Former Haas team principal Guenther Steiner is calling for a reform of Formula 1‘s post-race penalty system, questioning the lengthy delays in decisions and pointing to the recent Miami Grand Prix as a prime example. The saga involving Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc has sparked debate about the efficiency and clarity of these rulings.
F1: A Race Against Time for Penalties?
The 2026 Miami Grand Prix left a sour taste, not just on the track but also in the stewards’ offices. After the checkered flag, several incidents required in-depth analysis, including suspicions of Max Verstappen crossing the pit exit line, a collision between the Dutchman and George Russell, and contact between Russell and Charles Leclerc. The final decisions, handed down more than two and a half hours after the race concluded, saw Leclerc penalized 20 seconds for cutting corners on the final lap. This drawn-out process has raised eyebrows among many.
Steiner Advocates for a Time Limit on Sanctions
Speaking on The Red Flags podcast, Guenther Steiner, a prominent figure in F1, expressed his surprise at the delays. “I was already on the plane home when I heard there were still penalties to be decided,” he confided. “I think there needs to be a time limit. If you don’t know what to do, don’t give a penalty.” This statement highlights a growing frustration with how incidents are managed, raising questions about the relevance of decisions made so long after the events. For the former team principal, the stewards’ objective should be to act during the race, not to become late-stage observers.
Stewards to Decide, Not Just Watch
Steiner emphasizes the stewards’ primary role: making decisions on race events, not simply observing the spectacle. “What are they doing during the race?” he questions. “They are there to make decisions on what goes wrong.” He suggests a more proactive approach: red-flagging the race at specific moments to allow stewards to analyze and rule on contentious incidents quickly. The idea is to avoid letting doubt linger, transforming their task from real-time intervention to post-event analysis. The show, in his view, should not be their priority.
The Verstappen Case: A White Line, a Clear Decision?
Max Verstappen’s case, penalized five seconds for crossing the pit exit line, perfectly illustrates Steiner’s point. “Crossing a white line, what’s there to contest? Either it happened or it didn’t. There are cameras, and then the team always has the option to protest.” For Steiner, these situations should be settled instantly, without debate. He contrasts these cases, which he calls “black or white,” with more complex incidents, like the one involving Pierre Gasly and Liam Lawson, which require deeper analysis. Current technology, he believes, should allow for immediate action on such tangible facts.
Stewards’ Justification: Limited Evidence
In response to these criticisms, F1 stewards attempted to justify their decision-making delay. In their verdict regarding the Verstappen case, they explained that the video evidence available at the time of the incident was limited for a clear ruling. They opted for a post-race analysis to search for additional camera angles. “We were able to do so,” they clarified, implying that the wait allowed for the gathering of conclusive evidence. While this explanation highlights the difficulties of the officials’ job, it doesn’t entirely dispel the feeling that F1 is sometimes too slow to react.
Towards a More Reactive F1?
- Formula 1 could implement a maximum timeframe for stewards’ decisions.
- The goal is to improve the clarity and speed of sanctions, avoiding lengthy post-race waits.
- Stewards should focus on real-time decisions rather than after-the-fact analysis.
- Simple incidents, like crossing lines, should be judged instantly thanks to technology.
- A more reactive F1 would enhance credibility and the spectacle, without leaving doubt hanging in the air.
[quoi faire]
[en tant que spectateurs]
[diffusion TV de la]
[Pierre]
[Liam]
