Why Sainz’s rare right of review win was a “breakthrough” for F1 teams

The rare FIA U-turn on Carlos Sainz’s penalty in Zandvoort’s Dutch Grand Prix has been applauded by several Formula 1 team principals as it reignited discussion around the series’ right of review procedure.

Sainz was handed a 10-second penalty and two penalty points on his licence for his share in a collision with Liam Lawson in Zandvoort’s Turn 1, with Sainz trying to overtake the Racing Bulls driver around the outside but was crowded off the road until the pair made contact.

In accordance with F1’s current racing guidelines the stewards deemed Sainz predominantly to blame as the Spaniard was not far enough alongside to be entitled to room, but Sainz vehemently disagreed and his Williams team launched a petition to review the incident.

Why right of review requests are rarely successful

Those right of review petitions are rarely admitted because they have to clear a high bar. Any such request must present relevant and significant evidence that wasn’t available at the time of the incident, parameters which are judged by the stewards and are thus open to interpretation.

It is a difficult balance for the FIA to find, as the governing body wants to give competitors the opportunity to review penalties and other incidents, but also doesn’t want to encourage them to make frivolous requests that are clearly never going to make the cut.

Ahead of the 2024 season, following a flurry of unsuccessful and at times spurious requests, the governing body decreased the window to submit them from 14 days to 96 hours after the event, while also introducing a fee. Since 2023, only one request has been successful, that of Fernando Alonso seeing a time penalty overturned at the 2023 Saudi GP, restoring the Aston Martin driver’s podium finish.

Since then several requests from Haas, Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren and Aston Martin were denied, usually because whatever evidence was presented was not significant enough according to the stewards.

That’s why, according to team boss James Vowles, Williams took its time until the last possible moment to launch its petition so that “we’re not wasting anyone’s time”.

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

A potential “breakthrough” for F1 teams

In its Zandvoort request Williams supplied previously unavailable rear-facing camera footage from Lawson’s car and a 360-degree camera from Sainz, and it also indicated that Sainz hadn’t been available yet to offer his view as the stewards took a swift mid-race decision.

Williams’ request was admitted because its camera footage was new, relevant and significant, as it showed Lawson suffered a snap of oversteer that saw him drift into Sainz, with the stewards revising their verdict to a racing incident. While the damage was already done for Sainz, his two penalty points have been rescinded.

The fact that stewards made a U-turn on a decision has been hailed as a “breakthrough” by Sainz, as in the past the bar for evidence to be significant was so high that the successful Zandvoort petition came as a surprise to many.

“It’s a breakthrough because it’s the first time that I’ve managed to present new evidence and accept a right of review,” Sainz said in Baku. “We tried before and we never managed in other teams, so it shows that the mechanism is there and is there for a reason. I’m finally happy that we can use that mechanism in the case where it’s black and white, like it was in my case.”

McLaren team boss Andrea Stella also welcomed the decision as the papaya squad had been on the losing end of a right of review petition in the past. After the 2023 Canadian GP Stella strongly disagreed with the FIA dismissing a review of Lando Norris’ penalty for “unsportsmanlike behaviour”, while last year McLaren was also denied a request to review Norris’ penalty in Austin for exceeding track limits in his fight with Max Verstappen. In both cases McLaren was left frustrated with how difficult it had become to challenge decisions.

When asked about the Sainz decision, Stella said: “I’m in favour of making the possibility to reopen a case a little easier. The way this is actually translated in the real world becomes quite technical, but from a team principal point of view, having an easier way to reconsider cases and rectify decisions is something we should definitely make sure is possible. Then I would leave to the experts the technicalities as to how you make this happen. But at the moment — or up until the last couple of cases — the threshold was too high for acceptance.”

Sauber team principal Jonathan Wheatley, who is vastly experienced in the matter as former Red Bull sporting director, added: “There’s a lot of criteria that need to be met, which is why it’s unusual for them to be upheld. So I think what that tells you, fundamentally, is that that very strict set of criteria was met.”

Racing Bulls team principal Alan Permane also suggested Sainz being able to offer his testimony in the hearing was relevant as new evidence, but according to the stewards that was ultimately not a factor behind the U-turn, as stewards are routinely empowered to make in-race decisions without being able to hear from any driver involved. Therefore, any interpretation that there’s now a theoretical precedent for any mid-race penalty to be reviewed afterwards is not quite what the Sainz case means.

Photo by: James Sutton / LAT Images via Getty Images

Questions over guidelines and professional stewards remain

The outcome of Williams’ right of review procedure didn’t necessarily clear up F1’s debated racing guidelines. There is still a feeling that drivers who are ahead on the inside are currently given too much freedom to do what they want without regard for whoever is alongside them. If Lawson hadn’t momentarily lost control over his car, Sainz’s penalty would have likely stood.

Sainz admitted he still wasn’t sure how incidents are judged and voiced his support for the introduction of permanent stewards to aid consistency: “I’m not going to lie, I think [the guidelines] haven’t had the impact that we all wished they had in terms of making it clearer. It’s clear on paper when you read it, but then on the execution and the racing, like we always see, it’s not as clear.”

But the team bosses agreed that in this case it was good for the series that Sainz’s penalty as the attacking driver was rescinded.

“It’s absolutely paramount to the sport that the drivers are free to race, and one of our slogans is ‘let them race’ in the team principals’ group,” Wheatley pointed out. “We’re trying to support that. That was a great bit of on-track action, and it feels to me like the right decision was made in the right of review process.”

Lawson’s team boss Permane added: “I think what everyone wants to see is racing; close racing and overtaking. Of course, we were on the wrong end of it, but we don’t want cars to have to follow each other and be bound by very rigid things, so if it does just open that up a little bit and mean that Carlos could be alongside there, I think everyone will welcome that.

“We don’t want cars driving into each other, but we also don’t want a procession, do we?”