Lewis Hamilton was penalised at the Qatar Grand Prix for a false start having moved - and then stopped - before the lights went out to begin the race.
The Mercedes driver picked up his first penalty of a trying race when he nudged forward early, though his loss of momentum as he tried to correct the error saw him lose spots off the line.
Seven-time world champion Hamilton was downcast after the race when holding his hands up for the error, as well as his later penalty for speeding in the pits, saying: "It could have been worse, but I finished and it's over.
"That was me at the start. And then the puncture was really unfortunate. And the pitlane, that was me as well. I'll do my best, but I'll get back up tomorrow and give it another shot."
But the consistency of penalty application had arisen on social media amid the debate around the FIA's decision-making at the Losail International Circuit, with some pointing to Lando Norris's lack of punishment for a similar misjudgement at the start at this year's Saudi Arabian Grand Prix.
So why was Hamilton punished and Norris wasn't?
What did Norris do?
At the second round in Jeddah, Norris did almost the exact same thing as Hamilton had done in nudging forward in his grid box before the lights extinguished, before stopping and then getting going with a loss of momentum.
The 'false start' was noted by Hamilton's Mercedes team-mate George Russell, who was straight onto his team radio to call "false start Norris" as he breezed by the McLaren.
But it transpired that Norris had failed to trigger the FIA transponder at the start, meaning that because of the absence of an alert from the sensor, he was spared a penalty.
The stewards's report at the event read: "The Stewards reviewed positioning/marshalling system data, video and determined that the video appeared to show that Car 4 moved before the start signal was given.
"However, the FIA-approved and supplied transponder fitted on the car did not indicate a jump start. Article 48.1 a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations states clearly that the judgment of whether or not there was a jump start is to be made in accordance with the transponder, which did not show a jump start. In the circumstances, we took no further action."
What was different for Hamilton?
As the stewards's report states from the past weekend: "The FIA transponder indicated a false start. This was confirmed by examination of the video evidence from the on-board camera of Car 44. As the start of Car 44 was only very slightly ahead of the start signal, the minimum penalty is applied."
The fact the transponder was triggered is the first point of difference between the two incidents, even though they look near-identical. But in truth, Hamilton was more likely to be penalised anyway, given a major change to the regulations following discussions at the F1 Commission meeting held between the Chinese and Australian Grands Prix.
Confusion over Norris's non-penalty, given it was obvious to the eye that there was a false start, led to a change in the wording of the regulations, with the sentence that determined any jumps could be found only by the transponder being triggered removed from the rulebook.
A revision to Article 48.1 a) of the Sporting Regulations instead states than an offence will be deemed to have taken place if a driver is judged to have: "moved after the four (4) second light is illuminated and before the start signal is given by extinguishing all red lights."
Therefore, regardless of Hamilton's transponder being triggered on Sunday, the Briton would have been punished under the revised regulation anyway.
This was no inconsistency from the FIA or the race stewards, but rather all parties learning from a confusing situation and putting things right.
