Figuring Out Formula 1: Appeals
Track side of the pit wall is speed, thrills, and action. On the other side is a thrill of a different nature. The teams and officials work endlessly to ensure that the races are conducted in full compliance with all standards and regulations regarding safety and fairness.
As the governing body for world motorsport, the FIA establishes relevant regulations and empowers stewards present at the races to enforce them. The regulations behind the pursuit of such high standards of safety and fairness can generally be split into two key categories: technical and sporting.
A technical regulation tends to be quantitative and fairly black and white when considering a violation. For example, the requirement that the car retains at least 1 litre of fuel at the end of the race to be tested. There is either a minimum of 1 litre left or there is not.
A sporting regulation is where the appeal process becomes more relevant. These regulations typically concern conduct in the form of what is considered safe driving, response to flags/warnings from the marshals, etc. They can often result in reasonable minds differing, and as such the avenues to express those differences of opinion (between the driver/team and the stewards) have been made available in order to ensure fair and engaging competition.
The Appeal Process per the Code
Conduct:
A team member (usually the driver) does something that breaches or may be found to have breached the International Sporting Code (the Code) or another regulation.
Stewards make a decision: Article 11
A decision and subsequent penalty may take longer for the stewards to decide; however, a decision is typically published within minutes of the conduct.
Intention to appeal: Article 15.1.2.a
A driver/team must submit an intention to appeal a decision within 1 hour of that decision being published by the stewards.
Bringing the appeal: Article 15.4.3
A driver/team must bring their appeal within 96 hours (4 days) of their submission of their intention to appeal.
National Sporting Authority (ASN) makes a decision: Articles 15.4.5 and 15.6.1
Whichever ASN hears the appeal must give its decision within 30 days of the hearing.
The ASN may waive, mitigate, or increase the penalty being appealed.
The residing ASN would depend on the country in which the decision was handed down originally. For example, Motorsport Australia would hear appeals brought from decisions handed down regarding the Melbourne Grand Prix.
Note: Pursuant to Article 15.10, all appeals against decisions of the FIA Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee are handled by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Further Appeal? Article 15.2
A driver/team may appeal a decision of an ASN to the International Court of Appeal pursuant to the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules.
Examples
Penalty Waived: Fernando Alonso – 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix
While serving a time penalty during a pit stop, sporting regulations hold that the car cannot have any work done to it. While serving a 5-second penalty for having lined up outside of his grid box, a mechanic touched Fernando Alonso’s car with a jack. The stewards held this action to be “working on” the car and that the penalty had thus been served incorrectly due to a breach of regulations. The stewards handed down an additional 10-second penalty which pushed Alonso off the podium from P3 to P4
Aston Martin claimed in their appeal that the 5-second penalty was served correctly since touching the car with a jack during that time did not amount to “working on” the car as per the regulations. The stewards heard from Aston Martin and FIA representatives and subsequently reversed the 10-second penalty.
Alonso was popped back up into P3 and became (again) the sixth driver in Formula 1 history to achieve 100 podiums!
Penalty Increased: Irvine and Verstappen – 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix
While it is very uncommon for the FIA to increase a penalty that has been appealed, it is not impossible.
While driving for Jordan in Brazil 1994, Eddie Irvine forced Jos Verstappen (yep, Max’s dad) off the track. Subsequently, Verstappen crashed into Irvine himself, Eric Bernard, and Martin Brundle. Being found to be the predominant cause of all four drivers retiring from the race, Irvine was fined $10,000 and given a one-race suspension. Jordan appealed and the FIA increased the suspension to three races instead.
So, while you might say the appeal was successful in the sense that the original penalty was tossed out, I’m sure Jordan considered it as anything but a victory.
Third-party Challenge: Red Bull – 2021 British Grand Prix
Although not entirely common, there are instances where a non-penalized, but still involved, team has appealed against a penalty on the grounds that it was not severe enough. A memorable example of this would be the 2021 British Grand Prix when Red Bull felt that Lewis Hamilton had predominately caused the crash with Max Verstappen and that the penalty should reflect such.
This appeal was dismissed as the stewards felt there was no new significant or relevant evidence to be considered.
Takeaways
Differences of opinion or definition aside, something that every official, driver, team member, and fan have in common is the understanding that the excitement and thrill of the Formula 1 Championship is founded and maintained largely on the safety and fairness of the sport.
It is expected and achieved as best as possible, that all safety precautions and regulations are adhered to. It is also expected that when reasonable minds differ, there is an avenue for those differences to be heard and explored fairly. This remains possible through the appeal process.
The FIA is outstandingly open with its official documentation and legislation (see links below), which can be quite thrilling to explore for oneself!
References and Further Reading:
FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules
FIA F1 Documents (including steward decisions)