Page 106 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

Published RYA appeal cases are persuasive but not The definition Rule includes preambles and so the
binding. preamble to Part 2 of the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS)
is a rule of Part 2.
QUESTION
Are published RYA appeal cases binding on UK protest The preamble states that the International Regulations for
committees? If so, how does this apply to International Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) apply between a
Juries at events held in the UK? boat sailing under the RRS and a vessel that is not.
ANSWER Rules 86.1(a) and (b) say that sailing instructions may
The RYA cases are illustrative and persuasive, but not not change a rule of Part 2.
binding on any protest committee or jury. However, if a SI 8, in purporting to impose the sole responsibility to
decision made were contrary to an RYA case on the
same or very similar facts, and if the decision were keep clear on the competitor, clearly conflicts with
IRPCAS rules 6, 7 and 18, and the sailing instruction is
appealed, it is likely that the appeal would be upheld.
Judges would be well advised to follow the endorsed therefore invalid.
precepts of their predecessors and colleagues. Many Phoenix's disqualification is therefore reversed.
cases, however, turn on a narrow, particular set of facts,
and a different decision may be correct where the facts Race Committee v Phoenix, Royal Western YC
are different.
RYA 2002/15
A decision made by an international jury cannot be Rule 18.2(e), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
appealed, and so no further action can be taken Rule 18.2(e) is addressed to the protest committee. It
concerning a decision contrary to an RYA case, does not change rights and obligations on the water.
regardless of whether the decision was made with
awareness or in ignorance of the RYA case. However, SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
RYA judges taking part in an international jury, Nutmeg was disqualified in her absence for taking room
whether at home or abroad, are encouraged to draw any at a mark to which she was not entitled. Her appeal on
relevant RYA case to the attention of their fellow jury procedural grounds was upheld and the protest against
members. her by Spindrift was returned for a new hearing. In its
observations, the protest committee had stated that even
Request for an Interpretation by the Model Yachting Association
if Nutmeg believed that she had an inside overlap when
the zone was entered, the hail of ‘No water’ from
RYA 2002/14 Spindrift could be taken as making Nutmeg have
Definitions, Rule
Part 2 Preamble reasonable doubt that she had obtained an overlap in
Rule 86.1(b), Changes to the Racing Rules time, for the purposes of rule 18.2(e). Nutmeg should
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at therefore have pulled out of the challenge for room,
Sea. which would have avoided the collision, and then
protested Spindrift. On this point, the RYA commented
Sailing instructions cannot vary the obligations in the as follows:
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea. The preamble to Part 2 of the Racing Rules of DECISION
Sailing (RRS) is a rule of Part 2. The protest committee was incorrect to say that a
dispute at the time of the incident as to whether an
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS overlap had been established meant the automatic
SI8 said: operation of rule 18.2(e). Disagreements of this nature
are commonplace, with each boat firmly believing
Any committee vessel manoeuvring in the vicinity of the
starting area will be deemed to be an obstruction. herself to be in the right. Rule 18.2(e) puts no additional
obligation on a boat when her claim for room is denied.
Committee vessels will manoeuvre without regard to
competing boats and it shall be the sole responsibility of As the hearing was undefended, the protest should have
competitors to keep clear. been dismissed if the protestor's evidence did not satisfy
the protest committee that the protestee broke a rule.
Shortly before the starting signal, Phoenix, a Sigma 33, The rule is an aid to the protest committee when
in company with other boats, was reaching slowly from
outside the starting area towards the starting line’s outer evidence given by all parties at the hearing is
inconclusive.
limit mark to start there. At the same time, a small
committee vessel was motoring slowly upwind to stand Spindrift v Nutmeg, Pembrokeshire YC
off the outer limit mark to record OCS boats. Phoenix,
her vision obscured by other boats, did not see the RYA 2003/1
committee vessel until very late. She tacked to try to Rule 16.1, Changing Course
avoid contact, but contact occurred. She was protested Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
by the race committee and was disqualified under SI 8. Rule 18.2(c), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
She appealed. Rule 21. Exoneration
DECISION A boat at a mark may, at her own risk, take room to
Phoenix’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be reinstated which she is not entitled. When a right-of-way boat at a
into her finishing position. mark no longer needs room to leave the mark on the

106