Ramsey – currently recovering from injury – sat in the stands for Cardiff City’s 5-0 thrashing of Plymouth Argyle last weekend and shared his tactical analysis with interim manager Omer Riza on the touchline.

“I’ve been around the [under] 18s a few times at Cardiff and been lucky enough to coach them,” said Ramsey.

“It’s addictive as well and you do watch games differently.”

Ramsey has not played since suffering a hamstring injury in Wales’ away win against Montenegro at the start of September.

He has resumed training but missed this month’s return against Montenegro and trip to Iceland, and it remains to be seen whether or not he will be fit for Wales’ final two Nations League fixtures against Turkey and Iceland next month.

Wales are unbeaten in four games under Bellamy and Ramsey has been impressed with the recently appointed head coach.

“He’s come in and him and his staff have been a breath of fresh air,” he said.

“They are so detailed with the amount of information they pass on, and I’ve been really impressed with them.

“With the talent we have in this Welsh team with Brennan Johnson, Harry Wilson and other players as well, we can hurt teams if we get the structure right behind them.”

McLaren believes there is little point in asking the FIA for a right of review over Lando Norris’ punishment at the United States Grand Prix, despite its unhappiness at the sanction.

Norris was handed a five-second penalty in Austin after the race stewards deemed that he had overtaken Max Verstappen off the track as they battled for third place.

That sanction dropped Norris to fourth, behind his title rival, after the chequered flag and meant he lost further ground in the world championship battle.

The decision to punish Norris in an incident where Verstappen also ran off the circuit in a defensive move has triggered huge controversy and put a renewed focus on both the driving standards rules in F1 and the consistency of the stewards.

McLaren in particular feels it was a wrong call on two fronts – one in not taking into account the fact that Verstappen ran wide, and secondly in rushing the decision rather than waiting to speak to both drivers after the event.

McLaren team boss Andrea Stella said “The interpretation of this situation between McLaren and the stewards is the polar opposite.

“I am surprised the stewards didn’t even feel the need to discuss with the drivers after the race. It is an uncertain situation – so get the opinion of the drivers, and have the time to assess the situation with the level of details that is required when the situation is not so clear.

Andrea Stella, Team Principal, McLaren F1 Team

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images

Advertisement

“Where is the urgency to interfere with the result of a race, with a championship [on the line], just because you have to make the decision in 60 seconds? It is a question mark that I think the stewards should take constructively and positively. Is it really needed to take a decision so quickly and, in our opinion, so wrongly?”

But despite its strong feelings over the matter, McLaren thinks there is little point in trying to take things on and potentially get the decision looked at again.

Due to the penalty being an in-race decision, there is no scope within the regulations for a standard appeal – and the route towards a right of review request does not look to be of interest either.

Stella said: “The decision cannot be appealed so for us, the matter is closed.

“For us, the drivers, the team, now we close this chapter. But we hope the FIA and the stewards review the case so that in the future we have a better stewardship of the racing. We now move on to the next race.”

The door to a right of review petition remains open until Thursday, with there being a 96-hour window following an event for it to be lodged.

For a request for a review hearing to be successful, it would require McLaren to produce “a significant and relevant new element…which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned.”

One option could as, as Mercedes famously did after the 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix, to wait until the onboard footage of Max Verstappen’s car is released and potentially use that as the means to justify another look.

But Stella is sceptical about offering anywhere near enough of a step of new evidence that would be acceptable for the FIA – with it frequently having rejected petitions that have been submitted.

“I don’t think new and relevant evidence exists because the only evidence we have used so far to assess our interpretation, which is in disagreement with the stewards, is already available,” he said.

“So, if you open up the right of review, I don’t think it will ever be successful because you don’t need new evidence. It is just a matter of interpretation.”

ARSENAL fans had been preparing themselves for life without William Saliba following his red card against Bournemouth – but he is available for selection TONIGHT!

The French phenomenon earned his first-ever sending-off after VAR intervened and upgraded an initial yellow card to a red.

4

4

Advertisement

4

And in normal procedures, Saliba would be suspended for the next match on the fixture list.

However, the highly-rated centre-half is part of the squad for Arsenal‘s home fixture tonight due to rules and regulations.

SunSport can explain what this is below.

Why is William Saliba not suspended for Arsenal’s Champions League match tonight?

William Saliba is eligible to play for Arsenal tonight as his suspension is for domestic competitions only.

And with this upcoming fixture being a European encounter, the Frenchman will be able to partner alongside Gabriel once again.

Saliba became the third Arsenal player to see red in eight Premier League matches for the Gunners this season.

Declan Rice was sent off against Brighton while Leandro Trossard received a red in the frenetic Manchester City clash.

4

Why did William Saliba get sent off?

The Frenchman was initially booked for pulling back Bournemouth striker Evanilson.

Saliba attempted to stop the Brazilian who was ready to burst completely clear mid-pitch.

VAR Jared Gillett summoned on-pitch ref Rob Jones to the monitor.

And after looking, Jones had no doubts as he waved a red to reduce the Gunners to 10 men.

How many matches will William Saliba miss for Arsenal?

Fortunately for Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta, William Saliba will miss just ONE game.

Had it been violent conduct, he would have been suspended for three matches.

However, that one match is against red-hot Liverpool this coming weekend at the Emirates.

What has been said?

Mikel Arteta highlighted that his side playing with ten men is always a problem.

“Playing with 10 men always is an issue.

“The trust is, when you analyse it, three different very actions and the outcome of them, the reasons are very different.

“Regardless of that we cannot continue to play with 10 men at this level. We need to eradicate that, it’s clear.”

Arteta added: “The reasons, how; it doesn’t matter. We have to focus.

“We cannot continue to play with ten men, easier to say it then to get it done,” he said.

“Specific moments. Reacting, we have a defeat. Very specific conditions as well.”

Barcelona’s league fixture against Atletico Madrid in December could be staged in Miami – with La Liga officials hopeful that Fifa will approve the plan.

It would be the first time a La Liga match has been played in the United States.

Fifa, football’s world governing body, will make the final decision on the proposal.

The match is currently scheduled for 22 December, before La Liga pauses for its winter break.

Both Atletico and Barcelona are scheduled to play in a four-team Spanish Super Cup in early January, which is being held in Saudi Arabia.

In April, Fifa withdrew from a legal challenge by leading match promoter Relevent, which is seeking to stage overseas league matches in the United States.

The following month, Fifa announced it was setting up a working group to look at the potential impact of competitive domestic matches being played abroad.

Big-money rugby league convert Joseph Suaalii has been named in Australia’s 34-man squad to travel to the northern hemisphere next month.

The 21-year-old former Sydney Roosters wing or centre is yet to play a professional rugby union game after a switch from league reportedly worth more than 5m Australian dollars (£2.6m).

Uncapped former Leicester wing Harry Potter, now with Western Force, has also been named in Joe Schmidt’s squad for their tour of the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Schmidt said that Suaalii – who he will use at centre, wing or full-back – needed to be brought in now in preparation for Australia’s home series against the British and Irish Lions next year.

“I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t conscious of the big deal that he’s on and the profile that he has, because you can’t not be aware of that,” said Schmidt.

“As much as we think maybe it might have been better to come through [the second string Australia XV], part of it is that we play the Lions next year.

“So if he doesn’t debut on this tour, then there’s very little window. There may be one opportunity to play before the Lions next year, and that would be it. So for us, we feel a little bit of pressure to be able to fast-track him.”

Waratahs fly-half Tane Edmed, 21, is the third uncapped player called up, while last year’s World Cup captain Will Skelton is named.

The 32-year-old lock missed the Wallabies’ summer Tests and the Rugby Championship because of commitments to French club La Rochelle.

“He’s [Skelton’s] keen as mustard,” added Schmidt. “He didn’t need any convincing to play for the Wallabies. He’s a really positive character and he has real gravitas in the group.”

Centre Samu Kerevi also returns to international rugby for the first time this year – but the 31-year-old, who plays his club rugby in Japan, and Skelton will be unavailable to face Ireland in Dublin on 30 November as the game falls outside the international window.

Australia first face England at Twickenham’s Allianz Stadium on 9 November before playing Wales in Cardiff on 17 November and Scotland at Murrayfield on 24 November.

The Wallabies – who finished bottom of the Rugby Championship after recording only one victory, over Argentina – also named a 30-player Australia XV squad to travel to the UK for matches against Bristol on 8 November and England A at Twickenham Stoop on 17 November.

The controversy over the Lando Norris/Max Verstappen overtake in Austin has once again put a spotlight on the way Formula 1 is policed.

Fans are divided about whether it was right that Norris got a penalty for overtaking off track in an incident when his rival had run off the circuit in his efforts to defend against him.

It delivered flashbacks to the battle between Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton at the 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix where defending by running wide became a major bone of contention.

What is different now compared to back then is that F1 is operating under a new system where there are common and agreed Driving Standards Guidelines.

As reported by Motorsport.com, this formal document has been pulled together outlining the basis on which stewards will make their decisions, and this is set to be rolled into the FIA’s 2025 International Sporting Code, so will be applied to all categories in the future.

But while the guidelines were aimed at making things clearer in drivers’ heads about what is and is not allowed, what happened at Turn 12 in Austin has perhaps only served to add some confusion, as well as expose some big flaws with how things are judged.

The debate over Verstappen running wide

Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, battles with Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

What is mentioned in the guidelines themselves is that no two incidents are the same, and this is in essence one of the key problems when it comes to creating hard and fast rules – because what fits one move may not be right for another.

But one recurring theme from the Norris penalty decision is the fact that Verstappen went off track himself – and that makes the situation less crystal clear than if he had remained within the white lines.

While Norris clearly did not fulfil the guideline’s criterion to be alongside his rival at the apex, equally there is a question over Verstappen’s defence.

As the guidelines clearly states: “If, while defending a position, a car leaves the track (or cuts a chicane) and re-joins in the same position, it will generally be considered by the stewards as having gained a lasting advantage and therefore, generally, the position should be given back, as prescribed in the rules. It will be the sole discretion of the Stewards to determine if the driver of a car is “defending a position”.”

So, are we in a world where if Norris had stayed on the track and aborted his move, then Verstappen would have had to give up the place and Norris would have been better off?

That is something only the FIA stewards will know for sure.

As Williams driver Alex Albon said: “I thought normally if they both don’t make the track, then that gets a bit grey….That reminds me of Brazil [2021].

“I think if you can stay on the track, fair enough. You’ve got it.”

This viewpoint is something that Norris himself made reference to.

“For me, whatever I did, I did for me,” he said. “The point that is incorrect is what Max did, which is also defend his position by going off the track, and what effectively would be keeping his position, which is not correct.

“He went off the track by defending, and he’s overdefended and made a mistake, and therefore he’s gained from that.

“At the same time, because of that, I’ve had to go off the track. It’s impossible for people to know if I could have made it on the track or couldn’t.

“Therefore, you cannot steward that kind of thing.”

The apex issue

Oscar Piastri, McLaren MCL38, Pierre Gasly, Alpine A524, Liam Lawson, RB F1 Team VCARB 01

Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images

The way that the guidelines are so focused on what is happening at the apex of the corner means there is a clear incentive to make sure that you brake late, so you are there first – as that then gives you far more rights as to how much space needs to be left on the exit.

But even then, drivers are not convinced that everything is being treated equally. For example, Oscar Piastri failed to understand why he got a penalty in the sprint for forcing Pierre Gasly wide at Turn 12 in a near-identical moment to what happened between Norris and Verstappen – and especially considering he managed to stay on track.

“I think if you look at my penalty from the sprint, it was basically a carbon copy of Max and Lando, but I stayed on the track and I got the penalty,” said Piastri. “So no, it’s not very clear, You know, it’s tough. Yeah, it’s just very difficult.

“I feel like as drivers we also all kind of have different interpretations of what we think is fair and what’s not, especially when it comes to being on the outside of another driver.

“But the difference of 10 centimetres or 20 centimetres can be the difference of you having the right to space or not having the right to space. And obviously, for the stewards, who generally haven’t driven a car very much, it’s very tough to judge that in the moment especially.

“I think my incident and Lando and Max’s [in the race] looked very similar with the opposite penalties. So, I’m sure we’ll have some questions.”

The role of the stewards

FIA officials walk the track, including steward Derek Warwick

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

Advertisement

The other problem that has been highlighted by the Norris/Verstappen incident is that once again the stewards are open to accusations of a lack of consistency.

Fans question how variable the decisions are, and drivers themselves are unclear about why sometimes calls go different ways for what look like similar incidents.

Norris himself questioned why he had been penalised for overtaking off track in Austin, while in Austria, Verstappen was not investigated despite running off the track to keep hold of the lead after a move from his McLaren rival – who had ticked off getting to the apex first.

“The rules, they seem to change, because I feel like it’s quite inconsistent from, say, what happened in Austria, where Max didn’t get a penalty and went off the track, and gained an advantage,” said the Briton. “So, I think there’s again inconsistency.”

That inconsistency – and the fact that the basis of decisions is not explained in full – is further clouded by the fact that the stewards’ panel often rotates.

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff in particular suggests that the lack of consistency across the year is fuelled by the fact that he thinks not all stewards operate to the same level.

“There’s always going to be someone that’s happy and the other one unhappy, but we need to try to understand whether there are certain patterns in stewarding decisions, and whether that correlates to some of the situations,” said Wolff, who was furious that Russell got a penalty for forcing Valtteri Bottas wide.

“Everybody’s racing hard, but for me, the decision against George was inexplicable.”

In the Russell case, he had not fulfilled the criteria of the guideline in getting to the apex ahead – so that meant he had to give Bottas room on the outside.

Had he come off the brakes earlier and focused more on getting to the apex first, then irrespective of how he managed to collect things up after that, he would have escaped a sanction as the track was effectively all his.

Wolff added: “We’ve seen plenty of these situations in Turn 12. None of them was penalised until George did it.”

Speaking more about the make-up of the stewards, Wolff added: “I think there’s great stewards, honestly, great stewards that have either been in the racing car or have a non-biased view on situations, doing the best of their abilities for a job that is truly difficult. And we mustn’t put everybody in the same category.

“There’s a few inconsistencies, but I’m sure the president is going to look at that.”

It will be interesting if Austin proves to be a trigger for Mohammed Ben Sulayem to look at the system once more and the way things are done as F1 is in the headlines again for all the wrong reasons.