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 ?é?® Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

      • @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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. It’s a shame that this has happened, but I do understand why Webber and Alonso had to be reprimanded.

  6. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:47

    I haven’t seen the footage of the incident but one person who has says the penalty was justified:

    https://twitter.com/tomcary_tel/status/381822005013532673

  7. Kneyfield (@kneyfield) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:48

    I agree, the reprimand is deserved, because the rule exists and the drivers know about it. Not following them means, that they should expect some kind of punishment.

    The only reason why this has fans steaming is Webber’s bad luck, that this has been his third reprimand in this season. Nobody would’ve cared a lot about this reprimand two weeks later, but now people will remember because of Webber’s 10 place penalty.

    Red Bull can be happy, that Vettel is doing all he can to win both championships almost by himself, because Webber certainly hasn’t helped much this season.

  8. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:48

    Apparently, the way that Alonso stopped the car meant that the two Mercedes had to suddenly swerve out of the way to avoid a crash.

    That does sound fairly dangerous to me.

  9. A reprimand is fine if it was considered dangerous. And a few journalists seem to be saying that it was https://twitter.com/adamcooperf1/status/381822430349512704

  10. Pete (@repete86) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:51

    The stewards for this race need their heads examined.

    • Pete (@repete86) said on 22nd September 2013, 18:36

      Never mind, I take it back. It was dangerous, but it still seems like Alonso did the dangerous thing by stopping at the exit of a blind corner rather than Webber for accepting the ride. I still don’t think that Webber should have been reprimanded.

  11. Jack (@jackisthestig) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:54

    I’d honestly feel more secure sat on a sidepod holding onto the airbox inlet and with a leg in the cockpit rather than riding pilloin on a crazy marshal’s moped.

  12. Well that has ruined the whole race for me! Absolute joke

  13. An appalling decision. Totally over the top.

  14. what seriously….I dont know what to say..and hulk had to give his place back to perez..

    f1 needs a new iphone app, so that the viewers can decide on penalties, think it might be more consistent..!!!

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.