Fernando Alonso has been credited with third place in today's Saudi Arabian Grand Prix after the stewards reversed their decision.

The Spaniard, who finished third on the road, was penalised shortly after the end of the race for not serving his 5s time penalty during the race.

Handed another 10s penalty, this meant he dropped from 3rd to 4th.

However, Aston Martin subsequently appealed the decision and several hours after the race the stewards performed a U-Turn and handed third place back to the Spaniard.

In support of the Petition for Review, the stewards were shown minutes of the latest SAC meeting and video evidence of 7 different instances where cars were touched by the jack while serving a similar penalty to the one imposed on Alonso without being penalized.

The clear submission by Aston Martin was that the alleged representation of an agreement between the FIA and the teams that touching the car in any way, including with a jack, would constitute "working" on the car for the purposes of Article 54.4 (c) of the Sporting Regulations, was incorrect and therefore the basis of the Steward's decision was wrong.

In the light of the petition, the stewards had to decide if there was a "significant and relevant new element [that was] discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned".

If there was such an element(s) then the stewards would need to consider whether the decision needed to be modified in any way.

Having reviewed the video evidence presented and having heard from a representative of Aston Martin and the relevant members from the FIA, the stewards determined that there did exist significant and relevant new evidence as required under Article 14.1.1 to trigger a review of the decision, in particular the video evidence and the verbal evidence from the team and from the FIA.

"It was clear to us that the substratum of the original decision, namely the representation of there being an agreement, was called into question by the new evidence," said the stewards. "We therefore proceeded to hear the substance of the request for review."

Having reviewed the new evidence, the stewards concluded that there was no clear agreement, as was suggested previously, that could be relied upon to determine that parties had agreed that a jack touching a car would amount to working on the car, without more.

In the circumstances, they considered their original decision to impose a penalty on Alonso needed to be reversed and did so accordingly.

Check out our Sunday gallery from Jeddah here.

LATEST NEWS

more news >

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

Click to go to the main galleries section

READERS COMMENTS

1. Posted by Ras, 23/03/2023 14:00

"Stewarding/penalty system has become self parody, to the detriment of the sport itself."

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by kenji, 22/03/2023 0:51

"Specific time related penalties are by their very own desription, the same irrespective of venue. Drive through penalties vary in 'time' due to layout, pit traffic and entry and exit lanes in totality."

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

3. Posted by OwningXylophone, 20/03/2023 17:30

"SO, to answer my own question... The 5 & 10 second time penalties are explicitly allowed to be served under SC & VSC conditions, but drive through's are not. Madness."

Rating: Positive (3) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

4. Posted by OwningXylophone, 20/03/2023 17:10

"I'll be honest, I actually thought the second penalty was going to be for serving the first one under the safety car. I'm sure that used to be a rule, no? Gotta feel sorry for Russell, who I think thought the same, as it's not like Alonso actually served a "5 second" penalty as everyone else was at reduced speeds. "

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

5. Posted by ARL, 20/03/2023 12:54

"On the bright side, Aston Martin got to appeal the penalty - unlike the 147+ people beheaded by the barbaric Saudis since their first GP.

So much for the positive effect of sport on host countries that Stefano Domenicali trumpets. Annual Saudi executions have almost doubled since Mohammed bin Salman grabbed power."

Rating: Negative (-1) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

6. Posted by Spindoctor, 20/03/2023 10:52

"@Chester - exactly the right question & I think the Jury is now out."

Rating: Positive (1) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

7. Posted by Chester, 20/03/2023 10:49

"My wife is a casual but knowledgeable F1 watcher, and a top notch athlete that knows fair from not.

Her comment after hearing the Alonso penalty: "Is that a sport?""

Rating: Positive (4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

8. Posted by Mad Matt, 20/03/2023 7:56

"I don't really mind if Fernando keeps his pole or not but I think the rule should have been upheld. Arguing that some other teams got away with it in the past is really no argument at all. I don't let my kids get away with that either :-)

You know how this will go, we only let the jack touch the car by accident so we shouldn't get a penalty, the car was only lifted off the ground by a millimetre, a centimetre... the wheel gun was just resting on the wheel.... etc etc

Do not touch the car during the penalty is a nice clean rule that anyone should be able to follow! "

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

9. Posted by alvarezh3, 20/03/2023 0:52

"Anyhow, it is very unfair to wait 35 laps to impose a penalty and prohibit the penalized driver to make amends by any means (*) at his disposal.

(*)
By gaping 10 seconds ahead to the car in his rear.
By stoping for 10 seconds in his pit box.
Whichever the competitor chose to be best for him."

Rating: Positive (6) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Stewards reverse decision on Alonso

LATEST NEWS

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST IMAGES

POST A COMMENT

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

Share this page