26/05/2025 16:30
The FIA has explained why George Russell was made an example of
during the Monaco Grand Prix with the severity of his punishment
for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage. On lap 50 of
the 78-lap race, the Mercedes driver intentionally skipped the
Nouvelle Chicane (Turns 10 and 11) to get past the Williams of Alex
Albon. As a consequence of that, the stewards threw the book at the
three-time grand prix winner, having already anticipated such ploys
ahead of the race and wanting to prevent others from doing the
same. Whilst the usual guidelines allocate a 10-second time penalty
for infringements of that nature, the officials had pre-warned
teams it may take a stricter view at that specific corner sequence
during the race. Expecting situations of the kind to arise, the
race director, at the behest of the stewards, also informed teams
that the usual punishment may not be a strong enough deterrent and
that harsher penalties may be considered. Given Russell's decision
to "take the penalty" as he told the Brackley-based squad over team
radio, the 27-year-old was handed down a drive-through penalty. The
tactic of putting their foot down evidently worked, as Kimi
Antonelli in the other W16 - who had also done the same thing on a
later lap - subsequently gave the position back to Albon - and all
other drivers were dissuaded from trying it, too. The full
explanation from the stewards, as outlined in the official FIA
decision document, is below. FIA explanation for the severity of
George Russell's penalty It was clear from the radio message where
he said that he would 'take the penalty' that the overtake was done
deliberately as he felt that he was being held up by Car 23 driving
erratically. Anticipating that situations such as this might happen
at this Monaco Grand Prix, all the teams were informed before the
race by the Race Director (at the Stewards request) that the
stewards would look carefully at a deliberate leaving of the track
at Turn 10 to overtake a car or a train of slow cars. That
communication also made it clear that the guideline penalty of 10
seconds may be insufficient for this deliberate infringement and
that the penalty applied may be a greater penalty than 10 seconds.
We therefore considered that Car 63's deliberate infringement
warranted a drive through penalty and we so imposed.
