Russell keeps third place in Miami GP as stewards reject Red Bull’s protest

George Russell has kept his third place in the Miami Grand Prix after the stewards dismissed a protest by rival team Red Bull.

The Mercedes driver finished the race in third place, 2.3 seconds ahead of Max Verstappen. Red Bull submitted a protest against Russell for “failing to slow under yellow flags.”

The team’s protest was triggered by a report from Verstappen during the race. He told his race engineer Gianpiero Lambiase to look into whether Russell slowed after yellow flags were displayed in reaction to Gabriel Bortoleto coming to a stop.

Verstappen was running behind Russell at the time they passed the yellow flags. At the end of the race, Lambiase told Verstappen to stay as close to Russell as possible, indicating they suspected he might be penalised, though stewards had not announced he was under investigation at the time. Red Bull protested Russell after the race.

However after examining footage of the incident and data from Russell’s car, the stewards ruled he did lift his throttle in response to the yellow flag. Red Bull argued that Russell failed to reduce his speed, and while the stewards noted his speed did continue to increase, it fell relative to normal racing speeds at that point on the track under green flag conditions.

Therefore the stewards dismissed Red Bull’s protest.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

Verstappen previously raised concerns about a rival failing to respond to yellow flags at last year’s Qatar Grand Prix. He told his team that Lando Norris, running behind him, appeared not to have slowed down in response to yellow flags. Norris was subsequently given a 10-second stop-and-go penalty.

Carlos Sainz Jnr and Pierre Gasly were both given formal warnings for failing to respond to the yellow flags in today’s race. These incidents were noted during the race.

In their cases, the stewards ruled they failed to slow in response to the yellow flags, but accepted there were mitigating circumstances. In Gasly’s case they ruled that “looking at the footage available, it is evident that the yellow flag was only shown from one marshal post and was shown against a yellow background in a very quick part of the track.

“In addition to that, there was no light panel in place at that point and therefore neither the team nor the driver got any visual or audible warning. The car causing the yellow flag also was not visible from the driver’s perspective as it was hidden behind an exit.”

On that basis the stewards “consider all this as a unique scenario and, taking all these mitigating circumstances into account, issue a warning to the driver.” They reached the same conclusion for Sainz, but noted he did subsequently slow down when his team alerted him.

Stewards’ decision on Red Bull’s protest against Russell

Procedure

1. On May 4, 2025, following the publication of the Provisional Classification for the Miami Grand Prix, Oracle Red Bull Racing (“Red Bull”) filed a Protest against Car 63 (George Russell) entered by Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team (“Mercedes”). Red Bull claimed in its protest that Car 63 had not complied with the regulations regarding a single yellow flag (Article 26.1 a) of the FIA Formula 1 Sporting Regulations (“Sporting Regulations”)) by not slowing down in a single yellow flag zone. The parties were summoned and heard. The following persons were present during the hearing:
On behalf of Red Bull: Stephen Knowles, Gianpiero Lambiase
On behalf of Mercedes: Ron Meadows, George Russell
On behalf of the FIA: Olivier Hulot

2. None of the parties requested the hearing of additional persons or requested conducting further investigations.

Admissibility

3. The Stewards find that the Protest is admissible as all requirements of Article 13 of the FIA International Sporting Code have been fulfilled.
4. The Hearing of the Protest then proceeded.

The Claims of Red Bull

5. Red Bull claimed that, while Car 63 lifted the throttle when the yellow flag was displayed, it did not reduce speed and therefore has not complied with the requirements of Article 26.1 a) of the Sporting Regulations.
6. In their mind “discernibly reduced speed” as required by the regulations means passing the yellow flag zone at an absolute speed which is lower than the speed before entering the yellow flag zone.
7. They stated that the driver of Car 1 which was running directly behind Car 63 had done that.

Mercedes’ arguments in defence:

8. Mercedes argued that the common practice accepted by all teams and the FIA was and still is that significantly lifting the throttle in a yellow flag zone is considered as an appropriate reaction and they therefore complied with the relevant regulations.
9. The driver of Car 63 stated that he saw the single yellow flag and the stranded car next to the track and therefore significantly lifted the throttle to react to the yellow flag.
10. The team further argued that the lift by Car 63 was more significant than what was observed from other cars.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

Conclusions of the Stewards

11. It was evident from the onboard footage as well as from telemetry that Car 63 lifted the throttle when passing the yellow flag zone. The throttle was lifted by approx. 25 percent and this resulted in a reduction of torque of approx. 30 percent.
12. Article 26.1. a) requires the driver to have “discernibly reduced speed” in a yellow flag zone but does not specify if that means reducing the absolute speed or reducing the speed relative to the regular racing speed in the relevant part of the track.
13. The speed of Car 63 in the yellow flag zone was considerably slower than the regular racing speed, but the absolute speed while passing through the yellow flag zone increased slightly.
14. The Stewards determine that the requirement of Article 26.1 a) concerning the reduction of
speed in a yellow flag zone can only relate to a reduction relative to the regular racing speed as the reduction of the absolute speed can, depending on the part of the track in which the yellow flag is displayed, represent a compliance or a non-compliance with the regulations whereas a reduction of the relative speed always signals that the driver has acknowledged and respected the yellow flag. For instance, in a braking zone the absolute speed can be reduced without necessarily complying with the regulations.

Decision

15. The Protest is rejected as it is not founded.
16. The Protest Deposit is forfeited.

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

Decisions of the Stewards are taken independently of the FIA and are based solely on the relevant regulations, guidelines and evidence presented.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

2025 Miami Grand Prix

• 2025 Miami Grand Prix weekend F1 driver ratings
• Doohan “just looking forward to Imola” but his future remains in doubt
• Pictures: Drivers ‘race’ two-seater Lego F1 cars before Miami Grand Prix
• Hadjar blames last-lap mistakes after failing to beat Tsunoda to final point
• Did Verstappen give up his fight against Norris too late? Miami GP data analysed

Browse all 2025 Miami Grand Prix articles