Carlos Sainz and George Russell remain far from happy over incidents during Dutch Grand Prix.

Indeed, Williams has submitted a right of review of the incident which saw Sainz given a 10 penalty for causing a collision with Liam Lawson.

"We can confirm we have submitted a right of review to the FIA relating to Carlos' penalty in Zandvoort," said the Grove outfit in a statement. "It is important for us to understand how to go racing in future, and we are hopeful of a positive outcome."

Handed the penalty during the race, Sainz subsequently met with the stewards but to no avail.

"I did get the chance to go and speak to them after the race," the Spaniard told reporters in Monza. "I had the opportunity to go and sit with them for fifteen minutes to analyse the incident.

"It was very clear to me that as soon as they got all the evidence, and they look at the places that they would have needed to look at to take the right decision, it was very clear to me that I think they realised that probably a decision taken wasn't the best one," he added.

"Now we are trying to see if we can come up with enough evidence and enough stuff to realise if we can change the outcome of the penalty, because I still firmly believe it was a very poor penalty that I received and a bad judgment, which can happen as long as you have the capacity to revisit it. And if there's been a misunderstanding or a lack of evidence or a lack of analysis, then there is still time to reanalyse it, to reopen it, and change it."

As far as the stewards were concerned, Sainz was attempting to overtake Lawson on the outside of Turn 1 following the second restart but the front axle of the Williams was not ahead of the front axle of the RB at the apex and as the Spaniard attempted to stay on the outside the collision occurred.

The stewards considered Lawson had the right to the corner and therefore Sainz was wholly or predominantly to blame for the collision, consequently, they imposed a 10 second time penalty.

"First of all, the incident is quite clear," said Sainz in the moments after the race, "how many examples we've seen Turn 1 Zandvoort of two corners racing side by side without contact. It allows cars to race each other without having unnecessary contact, but with Liam it always seems to be very difficult to make that happen.

"He prefers to have a bit of contact and risk a DNF or a puncture like we did than to actually accept having two cars side by side, which hopefully will come with more experience to him, because he knows he's putting too many points on the line just for an unnecessary manoeuvre like he did. But on top of that, to then get a 10-second penalty for it, I think it's a complete joke."

Speaking in Monza, Lawson admitted surprise at Sainz' criticism.

"No, to me I'm surprised," replied the Kiwi, when asked if there was an issue between the pair. "It's that on a restart we have cold tyres, hard tyres. We're all on new tyres after the Safety Car. It's a naturally difficult corner. We're all coming in there on lap one.

"He's the car going for the overtake around the outside, and he didn't get his axle where he needed to get it. And somehow I'm deemed as being aggressive. So I don't really understand it.

"It ruined my race," he insisted. "We were in a position to potentially have two cars in the top five, but I didn't go on the radio and mouth off to everybody about it or to the media. So, yeah, it's his approach after that race but I don't know why he was so upset, honestly."

Meanwhile, George Russell still believes that Charles Leclerc should have been punished for going off track during their battle. The Mercedes had been ahead of the Ferrari in Turn 11 but subsequently lost the position at the exit of Turn 12.

The stewards investigated, with the benefit of the driving standards guidelines, whether either driver should have done something different, and also looked into whether Leclerc remained on the track or left the track at Turn 12. The available evidence was inconclusive as to whether the Ferrari left the track and both team representatives were in agreement that there was no clear evidence of that.

However, Russell insists there is evidence.

"To be fair to the stewards, they didn't have a clear-cut angle that clearly showed he was off-track," he told the official F1 channel. "You could sort of believe that he was off and it was clear he was off, but there was no camera angle or photograph at the time that clearly showed he was off the track.

"There was no doubt in my mind," he continued, "because I knew that I was over the white line. But I understand it from their view.

"Obviously we've now seen photos since that clearly showed he was off track. So I don't think any clarification is needed. Sometimes decisions are correct, sometimes you don't have the info at the time."

The clash saw Leclerc eliminated on the sport, while damage to the Mercedes saw him losing almost a second a lap as he struggled home in fourth.

"Things could have been very much different with slightly different outcomes," said the Briton. "Obviously Hadjar had an amazing weekend and a really great qualifying.

"We were only a few milliseconds behind so if we had a slightly better job on Saturday I think we would have been on course for finishing the race in P4 and then obviously with Lando's failure that would have changed. But in the end after a very bad weekend P4 was a good result."