Liam Lawson defended despite key Red Bull point 'to remember'

Martin Brundle has backed the stewards' decision to hand Liam Lawson a warning rather than a penalty for his defensive move against Isack Hadjar during the British Grand Prix sprint, while noting the elephant in the room: both drivers race for Red Bull-owned teams.

Lawson held on to eighth place at Silverstone, the final points-paying position in the sprint format, after a tense battle with Hadjar on the approach to Stowe on Lap 16.

The stewards investigated the Racing Bulls driver's late defensive manoeuvre but ultimately settled on a formal caution, accepting that it was "not a case of a significant change of direction after the braking phase had clearly commenced" and that Lawson had left sufficient room for Hadjar.

The stewards did, however, acknowledge the move was "marginally over the limit of what is acceptable when defending into a corner."

Speaking on Sky Sports F1, Brundle said he was content with the outcome but pointed to the wider dynamic at play between the two Red Bull stables.

"I didn't call it as a penalty on commentary; I said I need to see it again, because they've got different battery deployments," the former F1 driver said.

"He did leave some space on the inside, and he was taking the racing line, and he left a car's width on the inside, just about.

"And if you read the report, Hadjar, the injured party on the inside, said, 'I don't think this warrants a penalty'; of course they are both driving for Red Bull teams, we have to remember that...

"But no, I think the warning is fair enough on that; he was trying to squeeze the gap. It was iffy, but I think when I read the report, that feels about right in my opinion."

Brundle's remark about Red Bull's dual-team ownership carries extra weight given the constructors' championship picture.

Red Bull and Racing Bulls are both owned by Red Bull GmbH, and that single point for eighth was arguably more valuable to Racing Bulls, which now sits sixth on 45 points and is chasing Alpine, on 57, for fifth in the F1 constructors' standings.

Hadjar's own testimony to the stewards supported Lawson's case, as he argued it did not warrant punishment, with the Frenchman stating the move was "sharp" but that "sufficient room was left" and "contact was avoided."

He also referenced the differing energy levels between the two cars, which made the closing speed difficult to judge. The stewards accepted this factor in their ruling, noting it complicated Lawson's ability to assess the gap.