FIA Rejects McLaren's Appeal To Review Norris Penalty

United States Grand Prix: Formula 1's governing body has denied McLaren's request to review a penalty given to Lando Norris during the United States Grand Prix. The five-second penalty, issued for overtaking title rival Max Verstappen off-track, dropped Norris from third to fourth place in the final race standings.

It was confirmed on Thursday ahead of the Mexico City Grand Prix weekend that the Woking outfit had submitted the request over the five-second penalty that Norris received for overtaking Verstappen off the track as they battled for third place last time out in Austin.

A hearing subsequently was held on Friday, with a team representative required to attend a video conference with the stewards.

In a document released by the FIA confirming the request, it was stated that the hearing would determine whether there was a "significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the party seeking the Review at the time of the Decision concerned".

If this was found to be the case, a second hearing would follow. However, it has been announced that the stewards have dismissed the request.

In a document explaining the outcome of the case, it is stated that McLaren argued that a statement on the original decision document was incorrect, that being that "Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside but was not level with Car 1 at the apex".

The team suggested that this was an error because they had evidence that Norris had already overtaken and was ahead of Verstappen "at the braking zone". Red Bull, represented by Jonathan Wheatley, stated their belief that the criteria for a successful petitioning for a 'Right of Review' had not been met in this case.

It is further stated in the document: "In relation to relevance, McLaren appears to submit that the Stewards finding 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 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 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.

Article Source: IANS