The hunter or hunted argument that could be key to McLaren’s right of review push

McLaren’s petition to seek a right of review over Lando Norris’s penalty for overtaking Max Verstappen off track in Austin shows it remains deeply unhappy over what happened last weekend.

And while few would argue against the fact that overtaking off track is not allowed in F1, a deeper understanding of what played out at Turn 12 has opened up a much more complex scenario.

While the focus of the debate in recent days has been on what F1’s Driving Standards Guidelines do and do not allow when it comes to attacking and defending, there is perhaps a fresh element of the Norris/Verstappen incident that has moved into the spotlight.

And it is, that when it comes to determining what Verstappen and Norris were duty bound by the regulations to do, which of them was attacking and which of them was defending.

It is this interpretation that alone can change perceptions of the incidents and decide who was right and who was wrong. After all, if Norris was officially ahead before the braking zone, then how can he have overtaken off track? He would have been simply holding on to his position after being forced wide by an attacker down the inside.

The original stewards’ verdict in Austin was clear that it did not see things that way, as it felt Norris “was overtaking Car 1 on the outside, but was not level with Car 1 at the apex.”

Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, battles with Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

This meant that having not been where he needed to be as the cars turned through the corner, Norris had lost the right to be given room on the exit.

So, by being behind him as they went into the corner, then it was obvious it would be a rules breach to overtake him after running wide.

But it was interesting to hear Norris suggest on Thursday in Mexico that the situation is not as clear as that, and that in his view it was actually Verstappen doing the overtaking.

“I was completely ahead of Max,” he said. “I was over a car length ahead of him so I was no longer the attacking car. He was.

“I was ahead of Max, I was having to defend, he was the one attacking me and effectively he has gone in too hard and overtaken off the track. I just maintained my position so it is something I am sure we will discuss, as it has been a big talking point since last weekend.”

New video released

The viewpoint of Norris being ahead has most likely crystallised over the past few days with more detailed video onboard footage of the incident being released by F1 Management.

As part of the way that footage is captured, each car during the race is only able to broadcast a single feed. In Norris’s car, it was the forward-facing onboard, while Verstappen’s live camera was looking back towards the rear wing.

Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, battles with Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

This meant judging the relative position of the two cars against each other from the drivers’ perspective was pretty hard. Plus the only other camera angles that the international feed showed of the build-up to the incident were a helicopter cam view and a camera inside Turn 12, neither of which made the relative position of the two cars crystal clear.

On Tuesday this week, however, downloaded footage from onboard cameras did offer some fresh perspective of the incident.

And while there is still no sign of Verstappen’s forward-facing onboard, 360-degree camera views from both cars showed the McLaren did get well in front of the Red Bull on the straight – before they entered the braking zone.

So from Norris’s perspective, the verdict should be based on Verstappen attacking him down the inside under braking, rather than him being viewed as the one trying to go around the outside.

The Driving Guidelines do not make reference to at what point one car is deemed to be ahead of another, but if it is ruled that Norris was actually ahead then Verstappen would have needed to fulfil some key criteria for the pass to be allowed.

They are that his car must:

• Have its front axle AT LEAST ALONGSIDE of the mirror of the other car no later than the apex of the corner
• Be driven in a safe and controlled manner throughout the manoeuvre (entry, apex and exit).
• Without (deliberately) forcing the other car off the track at the exit. This includes leaving an acceptable width for the car being overtaken from the apex to the exit of the corner
• Be able to make the corner within the track limits.

Based on how the incident played out, Verstappen fulfilled the first point, and he would argue that he ticked off point two. However, he would fail on the third and fourth elements.

The new evidence issue

Should McLaren be pursuing this route that the Norris penalty was wrong because he was not the overtaking car, then before it can even plead its case on that front it first of all has to convince the stewards that it has found a new, relevant and significant element.

With the stewards having had access to telemetry, the live television feeds and GPS car positioning data on Sunday afternoon in Austin, it is likely that the fresh evidence will include the new video camera angles – and potentially the testimony of the drivers.

The use of a fresh video feed is similar to what happened after the 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix when Mercedes lodged a right of review request over Verstappen’s defensive driving against Lewis Hamilton in that race.

Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB16B, battles with Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes W12

Photo by: Charles Coates / Motorsport Images

This footage was of Verstappen’s onboard camera, which offered a better insight into his viewpoint and steering input during a Turn 4 incident.

At the time, the stewards who were reconvened to look at the matter accepted that the onboard angle was new and that it was relevant as it “allowed the overall position of the cars, the steering inputs of the driver of Car 33, the heading of the cars and the proximity of the cars to be analysed together”

However, they denied that the new onboard footage passed the “significant’ test as it showed “nothing exceptional that is particularly different from the other angles that were available to them at the time, or that particularly changes their decision that was based on the originally available footage.”

If McLaren is indeed submitting fresh video footage to try to help its case, then it too may struggle to convince the stewards that the 360-degree cameras do tell a different story of the incident.

However, one notable difference between the Brazil 2021 case and the current matter is that back then, there was no hard decision to review, as the stewards had let Verstappen’s antics go.

They said at the time this was “the motor racing equivalent of  ‘Play-On’ in other sports.”

In a statement where they rejected the Mercedes request, they said they did not feel that the Right of Review element of the International Sporting Code should be used for “such discretionary decisions that do not follow on from a formal inquiry by the Stewards and do not result in a published document.”

This time around, there was a formal inquiry over Norris’ driving and a published document that can be reviewed.

The key now though is whether the Right of Review hearing will even get that far, or will be thrown out at the first hurdle because the new evidence is not good enough.