Why stewards rejected Red Bull’s protest and didn’t give Lando Norris an F1 grid drop

The closing stages of the Canadian Grand Prix delivered many talking points, as the top five were closely bunched together and Lando Norris hit his team-mate Oscar Piastri. But the drama didn’t end yet after the chequered flag, thanks to a protest lodged by Red Bull.

The timing was reminiscent of the situation a few weeks ago in Miami: Christian Horner’s media session was delayed multiple times and only took place once the FIA documents regarding the protest were circulated by the FIA. This allowed Horner to immediately provide clarification.

Red Bull’s case: Excessive braking, unsporting radio messages

The Red Bull team boss made it clear that the team had two main objections. “We’ve put two protests to the stewards, that we’ve asked them to have a look at. Firstly relating to the erratic driving behind the safety car, where George very heavily braked, obviously looking at his mirror for Max, and then the second one is very clearly the distance that was left behind the safety car. That was well in excess, I think at least three times in excess of the permitted distance.”

Red Bull couldn’t state it so directly in the FIA documentation, but believed that Russell was trying to trick Verstappen and get him penalised. Horner called it “gamesmanship”: “I think that it’s inevitable that there was going to be some potential gamesmanship. It’s something that we raised after the driver’s briefing with the race director, just so that they were mindful of it as well, because it’s clear that kind of stuff goes on.”

Both elements – erratic driving and what Red Bull considered unsporting behaviour – were brought to the stewards. In a meeting that lasted 45 minutes, Stephen Knowles, Gianpiero Lambiase, and Verstappen represented Red Bull. The team presented telemetry data to show that Russell braked unnecessarily hard and onboard footage showing Russell checking his mirrors before the braking manoeuvre. Red Bull saw it as a trick: by checking his mirrors and seeing Verstappen close behind, Russell would know that hard braking would cause the Dutchman to overtake him.

Red Bull also submitted some of Russell’s radio messages to support their claim of unsporting behaviour. “Red Bull suggested that the driver of Car 63 complained about the overtake on his team radio knowing that it would be overheard by race control and in the hope that Car 1 would be investigated.” According to Red Bull, the combination of these three actions—the mirror check, the abrupt braking, and the radio message—demonstrated “unsportsmanlike intent”.

Mercedes’ defence: Russell and Verstappen’s telemetry

Mercedes was represented by Ron Meadows, Andrew Shovlin, and Russell. The latter argued in his defence that “periodic braking” is entirely normal during a safety car phase to keep the brakes and tyres warm, and that a following driver should expect it. The moment in question, according to Russell, occurred because he got too close to the safety car. Onboard footage showed him gesturing at Bernd Mayländer to pick up the pace. He also claimed that checking his mirrors wasn’t a ploy but instead just a safety check to ensure Verstappen wasn’t directly behind him, preventing a potential collision.

Regarding the radio messages, Russell clarified he had no intention of getting Verstappen penalised. The Mercedes representatives added that their driver had only described the events factually, not in a way to get an investigation started. Like Red Bull, Mercedes also brought telemetry data to the stewards’ room, although theirs focused fully on Verstappen and showed that he had also braked just as hard as Russell on the same straight and in some other parts of the lap.

The FIA verdict: All of Red Bull’s claims rejected

Tim Malyon, representing the FIA, was the next to speak and explained why race control had not even referred the incident to the stewards. He basically shared Russell’s view, stating that periodic braking behind the safety car is very common and to be expected. The FIA official added that race control allows some flexibility as a result of that with the 10 car lengths rule.

Malyon’s remarks laid the groundwork for the stewards’ verdict, although it still took them five hours to send it around. After replacing Derek Warwick, the steward panel in Montreal included Gerd Ennser, Matthew Selley, Enrique Bernoldi, Natalie Corsmit, and Marcel Demers.

They agreed with Mercedes’ defence on all points that Red Bull had brought up during the meeting. Regarding the braking manoeuvre, the FIA document states: “Having regard to the evidence of Mr Malyon, we accept the driver of Car 63’s explanation of the incident and we are satisfied that the driver of Car 63 did not drive erratically by braking where he did or to the extent he did.”

As for the radio message implying Russell tried to get Verstappen penalised, the stewards also sided with Mercedes: “We are not satisfied that by simply reporting to his team that Car 1 had overtaken that he engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct.”

The stewards even went a step further by adding a third point, without being asked to do so. They emphasised that the braking was not just within limits but also not unsporting. It means that all of Red Bull’s claims have been rejected. Interestingly, Horner’s point about the gap exceeding 10 car lengths wasn’t extensively addressed in the FIA document – likely because it was less prominent in Red Bull’s narrative than the two other aspects that got dismissed.

Why Norris’ time penalty isn’t converted to a grid drop

The Red Bull protest wasn’t the only matter for the stewards post-race. They also had to look at multiple safety car infringements, which led to just warnings. And then there was still the McLaren collision. In addition to his costly result in the championship fight, Norris had to explain the incident with Piastri in front of the stewards, officially labelled as “causing a collision.” The hearing with Norris, Piastri and a McLaren representative, was unsurprisingly much simpler than the Red Bull-Mercedes case.

All parties were in agreement, and Norris admitted fault immediately, as he had done before that in the media pen. “The driver of Car 4 said that he thought there might be space but realised too late that there was not and he collided with Car 81.”

The stewards concluded that Norris was “fully” to blame for the clash. However, since the incident had “no immediate and obvious sporting consequence”—as Piastri continued without damage—they issued only a five-second time penalty. That phrasing is interesting, as the FIA typically states that stewards consider only the incident itself, and not the consequences—though in practice, the outcome often matters. In this case, it’s even stated explicitly.

Crucially, Norris’s penalty remained solely a time penalty and wasn’t converted into a grid drop for the Austrian Grand Prix. That’s because he completed over 90% of the race distance in Montreal, meaning he was classified as 18th, instead of a complete DNF. The five seconds were simply added to his final race time, bringing it to 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 2 seconds and 470 thousands. It means that on paper, the British driver “retired” five seconds later than he actually did on track.

As a result, the penalty has had zero effect on Norris – especially since the current runner-up in the championship received no penalty points on his superlicence.