Five seconds from Charles Leclerc at the Brazilian Grand Prix has raised questions about what constitutes fair racing in F1 with the Race winner Lando Norris suggesting that the stewards’ decision was unfair. The McLaren man feels Leclerc’s late-race collision with Liam Lawson was a normal part of wheel-to-wheel racing but the stewards did not believe otherwise, viewing it as having had a clear sporting impact.

Leclerc was tangled up on the penultimate lap at Interlagos and hit the left rear of Lawson’s Racing Bulls car at Turn 12. Neither party had issued the contact during one of the most crucial moments of the race in the struggle for position.

It was a minor collision, but the stewards felt Leclerc had an advantage from it. The Ferrari driver was slapped with a five-second time penalty and he was marooned in the eighth position in the final standings. This was followed by the Lawson who went ahead.

Norris, who came up with the winner in the presence of the Brazilian fans, was, however, on a different position during his live stream with fellow former racer and friend Max Fewtrell. The driver of the McLaren commented on the incident calling Leclerc’s gesture “just racing.

Fewtrell also endorsed the Ferrari driver approach, saying that’s “proper racing. He theorized that Leclerc had reached his limit with the contact and was going to go over the line with any further power. He added that ‘it’s a nudge in perfect timing’.

That’s how Norris felt, too, and he said this contact was “perfectly placed”. He said that such drastic clashes are a fairly common occurrence in racing away from home in F1, especially at the end of a race.

But, the stewards perceived the situation in a different way. Their decision focused not only on the physical contact but also on what happened immediately afterwards. The contact seems to have thrown off Lawson, enabling Leclerc to catch him up and get centimetres apart.

The stewards also recognised that the contact was insignificant, and that after committing the infringement Lawson was able to keep the lead. They also believed the driver of a Racing Bulls car had made claims of his impact having caused damage to the back-left wheel rim.

The officials were more important, however, because they decided that the contact had enabled Leclerc to close in on Lawson, realising five corners later that he had been able to pass him. It had never been possible for the Ferrari driver to pick up that pass if it had not been made the first time.

The official ruling was that Lawson was entitled to the corner in accordance with the guideline of the Driving Standard Guidance. As such, it was then up to Leclerc to do what he has to do to prevent any conflagration.

Leclerc’s side of the contact was also considered small in size and there was no apparent sporting consequence, the stewards added. But I don’t think they came to the same result after viewing the tussle between the two cars.

In their statement, they said the contact clearly caused a disruption to Lawson and enabled Leclerc to get alongside him from a further back position. However, this was thought to be a natural sporting outcome and therefore felt a penalty was warranted.

However, the officials took into consideration the conditions when determining the severity of the punishment. As it was a wet race with a minor contact, Leclerc was only given a 5 second penalty, reflecting that minor contact.

You can see how challenging they found policing close racing in Formula 1 to be in the decision. Fights often take place while drivers are trying to overtake the other and the stewards can only conclude whether the scene is merely a competitive struggle or if one driver has the edge.

To Norris, Leclerc’s racket seemed perfectly in this category of a regular race. His remarks also highlight the gap between an inside perspective on the incident and an outside, based on the evidence review.

To Lawson, though, the effects were more than just brief and fleeting. The stewards felt it had an impact on his defensive capabilities and ultimately assisted Leclerc to complete the over take.

Leclerc dropped back to #7 in the standings with the penalty, behind Lawson in #8. The punishment wasn’t so significant as the five seconds would merely bump over the final position but it was certainly a talking point following the race.

Nevertheless, the Brazilian Grand Prix fiasco has again put to the test the limits of aggressive driving and uniformity of punishment in the world of Formula 1. It’s a racing manoeuvre that Norris may consider a master stroke but the stewards felt it provided an unfair advantage. The divergent opinions highlight the importance of close racing as one of the most engaging aspects of racing and why they make for a good subject to talk about long after the chequered flag.

Follow Zeroto30 Seconds – Every second counts.

• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zeroto30s/

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/zeroto30s

• Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/zeroto30s

• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Zeroto30s