Autobayng News Team
When Williams announced they had asked for a review of the penalty Carlos Sainz Jnr received in the Dutch Grand Prix, their chances did not look good. Only three such cases had succeeded out of the 13 brought before the stewards over the previous six seasons.
None of these had been brought by Williams. But Sainz knew first-hand how difficult it could be just to persuade the stewards to reconsider their decision at all – let alone convince them the original call had been wrong.
Two years ago Ferrari asked the stewards to review his penalty for colliding with Fernando Alonso during the Australian Grand Prix. That bid failed for the same reason many others had.
“There is no significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned,” the stewards determined after reviewing Ferrari’s evidence. They rebutted each line of Ferrari’s attack.
Ferrari provided data from Sainz’s car, but the stewards said this was not new, as they already had access to ample telemetry. Ferrari provided a statement from Sainz, but the stewards said they would have summoned him at the time had they thought it necessary. And Ferrari also tried to cite precedent from what they believed was a similar incident, but the stewards disagreed this was relevant.
Teams have gone to considerable lengths to persuade the stewards to reconsider past decisions. In 2019 Ferrari even submitted footage of an incident being analysed by a television pundit in an effort to overturn a penalty which cost Sebastian Vettel a race win.
Red Bull took matters to extremes in 2021. Attempting to provoke a tougher penalty for Lewis Hamilton they went to the lengths of using a post-race test to have test driver Alexander Albon attempt to recreate the Mercedes driver’s line during the incident in question. But the stewards refused to accept this as relevant evidence.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
The failures of these and other requests meant Williams knew they had a high bar to clear. Nonetheless they decided, on the Monday after the Dutch Grand Prix, to request a ‘Right of Review’ hearing into Sainz’s penalty for colliding with Liam Lawson.
The rules gave them a 96-hour window to prepare. Team principal James Vowles explained how they used this time to ensure their case was as strong as possible.
“I wanted to make sure we reflected on it on the Sunday, not overreact, but rather look back through the footage on Monday, have a chat with Carlos before we make a decision to go ahead,” he explained in a video released by Williams.
Vowles described the care the team took to ensure its request wasn’t dismissed. “We need to make sure that we’re complying with three elements of that ‘Right of Review’,” he explained. “You need information, effectively, that wasn’t available to the stewards at the time of the decision. And that information has to be new and it has to be significant.”
The team knew the stewards had already seen footage of the incident which was played during the race broadcast. This included Sainz’s forward-facing onboard camera, but not the same angle from Lawson’s car.
“If you think that through in context, whilst there’s some onboard footage and helicopter footage and other footage, et cetera, that shows the instance from different angles, all of that was available to stewards at the time of making their decision and therefore it doesn’t comply with the requirement for a ‘Right of Review’,” said Vowles.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“So quite a bit of that time was [spent] assessing what evidence can we gather that enables us to get the case to where we need it to be? And then what do we need to do to fundamentally bring this forward and hopefully display the case to the stewards from our perspective?”
Not all of the footage captured from a car during a session is available to be broadcast live. Some, such as the 360-degree camera video, can only be retrieved afterwards. Red Bull successfully used this footage to trigger a penalty for Lewis Hamilton at the Austrian Grand Prix in 2020.
Vowles was still at Mercedes then. Five years later, his team used the same angle from Lawson’s car to achieve success with their request for review.
This was no guarantee of success; Mercedes tried and failed a similar approach in 2021 but the stewards deemed the new footage was not significant. But Williams felt the footage added new information.
“We’re respectful of the FIA and the stewards and the circumstances – this is not something we want to pull together in a matter of minutes,” said Vowles.
“So, in part, it’s making sure we’re really assessing the situation correctly. In part, making sure that we gather the right evidence. And then in part making sure that we’re respectful so we’re not wasting anyone’s time as a result.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
To Williams’ relief, the stewards decided their time had not been wasted. They accepted Williams’ argument that the new footage revealed a significant detail which they had not taken into account at the time, namely Lawson’s temporary loss of control of his car.
Williams’ careful preparation of their case had paid off. Sainz had already served his penalty, meaning it could not be rescinded, but the stewards cancelled the two penalty points they had given him. This was a rare triumph for a team in a Right of Review hearing, one which may encourage others to try the same in the future.
Formula 1
- Cadillac accept rules “quirk” means Bottas will serve grid penalty at team’s first race
- Montreal and Singapore to host first sprint races as F1 confirms 2026 schedule
- Tenth title for McLaren? Fifth Baku pole for Leclerc? Six Azerbaijan GP talking points
- The FIA’s stewards grabbed the chance to correct their mistake – unlike last time
- How to watch the 2025 Azerbaijan Grand Prix
