On Thursday, Max Verstappen will receive the Formula 1 World Cup Trophy at the gala of the International Automobile Association in Monaco - maybe.

It could also turn out differently.

Because on Sunday evening, after rejecting its two protests, Mercedes reserved the right to appeal against at least one judgment.

The racing team has 96 hours, four days, to do this.

One of the wonderful things that happened before and during the season finale in Abu Dhabi on Sunday was this very last act of an incomparably thrilling, exciting season.

After the handshake gestures of the two team bosses Toto Wolff and Christian Horner as a sign of peace shortly before the showdown on the Yas Marina Circuit, the parties fell back into the well-known mode.

The (for the time being) ousted from the throne star driver Lewis Hamilton spoke at the moment of defeat with a view to a decision by the race management of a manipulation, Red Bull's sports director Helmut Marko considers the protest notes from Mercedes to be "disgusting" and characterless: "bad loser".

Unworthy obituaries

Whatever happens in the next few days, the grandiose duel from the first lap in March over 21 subsequent races to the finish on the third Advent, the most intense, exciting, most twisting duel in the history of the 71-year-old Formula 1 remains forever connected with unworthy obituaries. This picture does not do justice to the achievements of Verstappen and Hamilton, their teams. It's a shame, but predictable.

The attempt by Mercedes to change the race result and thus the outcome of the World Championship at the “green table” also reflects part of the Grand Prix history in 2021. Both teams regularly appeared in the anteroom of the rulers and tried to get their point of view of the To push things through more or less massively. Then why should the Mercedes leadership mime the good loser at the bitter end of all things? Naive who dared believe that. Especially since the series world champion, eighth design engineer title or not, in Abu Dhabi, particularly emotionally charged from the course of the race, had to accept the end of the dream a few kilometers before the finish line.

Hamilton had dominated the finale from the first to the 53rd of 58 laps, first of all taking away the advantage from Verstappen at the start, then parrying Red Bull's team strategy with the second car, Sergio Perez's braking barrier, before bad luck overtook him. Williams driver Nicholas Latifi had an accident with five laps to go. Otherwise the old one would have crossed the finish line as the new world champion, with the fourth victory in the past four races. Particularly worthy.

It is not known whether Mercedes is committed to its chief pilot to try everything.

But going to the traffic judges, Red Bull would have acted the same way in the opposite case, was not blind.

They explicitly allowed the two protests.

But the track commissioners quickly rejected the charge that Verstappen had illegally overtaken Hamilton after Latifi's accident in the safety car phase.

Strictly speaking, that may have been the definition, for a brief moment the Red Bull lay with the tip of his nose in front of the Silver Arrow.

But not at the moment of the "flying restart" when it really matters.

There have been many such cases without punishment.

Anything else would have been unworldly.

Overriding right of the race director

With the second protest, Mercedes complained against the decision of race director Michael Masi to have sent the safety car off the track one and a half laps before the end of the Grand Prix, one lap too early. Masi opened the race after piloting five lapped drivers past Hamilton and the security vehicle, so Verstappen appeared directly behind the Mercedes with fresh tires. If the Australian had followed the regulations (Article 48.12) in full, he would have had to wait until the end of the 58th lap to open the race. All would have been on target.

The track commissioners referred, among other things, to the superordinate right of the race director (Article 15.3) to be able to determine the use and withdrawal of the safety car. Masi also defended his decision with the wish expressed by all teams a long time ago, if possible, to lead a race as a race and not as a procession behind the safety vehicle to the finish.

The bright minds at Mercedes will certainly think about the letters of the regulations and the spirit of the law before deciding on an appointment.

It would make more sense than competing against each other if Formula 1 were to go to court with itself.

The manners are often disrespectful, the harassment of the race director in the course of a Grand Prix is ​​not acceptable and his sometimes contradicting statements in these discussions offer too many areas for attack.

If the correct conclusions were drawn from the very last chapter, something would be gained despite all the damage.