Webber to get grid penalty after lift from Alonso

2013 Singapore Grand Prix

Fernando Alonso, Mark Webber, Singapore, 2013Mark Webber will receive a ten-place grid penalty for the next race after being given a lift to the pits by Fernando Alonso after today’s Singapore Grand Prix.

Alonso stopped to pick up his rival after his car broke down on the final lap of the race. Webber rode back to the pits on Alonso’s sidepod.

The stewards ruled Webber had “entered the track without the marshal’s permission between the commencement of the formation lap and the time when the last car enters parc ferme” and handed him a reprimand.

As this is Webber’s third reprimand of the year he will automatically receive a ten-place grid penalty for the next race. His previous reprimands came in Bahrain, for contact with Nico Rosberg, and in Canada, for going too quickly while yellow flags were displayed.

It is the second time a driver has received a grid penalty for collecting three reprimands – Pastor Maldonado also did at the Brazilian Grand Prix last year.

Alonso was also given a reprimand for driving “in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person”. The stewards added “two cars had to take avoiding action” when Alonso stopped to pick Webber up. This is Alonso’s first reprimand of the year.

Webber gave Alonso a lift in a similar fashion at the Nurburgring in 2011.

2013 Singapore Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Singapore Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

Advert | Go Ad-free

189 comments on Webber to get grid penalty after lift from Alonso

1 2 3 4
  1. Wow.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd September 2013, 18:21

      Here’s video showing what happened:

      Video: Why Webber and Alonso got reprimands in Singapore

      • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 22nd September 2013, 19:06

        Well really, safety first as always. As much as I like to see drivers showing camaraderie in that way, it should be a thing of the past. Watching Webber fall under the wheel or anything like that would be quite gruesome. Just like waving the checkered flag on track with cars driving by at speed, fans standing on corners mere feet or inches away from cars being driven in anger, the day of the F1 driver-rider has gone by.

        • Safety first, sure, but that didn’t look remotely dangerous to my eye

        • Okay, stopping on the middle of the track… pretty dumb. I guess I can understand what the stewards were thinking.

        • Peter (@malaclypse) said on 22nd September 2013, 22:37

          Exactly what I was thinking.
          I’m really surprised that so many other users are bashing the stewards. Especially after seeing the video the reprimand seems totally reasonable. The stewards made many wrong decisions in the past imo, but this is not one of them.

        • Rodrrico (@rodrrico) said on 22nd September 2013, 23:32

          Safety first. Ditch comradery. That is the worst thing I have heard in a long time. What sort of pathetic nanny state is sweeping across the world. Both Webber and Alonso are easily the best drivers when racing each other. They are more than capable of such a simple feat.

          Hamilton is a big boy (so people would have you believe) he was perfectly capable of driving around on the cool down lap. Stupid decision.

        • This is one of few traditions of on track camaraderie left, it has been going on since motor racing began and I have never heard of anyone being injured by it. If I am being charitable I will call it political correctness gone mad, if I am not being charitable I would call it petty officialdom flexing their muscles to feel important.
          FERNANDO I salute you, Mark please launch an appeal, if not for do it to for the sake of the last sporting tradition of F1.

          • …if not foryourself.

          • ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 23rd September 2013, 0:18

            @hohum Hear, hear!

          • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 23rd September 2013, 2:40

            @hohum , @rodrrico – Personally, I love this particular display of camaraderie amongst normally rival racing drivers. Likewise I cannot recall of anyone actually getting hurt doing this. But, safety and common sense tell us why it should not be done, not political correctness or pathetic nanny state oppression. Several of my favorite drivers were killed while racing when conditions were less safe than now. It could still happen in this day and age. It could happen to any of us on the motorway at any time. How do we deal with it? We take precautions and preventative measures to be as safe as possible. We eliminate expected risks and try to prepare for unexpected risks. That’s common sense.

            I would hate to think it would take an injury or death of a favorite driver to get someone to ask, why was this allowed? I totally get the point that these drivers are in an elite group of skilled drivers who risk their lives every time they get in the car. But, one wrong turn today could have resulted in an unnecessary tragedy.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 23rd September 2013, 3:33

            @bullmello,@npf1, and yes it could happen to anybody crossing a street, it felt a lot more dangerous to me crossing the street in Naples on a pedestrian crossing with the lights in my favour but that’s another story.

      • After having seen the onboard from Hamilton and the CCTV footage, I’d like to change my ‘wow’ as a reaction to the stewards’ decision, to a ‘wow’ of how utterly dangerous this situation was. Heck, with some bad luck, Kimi could have run Mark over, and Lewis crash into both of them.

        I figured both Alonso and Webber would be smart enough to stop a car at a place where it’d be at least somewhat safe; this wasn’t.

    • For once I agree with the stewards, he took an advantage…

    • TMF (@tmf42) said on 23rd September 2013, 7:10

      first I thought this was too harsh – then I saw the footage and have to say they were right. Both totally deserve the reprimand.

    • soundscape (@soundscape) said on 23rd September 2013, 8:24

      That was my first thought. As a diehard WEB fan my blood started boiling.
      But his on his third reprimand? That actually sounds about right. He can’t just do what he likes, no matter how great of a bloke he is. :)

  2. what
    the
    luck???

  3. Polishboy808 (@polishboy808) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:37

    What? This is beyond stupid….

  4. This is a joke :/ — I mean common!

  5. JackySteeg (@jackysteeg) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:38

    I’m just….. jeez….

  6. 10 grid places?! Ridiculous!

    • Colossal Squid (@colossal-squid) said on 22nd September 2013, 18:19

      For something so trivial a reprimand considering the possible safety issues is just. It’s entirely unjust that such a trivial warning has due to the operation of the new system has caused Webber to be given a 10-place penalty.

      Although I can see the safety issue being a concern, it also comes off as another bureaucratic, ham fisted attempt to smother many unique characterful moments of the sport. If the rules start to operate to deprive viewers and spectators of such moments as when Alonso stopped on track last year in Valencia to celebrate with the marshals and home crowd – would he also be given a reprimand this year on some nebulous ‘safety’ ground? – then it’s only to the detriment of the sport.

  7. It’s not completely safe, understood. But this kind of thing make F1 colder, and ever more boring…

    It was probably the icing on the cake after a rather good 20 final laps to see Mark getting the lift from Alonso. Two rival teams and drivers. No harm done and a lovely thing.

    Yet, reprimand and a 10 place penalty…

    What Rossi would’ve done if these rules were followed in MotoGP when he scored his 100th win? or Lorenzo planting the flag when he wins.

  8. It’s not completely safe, understood. But this kind of thing make F1 colder, and ever more boring…

    It was probably the icing on the cake after a rather good 20 final laps to see Mark getting the lift from Alonso. Two rival teams and drivers. No harm done and a lovely thing.

    Yet, reprimand and a 10 place penalty…

    What Rossi would’ve done if these rules were followed in MotoGP when he scored his 100th win? or Lorenzo planting the flag when he wins.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:44

      Someone said on twitter that two other drivers have to take actions not to hit Alonso. And if another car have crashed againts Alonse while carrying while carrying WEBBER it would have being a disaster…

      It seem harsh but I do think there is some logic behind it, and this race sterwards don´t have the fault or to count previous reprimends…

      • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:47

        reprimand .okay . fine. okay . 10 place penalty ludicrous !!!!!

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:51

        @celeste

        Someone said on twitter that two other drivers have to take actions not to hit Alonso

        As described in the article.

      • @celeste I agree with that, it’s not safe, but…

      • They had to ‘take actions not to hit Alonso’ at about 80 kph.

        At their level of professionalism it’s like you or I having to take evasive action at 12 kph on a bicycle.

        Webber’s either gone suicidally mad, or perhaps he is well-prepared to judge the real risk involved (as opposed to the risk perceived by outsiders through a video) about a thousand times better than the stewards.

        • There is a huge difference in hitting someone with your bicycle at 12 kph, to hitting someone with any sort of car at 80 kph, though.

          • The point is that evasive action in each case should be performed quite comfortably. Just because the movement needed looks swift doesn’t make it terribly dangerous. These pilots have excellent enough reflexes to do ‘swift’ half-asleep.

          • As I’ve said on the forum, on a street circuit you can’t really see beyond the corners. You also need to consider it’s the parade lap, drivers talk to their teams, are a little more relaxed..

            There is a incident you can see on YouTube between Hakkinen and Irvine, during Monaco 1996. Irvine is doing a 180 after getting it wrong, and Hakkinen just drives right into Irvine’s rear. Hakkinen wasn’t going very fast, but because he could not see Irvine before he made the corner, both cars were retired.

            Fact is, standing still on the middle of the track is dangerous, now matter how good your reflexes are. Di Resta still shunted, as did Ricciardo. Hamilton once took out Raikkonen at the end of the pitlane. F1 drivers aren’t supermen, especially when you can’t even see a parked Ferrari picking up a driver until you’re into the corner.

    • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:45

      Seems like the rule makers have come out against this before, if memory serves. As @fer-no65 mentioned it may not be the safest thing, but I love the sportsmanship and sentimentality demonstrated.

    • Apparently it was a lot more serious than I thought…

  9. hamilz0rs said on 22nd September 2013, 17:39

    the stewards decision seems right to me, it is risky after all.

  10. chirag_seb (@chiragsolanki29) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:40

    what???? give me a break man…….

  11. Spartan said on 22nd September 2013, 17:40

    WOW!! Talking about people being stiff implementing the rules…This is just sad…

  12. Dave (@raceprouk) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:41

    My opinion of this decision, and the stewards who made it, is unrepeatable in polite company. If uttered, it would turn the air so blue it would wrap right round through red, yellow, and green, before returning to blue.

    • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 22nd September 2013, 18:28

      Having seen the video footage, Alonso deserved the reprimand. Penalising Webber is still utterly ridiculous though.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 23rd September 2013, 3:41

        No, Webber waved him down and Kimi was outside of him.

        • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 23rd September 2013, 12:27

          Having now seen the CCTV footage, I agree Webber deserved his reprimand too. Still undecided on the 10-place grid drop, but that’s not the fault of the stewards, and is therefore a separate debate.

  13. andae23 (@andae23) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:42

    RIP F1 romance…

  14. mixwell (@mixwell) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:42

    thats some really weird stuff those stewards are smoking
    what the hell? both of them don’t deserve a reprimand. and the penalty is dreadful.

    • Check out the CCTV footage as posted by Kieth above and you can easily see why they got reprimanded.

      Remember, the penalty is for three reprimands. Alonso had no strikes so he’s find, but Webber was already on two.

  15. Rules are rules, drivers know them and should abide by them. I like to see those pictures as much as anyone else but it’s dangerous and we all know that the sport tries to eliminate the inherent danger of racing as much as possible. So the reprimand is totally understandable, even if it hurts us fans…

  16. MuzzleFlash (@muzzleflash) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:43

    They only gave him a reprimand for the lift.

    He got the 10 place penalty for having 3 reprimands, as per the rules. So it wasn’t a direct 10 place drop for having the gall to do something frivolous.

  17. Michael Brown (@) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:43

    The title of the article is misleading, as the penalty comes from Webber’s three reprimands accumulated, not this incident.

    • Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:46

      I think the title is accurate even though it could be more informative. The problem is that people only read the title and not the article itself.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:57

      @lite992 The title of the article is entirely accurate. Webber’s penalty arises from the circumstances of him getting a lift from Alonso.

      • Andy (@turbof1) said on 22nd September 2013, 18:22

        Is not. The penalty arises from 3 seperate circumstances, not just this one. A better title would be “Webber receives grid penalty after thirth reprimand from lift alonso”. I know, it makes it tediously long, but the current title simply isn’t accurate.

      • No, it isn’t. Just like Michael Brown presumably did, I too read that penalty as a direct result of the incident. Which obviously paints everyone involved in the decision as borderline lunatics. With the reasoning specified in the article though the penalty seems reasonable – justified even. A poor title.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd September 2013, 20:33

        @turbof1

        The penalty arises from 3 seperate circumstances, not just this one.

        Two of which happened months ago – it is the third one which is news and therefore that which is of interest here. Besides which, as I say, there is nothing inaccurate in the headline.

        There’s nothing I can do if some people choose to draw misleading inferences from it. After all, the headline only serves to get you to the article, which explains everything in detail.

        • Andy (@turbof1) said on 22nd September 2013, 20:59

          Two of which happened months ago

          That’s not a relevant point. They happened this season and thus combined contributed for an exact 2/3 of the penalty. As the emphasis clearly lies on the penalty, not the third reprimand, it shouldn’t be directly linked to the cause of the third reprimand in the title, but to the 3 reprimands themselves.

          Look I don’t want to nag, and people who draw the wrong conclusions from the title still make the mistake of not reading the article, but if we had nothing to go on, no background info and article whatsoever, except the title, I think everyone would draw the conclusion he received the penalty solely because of the lift. The reason why it’s not accurate is because it goes against causality.

          I also don’t want to give the impression I want to force it down on you; it’s your site and if you placed as headline “Alonso deliberately picked up Webber to trick him into getting a penalty” I still would not have something to say about it. It’s only helpful advice.

        • Andy (@turbof1) said on 22nd September 2013, 21:08

          Also I’ve looked around at other sites. All of them just titled that he got a penalty (without any mention why in the title, which is then explained in the article) or they mentioned the penalty, the infringment and the fact it was his third reprimand all in the tittle. Even sites which journalism I normally would only describe as rubbish, remarkably done that (still one “off-title” doesn’t pull down the quality here, mind you).

        • To describe better what happened, something like this could have been appropriate:
          Alonso and Webber reprimanded – Australian’s third gives him grid penalty

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd September 2013, 0:14

          @turbof1

          That’s not a relevant point

          Yes it is, because the article is communicating an item of news.

          You might just as well have told me the headline should also mention that the rules were changed a while ago to give drivers penalties when they get three reprimands. How much of the back story do you expect me to recap in the modest space available in a headline for the benefit of people who aren’t paying attention?

          if we had nothing to go on, no background info and article whatsoever, except the title

          That’s irrelevant because you do have all those things to go on.

          The headline serves to get you to the detail because obviously you can’t cram all of it into a headline.

          • Andy (@turbof1) said on 23rd September 2013, 15:14

            I really like to give you my opinion on all of that why I think you are wrong, but what’s the point of it :P? Keith, I think it’s better here to agree to disagree.

      • Mark (@marlarkey) said on 23rd September 2013, 0:12

        It is an accumulation… but that doesn’t stop it being stupid…

        It like the 3-strike rule in the US where someone gets life imprisonment for stealing a hershey bar.

    • @lite992 true, but keith always does that, i complained before about such misleading headlines, but he has his reasons “apparently”.

      • I read the headline and thought that, then i read the story and hey presto, it made sense. I’m sure Keith’s “reasons” are the same as any journalist who wants you to read their story. There’s nothing wrong with that.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd September 2013, 20:34

        @f1007 You arriving at an incorrect assumption does not make the headline inaccurate, it makes your reasoning faulty.

        • Couldn’t this be the universal self-serving justification behind everything that’s ever been worded manipulatively? It’s not the fault of the way it’s worded, it’s your fault for understanding it incorrectly…

          Mind you, I’m not alleging you were knowingly manipulative with that title; simply used an approach that was not necessarily optimal.

          And, fair-minded and reasonable as you are in practically everything you say or do on your website, such problematic titles do slip in now and then, and your reaction afterwards invariably seems to be one of adamantly standing your ground. Kind of unlike you, ‘judging’ it by your site’s overall ethos which is admirable.

          (Please don’t take offense; the above tries to be a civil-sounding opinion.)

        • Bruno (@brunes) said on 23rd September 2013, 4:52

          Sorry @keithcollantine.
          I agree with you that the headline looks s=fine, but when you say:
          “You arriving at an incorrect assumption does not make the headline inaccurate, it makes your reasoning faulty.” From a research I read, that’s wrong.

          The single biggest mistake in communication is believing you have delivered the message in the best possible way, and when one misunderstands it, it becomes their fault.
          And plus, you have been a little picky on comments lately. (see first page, a comment made by @celeste ). I know there is a lot of criticism, but that’s what you get for running a forum like website.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd September 2013, 8:34

            The single biggest mistake in communication is believing you have delivered the message in the best possible way, and when one misunderstands it, it becomes their fault.

            There is nothing I can do to ensure 100% of people read every headline correctly. Even if you could completely guard against people simply getting the wrong end of the stick, there will always be those who choose to misinterpret things to serve their own point of view or indulge in cheap points-scoring.

            It’s interesting that you picked up on that particular comment as I was responding to someone who implied I had ignored a salient detail in the article which I had not. This brings me back to my point: all the detail you need to reach an informed understanding of what happened should be there in the article and I’m happy I’ve done the best possible job I could. The headline is an accurate characterisation of what happened and having read the article you could not possibly reach inaccurate conclusions about the events unless you chose to.

      • Michael Brown (@) said on 22nd September 2013, 21:09

        @f1007 It’s not Keith’s fault the readers can’t read the rest of the article. And judging by the comments, they’ve missed what Webber was reprimanded for. He got a reprimand for reentering the track without marshals’ permission, not because he got a lift from Alonso.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 23rd September 2013, 7:11

        The simplest way of making clear what the reason is @f1007, is that its a headline, which purpose is to give an indication of the what the article is about so people will go look at it to read the article. By definition it cannot say everything.

  18. This is ridiculous! And in his last year in F1? come on guys, not cool! I actually liked this scene; two drivers racing hard and then showing friendship.

  19. Penalty wasn’t 10 grip places but a reprimand and that’s right I think. Its just bad luck (of his own making) that it happened to be 3rd of this year.

  20. Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:45

    What !

1 2 3 4

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.

Skip to toolbar