Ferrari has confirmed that it is pressing ahead with a right to review regarding the controversial incident which affected the outcome of the Canadian Grand Prix. But why has it got to this stage, why is it still rumbling on, and what happens next?
The origins of the case
Sebastian Vettel led the Canadian Grand Prix from pole position but was under pressure for the lead of the race. On lap 45 of 70 he had been given an instruction from Ferrari believed to relate to fuel-saving, with the SF90 under-fuelled, and the absence of a (perhaps expected) Safety Car period meaning the car was marginal. Lewis Hamilton, on two-lap fresher tyres, remained on the brink of DRS range, and as Vettel rounded Turn 4 on lap 48 a snap of oversteer pushed him wide. He ran across the grass, re-joined the circuit, and retained the lead. But the manner in which he did so was noted and the stewards launched an investigation.
What did the stewards say?
The stewards – a rotating four-person panel that in Canada included five-times Le Mans winner Emanuele Pirro as the drivers’ representative – deemed that Vettel had transgressed. He was deemed to have re-joined the track in an unsafe manner and forcing Hamilton to take evasive action. As a result of Vettel’s guilt he was issued with a five-second time penalty, the most lenient sanction available to stewards under the options listed by Article 38.3 of the Sporting Regulations, with a 10-second time penalty, and stop/go, among the penalty options written down.
What happened after the race?
.jpg)
A furious Vettel rejected the stewards’ call, while sympathising with the black-and-white nature of the regulations, before cutting a forlorn figure for the rest of the day. Ferrari team boss Mattia Binotto backed Vettel and on Sunday evening in Montreal it was confirmed that the team had lodged an intention to appeal. The stewards’ report reminds competitors that they have 96 hours in which to lodge a formal appeal, and Ferrari’s declaration indicated that the team was not satisfied with the outcome.
Why did Ferrari not appeal?
On Thursday evening, as the 96-hour time frame elapsed, Ferrari confirmed that it had opted not to go ahead with an appeal. It did not specify why, but Article 38.3g of the Sporting Regulation outlines that a time penalty is one of several which cannot be appealed. However, it is understood that Ferrari was not wanting to contest the penalty (ie, the Decision) but instead the Offence, though this remains unconfirmed. It nonetheless confirmed that it was considering the ‘right of review’ under Article 14 of the FIA’s International Sporting Code.
What is the right of review?
The ‘right of review’ is listed under Article 14 of the International Sporting Code and must be requested within 14 days of the incident. That meant Ferrari had until this Sunday, the date of the French Grand Prix, to lodge its intention and it has done so within plenty of time, publicising the decision on Monday afternoon. Article 14.1.1, to which Ferrari pointed the media, states that a right to review is permissible if a “significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties” at the time the original decision was made.
What is the new element, and what happens next?
Quite simply, no-one can be quite sure what the evidence is, and what approach Ferrari intends to take in its bid to argue Vettel's innocence. Ferrari declined to comment when pressed due to “the sensitivity of the matter”, but the evidence could relate to GPS traces, the interpretation of video footage, or even driver testimony. It is not known whether Ferrari will try and contest the section relating to the unsafe re-joining, forcing Hamilton to take evasive action, or both. The stewards reviewed the available video evidence, along with trackside CCTV, and they also have access to telemetry from the relevant cars. The FIA is now likely to gather the stewards from the Canadian Grand Prix – or like-for-like replacements if this is not possible – for they have the “sole discretion” (under Article 14.3) to “determine if a significant or new element exists”. A time frame has not been outlined for this stage.
Has it ever been used before?
Yes. Williams' Sergey Sirotkin was deemed responsible for a first-lap clash in Azerbaijan last year that impacted Fernando Alonso and Nico Hulkenberg. Stewards slapped Sirotkin with a three-place grid drop for the following round in Spain but Williams invoked a right of review. As well as contesting the Sirotkin judgement they raised other incidents on the first lap that did not involve the Russian in the hope of overturning the decision. The stewards, along with late Race Director Charlie Whiting, reconvened via teleconference on the Tuesday prior to the Spanish Grand Prix but unanimously agreed that no new evidence had been submitted.
