F1 update:FIA stewards reject McLaren’s Right of Review petition over Norris’s US GP penalty….read more
FIA stewards reject McLaren’s Right of Review petition over Norris’s US GP penalty….read more
“McLaren’s request for a Right of Review regarding Lando Norris’s penalty at the United States Grand Prix has been denied by the FIA stewards. The team argued that the stewards made an incorrect assessment, claiming that Norris had completed an overtake on Max Verstappen, thus becoming a defending car rather than an attacker. This argument hinged on a statement in “Document 69” from the FIA’s timing system, which McLaren submitted as a significant new element that was not available when the original decision was made.
During a hearing held in the paddock at the Mexican Grand Prix, which lasted 25 minutes, McLaren team principal Andrea Stella and team manager Randeep Singh presented their case. They contended that the stewards’ findings were flawed, specifically the assertion that Norris was not level with Verstappen at the apex of Turn 12, a claim they believed could be disproven by evidence indicating that Norris had already overtaken Verstappen before the apex.
For a Right of Review to progress to a second stage, teams must demonstrate that the new evidence is significant, relevant, and was unavailable during the initial decision-making process. However, the Austin stewards determined that McLaren’s argument did not meet these criteria, particularly the relevance of the claimed error.
Red Bull representatives, including sporting director Jonathan Wheatley, were also present at the hearing. They argued that none of the criteria for a successful Right of Review had been fulfilled, emphasizing that the bar for such petitions is exceptionally high under the FIA International Sporting Code.
After considering McLaren’s points, the stewards concluded that the assertion that an error had occurred in their decision did not qualify as a new element. They stated that a petition for review should aim to correct a mistake, and that the alleged error itself cannot serve as the basis for
About The Author
