NSW 2011-02  
About Us  Clubs  Classes  Racing  Courses & Training  Participation  Events  Youth  Calendar  Forms

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 























 
 
Back:  Racing > Racing Rules Committee > 2011 Appeals

NSW 2011-02

Appeal No
NSW 2011-02
 
Appeal To
Yachting NSW
 
Appeal By
Boat A
 
The Protest
Boat B v Boat A
  • Wind: 8 – 10 kts NE
  • Boat B (to windward), Boat X and Boat A (to leeward) approaching the Chowder Bay mark under spinnaker. All 3 yachts on port.
  • Boat B clear ahead of Boat X. Boat X advanced on Boat A.
  • Boat B hailed to the other 2 yachts to keep clear at the mark
  • Boat B entered the 3BL zone.
  • Boat X passes astern of Boat B and in doing so shadows Boat B from the wind and Boat B slows.
  • Boat A establishes an overlap on Boat B and the yachts closing on the mark commence to drop spinnakers and gybe before the mark.
  • Boat B and Boat A round the mark together with Boat A on the inside.
Protest Conclusion and Decision
Boat X who was advanced on Boat A was able to pass astern of Boat B and there is reasonable doubt that Boat A obtained an overlap on Boat B before Boat B entered the 3BL zone and therefore it shall be assumed that she did not.
 
DECISION: Boat A is to be scored DSQ in R17.
 
Appeal Summary
Boat A appealed on what they saw as two procedural grounds;
  • That the PC found the protest valid even though Boat B, who was in the process of dropping its spinnaker and rounding the mark, did not display its protest flag until it had completed these activities.
  • That the protest committee model set contained a circle that was only two boat lengths and not three.
Appeal Decision
Appeal is dismissed.
 
Appeal Decision Grounds
The Appeals Committee reasons are as follows;
 
Appeal Ground 1
That the protest committee followed the procedures for validity in that they took evidence and determined the validity of the protest in accordance with RRS 63.5 correctly.
63.5 Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress
At the beginning of the hearing the protest committee (PC) shall take any evidence it considers necessary to decide whether all requirements for the protest or request for redress have been met. If they have been met, the protest or request is valid and the hearing shall be continued.
If not, the committee shall declare the protest or request invalid and close the hearing.
In determining if the protest is valid the key job of the PC is to determine if the other boat was informed of the intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity, including hailing Protest and displaying a red flag. RRS 61.1(a) states that this is to be done at the first reasonable opportunity for each.
61.1(a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest concerns an incident in the racing area that she is involved in or sees, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each.
While the appellant made negative comments about the fact the protestors yacht had a crew of only two while his yacht has a crew of five, that PC was right to consider this fact in determining what was the first reasonable opportunity (it may and most likely would have been different for each yacht). Another fact that would have had an impact on what was the first reasonable opportunity was the disruption to the rounding caused by the interference of Boat A that failed to keep clear as required by the rules.
 
Appeal Ground 2
The fact that the aids supplied by the yacht club or PC did not meet the requirements of the Appellant is not a procedural error and nor a ground for appeal. There is also no requirement for the PC to supply models or aids and if a party wishes to use alternate models then they should supply them.