Teams abuse the right to review decisions?

The FIA ​​has rejected Ferrari’s request to reconsider the fine Carlos Sainz received in Australia for the collision with Fernando Alonso.

This is not the first time Ferrari has sent out such baseless protests that go nowhere, and this is a completely expected outcome. This was the case in 2019 after the Canadian Grand Prix, for example, when Sebastian Vettel lost his victory and received a 5-second time penalty for an unsafe return to the track.

And then in the Scuderia, as proof of the justice of their protest, they presented as many as seven reasons, but they were all rejected. The federation found them insufficiently weighty.

Even earlier, in 2016, the Italian team tried to protest against the 10-second penalty imposed on the same Vettel in Mexico, but nothing came of it either.

Here it is time to understand what is the right to review court decisions. It is enshrined in the FIA ​​sporting code, which applies to all championships held under the auspices of the federation, and provides for the possibility of reverting to certain stewards’ rulings if new significant evidence emerges at the time was not of the decision.

In the case of the Sainz penalty, the stewards did not call the Ferrari driver for an interview, as they did not consider it necessary, although they had such an opportunity, and of course they knew about it. The speed of decision-making and the severity of penalties may raise questions, but this is a topic for a separate discussion, unrelated to the right of teams to file protests.

It is important to understand that this right is not considered an appeal against a decision that does not suit the team. To revise the decision, new evidence must be presented, as was the case in 2020 when Lewis Hamilton was awarded a penalty in the form of losing three grid positions in Austin.

The stewards were unaware that there was 3D camera footage showing the Mercedes driver breaking the yellow flag rule. After providing such videos, the Red Bull Racing team sent a request for a review of the stewards’ decision, which was accepted, and Hamilton was penalized as a result.

There is also a very recent example. At the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, Aston Martin was able to prove that there are agreements about the fact that the jacks can come into contact with the car while the driver is serving a fine. The stewards were just not aware of these agreements because the FIA ​​did not bother to include them in the text of the regulations.

But the number of examples of rejected protests is growing every year. It can be recalled that after the 2021 British Grand Prix, Red Bull’s attempt to punish Lewis Hamilton failed. In the same season, Mercedes’ petition was also rejected, when this team demanded a fine from Max Verstappen for pushing Lewis out of the Brazilian Grand Prix.

Behind all these attempts was nothing but the justified anger of the offended party. Again, whether the stewards’ decisions were correct or not is another question, although it is also relevant. Part of the problem could be solved if the FIA ​​agreed on the need to set up a panel of professional stewards, because it is absurd that in Formula 1, the world class championship, still amateur approximations are used.

The mechanism for filing a protest is necessary in case some circumstances were indeed missed during the consideration of an incident or emerged later. Cases of true overhaul are rare, but that’s the tradition in Formula 1: you should always take advantage of every opportunity, even the most illusory.

This is partly due to the imperfection of the refereeing system and the formulation of the rules. The FIA ​​employs many good professionals, but the system itself is not optimally organized. Hence the contradictory decisions, sometimes too hasty, sometimes the process of making them seems too long, and it is quite logical that reproaches are regularly made for their inconsistency.

But fundamentally, the existence of a system for reviewing judicial decisions is fully justified. However, to stop the practice of abuse, it may be worth introducing a provision to increase the size of the fine, or even deprive a few points in the team standings for unfounded petitions for review if they don’t have hard evidence.

Such sanctions can be applied in cases where the team tries to protest against something, clearly realizing that its request will be rejected.
Ferrari may counter that they have only asked for a review of the “Sinz case” to spark a discussion: is it right in such cases to make such hasty decisions “off the wheels” rather than sorting everything out after the Grand Prix finish? ?

Such a formulation of the question is reasonable, but for this you should not abuse the right to review decisions, which will only make everyone waste time.