Controversial FIA Decision penalizes Alonso, Russell learns a lesson from his youth

In the closing stages of the Australian Grand Prix, Mercedes’ George Russell was too eager in his pursuit of Fernando Alonso, resulting in a loss of control after being affected by Alonso’s braking, causing significant damage to his car and forcing him to retire. This is not the first time Russell has made a costly mistake under pressure; last season in Singapore, he also crashed while chasing Lando Norris in the final lap due to overeagerness. This incident highlights a potential weakness in Russell’s ability to handle pressure, necessitating improvements in both his defensive and mental game.

However, what grabbed attention in this incident wasn’t Russell’s bizarre error but the FIA’s contentious ruling. The FIA judged that Alonso’s premature and unnecessary braking into the corner created an unsafe proximity between the two cars, constituting dangerous driving. As a result, Alonso was given a drive-through penalty, which, since the race had ended, translated to a 20-second time penalty. This demoted Alonso from sixth to eighth place, with Stroll and Tsunoda each moving up one position.

The question remains: Was the FIA’s decision fair and just? From this writer’s perspective, it was not, for four reasons:

1. The penalty lacked justification.

According to the FIA’s reasoning, Alonso’s maneuver was deemed dangerous driving. But what constitutes dangerous driving, and how is it defined? The FIA didn’t provide adequate grounds for its decision, with a mere 37 km/h decrease in speed not conclusively proving danger. Furthermore, slowing down slightly before a corner to disrupt an opponent’s rhythm is a common defensive tactic employed by drivers like Hamilton, Verstappen, and Alonso alike, suggesting it’s not inherently dangerous.

As Alonso himself pointed out, there wouldn’t have been an investigation if no collision had occurred.

2. The penalty lacked consistency.

If Alonso’s move qualified as dangerous driving, then numerous previous incidents should have warranted similar penalties. Such inconsistency would have led to chaos or severely disrupted the flow of the race. Additionally, penalties for similar infractions have not been uniformly applied, ranging from five to ten seconds, culminating in Alonso’s 20-second penalty. In a competitive sport, fairness demands either no violations or consistent treatment when they occur; otherwise, the FIA risks ridicule.

3. The penalty contradicted the purpose of punishment.

The whole point of sports penalties is to have clear standards. For instance, in race walking, competitors are penalized for having both feet off the ground three times. In this case, the FIA admitted there was no evidence linking Alonso’s early braking to Russell’s crash but still penalized him. This is quite absurd.

Moreover, the decision to switch from a 10-second penalty to a drive-through, solely because it wouldn’t affect Alonso’s position, is preposterous, akin to punishing a thief with the death penalty just because the stolen goods were returned.

4. The penalty violated the principle of action-oriented sanctions.

In Euro-American and international norms, penalties typically follow an action-oriented approach, meaning that the action itself, not the outcome, is punished. However, in this instance, the penalty was imposed only after Russell’s crash, deviating from this principle.

This analysis reveals the FIA’s decision as highly unreasonable. If applied consistently, such a ruling could disrupt future F1 races. Russell, on the other hand, must learn from this experience.

The incident occurred before Turn 6, a narrow and high-speed corner. If Russell had a genuine pace advantage, he could have attempted an overtake on the straight. Attempting it at Turn 6 required confidence in the car’s grip and a different racing line, which seemed lacking. Drivers like Alonso often disrupt their opponents’ exit speed in corners to gain an advantage, something Russell should have anticipated. Alonso likely didn’t expect his defensive move to result in Russell’s retirement.