Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:47 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

J. Teager breaches Article 2(1)S.1

---

Penalties

J. Teager - 2 BWP - P: 10 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:51 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

M. Hinzen breaches Article 2(1) S.1

---

Penalties

M. Hinzen - 2 BWP - P: 10 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:09 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Racing Incident. There is overlap on turn-in.

---

Appealed - 05/17/2023 7:03 PM - J. Teager

Hi, there I would like to appeal this as a previous incident in which I am at fault that caused myself to receive 2 BWP and 10seconds penalty which is identical to this incident. Both ended up with a car losing 2 positions with an overlap. This incident is a dive bomb from far back whilst in the braking zone also causes me to lose 2 positions and lose my 12 second lead to the closest car in my class (2nd place). This was a reckless move that could have happened on the main straight as I was first in class and he was almost last in his class. Either both incidents are equal punishment or both are racing incidents. My race was ruined causing me to have to fight non stop and lose out coming second where the 12 second gap would have kept my lead.

---

Appeal decision - 05/23/2023 12:32 PM - M. Krejčí

The incident mentioned by J. Teager is comparable, but not identical. In that case, the drivers cannot "make the corner without impeding each other or changing their trajectory throughout the corner." Therefore overlap was not established and J. Teager was deemed at fault.

Here the situation is a little different. Overlap is established earlier in the corner and although it is extremely close, ultimately the stewards argue that both drivers could have made the corner without impeding each other in a safe manner. Manea could have kept a tighter line over the kerb at the apex while Teager could have opened up a bit more space.

In order to appoint blame to a driver, that driver needs to be deemed predominantly at fault.  When an incident is on the margin like this, we tend to lean towards racing incidents rather than penalizing a driver who might have been marginally more responsible for the incident than the other. Thus we judge this as a racing incident.

The outcome of the incident for J. Teager (ruined race, 12 second gap) is not relevant for the purposes of assigning responsibility for the incident (it would have been relevant for the purposes of a penalty).

Original ruling upheld, token returned.

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:16 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

M. Heeley breaches Article 2 (1) S.2, and Article 11 (2) S.3

---

Penalties

M. Heeley - 1 BWP - P: 5 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:20 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

G. Speed breaches Article 2 (4)

---

Penalties

G. Speed - 1 BWP - P: 5 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:26 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Racing incident.

---

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:27 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

No Further Action.

---

Appealed - 05/17/2023 9:05 PM - A. Gizzonio

Article 2 (1) S.1 Jorgensen divebombs the inside with no control of the car. I have to take avoiding action turning away from him and the corner and then attempting the apex after he's flown through. If I hadn't a big incident would have occurred.

---

Commented - 05/18/2023 9:17 AM - P. Jørgensen

Gaining an overlap in the braking zone is allowed and Gizzonio acts accordingly by delaying his turn in. I don't lose control of the car, but overslows, which allows Gizzonio to make a text book switcheroo move to take the position back.

---

Appeal decision - 05/23/2023 8:06 AM - M. Squidfield

Upon reviewing the incident and taking into account all arguments by both appellants, the appeal has been dismissed.

I. Gizzonio argues that the move by Jørgensen was a divebomb and that he (Gizzonio) had to take avoiding action. Jørgensen argues that gaining overlap in the braking zone is allowed and that there was no loss of control.

II. There are no indications for any loss of control for the duration of the maneuver. From braking to accelerating out of the corner, Jørgensen was in control of the car at all times.

Gizzonio did not have to take avoiding action as overlap was achieved and Jørgensen was entitled to enough space to remain on track (which he was given by Gizzonio).

While Jørgensen misses the apex of the corner and goes deep, he does not leave the track nor does he gain an advantage. Gizzonio re-overtakes Jørgensen immediately due to Jørgensen going deep.

III. Verdict to remain unchanged; Token consumed for Gizzonio

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:31 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

P. Jorgensen breaches Article 9(4) S.1

---

Penalties

P. Jørgensen - 2 BWP - P: 10 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 6:02 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Racing incident. No further action. A. Gizzonio brakes earlier than could be expected, and P. Jorgensen brakes earlier still.

---

Appealed - 05/17/2023 8:54 PM - A. Gizzonio

(7) 1 Drivers must be aware of cars around them, anticipate their action and be prepared to act accordingly. ² Compliance with Sentence 1 is assumed if inputs that suggest anticipative driving, such as lifting off the throttle pedal ahead of time, are present. ³ Sentence 1 does not apply when the other car breaches the regulations.3) Appealing this as Jorgensen was racing me hard throughout the race, so knew my pace and braking behaviours etc. Yet he doesn't give himself ample reaction time going fast into a hard hairpin corner I didn't brake early and was braking relevant for what was right for the cars position. Jorgensen is neither left or right of my car and actually decides to brake and move right last second but too late of course. I don't come under Article 2(4) as I'm not reckless or dangerous managing tyres on the last 2 laps of a 90min race. Big fan of Jorgensen but his race craft was very poor at Valencia which he apologised for post race. This incident was a build up of forceful moves over the entirety of the race and was confused how it can be classed as a racing incident. Please can you review again and hopefully these incidents don't repeat. Cheers!

---

Commented - 05/18/2023 9:05 AM - P. Jørgensen

Throughout the race Gizzonio defended hard and in very unpredictable manners. This is another occasion of unpredictable defending. It looks like Gizonnio is taking the outside line, but then decides to defend the inside and throws his car in front of mine while on the brakes. I am even on the brakes before Gizonnio because I see that he decides on the inside line in the last moment. The final flick to the right is because I try to avoid a collision when I realise my car slows down slower than Gizonnio's. Furthermore, 0 positions are lost in this incident because I give the gained position back, I don't want to gain a position like this.

---

Appeal decision - 05/23/2023 8:04 AM - M. Krejčí

After reviewing the incident based on the arguments that were presented, it is incorrect to assume this was a racing incident. Jørgensen is majorly responsible for the outcome.

It is true that the chasing car is responsible for braking early enough and not driving into the back of the other car. This responsibility falls away as soon as the other car (=the chased car) drives unpredictably (e.g. overslows or brakes far too early). Gizzonio brakes relatively appropriately when taking into account the defensive nature of the chosen line. Still Gizzonio is slower than expected at the entry.

While it's true that Gizzonio starts braking in the middle of the road instead of fully committed to a specific side, it's not unpredictable. Gizzonio does not suddenly shift directions or jank over. He progressively made the move to the middle of the road from the last corner onwards and started braking at a predictable point.

Disadvantage for Giggonio is minimal, as he loses 0 positions and the time loss is mitigated by the fact that the incident happened on the last lap. 

TP5 to P. Jørgensen

Tokens returned

Penalties

P. Jørgensen - 1 BWP - P: 5 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:34 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Racing Incident. No Further Action.

---

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:36 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

A. Gizzonio breaches Article 2 (1) S.1

---

Penalties

A. Gizzonio - Warning

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:37 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

No Further Action

---

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 6:08 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Warning to T. Muller, Article 2 (1) S.4

---

Penalties

T. Müller - Warning

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 6:10 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Racing Incident. No further action.

---

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 6:17 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Warning to J. Teager, Article 2 (4)

---

Penalties

J. Teager - Warning

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:39 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Racing Incident. No further action.

---

Verdict decision - 05/17/2023 5:42 PM - D. Thomas du Toit

Warning to G. Speed, Article 2 (4)

---

Penalties

G. Speed - Warning