In the wake of the removal of his Zandvoort penalty, Carlos Sainz calls for permanent stewards.

From the moment he heard about the penalty which followed his collision with Liam Lawson, Sainz protested the decision and subsequently his team took up his case.

Having submitted a Right of Review the Zandvoort stewards removed the penalty satisfied by the new evidence supplied by the Grove outfit.

Due to damage to his car the Spaniard finished outside the points, but nonetheless it is the principal that matters, that and the fact that the stewards got it wrong.

Speaking in Baku the Williams driver called for change in terms of permanent stewards even though the idea has been rejected due to costs.

"F1 and the FIA all agree that should be the way forward, where at least two of the three stewards are permanent and we have one rotational for teaching purposes," he told reporters.

"For sporting fairness purposes, it should be to have one rotational but two permanent," he continued, "and we shouldn't care about who pays, because there is enough money in this sport to pay those salaries in the same way there's enough money in the sport to pay the salaries of all the other people. If that's the right way forward, I cannot believe we're talking about those salaries.

"What would help is that if I knew the referee was the same in every race, for me, I would know the pattern and, through years of working with them, how they were going to judge an incident in that moment. When you work with different races with different referees, it is very difficult to understand if a penalty is coming or not. I think not everyone agrees that they can use the argument of football.

"We have different referees and no one complains, but there could be a guy who gets penalised two or three times and he will start blaming 'the steward that hates me.' So I understand where they come from, those not in favour or permanent stewards, I understand, but I just have a very clear opinion on it."

Asked about the subsequent decision to remove the penalty, he said: "I could tell that they had a good conversation and realisation that maybe the judgment was not fully correct, and there were enough mechanisms to open the discussion again.

"I think that is a positive step," he added, "and the fact that they even took the opportunity to cancel the penalty points is a good sign.

"I'm not saying every case and scenario should be the same," he continued, "but cases like that were pretty obvious, and there have been times in the past where I'd like to have done this, but the team just said: 'Look, we won't get anywhere because it has to be new and relevant'.

"The problem, I think, is that it was not as obvious as it could be, down to interpretation, but it was black and white, like there should never have been a penalty. I think it was so obvious the moment we presented the new evidence, that it was enough to open the discussion again and get it to correct itself."