Page 117 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

used Kevlar sails that broke the class rules in force at in time. These reasons might include being very late
the time of the event. ashore after being rescued, going to hospital, or poor
wind conditions making a return to shore in time very
The protest committee considered the matter of validity difficult; it does mean however that submitting a protest
and decided that under rule 61.3 there was good reason needs to be done quickly on returning to shore.
to extend the time limit and heard the protest, which it
dismissed, citing WS Case 57. Regattas need to have closure for new protests
involving on-the-water incidents, which includes
The protest committee then referred the matter to the competing in a boat that does not comply with class
RYA to confirm or correct its decision.
rules, and the time limit as described in rule 61.3 should
DECISION not normally be extended beyond the end of the event.
The protest was invalid and should not have been heard.
That does not preclude serious allegations being
Rule 61.1(a) requires a boat intending to protest to investigated after the end of an event. Actions under
inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. rule 69 have no time limit and can be initiated by a
Osprey 1298’s own protest form states that the protestees protest committee at any time even after the regatta has
had not been notified. The protest was therefore invalid, finished and the competitors have gone home. An
and the hearing should have been closed. allegation, even in a late and invalid protest, of the
knowing use of a better but forbidden sail material
Even if the protestees had been properly notified of the would be a good reason for a protest committee to call a
protest in May 2005, the protest committee should not hearing under rule 69, but that is a matter for a protest
have extended the time limit, since the facts justifying committee to decide.
the protest must have been known to the protestor at the
very latest by the end of March when he would have Request for confirmation or correction of a decision, Penzance SC
received notice of the EGM. There was no good reason
for him to wait more than a month. RYA 2005/8
Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
While these reasons are sufficient to correct the protest
committee’s decision to proceed with the hearing (not A boat is to be exonerated only when compelled by
that such a decision changes the outcome, since the another boat’s infringement to fail to comply with what
protest was dismissed), the RYA comments on two the rule concerned obliges her to do or not do.
further matters arising from the protest. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
First, the protest committee dismissed the protest, citing Habanero collided with a moored vessel, causing it to
WS Case 57. In that case, a duly authenticated certificate move into the path of Jump the Gun!, which touched the
had been presented in good faith by an owner who had no moored vessel. Jump the Gun! was protested by
reason to be aware of the error in the certificate. In this Heartbeat 2 for breaking a sailing instruction that said
protest, the protested competitors, being sailmakers, must that ‘an entered boat that collides with or fends off a
have known the material in their sails, and no boat can moored or anchored vessel at any time shall retire and
plead ignorance of a class rule as an excuse. They would report the collision to the race office.’ Jump the Gun!
not therefore have been entitled to the protection of Case had reported the collision, but had not retired. The
57 in a valid protest based on rule 78.1. protest committee noted that Habanero had retired, and
exonerated Jump the Gun!, by implication because
Secondly, even if a properly notified protest had been Jump the Gun! was compelled to break the sailing
lodged in March 2005, this being the earliest date the instruction because of an infringement by Habanero.
protestor became aware of the facts, the protest should Heartbeat 2 appealed.
have been declared invalid, because it was not lodged
before the end of the event. It is sometimes unavoidable DECISION
that the results at the end of an event turn out not to be Heartbeat 2’s appeal is upheld. Jump the Gun! is
final. All requests for redress as a result of the disqualified.
publication of the final results must be heard and any The sailing instruction does not say 'a boat shall not
subsequent requests for reopening considered. A collide with or fend off a moored or anchored vessel'.
competitor who has left the site but later finds out his Rather it imposes an obligation on a boat when a
results are not correct is still entitled to have his request collision occurs, namely to retire and report the
for redress heard provided he fulfils the conditions of incident. The collision itself is not prohibited. Nothing
rule 62.2. Where there is no International Jury, a protest that Habanero did prevented Jump the Gun! from
committee’s decision may be changed on appeal. complying with the requirement in SI 9 to retire, and so
For protests concerning something that may have exoneration under rule 64.1(a) is not appropriate. She
happened during racing, however, the RYA considers failed to retire, thus breaking SI 9, and is therefore
that a good reason for extending the protest time limit disqualified for not retiring, by virtue of the first
beyond the end of the event will usually be outweighed paragraph of rule 64.1. Nor does any part of rule 62,
by the better reason of the need for the results to be as Redress, allow any compensation.
final as possible. For the same reason, it should be noted that Habenero
The requirement to extend the time if there is good did not break the sailing instruction. Indeed, she
reason to do so is to allow for circumstances in which complied with it by retiring.
the competitor finds it impossible to submit the protest
117