Motorsport’s governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), has announced that McLaren Racing’s petition for a Right of Review into the penalty handed to Lando Norris during the 2024 United States Grand Prix, has been rejected.
As reported by Pit Debrief, during the United States Grand Prix, Lando Norris was handed a five-second time penalty, after he was judged as having unfairly gained a lasting advantage in the race after he rejoined the track ahead of Red Bull Racing’s Max Verstappen following a near-collision between the two drivers into Turn 12 of Lap 52.
Despite him having gained his position off-track, McLaren opted not to have Norris cede the position to Verstappen as they believed the British driver had been ahead of Verstappen at the apex.
This decision resulted in the matter being referred to the Stewards who, after reviewing the incident, deemed Norris’ off-track overtake on Verstappen a violation of Article 33.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations. While the Stewards acknowledged the mitigating factors which had played a role in the incident, Norris was handed a five-second time penalty which ultimately resulted in him being demoted to P4, behind Verstappen, after he failed to create a significantly large gap between himself and the Dutch driver in the final laps of the race.
While Red Bull and Verstappen claimed that Norris’ penalty was fair and similar to those previously received by Verstappen for similar incidents in previous races, McLaren and Norris openly expressed their dissatisfaction with both Norris and McLaren Team Principal Andrea Stella describing the decision as “rushed” and lacking consideration of the perspectives of the drivers and teams involved in the incident.
The Woking-based team’s dissatisfaction with the Stewards’ decisions was highlighted when, ahead of the 2024 Mexico Grand Prix, the FIA revealed, through United States Grand Prix Document 76, that:
“The Stewards have received a petition for a Right of Review in accordance with Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code, from McLaren Formula 1 Team, in respect of the Decision of the Stewards of the 2024 United States Grand Prix, breach of Article 33.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations in relation to Car 4.”
In a subsequent press release, McLaren confirmed that they had submitted the relevant paperwork requesting this Right of Review to the FIA and stated that, in keeping with Article 14.1.1 of the FIA International Sporting Code, they believed that there was a significant and new element of the matter that had been unavailable to the team at the time that the decision stated in United States Grand Prix Document 69 had been made.
In keeping with the guidelines stated in Article 14.1.1, and as indicated in the United States Grand Prix Document 78, a hearing was convened at 1430 hours Mexico Time (2030 hours Central European Time) on Friday October 25, 2024.
This hearing, which was conducted by the Stewards of the 2024 United States Grand Prix via video conference, was attended by representatives of McLaren, as well as representatives of “concerned parties” Red Bull Racing and the FIA, and sought to determine, “at the sole discretion of the Stewards (as specified by Article 14.3),” the validity of McLaren’s claim based on the criteria that the new element was “significant, relevant, new and unavailable to McLaren at the time of the decision.”
As described by Document 78, McLaren, represented by Racing Director Randeep Singh, claimed that their petition was based on the team’s opinion that a statement in Document 69 – “Car 4 [Norris] was overtaking Car 1 [Verstappen] on the outside but was not level with Car 1 at the apex” – was incorrect as McLaren had evidence that Norris had been ahead of Verstappen “at the braking zone.”
The team stated that this statement showed that the Stewards had made “an objective, measurable and provable error” and argued that this error met all four criteria for the Right of Review.
However, Red Bull Sporting Director Jonathan Wheatley, the representative for the Milton Keynes-based team, disagreed with Singh, expressing that he believed that none of the four criteria for the Right of Review. He stated that it was “extremely onerous” to establish the existence of the new element due to the “very high bar” required for a successful petitioning.
While Singh admitted that “the bar is extremely onerous”, he expressed that he believed that his team had “met that bar” and added that he felt that “there needed to be another way to correct decisions taken in a race.”
Following the statements by McLaren and Red Bull, the hearing was adjourned at 1455 hours Mexico Time to allow for a review of the presented claims, and particularly, their compliance with the criteria required for the Right of Review to proceed.
While the Stewards deemed that McLaren’s petition had been lodged “in good faith, they ultimately rejected the petition as there was “no new relevant element.” As stated in Document 78:
“In relation to relevance, McLaren appears to submit that the Stewards finding that “Car 4 was not level with Car 1 at the apex” was an error and that Car 4 had overtaken Car 1 before the apex (and therefore that Car 1 was the overtaking car) and that this asserted error is itself, a new element. 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 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.”
This decision means that Norris’ penalty will stand, as under Article 14.3 of the FIA International Sporting Code, and as noted in Document 78:
“The decision of the Stewards as to whether or not such an element exists is not subject to appeal before the national court of appeal or the International Court of Appeal.”
However, despite their decision, the Stewards noted that the issue had shown that the current “high bar” described by Article 14 appeared unsuitable for “the pressurized environment of a race session” where decisions had to be taken without the presence of all affected parties. As stated in Document 78:
“The current “high bar” that exists in Article 14 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 the pressurized environment of a race session, when decisions are taken, (as is allowed under the International Sporting Code), without all parties being present.“
In a statement released by the team, McLaren said: “We acknowledge the Stewards’ decision to reject our petition requesting a Right of Review.
“We disagree with the interpretation that an FIA document, which makes a competitor aware of an objective, measurable and provable error in the decision made by the stewards, cannot be an admissible “element” which meets all four criteria set by the ISC, as specified in Article 14.3.
“We would like to thank the FIA and the stewards for having considered this case in a timely manner. We will continue to work closely with the FIA to further understand how teams can constructively challenge decisions that lead to an incorrect classification of the race.”
