Stewards reject McLaren’s request to review Norris’ United States GP penalty · RaceFans

The stewards of the United States Grand Prix have rejected McLaren’s request for a review of the penalty which cost Lando Norris a podium finish.

McLaren’s request was denied because the stewards deemed they did not supply a significant, new and relevant piece of information, as required by the rules. The stewards of the previous race held a hearing via videoconference involving representatives of McLaren and their rivals Red Bull.

Norris and his team were infuriated by the stewards’ decision to hand him a five-second time penalty for overtaking Max Verstappen off the track at the exit of turn 12 on the 52nd lap of the race. Norris claimed he was forced off the track by Verstappen, who had fallen behind him as they approached the corner, but ran off the track himself at the exit. The decision cost Norris third place in the race to his championship rival and resulted in a six-point swing between the pair.

McLaren attempted to persuade the stewards to reconsider Norris’ penalty by presenting the decision itself – document number 69 of the United States Grand Prix – as a new piece of evidence. The team argued the decision contained a factual error which they had not been aware of at the time of the decision.

The team claimed the stewards incorrectly described Norris as the driver who was overtaking. They argued Norris had already passed Verstappen before they reached the corner, and he was therefore no longer the overtaking driver, and the case should therefore be considered differently.

Red Bull, represented by sporting director Jonathan Wheatley, claimed McLaren had failed to provide evidence which met the required standard. The stewards agreed with them, ruling it was not “relevant” to the issue at stake.

“McLaren appears to submit that the stewards finding that ‘car four [Norris] was not level with car one [Verstappen] at the apex’ was an error and that car four had overtaken car one before the apex (and therefore that car one was the overtaking car) and that this asserted error is itself, a new element,” the stewards ruled.

| Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“This is unsustainable. A petition for review is made in order to correct an error (of fact or law) in a decision. Any new element must demonstrate that error. The error that must be shown to exist, cannot itself be the element referred to in article 14.”

“In this case, the concept that the written decision (document number 69) was the significant and relevant new element, or that an error in the decision was a new element, is not sustainable and is, therefore rejected,” they added.

However the stewards did note that the right of review process sets a “high bar” for teams to challenge decisions. They noted the decision against Norris was taken without the team having an opportunity to present their case.

They drew the FIA’s attention to “the current ‘high bar’ that exists in article 14 [of the International Sporting Code] and the fact that it appears to have been designed more for decisions that are taken as a result of a hearing where all parties are present, rather than in the pressurised environment of a race session, when decisions are taken, (as is allowed under the International Sporting Code), without all parties being present.”

Speaking before the hearing began, McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown explained why the team rejected the stewards’ original decision. “These things are difficult but we have a different view,” he told Sky. “I think a lot of people agree with our view that Lando [was] in front, and if you look at it from that perspective, you maybe have a different outcome on that corner.”

The incident has triggered a fresh debate over what F1 should consider a legitimate racing move. Several other drivers sided with Norris and called on the FIA to revise the rules of racing to outlaw drivers from defending their position by going off-track.

| Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Brown suggested F1 should relax the rules of racing and leave it to the stewards to determine what infractions need to be penalised.

“We maybe have too many rules. There’s a reason why we have former F1 drivers and racing drivers as stewards. They know best what’s going on.

“I think we’ve got to free up the rules a little bit and let the FIA stewards have a little bit more discretion, because they know what’s really happening, versus the very technicality of who got to the apex first – well, if you put your foot down, you’re going to get to the apex first, but maybe won’t make the corner. So I think we need to open up and just leave it a little bit more to the F1 stewards to use their discretion.”

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said before the hearing began he doubted McLaren had new evidence to present.

“I don’t think there is any new evidence,” he said. “You have to trust in the process. I think the stewards are in difficult positions. I felt that the calls they made were absolutely fair and right at the weekend. You can’t overtake a car off the circuit.

“So that’s where we are. It’s McLaren’s right to invoke that. They’re probably ruing the fact that they didn’t let Max back past because they had such a pace advantage at that part of the race with the overlap of the fresher tyre that they would have probably quite easily passed Max in those last four laps anyway.”

| Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free