The FIA rejects McLaren's appeal request

The FIA statement is very detailed after McLaren's appeal hearing. It is three pages long. It is very detailed because the judged action is so open to interpretation that it is difficult to give a clear answer. This statement suggests that even though the appeal is rejected, the way penalties are given on the track should be reviewed as it leaves too much room for interpretation.

The maneuver in question occurred at the end of the United States Grand Prix last week. While Lando Norris pulled alongside the Red Bull on the outside of the corner, he went off track to avoid a collision with Max Verstappen, who was defending his position. The McLaren driver still managed to gain an advantage off track. This off-track overtake was deemed a violation and was penalized with a 5-second penalty.

The stewards nevertheless clearly saw that Max Verstappen's Red Bull also went off the track, preventing Norris from taking his turn. McLaren therefore appealed, focusing its request on the fact that contrary to the FIA statement, Lando Norris was indeed level with, or even ahead of the Red Bull, at the braking point. The overtake had thus already been completed for McLaren.

« Mr. Singh [Editor's note: McLaren's race director] stated that the decision document contained an incorrect statement, namely: "Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 from the outside, but was not alongside Car 1 at the apex." According to McLaren, this statement was false, as Car 4 had already overtaken and was ahead of Car 1 at the braking point.

The process of a revision right is done in several steps. First, the FIA examines the appeal request, to see if indeed, a new element potentially contradicts what has been judged. Then, if that is the case, the commissioners re-evaluate the disputed event, afterwards.

« Radeef Singh ended his intervention by emphasizing that McLaren had met the required level of demand, adding that perhaps the way correct decisions are made during the race should be reconsidered.

Here, the FIA believes that McLaren comes with a valid argument. But the FIA specifies that it is the relevance that will be evaluated during this hearing and not the fact that there is a new element.

« Instead of determining if this request meets one of the required criteria, the commissioners decided to focus on a specific criterion, namely relevance. » explains the press release.

The FIA therefore considers that the error, as specified by McLaren by the FIA in its statement on the penalty, is not justified. The FIA indeed considers that this element is related to interpretation. Two commissioners may therefore judge the scene differently. However, the FIA considers here that even if two interpretations are possible, this does not make it an error in the way the initial penalty was judged.

« McLaren states that this mistake constitutes a new element in itself. This assertion is considered unfounded. A request for revision aims to correct a factual or legal error in a decision. Any new element must demonstrate this error. However, the error itself cannot be considered as the new element mentioned in Article 14, explains the FIA.

Therefore, the FIA considers that the appeal, while bringing elements that may require a right to review, is not admissible.

In this case, the idea that the written decision (document 69) constituted the new and relevant element, or that an error in this decision represented a new element, is not valid and is therefore rejected," concludes the FIA.

« Article 14.3 of the FIA International Sporting Code states: "The decision of the stewards regarding the existence or not of such an element is not subject to appeal…".