Following a similar disputed use of the Safety Car at an International GT Open event at Spielberg in September, the FIA International Court of Appeal ruled that it would have been wrong to annul the final result due to race director error .
The case demonstrates the type of thinking that the ICA (the Court of Appeal) would have followed if Mercedes had decided to appeal after the Abu Dhabi race.
At the end of the 2021 season, race director Michael Masi did not follow the protocols established at the end of the period behind the safety car, restarting the race with one lap to go.
After making pit stops to fit fresh soft tires that would provide more grip, Max Verstappen managed to overtake Lewis Hamilton on the final lap, thus winning the world title. After the race, Mercedes lodged two protests. The first claimed that Verstappen had overtaken Hamilton under Safety Car conditions, while the second indicated that Masi had not respected the regulations as he had not allowed all the lapped cars the opportunity to overtake the leader. After lengthy deliberations, both protests were rejected.
Mercedes then submitted a notice of intention to appeal, giving the team 96 hours to decide whether to proceed or not, evaluating what to do. A period that continued until the FIA gala awards ceremony, where Verstappen should have received the trophy that is reserved for the winner of the world championship.
In the meantime, the FIA had confirmed that it would set up a commission to completely review the events of the race and, as the awards ceremony approached, the Brackley team had officially communicated its decision not to appeal.
In a statement, the team said: “Together with Lewis, we have thought carefully about how to respond to the events of the F1 season finale. We have always been guided by our love of the sport and believe that every race should be won on its own merit.” In Sunday's match many felt, including us, that the way things happened was not correct.”
“The reason we protested the result of Sunday's race was that the Safety Car rules were applied in a new way which affected the result of the race, after Lewis was ahead and on the verge of winning the championship. world”.
“We appealed in the interests of sporting fairness and have since entered into a constructive dialogue with the FIA and F1 to provide clarity for the future, so that all competitors know the rules under which they are competing and how they will be applied “.
Regarding the FIA investigation, the team had added that “we will work actively with this commission to build a better F1 – for every team and every fan who loves this sport as we do. We will hold the FIA accountable for this process and hereby we withdraw our appeal.”
The Austrian GT case also involved the use of the Safety Car, although it played out slightly differently. After a period of yellow flags, the restart occurred in the wrong order and, following the conclusion of the race, Team Motopark lodged a protest, asking for the result to be changed or cancelled. The protest, as in Abu Dhabi, was rejected by the race commissioners.
The team then lodged an appeal, which was subsequently heard by the Spanish federation's court. The judges took an opposite position to that of the sports commissioners and annulled the result, almost a month after the event took place.
However, another team, Optimum Motorsport, subsequently appealed the decision, turning to the International Court of Appeal. The matter was discussed early last month and the full outcome and explanation emerged this week.
In essence, the International Court of Appeal supported the original judgment of the stewards and annulled the decision of the Spanish court, restoring the original result of the match. As a result, Optimum McLaren drivers Sam De Haan and Charlie Fagg were declared champions instead of Audi Eastalent Racing drivers Christopher Haase and Simon Reicher.
The Court of Appeal found that “the race director committed a breach of the regulations”, but in an extensive explanation referring to previous cases and all applicable regulations, explained that “the Court decides, accordingly, that neither the stewards nor the NCA [il tribunale nazionale spagnolo] they had the power to cancel the race.”
The ICA underlined that the regulations provide for the possibility to change or cancel the result of a match, but also stressed that this power “must be used in very restrictive circumstances”, adding that “the principle of 'sporting fairness', enshrined from article 1.1.1 of the Code [sportivo internazionale]which describes this principle as 'fundamental', must be central to the court's decision.”
Significantly, the Court of Appeal added that “if it used its specific power to annul or modify the ranking, following the violation committed by the race director, it would be seeking to correct an unjust situation by creating another unjust situation.” The ICA concluded that “based on the balance of interests, the Court therefore decides that it must reinstate the classification of the tender and must not use its specific power to cancel or change the classification”.
While there is no guarantee that the ICA would have come to a similar conclusion after Abu Dhabi – which would have confirmed the correctness of the FIA stewards in leaving the result as it stood on Sunday – the GT case provides a good indication of how they would have dealt with the case. It also suggests that any future appeal, should similar circumstances arise again at an F1 event, will be unsuccessful.
#Abu #Dhabi #case #shows #Mercedes #lost
