal effect on his race outcome, and Lawson’s costing him a potential points finish, critics argue the sport still struggles with proportional enforcement.
As the season progresses, scrutiny over stewarding calls is unlikely to ease—especially when title contenders and young hopefuls are being judged by seemingly different standards.