F1 stewards deliver verdict after huge Yuki Tsunoda-Pierre Gasly shunt

The F1 stewards have weighed in on the crash that occurred between Yuki Tsunoda and Pierre Gasly during the Monaco Grand Prix.

The former team-mates collided on lap nine of the race with Gasly hitting the rear of Tsunoda's car as they exited the tunnel.

While Tsunoda was able to continue, Gasly was eliminated from the race as he sustained significant damage to the front left of his car.

Issuing their verdict on the incident, the stewards decided that Gasly was at fault for the collision and handed him a reprimand.

The Alpine camp argued that Tsunoda “did not leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track” and that while under braking, he moved to the right side after he “commenced braking on the left hand side of the track after Turn 9”.

But in their ruling, the stewards refuted such suggestions, stating: “Other than marginal differences, the line taken was similar to the previous laps. 

“So, he was not defending a position ‘off-line’ as required for a breach of Appendix L – the requirement for him to leave at least one car’s width did not apply.

“Secondly, we did not consider that he was moving under braking to defend at a corner (which is the other prohibition) but taking his normal racing line at the part of the track, which goes from left to right. 

“So, in the circumstances, it appeared to us that the attempted overtake of Car 22, in the Monaco circuit, on the approach to Turn 10 was ambitious and unlikely to succeed. The driver of Car 10 ought to have exercised greater caution in attempting such a move and should have anticipated Car 22 moving to the right, as had happened in the previous laps. 

“We also checked the telemetry of Car 10 whose rear tyres locked slightly while braking and that contributed to the incident as it reduced the braking efficiency of the car. We therefore considered that the driver of Car 10 was wholly or predominantly to blame for the collision. 

“We took into account the fact that there was no immediate and obvious sporting consequence to Car 22 from the collision. 

“Instead, it was Car 10 that was significantly impacted by the collision. We therefore applied the Penalty guidelines where there was no immediate and obvious sporting consequence and imposed a reprimand (driving) on the driver of Car 10.”