Oscar Piastri’s 10-second penalty from the Brazil Grand Prix continues to spark intense debate across the Formula 1 paddock. While the race results are already official, the fallout from the incident — which also eliminated Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc — remains one of the most heavily discussed topics heading into the next rounds of the F1 2025 season.
For most drivers, the controversy is not simply about the outcome of the race or the impact on the championship standings. Instead, it has reopened deeper questions around how overtaking rules are written, interpreted, and enforced. Many believe Piastri’s penalty reflects a broader issue with Formula 1’s driving guidelines: they are often too rigid, overly formulaic, and fail to capture the nuance of real racing.
A Penalty That Sparked a Bigger Debate
Piastri’s move at Interlagos resulted in contact that forced Leclerc into retirement and cost the McLaren driver a likely podium. The stewards issued a 10-second penalty, dropping Piastri to fifth place at the flag, while Andrea Kimi Antonelli — the driver he attempted to overtake — finished second ahead of Max Verstappen.
This had real championship implications:
• Lando Norris extended his points lead
• Piastri lost ground to his teammate
• Verstappen closed the gap in the standings
But for the grid’s drivers, the problem was not the impact on the title fight. Instead, they are questioning whether the rulebook itself truly reflects the reality of wheel-to-wheel combat in Formula 1.
Antonelli: “If you follow the guidelines, Oscar is wrong”
Antonelli defended the stewards’ position by pointing directly to the FIA’s overtaking rules.
According to the updated guidelines, a driver must have their front axle “at least alongside the mirror of the other car prior to and at the apex” to be entitled to racing room. Additionally, the overtaking car must be “fully in control and must not have dived in”.
These are the two criteria Piastri failed to meet, according to the stewards. He was momentarily alongside on the straight, but not at the apex. He attempted to brake to avoid contact, but locked up — interpreted as not being fully in control.
Antonelli acknowledged his own similar penalty earlier in the season at Zandvoort, highlighting a growing trend: drivers feel the guidelines are applied inconsistently and do not always reflect the complexity of racing.
Sainz: “Unacceptable for a category like Formula 1”
Carlos Sainz was one of the most outspoken critics, calling Piastri’s penalty “unacceptable”.
Sainz listed several incidents from earlier in the year — in Zandvoort, Austin, Monza — where he felt penalties were incorrect or misjudged. To him, the Brazil decision is the latest example of a flawed system.
“Everyone that has raced knows this was not Oscar’s fault,” Sainz said. “He could do nothing to avoid it.”
He argues that rigidly applying written guidelines without accounting for dynamics like trajectory, braking stability, track conditions, and visibility removes the human element from stewarding.
Physics vs. Rulebook — Where the Guidelines Fall Short
Many drivers pointed out that losing overlap in the braking zone is normal — especially:
• when attacking on the inside
• in damp or low-grip conditions
• through sharper corner entries
Physics dictates that the inside car must brake earlier. That often causes overlap loss even if the initial move was legitimate.
Piastri “couldn’t just disappear,” as several drivers and team principals noted. Antonelli, after reviewing the footage, admitted visibility played a role — he simply didn’t see the McLaren once the braking began.
This is where the grid believes the FIA guidelines fall short: they require precise overlap at the apex, even though real-world racing rarely allows such textbook scenarios.
Russell: “Guidelines must remain guidelines”
GPDA chairman George Russell offered a measured perspective. While the stewards “do their absolute best,” he says guidelines must remain flexible enough to interpret each corner, each circuit, and each incident on its own merits.
He pointed out that Interlagos Turn 1 naturally unloads the inside wheel on braking, causing lock-ups that don’t always indicate loss of control — directly contradicting one of the guideline assumptions.
Russell also reiterated a long-standing request from drivers: consistency in stewarding panels. A stable panel would ensure more coherent interpretation of the rules across race weekends.
A Meeting Ahead of the Qatar GP
Due to mounting frustration, Formula 1 drivers will once again meet with the FIA ahead of the Qatar Grand Prix to discuss changes. They want:
• clearer, less prescriptive guidelines
• more flexibility for racing situations
• consistency in stewarding
• recognition of factors like visibility and trajectory
• an approach that prioritises racing, not rule interpretation
Whether the FIA will revise the guidelines remains to be seen, but the pressure is now stronger than at any point this season.
What This Means for the Championship — and Predictions
With the title fight between Norris, Piastri, and Verstappen tightening, even a small penalty can dramatically shift momentum. Incidents like Brazil highlight how delicate the margins are — and why analysing driver behaviour, overtaking patterns, and rule interpretations is becoming increasingly important for anyone following the championship closely.
Understanding how stewards apply the guidelines can provide valuable context when evaluating the next race weekend and forming your own predictions for the Grand Prix ahead.
