The penalty kick taken by Lando Norris in Austin still stands!

(Motorsport-Total.com) – Commissioners have rejected McLaren's request to review the penalty against Lando Norris in the Formula 1 race at Austin. According to the reasons given, the racing team was unable to provide any new relevant evidence, and for this reason the case will not be reopened. This means Norris' penalty from the US Grand Prix still stands.

Norris received a five-second penalty from the commissioners last weekend because he reportedly overtook Max Verstappen in an off-track duel. As a result, he trailed the Dutchman in fourth place in the final classification.

Four days later, McLaren submitted a request for review, which was heard on Friday in Mexico via video conference. For the application to be allowed, McLaren had to provide significant, relevant and new evidence which McLaren did not have in its possession at the time the decision was made.

As evidence of this, McLaren's race director, Randeep Singh, cited the Austin commissioners' decision document, which, according to the team, contained “an incorrect statement that demonstrated objective, measurable and demonstrable error by the commissioners.”

Because it was written there that Norris had passed Verstappen on the outside track, but was not alongside him at the top of the curve. But according to McLaren, it was a mistake because Norris had already passed Verstappen and was ahead before the braking zone. McLaren had no such miscalculation.

Team boss Andrea Stella also said the case was a “legally complex statement” for McLaren and called on commissioners to recognize it was a material issue, especially compared to previous cases.

Red Bull sporting director Jonathan Wheatley, on the other hand, said the bar for a successful review was “very high” and that new evidence would be “very difficult” to prove. According to him, none of the criteria were met, but Singh saw it differently.

While the commissioners agreed that the standards are too high in a situation like this, this is a matter for the association and not the commissioners who are solely concerned with enforcing the rules.

However, in the specific case, the Commissioners did not take into account McLaren's arguments that the Commissioners' alleged error was a new element that should be relevant because: “This is untenable. An application for review is made to establish an error (factual or legal) in order to correct the decision.” “

“Every new element must prove this error. The error whose existence must be proven cannot itself be the element in question.”

“In this case, the view that the written decision (Document No. 69) is the essential and relevant new element or that the error in the decision is a new element is untenable and is therefore rejected.”

Furthermore: “Since there are no new relevant elements, the petition is denied.”