Verstappen vs. Norris in the F1 Miami GP: Why a Penalty Was Needed

 Abstract

The 2025 Miami Grand Prix provided racing as well as controversy, particularly in the battle between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris. While Norris emerged victorious, several incidents throughout the race raised questions about Verstappen's adherence to the rules. In particular to Article 2(b), Chapter IV of Appendix L of the 2025 International Sporting Code, regarding drivers behaviour. This article breaks down key moments from the race using official frames and rules - from the start of Turn 2 on Lap 1, through the clash with Oscar Piastri on Lap 13, to the final battle between Verstappen and Norris on Laps 15 and 17 - and explains why the Race direction should have intervened with a penalty.



Turn 2, Lap 1 Clash

The most important episode of this article, and the one that triggered all the others in a domino effect, happened at the beginning of the race, when car no. 1 forced the breaking point in turn 1 to maintain the position on car no. 4. This manoeuvre caused car no.1 to lock up and go wide of the normal racing line, as can be seen in frame one.


For this reason, car no. 1 was forced to make an aggressive move in turn two to maintain its position, aggressively closing in on car no. 4, as shown in frame two.


At this point we can begin to see the manoeuvre conducted by car no. 1, but to better understand what we will see in the next frame, we must first recall Article 2 (b), Chapter IV, Appendix L of the FIA International Sporting Code 2025. This article describes the fair conduct of racing drivers and states:

Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards.”[1]

This article is linked to all the rulings related to the infringements called "forcing another driver off the track" and other violations of the driver conduct.

It is clear from frame two that car no. 1's manoeuvre could be risky, but the focus for understanding why a penalty was necessary is clearly shown in frame no. 3 hereunder.


From this picture we can clearly see that car no. 1 drove car no. 4 to the outside of the track, probably due also to some kind of "snap oversteer", that forced car no. 4 to turn the wheel in the opposite direction of the turn, a completely unnatural behaviour that was necessary to avoid a collision.

Even if there is a guideline about the car in front at the apex of the turn, we must remember that the ISC is the fundamental code of the sport and overrides any specific rules about overtaking behaviour in corners. A car cannot gain an advantage at the apex by braking late or entering the corner faster just to be first at the apex and then behaving as if there is no other car on its side, thus creating “manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers”[2].

All things considered, a 10-second penalty would have been the right decision[2], also considering that the lack of action in this case caused what we will see in the next few frames.

 

Lap 13: Piastri vs. Verstappen: The Precedent Ignored

On lap 13, Oscar Piastri found himself in a situation that we have seen many times before, always involving car no. 1. In an attempt to overtake in turn one, car no. 1 forced the entry to defend car no. 81, as shown in frame four.


This manoeuvre is something we have seen not only in the first episode described in this article, but also throughout Max Verstappen's career. In this case, Piastri wisely opted for a switch back move and left the ideal racing line.


There were other instances where the driver in contention with car no. 1 decided to not give off the line. The best example of this is what happened in the 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix with Lewis Hamilton which is accurately described in another article[4], but we will return on this point in the conclusion of this analysis.

 

Lap 15: Norris vs. Verstappen, Again

By lap 15, Norris had regrouped and made a determined effort to regain his position. As he prepared to overtake into turn one, Verstappen made a late move that was a “perfect” combination of what happened in the first and second episode described before. He went late in turn one and forced Norris off the track again, as shown in frame no. 6. Also in this occurrence, car no. 4 was hinder by this manoeuvre.


This episode can be easily compared to what happened between the same two drivers in Austin, during the 2024 Texas Grand Prix[5].

This case should have been penalised for the same reasons as the aforementioned offence in the first lap.


Lap 17: The Final clash

The last episode that needs to be mentioned happened in lap 17, when car no. 4 forced car no. 1 off the track, in an act of revenge, or simply to “return the favour” to car no. 1. Once again, the offence is as easy to see by looking at frame no. 7, as it is easy to explain for the reasons given above.


The difference between this episode and the first one stands in the fact that after this manoeuvre, car no. 4 gave back the position, eliminating the gained advantage. For this reason, there was no purpose to impose a penalty on car no. 4.

 

Conclusion

Taking all these infringements together and adding the ones from the previous seasons, it is easy to see a pattern in Verstappen behaviour, the same pattern that forced the FIA, in the past, to change the rules on “moving under braking” due to the Dutch driver.

The “let them race” philosophy cannot excuse clear breaches of the ISC or manoeuvres that may endanger other drivers. The purpose of Article 2(b) is to ensure safe and fair racing. Ignoring it sends the wrong message: that certain drivers can operate with impunity, and this can create what happened in Miami: a series of infringements caused by a single avoided decision.

Fortunately, there were no consequences in this case (if we don't take into account that Norris could have been in contention for the win had it not been for the episode on lap 1) and that Piastri, unlike Hamilton in Hungary, decided to abandon the ideal racing line. On the other hand, this kind of behaviour can lead to serious accidents if not prevented, while undermining the authority of the FIA, which is a core value of the sport, along with the safety of the drivers.



[1] Art. 2 (b), Chapter IV, Appendix L, International Sporting Code, FIA, 2025.

[2] See footnote no. 1.

[3] As a reference look at Doc. no. 53 of the 2025 Bahrain Grand Prix, FIA 2025.

[4] D. Beatrice, The truth behind the Verstappen - Hamilton crash at the F1 Hungarian Grand Prix 2024: An in-depth analysis.2024. Available herehttps://dbmotorsportf1.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-truth-behind-verstappen-hamilton.html

[5] D. Beatrice, Verstappen vs. Norris at the 2024 Texas GP: A Tale of Two Infringement and Inconsistent Penalties, 2024. Available here: https://dbmotorsportf1.blogspot.com/2024/10/verstappen-vs-norris-at-2024-texas-gp.html

Commenti

Post popolari in questo blog

Behind the Pit Wall: Understanding Key Managerial Roles in a Formula One Team

Mental Health in F1 Management: The Toto Wolff Case

How Senna's death changed motorsport forever