The Dutch Grand Prix stewards have reversed their choice to penalise Carlos Sainz Jnr for colliding with Liam Lawson through the race two weeks in the past.
They introduced their choice following a video convention on Friday afternoon with workforce representatives.
Williams petitioned the stewards to evaluate their choice to penalise Sainz 10 seconds and add two penalty factors to his licence for his collision with Liam Lawson through the race at Zandvoort. Though Sainz served the time penalty through the race and it subsequently can’t be overturned, the stewards have rescinded his penalty factors.
As a way to satisfied the stewards to carry a evaluate, Williams wanted to steer them that they had a brand new piece of data which was vital and related to the unique choice. The workforce offered new video footage from Lawson’s automotive, which was not revealed till after the race, which the stewards accepted met the usual wanted for them to evaluate their choice.
After reviewing the brand new footage, the stewards revised their unique and dominated Sainz was not answerable for the collision. They deemed it a racing incident for which neither driver was wholly or predominantly accountable.
Though Sainz’s time penalty can’t be cancelled, the stewards famous he was greater than 10 seconds behind the following automotive forward of him on the end. Following the elimination of his two penalty factors he’s now on a complete of two.
Representatives of three different groups additionally attended the evaluate. Lawson’s Racing Bulls workforce argued that the driving requirements pointers point out Sainz didn’t have proper to racing room on the exit of the nook and subsequently was answerable for the collision. Nonetheless the stewards accepted Williams’ argument that Sainz was ready to make room for Lawson if wanted and the pair solely collided as a result of the Racing Bulls driver momentarily misplaced management.
McLaren and Aston Martin additionally despatched representatives to watch the listening to.
The stewards’ choice is a uncommon victory for a workforce looking for a evaluate. Out of the final 14 ‘proper of evaluate’ hearings, that is solely the fourth to achieve success.
Advert | Grow to be a RaceFans supporter and
Stewards’ choice on Williams’ request for a Proper of Evaluation
Petition for the Proper of Evaluation
Introduction
1. On September 4, 2025, the Stewards obtained a petition from Atlassian Williams Racing (“Williams”) requesting a Proper of Evaluation in accordance with Article 14 of the FIA Worldwide Sporting Code (“the Code”).2. Williams’ request associated to the choice of the Stewards contained in doc quantity 45 issued on the 2025 Dutch Grand Prix and issued through the race at that occasion that the Driver of Automobile 55, Carlos Sainz, precipitated a collision with Automobile 30, Liam Lawson, and in so doing contravened Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article second) of the Code. The Stewards imposed a ten second time penalty on Automobile 55 (which was served through the race) and a couple of penalty factors on the Driver of Automobile 55 (“Choice”).3. A listening to was convened on 12 September 2025 at 15:30hrs CEST by video convention to find out the admissibility of the Petition and Williams was summoned accordingly (doc 62).4. A summons was additionally issued to the Workforce Supervisor of Visa Money App Racing Bulls F1 Workforce (“VCARB”) and the Driver of Automobile 30, Liam Lawson, to attend a subsequent listening to if the Stewards decided after an preliminary listening to that the factors in Article 14.1.1 of the Code was glad (doc 63). Nonetheless, VCARB requested that they be afforded a possibility to attend the preliminary listening to and make submissions. That request was granted. In granting the request, the Stewards have been cognizant of the truth that comparable requests had been granted prior to now to these concerned within the incident.
Attendees
5. The Stewards of the 2025 Dutch Grand Prix carried out the listening to. Not one of the events raised any objection to the composition of the panel.6. Attending the listening to on behalf of Williams have been: – Sven Smeets, Sporting Director; – Dave Redding, Workforce Supervisor; and – Carlos Sainz, Driver of Automobile 55.7. Attending the listening to on behalf of VCARB have been: – Marco Perrone, Workforce Supervisor; and – Liam Lawson, Driver of Automobile 30.8. Attending the listening to on behalf of the FIA was the FIA F1 Sporting Director, Tim Malyon.Goal of listening to 9. This preliminary listening to was to find out, on the sole discretion of the Stewards (as laid out in Article 14.3 of the Code), if “a major and related new aspect is found which was unavailable to the events looking for the evaluate on the time of the choice involved”.10. Due to this fact, the Stewards have been required to find out if any proof introduced to them was: a. “vital”; b. “related”; c. “new”; and d. “unavailable to the celebration looking for the evaluate on the time of the unique choice” (“Evaluation Standards”).11. Provided that the Evaluation Standards is met, would the Stewards be required to convene an additional listening to to rethink the Choice.12. Article 14.1.1 units a excessive bar for reviewing a choice of the Stewards. This has been the constant place taken in earlier requests to train the suitable of evaluate.
Advert | Grow to be a RaceFans supporter and
Submissions
13. Williams asserted that the next 3 parts, mentioned to be vital and related new parts, have been unavailable to it on the time of the Choice: a. footage from the 360° digicam on Automobile 55; b. footage from the rear dealing with digicam on Automobile 30; c. testimony from the Driver of Automobile 55, (collectively “the alleged new parts”).14. Williams submitted that the footage from the 360° digicam on Automobile 55 and the footage from the rear dealing with digicam on Automobile 30 weren’t out there to the workforce through the race as a result of it was not transmitted through the race and solely recorded on a card in every digicam which may solely be downloaded after the race and made out there by Components One thereafter. This was confirmed by the FIA F1 Sporting Director and acknowledged by VCARB.15. Williams additionally submitted that the workforce couldn’t get hold of the Driver of Automobile 55’s account of the incident which led to the Choice till after the race.16. Because the Choice defined, in arriving on the Choice the Stewards reviewed “video, timing, telemetry, workforce radio and in-car video proof”. That proof didn’t embody the footage from the 360° digicam on Automobile 55 or the footage from the rear dealing with digicam on Automobile 30. Nor did it embody the Driver of Automobile 55’s account of the incident.17. The Stewards acknowledge that not one of the new parts have been “out there” to Williams, the celebration looking for the evaluate, when the Choice was issued. It follows that every of the brand new parts are “new”.18. The brand new parts are all proof referring to the incident between Vehicles 55 and 30 which resulted within the Choice. The footage from the 360° digicam on Automobile 55 and rear dealing with digicam on Automobile 30 present the relative positions of each vehicles main as much as and together with the collision. They’re subsequently “related”. The account of the Driver of Automobile 55 of the incident was additionally related.19. Nonetheless, are these new parts “vital”? Williams submitted that they have been for the next causes: (a) each the footage from the 360° digicam on Automobile 55 and the footage from the rear dealing with digicam on Automobile 30 are additional proof of the relative positions and proximity of the vehicles earlier than, throughout and after the collision; and (b) the footage from the rear digicam on Automobile 30 exhibits the rear wheels of Automobile 30 (which can’t be seen within the footage from the ahead dealing with digicam from Automobile 30) transferring to the left in the direction of Automobile 55 after the apex of flip 1 and the rear left tyre of Automobile 30 collide with the entrance proper tyre of Automobile 55. This footage, Williams submitted, confirmed that what they described as a ‘slight snap’ – a momentary lack of management by the Driver of Automobile 30 which required corrective steering enter – resulted in Automobile 30 colliding with Automobile 55, not the opposite method round; (c) the testimony of the Driver of Automobile 55 defined what might be seen within the footage from the rear dealing with digicam on Automobile 30 and in different video proof which was out there when the Choice was made.20. VCARB didn’t make any submissions relating to the Evaluation Standards. The Workforce Supervisor adverted to the appliance of the F1 Driving Requirements Tips to the incident however acknowledged that the submissions he wished to make in that regard would solely be related if the Stewards have been glad that the Evaluation Standards are met.21. The Stewards agree that the footage from the rear dealing with digicam on Automobile 30 and the 360° digicam are vital. As that proof can also be new, related and unavailable to Williams on the time of the Choice the brink is met.22. As for the third aspect, specifically the testimony of the Driver, the Stewards specific reservations as as to if the testimony of the Driver on this case is important. First, the testimony of a driver concerned in an incident, whereas probably related, won’t ever be out there to the Competitor involved or to the Stewards if the Stewards, of their discretion, decide that they can arrive at a choice on that incident throughout a session. The Stewards have the ability and authority to subject a choice in session with out listening to from a driver. Secondly, the testimony of the Driver of Automobile 55 in relation to this incident, whereas related and of some help to the Stewards, doesn’t materially add to an analysis of the incident by reference to all the video proof, together with the brand new video proof.23. Having discovered that the footage from the rear dealing with digicam and the 360° digicam on Automobile 30 satisfies all the Evaluation Standards, the Stewards determined to re-examine the Choice.
Advert | Grow to be a RaceFans supporter and
Second Listening to
24. After adjourning briefly, the Stewards commenced a second listening to to re-examine the Choice.The identical representatives for Williams, VCARB and the FIA have been in attendance and the Stewards granted permission for representatives of the McLaren Components 1 Workforce and Aston Martin Aramco Components 1 Workforce to watch.Submissions 25. Williams referred to the out there video proof which appeared to point out Automobile 55 trying to overhaul Automobile 30 on the surface of the lengthy radius flip 1 and the collision between the 2 vehicles occurring between the apex and the exit. Williams submitted that whereas the entrance axle of Automobile 55 was not forward of the entrance axle of Automobile 30 on the apex, such that Automobile 55 didn’t have the suitable to the nook making use of the F1 Driving Requirements Tips, Automobile 55 was entitled to try to race alongside Automobile 30 by flip 1. They submitted that Automobile 55 left area for Automobile 30 on the within and the collision solely occurred as a result of the motive force of Automobile 30 had a momentary lack of management. They described the collision as a racing incident. They have been at pains to clarify that they weren’t suggesting that the Driver of Automobile 30 must be penalised, solely that the penalty to Automobile 55 was unjustified.26. The Driver of Automobile 55 acknowledged that he was not strictly entitled to area on the surface of flip 1 and that the Automobile 30 may have used the entire of the observe on the exit forcing Automobile 55 to yield or take evasive motion and go off observe. He acknowledged that if he had left the sting of the observe on the exit and rejoined forward of Automobile 30, he may want to offer the place again. Nonetheless, he mentioned he was able to cope with these potential eventualities. What he wasn’t ready for was Automobile 30 having a second mid nook and colliding together with his automotive.27. VCARB pointed to the Driving Requirements Tips and submitted that Automobile 55 had no proper to area on the surface however that Automobile 30 had nonetheless left vital area for Automobile 55. They submitted that the collision solely occurred as a result of Automobile 55 selected to drive too near Automobile 30. The Driver of Automobile 30 denied that he was not in command of his automotive and mentioned {that a} slight snap of the kind which occurred shouldn’t be uncommon when vehicles are racing intently aspect by aspect, on this case each on contemporary tyres after a security automotive restart.
Choice
28. Having thought-about the matter extensively and having reviewed the brand new video proof and heard from the drivers of each vehicles and their workforce representatives, the Stewards decide to rescind the Choice. The Stewards agree with Williams’ characterisation of the collision as a racing incident.29. The Stewards are glad that the collision was attributable to a momentary lack of management by Automobile 30.Nonetheless, within the Stewards’ evaluation, no driver was wholly or predominantly accountable for that collision. Automobile 55 contributed to the incident by taking the chance to drive near, and on the surface of, Automobile 30 when Automobile 55 had no proper to room there and there was an actual chance that, if the collision had not occurred the place it did, Automobile 55 would run out of observe on the exit and/or a collision would have occurred on the exit for which the Driver of Automobile 55 would probably be predominantly if not wholly accountable.30. The time penalty imposed by the Choice was served by Automobile 55 through the race. The Stewards haven’t any energy to treatment that served time penalty by amending the Classifications however notice that the hole between Automobile 55 to the automotive forward within the Closing Classification of the race (coincidently Automobile 30) was 17 seconds. The Choice having been rescinded, it follows that the two penalty factors imposed on the Driver of Automobile 55 are to be eliminated.Rivals are reminded that they’ve the suitable to attraction sure choices of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA Worldwide Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Guidelines, throughout the relevant deadlines.Selections of the Stewards are taken independently of the FIA and are primarily based solely on the related laws, pointers and proof introduced.
Advert | Grow to be a RaceFans supporter and
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a day by day e-mail with all our newest tales – and nothing else. No advertising and marketing, no advertisements. Enroll right here:
2025 Dutch Grand Prix
Browse all 2025 Dutch Grand Prix articles
