MEXICO CITY -- FIA race director Charlie Whiting has defended the decision to penalise Max Verstappen at the U.S. Grand Prix, saying accusations of inconsistent stewarding are without foundation.
Verstappen was given a five-second penalty for cutting the apex of Turn 17 while overtaking Kimi Raikkonen for third place on the final lap. The decision sparked confusion in the grandstands -- as Raikkonen and not Verstappen appeared on the podium -- and controversy in the paddock as the issue of track limits became a major talking point once more.
One argument against penalising Verstappen was that several other drivers exceeded track limits while racing for position but escaped punishment. Whiting does not deny that there were a number of examples where drivers put all four wheels over the white line at the edge of the track, but says none resulted in a lasting advantage like Verstappen's.
"Leaving the track is not an offence in itself, but if a driver does so he must rejoin the track safely and without gaining any lasting advantage," Whiting said. "The lasting advantage part is important in this case because there was a number of other occasions when drivers left the track during the race, qualifying and practice that weren't formally looked at by the stewards because there wasn't a lasting advantage there.
"The stewards felt that he [Verstappen] had gained an advantage, he had shortened the track and clearly he was off the track while passing a driver at the same time. For them the decision was quite simple, technically, but emotionally it wasn't so easy because the decision had to be made quite quickly."
Whiting presented a series of other examples to the media, including an incident where Daniel Ricciardo ran wide at Turn 1 trying to overtake Valtteri Bottas.
"We are not too concerned about that because he [Ricciardo] didn't gain any lasting advantage -- in fact he was probably slower. We have to try and take a practical approach to this and there is an element of wanting to let the drivers race as well. So it's only when it's absolutely clear that [he gained an advantage] that the stewards need to get involved.
"There were quite a few instances of this happening during the race, but all in all the accusations of inconsistency are pretty much without foundation. The only time it was absolutely clear that a driver gained an advantage, the driver was penalised."
Verstappen's immediate reaction to the incident also caused controversy as he appeared to single out race steward Garry Connelly, saying "It's just one idiot steward up there who makes the decisions against me." Connelly was also a race steward when Verstappen was stripped of a podium at last year's Mexican Grand Prix, but Whiting said it was unfair to suggest there was any bias within the stewards' office.
"I think it's just coincidence that Garry has been there and you can't tie the two together. I know Garry very well and a more honest and scrupulous person you could never come across. I think any idea that he may have it in for a driver is wholly unfounded.
"We have a set of stewards' guidelines and they have all the offences, and whether the event occurs in free practice, qualifying or the race, they have the penalties listed. They are guidelines, but leaving the track and gaining an advantage or causing a collision -- there are degrees of that of course because it could be a minor one or a fatal one -- but roughly speaking the guidelines exist to help us towards being consistent and they tell you exactly how many points you should award for each incident. We go to quite considerable lengths to make sure the decisions are made consistently."