Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:16 PM - R. Westphal

Jädicke breaches Article 5 (3) by staying out after the 10 minute mark.

Warning to F. Jädicke

---

Penalties

F. Jädicke - Warning

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:21 PM - M. Krejčí

A. Tiggy breaches article 2(1)1

TP20 to A. Tiggy

---

Penalties

A. Tiggy - 4 BWP - P: 20 second time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:22 PM - T. Fabich

F. Jädicke breaches Article 10 (2) and Article 2 (1)

Warning to F. Jädicke

---

Penalties

F. Jädicke - Warning

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:25 PM - T. Fabich

F. Jädicke Breaches Article 2 (4).
M. Nielsen loses 1 position.

TP5 to F. Jädicke

---

Penalties

F. Jädicke - 1 BWP - P: 5 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:43 PM - M. Krejčí

A. Tiggy breaches aricle 2(1)1

TP20 to A. Tiggy

---

Penalties

A. Tiggy - 4 BWP - P: 20 second time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:31 PM - T. Fabich

L. Short breaches Article 2 (1).

TP5 to L. Short

---

Penalties

L. Short - 1 BWP - P: 5 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:38 PM - T. Fabich

C. McConnell breaches Article 2 (1).
J. Neegaard loses 6 positions.

TP10 to C. McConnell

---

Penalties

C. McConnell - 2 BWP - P: 10 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:41 PM - M. Krejčí

A. Tiggy breaches article 6(5)3. This behaviour is considered extremely reckless. 

SG30 to A. Tiggy

---

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:43 PM - T. Fabich

J. Haseitl breaches Article 2 (1).
P. Jørgensen loses 2 positions.

TP5 to J. Haseitl

---

Appealed - 10/04/2023 8:56 PM - J. Haseitl

I don't see the penalty warranted. There is next to no time for me to anticipate that there is a car aligning with minimal overlap into T1. It really came to my surprise, that there even was a nose. It's a very short run from T2 to T3 - basically one corner, so that even the spotter or radar did not make any calls, with that minimal overlap. How would I have been able to anticipate that situation? In addition, as I had to take avoiding action right before that, because of an unpredictable backmarker, the following car (Jørgensen) has a much better overview of the situation and could have assessed the risk of his action way better than me. Instead he want for a minimal chance. Also, as I could watch the stewarding session, I think my cockpit view of the situation was not really taken into account. It matters, as my main focus is the look ahead, and it's not expected that there is a car coming alongside, especially when coming out of a corner, where I was clearly ahead of the following cars mid corner. For me it is a racing incident, and I feel sorry for Jørgensen, that it ended in a spin. But I had no realistic chance to make anything different. In theory, yes, I could have gone wider, but that would have needed supernatural oversight of the whole situation - which occured in a split second - while myself being the leading car.

---

Appeal decision - 10/10/2023 12:05 PM - M. Krejčí

The incident in T2 is not relevant for the purposes of this incident, as it was not reported a it is not considerd a part of the same incident. 

Right at the exit of T2, P. Jørgensen achieves a small but clear overlap (as defined by article 6(3)2) and maintains it for upwards of 2 seconds all the way until the collision at turn-in point for T3. In our opinion this gives J. Haseitl enough time to account for the situation and adjust the line through T3. Unfortunately radar and spotter are not available on the replay so the stewards cannot account for either.

Because of the overlap, Jørgensen is entitled to get space on the inside of T3 as per article 7(2). Although the collision happens before T3 when there is still plenty space to either side, it is clear that Haseitl's turn-in point and trajectory takes him directly towards the apex, colliding with Jørgensen in the process giving him no time to react.

Overlap established and maintained + Haseitl crossing over to Jørgensen's line + No time for Jørgensen to react means Haseitl is predominantly at fault for the collision as per SRXP rules.

Original verdict upheld, token returned.

Penalties

J. Haseitl - 1 BWP - P: 5 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:45 PM - T. Fabich

L. Randle breaches Article 10 (2).

Warning to L. Randle

---

Penalties

L. Randle - Warning

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:48 PM - T. Fabich

M. Darwisch breaches Article 2 (1) and Article 10 (2).
T. Franke loses 1 position.

TP5 to M. Darwisch

---

Penalties

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

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:49 PM - M. Krejčí

A. Tiggy breaches article 2(1)1.

TP10 to A. Tiggy

---

Penalties

A. Tiggy - 2 BWP - P: 10 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:52 PM - T. Fabich

Racing Incident

---

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:52 PM - M. Krejčí

A. Tiggy breaches article 2(1)1

Warning to A. Tiggy

---

Penalties

A. Tiggy - Warning

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:54 PM - M. Krejčí

No further action.

---

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 6:58 PM - M. Krejčí

M. Darwisch breaches article 6(4)2

TP15 to M. Darwisch

---

Penalties

M. Darwisch - 3 BWP - P: 15 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:02 PM - M. Krejčí

The move is okay, T. Liggins achieves overlap way before turing in and makes the conrer comfortably. The contact is classified as "door to door" contact, so no further action. 

---

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:02 PM - M. Krejčí

Racing incident, no further action.

---

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:10 PM - M. Krejčí

C. Fuchs breaches article 2(4) - brakes unpredictably early on the racing line.

Warning for C. Fuch

---

Penalties

C. Fuchs - Warning

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:54 PM - M. Krejčí

A. Tiggy breaches article 2(1)1

TP20 to A. Tiggy.

---

Penalties

A. Tiggy - 4 BWP - P: 20 second time penalty

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:15 PM - M. Krejčí

Racing incident, no further action.

---

Verdict decision - 10/04/2023 7:16 PM - M. Krejčí

B. Ride breaches article 2(1)

Warning to B. Ride

---

Penalties

B. Ride - Warning