The ‘Norris case’
Among the many topics of discussion that followed Sunday’s Canadian Grand Prix, one certainly concerned the five-second penalty assessed to Lando Norris, which then cost the young McLaren driver the final placement in the points. Passing under the sacked flag in ninth position, in fact, Norris was relegated to 13th place, thus seeing an excellent race, topped off by several overtaking, thwarted. The #4 Woking stable was punished for having deliberately slowed the cars following him during the Safety Car regimein order to allow the McLaren mechanics to carry out the double pit stop for him and his partner Oscar Piastriwho preceded him on the track.
Unsportsmanlike behavior
In the official document released by the stewards at the end of the race, however, it was surprising to read how reason for penalization the “unsporting behavior”. In the explanation, provided by the marshals, no distance is mentioned – in meters or seconds – to be kept with respect to the car preceding Norris, but the intention to slow down the cars behind him is explicitly punished to take advantage of the pit stop. It is, at least for the recent history of F1, one quite significant novelty of interpretation which opens to interesting scenarios for the future. The article broken by Norris is the 12.2.1.l of the international sporting code, in which it is forbidden for pilots – among other things – to “behave in an unsportsmanlike manner or attempt to influence the results of a competition“.
A weapon against tricks
It goes without saying that this article carries with it one wide range of possible interpretations. The stewards evidently wanted to use this weapon – one of the most discretionary at their disposal – to punish a ‘clever’ by Norris and the team which was difficult to sanction with more ‘classic’ instruments. It is a precedent to be kept in close scrutiny, which opens wide for F1 one new and potentially appreciable road. Now, in fact, teams and drivers will necessarily have to be more reluctant toapply ‘tricks’ during the Safety Car regime, as a very clear precedent has been set. The impression is that we did not want to introduce yet another ad hoc ruleinstead using a more generic rule – but relevant to the case – to punish a behavior that had often been implemented in the past by other stables.
Now we need consistency
The important thing now is that this modus operandi is maintained continuously, standardizing the application of the penalty to behaviors deemed incorrect and unsportsmanlike. The unknown factor may be that of the interpretation criteria, which may vary from steward to steward. But the fact of not wanting to ‘weigh down’ the rule book with new paragraphs and paragraphs, instead exploiting an already existing rule, must be appreciated. Provided, however, always prevails, from now on, the consistency in application. Yes, this would really be a powerful deterrent to those teams that want to move too cleverly within the limits of the regulation.
#Unsporting #Conduct #Norris #Case #Lead