From Monaco to Monza: two F1 appeals in one week raise questions about FIA stewarding

The ICA decided not only that retrospectively amending the Monaco race classification was against the spirit of sporting fairness but also that Pierre Gasly had, in fact, breached the pit lane speed limit on both occasions. The ruling, which spanned 101 clauses, leaned heavily on a principle that may now resonate well beyond the Monaco pit lane.

"What sporting fairness absolutely precludes is the retrospective replacement, after competitors have calibrated and competed against it, of the common event-wide calibration parameter itself by a different geometric or measurement approach for the purpose of re-adjudicating an individual competitor's result," the court stated.

McLaren and Red Bull had formally appealed the stewards' decision, arguing that the subsequent removal of Gasly's penalties raised questions over consistency and sporting fairness. The ICA agreed, and Gasly fell from third to seventh, while Red Bull rookie Isack Hadjar was promoted to third, securing his first official F1 podium.

Then came Monza. As GPblog reported, Yuki Tsunoda escaped a penalty after his positioning error triggered an extra formation lap at the Italian Grand Prix restart. Tsunoda had been due to line up 14th but initially approached the wrong side of the grid before moving across to his correct position.

Although the Racing Bulls was ultimately inside its designated grid box, it was left sitting at an angle towards the pit wall, prompting race director Rui Marques to abandon the start and send the field away for another formation lap.

The stewards took no further action, but as GPblog covered, Audi informed the FIA they intend to appeal against the stewards' decision. The team's statement was brief but pointed: "Following the Italian Grand Prix, we raised a concern regarding the application of Article B5.9.4, which requires a driver who causes an extra formation lap to enter the pit lane and resume the race from there."

Per Article 15.4 of the FIA's International Sporting Code, competitors have one hour after the stewards' decision to notify their intention to appeal. That does not mean Audi is actually appealing against the verdict just yet, but it gives the team an additional 96-hour time window to further study the case. The financial motivation is clear. Tsunoda scored the final point in 10th place, denying Audi's Gabriel Bortoleto, and a penalty would have moved Bortoleto into the points-paying positions.

What connects the two cases is the FIA's own admission, issued in the wake of the Monaco verdict, that it now intends to examine the very mechanisms teams use to challenge rulings. "The FIA is reviewing the methodology and operation of the current Formula 1 timing system and the related regulatory matters. It will also be reviewing other judicial procedures and operations including the right of review and the appeal processes," the governing body stated on September 4 in a statement.

That statement landed just 48 hours before Audi filed its intention to appeal at Monza and now there is a debate as to whether the ICA's willingness to overrule stewards on the basis of sporting fairness has set the tone.

Teams have watched the system work in McLaren and Red Bull's favour, and the barrier to challenging a stewards' room feels lower than it has in years.

The FIA insisted it remains "fully supportive of the stewarding process and the independence and objectivity of the diverse panels of stewards." Yet the same statement acknowledged that "stewards' decisions are taken in a different environment to that of the Court, whereas the Court has access to extensive and additional legal counsel input, arguments and evidence." That distinction may prove critical if Audi decides to push ahead within its 96-hour window.

With the Madrid Grand Prix just days away and the midfield constructors' battle tighter than ever, the FIA now faces the prospect of two separate appeal outcomes reshaping two separate race results in the space of a single week.

The stewarding system has always been imperfect, but rarely has it been challenged this aggressively, this quickly, from this many directions at once. It shines an unwelcome spotlight on the governing body and its decision-making process.