2013 Formula 1 Japanese Grand Prix

[Seismica]

EDIT: It seems I was mistaken about which lap the incident happened. Lap 28 seems to be when Ricciardo took his penalty (is this correct?). Which means the incident occured a few laps before Sutil pitted.

Sutil (Not Di Resta) pitted on lap 27 (The leaders were on lap 28), the same lap that Ricciardo passed him. Ricciardo couldn't have given the place back even if he wanted to. From that perspective, I think the penalty is unfair because he could not have possibly given the place back. Though the precedent for this situation was set by the moves by Alonso on Kubica in Silverstone 2010, and Button on Massa in Australia 2011.

However, in a post race interview Ricciardo stated that he didn't know what the penalty was for. As a driver he should be aware of the rules and the controversy surrounding similar moves that led to drive through penalties (Grosjean's move on Massa at Hungary 2013, Vettel's move on Button in 2012 for example). From this perspective, he deserved to be penalised because he wasn't aware that he would have had to give the place back, he would have only done this in response to an instruction from the FIA. Drivers should respect eachother and give places back when they have completed overtaking moves off-track. Saying Ricciardo was ahead before 130R is a poor argument; the wide line he took that pushed him onto the marbles is what allowed him to overtake without making contact.

In short, he was right to be penalised. He couldn't give the place back after the chicane because Sutil pitted; he should have given it back immediately after 130R.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Sutil pitted on end of lap 27, Ricciardo passed him on end of lap 26 so had plenty of time to give place back but going by reaction of driver it was not something on his mind to do (He did a little fist pump after the overtake).

 

[Seismica]

Sutil pitted on end of lap 27, Ricciardo passed him on end of lap 26 so had plenty of time to give place back but going by reaction of driver it was not something on his mind to do (He did a little fist pump after the overtake).

That's the sense I got. He had no intention of giving the place back unless ordered to, and this cost him the drive through penalty. There is no question of whether he gained an advantage or not by going wide; using the run off enabled him to pass the Forca India and gain track position. As far as a penalty is concerned that was kind of a slam-dunk.

If Sutil didn't pit the same lap, he has no defence. A drive-through was inevitable.

 

[Samus]

It's not about the pass being "done" or not, it's about whether it was his corner. Corner rights. Once you "have" the turn, it's up to you to mess it up from where I'm seeing things.

I understand the majority's take on this, but at the same time, I know this sort of thing can't be objectified so I'm always looking for alternate angles of looking at these situations.

Once a guy has rights to a corner, it's done, it's a battle, not some sort of deal where positions need to be respected for the good of racing integrity

There is no such thing as "corner rights" when it comes to the rulebook. He can't have "had" the corner if he needed to go off track at the end of it.

 

[Inferno251]

I agree that it's not ideal in the chilling effect it possibly has on those sort of moves. It was a good move to have tried and he shouldn't be punished for having a go.

It should have been a hand-back-the-position rather than a drive through. Realistically, the team should probably have seen some sort of penalty coming and ordered the hand back as a preventative measure. If they leave it to the stewards there's always the chance that they're going to get it wrong, and Sod's Law means it's not going to be in the team's favour.

I will say that I would like to see the stewards being more like referees in other sports, making rulings more or less on the spot rather than far too long after the event. I think you can get much more reasonable rulings if they're delivered in a timely manner.

But something needed to happen, that wasn't a legitimate pass any more than it would be legitimate to pass someone by running wide at Spoon and then getting a great angle to accelerate onto the straight. It's not so much about gaining an advantage as it is about avoiding a disadvantage that should exist but has been removed for safety reasons.

If it becomes routine for passes to be completed that way then we have to go back to gravel traps and grass to enforce track limits, which is less safe for the drivers and less interesting for the spectators in practise sessions when someone goes off and then is out for the entire hour.

This, definitely this 👍

That call should've been made on the spot-totally unnecessary penalty

 

[Wardez]

There is no such thing as "corner rights" when it comes to the rulebook. He can't have "had" the corner if he needed to go off track at the end of it.

Oh that's great, then where in the rulebook does it define when a pass is completed?

I'm definitely not trying to refer to a rulebook Simon, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. I'm not trying to sway the FIA, just discussing an alternate take on what I think is a stiff look on a flexible thing.

 

[Samus]

Oh that's great, then where in the rulebook does it define when a pass is completed?

I'm definitely not trying to refer to a rulebook Simon, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. I'm not trying to sway the FIA, just discussing an alternate take on what I think is a stiff look on a flexible thing.

I doubt it does but to me a pass would be complete when the passing car is completely ahead and in control of his car on the race track. Ricciardo may have been in front at the apex but the corner wasn't over. He didn't complete the overtake then drive off the track, he drove off the track because of the overtake and misjudgement.

I've seen plenty of 50/50 decisions in the past and more but to me this one is as clear cut as the get to be honest. He went off the track whilst completing an overtake and gained an advantage. Simple as that in my eyes.