Page 120 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

Etap21 266's protest was not lodged in time, and was RYA 2006/7
therefore invalid. Definitions, Keep Clear
Tempest 793 herself lodged a valid protest, which Keep Clear is a defined term that includes precise tests,
opened the incident to investigation by the protest and keeping clear is usually more than just avoiding
committee. Protests are decided on the balance of contact.
probability, and the question of whether one, the other,
or both boats lodged a valid protest will not affect the SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Sea Angel, a Bénéteau 311, was approaching the
process of finding facts, drawing conclusions and
applying the rules. If it is found that a boat broke a rule, committee boat end of the start line to start, close-
hauled in 16-18 knots of wind. She was forced to make
she is to be penalized, even if it was only she that
validly protested. room to avoid collision with an unidentified boat to
windward which was not entitled to room. La Vida
Tempest 793 v Etap21 266 and v.v., Ullswater SC Loca, a First 36, followed through the gap thus created,
clearing Sea Angel by ‘between one foot and one
RYA 2006/5 metre’. Sea Angel's protest was dismissed on the
Rule 28.1, Sailing the Course grounds that she had not had to take avoiding action
Rule 62.1(a), Redress with regard to La Vida Loca. Sea Angel appealed on the
Rule 64.1, Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration grounds that La Vida Loca did not keep clear.

When the sailing instructions are ambiguous, so that it DECISION
is not clear whether a mark has a required side, any Sea Angel’s appeal is upheld. La Vida Loca is
doubt is to be resolved in favour of a boat liable to disqualified under rule 11.
penalization.
In 16-18 knots a separation of less than one metre
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS between boats of this size on the same tack does not
The course marks included a series of buoys listed in constitute keeping clear, as defined, since a change of
two separate sailing instructions as ‘North Channel’. course by Sea Angel would have resulted in immediate
Roatan protested Piglet and Isolde for failing to leave contact.
buoy 38A on the correct side. Buoy 38A was included Sea Angel v La Vida Loca, Royal Corinthian YC
in one list, but (because of a clerical error) not in the
other. The protest committee found that Piglet and RYA 2006/8
Isolde had not left buoy 38A on the side required by one
sailing instruction, but dismissed the protest. Roatan Rule 28.2, Sailing the Course
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
appealed on the grounds that the intention of the race
committee was to include buoy 38A as a mark of the Rule 63.1, Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing
Rule A5, Scores Determined by the Race Committee
course, which should prevail over its accidental
omission elsewhere. Unless otherwise specified in the sailing instructions, a
race committee has no power to disqualify a boat
DECISION
Roatan’s appeal is dismissed. without a hearing, or score her DNF if she finishes, if it
believes she has not sailed the course. Instead it must
There was a discrepancy between the descriptions of protest her within the protest time limit. A boat wrongly
‘North Channel’ in SIs 7.5 and 13. Buoy 38A was disqualified without a hearing or incorrectly scored
included in one but not in the other. Neither sailing DNF is entitled to be reinstated into her finishing
instruction can be said to prevail over the other. position.

There is a clear thread in appeal decisions that a boat is SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
given the benefit of the doubt as to which is the correct The sailing instructions said that all relevant marks
course when the description of the course is ambiguous ‘shall be rounded’, either to port, to starboard or as
and there is no proven advantage either way. (See for charted, depending on how the course was displayed.
example case RYA 1993/1: in that case there was no The race committee displayed a course for a race held
clearly correct course for any boat, while in this appeal on 18 June, in which rounding two of the marks on the
there are two equally valid possibilities, but the required side meant looping them. The race committee
principle is the same.) said that this had not been intended.
Although it is not necessary to decide this case by Suntouched and Trust did not loop the marks in
reference to entitlement to redress, the publication of question; instead they left them on their required sides
ambiguous sailing instructions is an improper action, without approaching them, and so sailed a shorter
and it was further held in case RYA 1989/10 that, ‘in distance, finishing in first and second places. In the
cases involving errors by the race committee, it is a results not published until several days later, they were
good principle that any doubts be resolved in favour of recorded as disqualified without a hearing. They asked
the competitor’. In this case, that doubt should be for redress.
resolved in favour of the protestees who were at risk of On 29 August, the race committee lodged a protest
penalization. The course is to be regarded as one that
could be sailed correctly, regardless of which side buoy against Suntouched and Trust for not sailing the course.
38A was left. At hearings on 3 September, the protest committee first
considered the valid requests for redress, and decided
Roatan v Piglet and Isolde, Parkstone SC
120