Hamilton penalised

[Monty]

Well, just when I think F1 can’t get any worse, the stewards penalise a driver for racing! The most exciting event of the race was Hamilton overtaking Perez. It was close racing but Hamilton was clearly alongside (probably slightly ahead) and considering the conditions how can you possibly justify penalising a driver for a tiny touch!!!!!

[Jericoke]

That was a pretty disappointing call.

Was there ever an explanation for what he did 'wrong'?

[Andy B]

Just challenged a Red Bull!

[John S]

Monty, in fairness Lewis punched a sizeable hole in Perez sidepod & damaged the floor, don't think that came from minimal (tiny touch) tyre to tyre contact alongside each other.

If you look at the onboards it's clear Lewis understeered into Checo after getting onto the kerb. Checo had left enough space. Ambitious move at best, it was never going to stick.
 
Stewards will have looked at who gave what space to whom, or whether anyone moved unnecessarily, they have more angles and data than we ever see.

Lewis understandably claims it as a racing incident.
He also reportedly leans on Senna's famous words "if you no longer go for a gap you're no longer a racing driver".
I reckon Lewis knows it was a risky move & whilst not happy is not really suprised at the penalty. 

[Monty]

I haven’t seen a single pundit that hasn’t said it was just a racing incident. Perez left a massive gap ending up very wide and therefore in a vulnerable position; Hamilton was fully alongside. Racing rules and common sense say that Perez should have backed out and then regrouped. Perez’s damage (described as a ‘massive hole’ and even ‘ripped the whole side of the car out’) was a tiny hole smaller than similar damage suffered by Max a few races ago who then went on to win the race! It seems to me that Perez had killed his rear tyres and was already going backwards. My main beef, as always, is the lack of consistency. I would bet big money that if Verstappen did the same as Hamilton he would have got away with it.

[lkjohnson1950]

Perez slowed so dramatically that they were bunched up so tight behind, if Lewis really backed out Norris might have hit him from behind and it could have ended up like the start in Hungary.

[Monty]

Sainz wipes out Piastri - no penalty!!

[John S]

Sainz wipes out Piastri - no penalty!!

First lap traditionally gets a bye from Stewards for touches, baulks & even shunts, has existed since Charlie Whitings time, has to be really serious to penalise on first corner let alone first lap.

Sainz feared being pinched by Lewis on his outside and moved into Oscar's space instead. - Now you apportion blame.
Sometimes 3 or 4 wide into first corner just wont go. 

[Dare]

I wonder how the comments would change if it was Max
that punched a hole in Lewis's car. Would it be a racing
incident then. I think not

[John S]

I wonder how the comments would change if it was Max
that punched a hole in Lewis's car. Would it be a racing
incident then. I think not

Tch Tch! You wouldn't be trying to cause controversy now would you Dare. 

[Monty]

It is amazing how some people continually accuse comments of having bias when in fact the only bias comes from the person making the accusation!
I am an ex-racing driver hoping for the same rules of engagement applied in every other racing series to be applied evenly and consistently to F1.
In answer to the question if I would feel the same if the situation was reversed - I would. Stupid, inconsistent interference from the FIA is ruining ’racing’.
I am not a Hamilton fan. That isn’t to say I do not like him, just that I do not want him to win any more than say Norris, Russell, Ricciardo (slim hopes!) or Albon. I do genuinely believe there is bias against Hamilton from the FIA and I am really worried that it might be racial.
I fully admit to my bias against Verstappen (he is an over-privileged, whining, foul mouthed yob) and by association, I have a healthy dislike for Red Bull.  However, I actually like Perez and was sad to see him having to retire, although I’m still convinced he had problems before the incident.
For the record, I am getting sick of some of my heart felt comments about the state of F1 receiving cheap personal jibes, so for now, and possibly for the long term - goodbye gpwizard.

[John S]

Monty, everyone is entitled to an opinion and to be honest if you are an ex-racer as you claim you should be fully conversant with the way Stewards work, their rulings do not always get majority approval.

However without the Stewards any form of motor racing would be a Wild West scenario, so as with Football (Rugger or Soccer) refereeing often comes down to a matter of opinion - tempered by experience and a persons reading/understanding of the rulebook.

There will always be opinions for and against Stewards rulings just like there is in most other sports, some of them may seem flippant to others but should be considered just as valid if we are all to share this F1 community space created by Wizzo.

I read lots of comments on other F1 fan/news sites and GPWizard is the most friendly and absolutley the least contentious I've ever come across, & trolling is unequivocally shut down by Wizzo.

Sure inconsistent rulings on penalties is a fair topic to discuss, however you offered only one incident for discussion and you should try to accept that others may not see it the same way as you.

Heck it's the cut and thrust, rather than universal agreement that keeps us all contibuting to and visiting Wizzo's great playground. 

 

[Alianora La Canta]

I felt the first collision was a racing incident (I felt both of them chose somewhat poorly, but neither chose much worse than the other) but the second was easily avoidable by Lewis and warranted a penalty. Even though the second caused no particular damage and all Checo's woes were caused by the racing accident.

So I agree with the stewards, albeit not for the reasons most people have said.