Ferrari’s petition for a right to review the penalty handed out to Carlos Sainz during the Australian Grand Prix will be heard on Tuesday.
Sainz was handed a five-second time penalty for causing a collision with fellow Spaniard Fernando Alonso in his Aston Martin at the second restart of a chaotic race at Melbourne’s Albert Park on April 2.
During the red-flag period to clear additional accidents involving Alpine duo Pierre Gasly and Esteban Ocon, as well as the Williams of Logan Sargeant and Nyck de Vries’ AlphaTauri, Sainz was informed of the stewards’ decision.
Starting from fourth on the grid for the third restart, and with the remaining lap to be conducted behind the safety car, Sainz knew the penalty would relegate him out of the points. He was classified 12th.
Sainz “devastated”
Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur described Sainz as “devastated” by the decision, particularly given the other incidents – especially that involving Gasly and Ocon that was reviewed by the stewards – went unpunished.
The same stewards will now hear if there is a ‘significant and relevant new element’ that exists in relation to the Sainz/Alonso clash that will allow the matter to be reinvestigated and another hearing conducted.
An FIA statement read: “The stewards of the 2023 Australian Grand Prix have received a letter from Nikolas Tombazis, single-seater Director of the FIA, attaching a petition by competitor Scuderia Ferrari dated 6th April 2023 under Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code (“Petition”), seeking a review of the stewards’ decision n°46 made within the framework of the 2023 Australian Grand Prix and requesting that the stewards ‘consider such request and to make a determination whether or not a significant and relevant new element exists (Article 14.3 of the Code) in relation to the decision/incident’.
“The driver(s) and team representative(s) are required to report to the stewards for a virtual hearing to be held on 18th April 2023 at 0800 CET in relation to the petition.”
Article 14.3 states: “The stewards shall have the sole discretion to determine if a significant and relevant new element exists.
“The decision of the stewards as to whether or not such an element exists is not subject to appeal before the national court of appeal or the International Court of Appeal.”
There is a possibility a new hearing may still come to the same conclusion, alternatively, hand out a different penalty, or overturn the original decision.
Stewards reacted differently – Ferrari
Speaking recently on the matter, Vasseur said: “The reaction of the stewards was not the same.
“The biggest frustration was from Carlos, as you heard over the radio, to not have a hearing because the case was very special.
“In this case, it would have made sense considering the race was over, it was not affecting the podium, and to have a hearing as Gasly and Ocon had.
“I don’t want to blame someone because with racing incidents, and I’ve been doing this job for 30 years now, each time we have a crash on track you always have two versions, with different feedback and a different outcome, depending on the drivers.
“It’s not an easy job, and also it’s difficult to take a decision when it’s during the race, and we are always asking (for the stewards) to take a decision during the race.
“This race was probably a bit particular with three red flags, the two restarts and another behind the safety car, and that’s where the frustration came from because we had the feeling the Ocon-Gasly situation was treated a bit differently.”
Discussion about this post