Did the Dutch GP Stewards Make the Right Call by Rescinding Sainz's Penalty Points?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a surprising turn of events, the stewards of the Dutch GP have revoked the penalty points against Carlos Sainz, citing new evidence that the Zandvoort incident was merely a racing collision. What does this mean for the future of racing penalties? Discover the full story behind this decision.
Key Takeaways
- Stewards overturned penalty points for Carlos Sainz.
- New evidence proved the incident was a racing collision.
- Williams presented critical 360-degree footage.
- No driver was deemed predominantly to blame for the incident.
- This decision could influence future racing regulations.
New Delhi, Sep 13 (NationPress) The stewards overseeing the Dutch Grand Prix have reversed their previous ruling against Williams driver Carlos Sainz, eliminating two penalty points from his superlicence after the team successfully presented new evidence that demonstrated the incident at Zandvoort was a racing collision.
The Spaniard initially received a 10-second time penalty and two penalty points for causing a collision with Racing Bulls driver Liam Lawson during a safety car restart on August 31.
At that time, the stewards held Sainz accountable for attempting to overtake from the outside. Frustrated, Sainz described the decision as “a complete joke” right after the race.
However, following a virtual hearing on Friday, the stewards acknowledged that a “significant and relevant new element” had become available, which was not presented by Williams during the original ruling.
The officials stated: “The Stewards are satisfied that the collision was caused by a momentary loss of control by Car 30 (Lawson). In our assessment, no driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for the incident.”
They further clarified that while Sainz’s maneuver was risky, it wasn’t the cause of the contact: “Sainz did contribute to the incident with a risky move that could have led to him running off the track or colliding, had the incident not occurred when it did.”
Williams introduced three new pieces of evidence — 360-degree footage from Sainz’s car, Lawson’s rear-facing camera feed, and Sainz’s own account of the incident, which was only available after the penalty was applied. Notably, Lawson’s rear camera showed that “the momentary loss of control by the New Zealander led to Car 30 colliding with Car 55, not the other way around.”
Even though Sainz had already served his 10-second penalty during the race, and the classification could not be changed, the stewards recognized that “the gap at the finish between the Spaniard and the car ahead was 17 seconds.”
In their final assessment, the officials concluded: “With the decision rescinded, it follows that the two penalty points imposed on the driver of Car 55 (Sainz) are to be lifted.”
Point of View
I believe that this decision reflects the evolving nature of Formula 1 regulations and the stewards' willingness to adapt in light of new evidence. It highlights the importance of fairness and transparency in motorsport, ensuring that drivers are held accountable while also receiving due process.
NationPress
13/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
Why were Carlos Sainz's penalty points rescinded?
Carlos Sainz's penalty points were rescinded because new evidence demonstrated that the incident at the Dutch GP was a racing collision, not solely his fault.
What evidence did Williams present?
Williams presented 360-degree camera footage from Sainz's car, Lawson's rear-facing camera feed, and Sainz's account of the incident.
What was the original penalty for Sainz?
Carlos Sainz originally received a 10-second time penalty and two penalty points for causing a collision during the race.
What was the stewards' assessment of the collision?
The stewards concluded that no driver was predominantly to blame for the collision, attributing it to a momentary loss of control by Lawson.
How does this decision impact racing penalties in the future?
This decision may set a precedent for how racing incidents are reviewed, emphasizing the importance of new evidence in determining fault.
