IndyCar: Graham Rahal’s penalty sets a dangerous precedent

IndyCar set a dangerous precedent by penalizing Graham Rahal for blocking Scott Dixon at the end of the Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach.

A poor final pit stop in the 2019 IndyCar season’s fourth race, the Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach, dropped Chip Ganassi Racing’s Scott Dixon out of the top three and into fifth place.

A few laps later, Dixon made his way around Andretti Autosport’s Ryan Hunter-Reay for fourth place, and he then set his signs on Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing’s Graham Rahal for third.

On lap 85 of the 85-lap race around the 11-turn, 1.968-mile (3.167-kilometer) temporary street circuit on the streets of Long Beach, California, Dixon got a run on Rahal coming out of turn eight after Rahal locked up his brakes heading into the corner.

More from IndyCar

• IndyCar: Two teams with no drivers confirmed for 2024
• IndyCar: Chip Ganassi Racing news hints Alex Palou announcement
• IndyCar: ‘Addition by subtraction’ could pay off in a big way
• Team Penske should make a bold driver signing for 2024
• IndyCar: 5 teams that still have open seats for 2024

Rahal went to the inside coming out of turn eight to protect against the threat of Dixon making a pass, and he ultimately succeeded, as Dixon was unable to pass him. He was then unable to pass him in turns nine, 10 and 11, and his attempt to side draft Rahal to the finish line resulted in him falling short of third place by a mere 0.1156 seconds.

Per IndyCar’s rules, blocking itself is allowed whereas blocking when it entails moving in reaction to someone making an attempt to pass is prohibited. Rahal clearly made the first no matter which view you’re looking at.

Here are a few views of the incident.

Yet IndyCar penalized Rahal anyway, stripping him from a third place result and relegating him to fourth while Dixon was awarded the third and final position, a move that resulted in Dixon gaining three points in the championship standings, Rahal losing three points in the standings and Rahal dropping three positions (sixth to ninth) in the standings.

On top of that, IndyCar’s penalty was actually issued to Rahal for a “direct reaction to Dixon’s attempt to pass”, setting a dangerous precedent moving forward, especially considering it was voted on unanimously by race stewards Arie Luyendyk and Max Papis.

Even the questionable aspects of the move, of which there were still definitely a few, per IndyCar’s own blocking rule, should not have been enough to penalize Rahal, much less unanimously. Additionally, there have been far more blatant reactionary blocking moves in the recent past that have maybe resulted in warnings.

What happens when a driver wins the Indianapolis 500 after blocking a run from the second place driver? What happens when the Indy 500 leader is too afraid of the possibility of being issued a penalty for blocking and does not even attempt to defend from the second place driver who ends up making the eventual race-winning pass because of it?

Sure, these are two very extreme situations to consider, but let’s not forget that Rahal’s move took place on the final lap for the final podium position of the Indy 500-equivalent of IndyCar street course racing.

Whether or not you agree with IndyCar’s decision does not change the fact that a dangerous precedent has been set.

But this doesn’t have to be a dangerous precedent if IndyCar responds accordingly and makes their rules on blocking more clear. IndyCar Rule 9.3.2, entitled “Blocking”, states that “a driver must not alter his/her racing line to pursuing drivers.”

Rahal didn’t do that. He simply didn’t do that; that’s hardly even debatable. Sure, he didn’t take the traditional line off of turn eight, but he picked a lane well before Dixon made a move, and he stuck to it. Above all, Dixon still had a chance to pass him by using another lane, especially given how much quicker his #9 Honda was compared to Rahal’s #15 Honda, and he couldn’t do it. That’s racing.

IndyCar may not necessarily need a “rule change” when it comes to blocking and reactionary blocking. But a serious discussion needs to be had about what, exactly, the currently “blocking” rule actually means and how it will be enforced moving forward to avoid potentially disastrous controversial situations from unfolding in the future.

I truly couldn’t care less what they decide, the same way I couldn’t have cared less if Graham Rahal or Scott Dixon crossed the finish line in third place. But there needs to be consistency, and that consistency needs to start now, especially with the iconic month of May coming up.