The dust has settled on the asphalt of the Mexico Grand Prix, but the controversy surrounding the opening laps—và the ensuing steward decisions—is just beginning to boil over. What was meant to be a high-octane battle in a thrilling championship fight has rapidly devolved into a furious debate about consistency, fairness, and the integrity of Formula 1’s race control. At the heart of the storm sits Lewis Hamilton, who, despite accepting the first brush with Max Verstappen as merely “racing,” was left incandescent with rage after being slapped with a decisive 10-second time penalty for what he deemed a non-issue, calling the ruling “kind of nuts”.

This incident, which spanned multiple corners and involved aggressive lunges, wheel-to-wheel contact, and controversial corner-cutting, has exposed a glaring double standard within the sport’s regulatory body. The shock ruling has sent a tremor through the paddock, leading many to question if the rules are applied equally to every driver, or if the consequences of on-track actions are selectively enforced depending on who commits the infraction.

The Duel: Aggression, Contact, and the Fateful Turn 4

The stage was set for drama from the moment the lights went out. As the race entered its crucial early laps, Hamilton was running in P3, just ahead of his championship rival, Max Verstappen, in P4. What followed was a breathtaking sequence of uncompromising racing that quickly turned volatile.

The flashpoint began at Turn 1. Verstappen, ever the opportunist, went for an audacious, aggressive lunge up the inside of Hamilton, carrying significant speed. The manoeuvre was tight, bordering on reckless, and resulted in inevitable slight contact between the wheels of both cars. The impact was enough to force the Mercedes of Hamilton slightly off the circuit.

But this is Lewis Hamilton, a seven-time World Champion whose fighting spirit is legendary. He was not about to yield. He fought back immediately into Turn 2. The battle continued, forcing Verstappen onto the grass himself on the exit. Down the straight to Turn 4, the two were neck-and-neck, side-by-side, locked in a brutal contest for track position.

It was here, into the braking zone of Turn 4, that the decisive error occurred. Hamilton locked up. With no grip, he was forced to take to the grass, cutting the corner completely. He rejoined the circuit ahead of Verstappen and, crucially, significantly ahead of the chasing pack, clearly gaining a competitive edge.

The Surprising Verdict on Turn 1: A “Racing Incident”

The stewards were tasked with investigating three separate aspects of the clash, but the first ruling came as a genuine surprise to many observers. The general consensus, amplified by Sky Sports F1 expert Karun Chandhok, was that Verstappen’s Turn 1 lunge was a “big lunch”. It was an aggressive, bordering-on-too-much move that forced Hamilton to open his steering wheel and run wide.

However, the stewards determined that this fiery encounter was simply a “racing incident”, taking No Further Action. Their official reasoning was precise: Verstappen’s front axle was clearly in front of Hamilton’s mirror at the apex, thereby entitling him to the racing line. They noted that Hamilton had limited opportunity to leave additional space, the contact had no consequences, and precedents existed for similar incidents.

Hamilton himself was philosophical about the ruling, stating he was “fine there”. He understood that in a championship fight, this level of uncompromising racing is expected. The stewards’ stance, in this instance, seemed to favour the aggressive, decisive move, seemingly encouraging drivers to go for broke at the apex. But this leniency was immediately juxtaposed by the shocking severity of the next decision.

The Hammer Blow: 10 Seconds for a “Lasting Advantage”

The second, and far more controversial, verdict focused on Hamilton’s action at Turn 4—cutting the corner after his lock-up. Though he was initially investigated for merely rejoining the track against the Race Director’s notes (on which he was ultimately cleared), the stewards were unyielding on the matter of gaining a lasting advantage.

Hamilton was hit with a 10-second time penalty.

The analysis was damning. As Chandhok explained, Hamilton had not only gone down the escape road but had gone across the grass, clearly gaining time and, crucially, a place on Verstappen. The core issue for the stewards was the subsequent inaction. There was no attempt to back off, no instruction from his team to give up the time, and no effort to concede the position. By maintaining his advantage and continuing to race, Hamilton had triggered the penalty. He benefited from his mistake, and the sport’s rulebook demanded a sanction for exploiting the track limits in this manner.

While the logic for penalizing the gaining of an advantage is sound in principle, the application of this rule in Mexico has created a firestorm of protest, particularly from Hamilton and his supporters.

The Crisis of Inconsistency: Why Hamilton is Furious

Hamilton’s fury was not directed at the rule itself, but at the perceived inconsistency with which it was applied throughout the very same Grand Prix—and throughout the season. “It was just the cutting. Then I’m the only one to get a 10-second penalty. It was kind of nuts,” he stated, his frustration palpable.

The narrative of the video highlights a critical point of comparison that fuels Hamilton’s outrage: earlier incidents involving his competitors that went unpunished.

The most glaring example cited is an incident at the very start of the race involving Hamilton’s teammate, Charles Leclerc. In an earlier move, Leclerc had similarly taken to the grass and cut a corner while battling Hamilton. Although he was leading the race, Leclerc did not give the position back to Hamilton, the driver he was battling, but only to Lando Norris, a driver further back. The ultimate sanction was negligible compared to the 10-second penalty dealt to Hamilton. In another instance, Verstappen himself was noted to have taken to the grass on the exit of Turn 2/3 and “nothing’s happened from that”.

This is the crux of the stewarding scandal. If Charles Leclerc can cut a corner and effectively benefit from it without a punitive time penalty, why is Hamilton singled out for a 10-second sanction that carries far greater sporting consequence? If Verstappen’s aggressive lunge is immediately cleared as a “racing incident,” why is the subsequent, less impactful error by Hamilton treated with such severity?

The perception is that two different rulebooks are being used: one that is generally permissive for aggressive or beneficial off-track excursions, and another that is strictly punitive when a major championship protagonist is involved in an error that grants him an advantage over a rival.

A Call for Clarity: The Future of Race Control

This debate is not merely about one Grand Prix; it is about faith in the sport’s administration. The emotional gravity of Hamilton’s frustrated reaction stems from a fear that the criteria for a “racing incident” versus a “lasting advantage” penalty are too subjective and easily manipulated.

Consistency must be the bedrock of Formula 1 stewarding. When one driver is penalized for gaining an advantage, and another is allowed to retain an advantage gained by a similar action, the integrity of the sport is compromised. The result is a series of decisions that feel arbitrary, leaving teams, drivers, and fans confused and angry.

The stewards’ surprising acceptance of Verstappen’s aggressive Turn 1 move, combined with their non-negotiable punishment of Hamilton’s Turn 4 cut, creates a dangerous precedent. It simultaneously sends a mixed message: be aggressive, but only if you don’t mess up later in a way that benefits you against a rival.

The Mexico Grand Prix will be remembered less for the action on track and more for the divisive aftermath. Until race control can provide clear, consistent, and equitable application of penalties for track limits, rejoining the track, and gaining a lasting advantage, the controversy will continue to rage, leaving one of the sport’s greatest champions feeling robbed, frustrated, and exposed to a brutal double standard.