Verstappen vs. Norris at the 2024 Texas GP: A Tale of Two Infringement and Inconsistent Penalties

 Abstract

The 2024 United States Grand Prix at the Circuit of the Americas was marked by two infringements involving Max Verstappen and Lando Norris. On the first lap, an early breach of the Sporting regulations between the two at Turn 1 went unpunished, while a subsequent violation at lap 52 saw Norris penalized for leaving the track and gaining an advantage. These two similar scenarios have sparked debate about the consistency of the FIA's decision making. Why did the stewards decide to overlook one offence and penalise another in almost identical circumstances?

The First-Lap Infringement

Tension was high right from the start of the 2024 United States Grand Prix at the Circuit of the Americas as Max Verstappen and Lando Norris, two of the top contenders on the grid, battled for position. As the lights went out, Norris made a strong start and moved up alongside Verstappen as they headed into the infamous Turn 1 - a wide, uphill left-hander known for its potential to cause chaos on the first lap. Verstappen, starting on the inside, looked to aggressively attack Norris' position. As they entered the corner, Norris, on the outside, tried to get more speed through the apex to overtake the Red Bull driver.

As can be seen in frame 1, we can say that Norris was still ahead of car no. 1, also considering that the apex of turn one is one of the most difficult to point out from Tv angles, due to the difference in altitude and angle. Even from this angle, it is easy to see how difficult it was for Verstappen to maintain his line without disturbing the racing line of car no. 4.

From frame 2, we can clearly understand two different things: The first one is the fair approach to turn one, as showed by the two Ferrari, the second finding is related to the clear intent of car no. 1 to force car no.4 off the track.

This is probably not the only infringement committed by car no. 1, as frame 3 shows, Verstappen also crossed the track limits, although it is difficult to tell if he also crossed the blue line, which, according to the FIA’ race direction is the point for establishing if a car has exceeded the track limits or not.

Taking all this into account, it is clear that car no. 1 took an unfair advantage from this manoeuvre, gained a position on Car no. 4 and damaged its race.

From a regulatory point, as stated in Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 b) of the International Sporting Code, this is a case of “Forcing another driver off the track”[1]. But even if it was clear and reported by the driver of car no.4, The infringement was not even noted by the race direction.

There are only two reasons for this behaviour:

- The first corner is considered less severely;

- The large run-off areas on this circuit.

Regarding the first point, there is no such rule that requires this approach, which on the other hand needs to be considered more severely due to the high risk factor (e.g. Zhou incident at Silverstone 2023) and the fact that the driver who is offended by a turn one manoeuvre will almost certainly suffer greater damage than one who experienced the same thing but during the race.

On point number two, tracks with large run-off areas tend to create this recurring situation around the track limits, so as has been suggested on several occasions, the addition of grass and sand outside the track limits will make it easier for the stewards to make their judgement, and will also prevent drivers from using off-track areas to gain an advantage.

A change of mind?

At this point of the race, it was clear that, for this Grand Prix, the stewards have decided to take a more “laissez faire” approach, which is not a bad thing at all, at least as when it is a coherent yardstick throughout an entire race and a championship.

The problem started when, during the race, different decisions were made for three different but similar episodes. In documents no. 65, 66 and 67 three different drivers (George Russell, Yuki Tsunoda and Pier Gasly) were sanctioned with a five second penalty for forcing another driver off the track, so for a similar behaviour (in one way or another) to car no. 1. This document will not be analysed in detail so as not to overburden this article (considering that the same subject will be touched upon in the next paragraph), but it is important to underline how a comparable situation was handled in a completely different manner.

Lap 52’s infringement

In the closing stages of the Austin Grand Prix, Norris made up ground on Verstappen thanks to an overtaking strategy. After a few tense laps, Norris tried to overtake Verstappen in turn 12 on lap 52, but Verstappen defended aggressively and both drivers went off the track. Just before the next corner, Norris regained his position. In this case the stewards decided, with document 69 and a completely opposite interpretation to turn 1, to impose a 5-second penalty on driver no. 4 and create a lot of controversy. Let's have a look at lap 69 and the different frames of this clash to better understand what happened.

On the basis of document no. 69, the alleged infringement is referred to in art. 33.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and is called "Leaving the track and gaining an advantage". It is easy to see that car no. 4 left the track and clearly gained an advantage, but it would be an error to limit the inclusion of this fact in the rules based on this circumstance alone.

Doc. 69 then states that: “Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside but was not level with Car 1 at the apex. Therefore under the Driving Standards Guidelines, Car 4 had lost the “right” to the corner. Accordingly as Car 4 left the track and returned in front of Car 1, it is deemed to be a case of leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage”.

In this document nothing is stated about car no.1 and we can see from the official footage that at one point car no.4 was ahead but then Verstappen decided to brake late to gain the advantage at the apex of the corner and we have to take that into account, otherwise any driver can decide to brake late just to gain that advantage but cause a collision just after the apex and we can see something similar in this case.

In fact, as can be seen in frame 4 and just after the apex, car no. 1 completely forced car no. 4 off the track, which at that point could only do one of two things to avoid contact: stop completely or leave the track. Another important detail to highlight is the fact that it was not only car no. 4 that gained an advantage by going off the track.

As shown in frame 5, both cars have left the track and gained an advantage. In the meantime, the advantage of car no. 4 is clear, the advantages of car no.1 are: to be able to complete a corner that was impossible to complete at that speed, and to defend the position by forcing its rival out. Finally, it is also necessary to underline that this kind of behaviour is not uncommon for the driver of car no.1, which has done several times this kind of behaviour in the past: e.g. 2024 and 2019 Austrian Gp, 2023 Dutch GP[1].

 

What was the right decision?

After considering all these instances, frames, and situations, it is the time to state what would have been the right decision to make. For lap 1, turn 1, the correct decision to take, as shown in the frames, should be a five second penalty for car 1 for forcing another driver off the track.

Instead, for lap 52, turn 12 Infringements it can be said that Norris penalty is correct because he should have given back the position to car no. 1 after the turn to not gain an advantage. However, a 5-second penalty for car no. 1 was also necessary, considering that Verstappen has clearly forced out his rival and that all the same episodes were sanctioned by the stewards during the race.

In conclusion, after all that has been said, the stewards need to be more consistent in their decisions, otherwise the fairness of this sport will be called into question.

---

[1] This episode has been analysed in detail here: https://www.4clegal.com/vivi-lacademy/forcing-another-driver-off-the-track-cosa-consiste-perche-applicata-modo-difforme-f1