McLaren argued in the hearing that Norris was in fact the defending driver because he had already overtaken Verstappen on the straight before the two cars braked for the corner in question, Turn 12 at the Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas.

If that argument was accepted, other sections of the overtaking guidelines would have applied, specifically that Verstappen would have committed an offense by forcing Norris off the track.

But the trustees considered McLaren’s claim to be “untenable” because “the concept that (the trustees’ decision) was the important and relevant new element, or that an error in the decision was a new element, is not tenable and is therefore rejected”.

McLaren said in a statement: “We do not agree with the interpretation that an FIA document, which makes a competitor aware of an objective, measurable and provable error in the decision made by the stewards, cannot be a permissible ‘element’ that meets all the four criteria.”

The decision means Verstappen maintains his 57-point lead over Norris ahead of this weekend’s Mexico City Grand Prix, with five races remaining and 146 points remaining.

The incident between Norris and Verstappen has led to significant debate in F1, with many drivers feeling that Verstappen, while following the letter of the rules, breached racing ethics.

Seven-time champion Lewis Hamilton said on Thursday: “You shouldn’t be able to drop the brakes and go faster and go off the track and still hold your place.”

Hamilton’s comment summed up a widespread view in F1 that Verstappen’s default defense in such situations should not be allowed.

The three-time world champion has on a number of occasions used a tactic where he lets off the brakes enough to comply with the rule that requires him to be ahead of the lead, but then runs far off the track and takes his rival with him.