Colapinto took the chequered flag in Sunday's feature race in seventh place but was disqualified after the stewards received a report from the technical delegate.
This report indicated that the Williams Academy driver had failed to engage the start set-up procedure for the start of the race, something that the regulations demand all drivers must do for all formation lap starts as well as the race start.
The disqualification means Colapinto, who competes for MP Motorsport, loses the six points that he had scored, leaving him on 13 and in 13th in the championship standings. He also finished fourth in Saturday's sprint race.
On track, Hadjar was almost completely faultless around the Albert Park layout, leading the field to the chequered flag on Saturday and Sunday.
But his one error carried a severe price, when he pulled right at the start of the sprint race, forcing his Campos team-mate Pepe Marti into the side of Gabriel Bortoleto's Invicta entry, with the pair making heavy race-ending contact with the wall.
For this, Hadjar was handed a 10-second penalty, which dropped him to sixth.
Campos appealed this on Sunday morning and needed to present evidence that was "significant" and "a relevant new element".
Despite citing two pieces of evidence the team believed fitted this criteria – "a. Data of Car 20 showing the maximum steering angle before, during the crash and after" and "b. Screenshots from the TV Host feed showing the position of the cars from various angles" – the stewards deemed that neither reached the high bar required.
The full reasoning for the appeal being dismissed can be viewed below.
Reasons
1. Regarding the period during which the petition for review may be brought, the Stewards determine that Campos Racing presented the petition before the commencement of the 96-hour period from the end of the Competition concerned, as requested in Article 14.4.1 of the Code.
2. Regarding the Petition of Right of Review deposit, the Stewards determine that the Petition of Review was presented at 9.10 hrs ADST, without the required fee of 2,000 Euros deposit. The team admitted to not being aware of the changes in Article 14 of the Code, which mandates that the Petition must be accompanied by a deposit. Campos Racing presented proof of payment at 12:28 hrs.
3. Regarding the data of Car 20 the Stewards:
a. Determine that it is not significant nor relevant. Whether these screenshots are "significant" is really a question of whether or not it is likely to change the initial decision of the Stewards. The Stewards already determined in the decision that Car 20 moved to the right of the track. At no point, the Stewards considered this movement as deliberate blocking.
b. Determine that it is new. This element was not discussed in the original hearing.
c. Determine that it may not have been available to Campos Racing (the party seeking the review) at the time of the decision, as they may have experienced a USB malfunction.
4. Regarding the screenshots from the TV Host feed the Stewards:
a. Determine that it is not significant. These images were taken from the video footage that had been already evaluated in the original hearing; therefore, this evidence is not likely to change the initial decision of the Stewards.
b. Determine that it is not relevant. The screenshots don't show the trajectories of the cars at the start of the race, nor during the crash.
c. Determine that is not new. Video evidence, including the on-board cameras of Car 20, Car 5, TV Host feed and helicopter images were already reviewed during the original hearing.
d. Determine that it was available to Campos Racing (the party seeking the review) at the time of the decision. As explained above, these items were already discussed with both team representatives and drivers.
5. Regarding the video footage of the incident during the 2022 F2 Imola Feature Race. The Stewards determined that each incident has its unique circumstances and should be judged on those alone.
Further, the Stewards are not bound by any preceding decision of another Stewards' panel. The Stewards have supreme authority for the enforcement of the Code (Article 11.9.1). Accordingly, it is not significant and relevant in this case.
