Page 128 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

Some boats followed this oral instruction, left the Quixotic would therefore be entitled to a finishing
outfall buoy to port, and were given a finishing position. position in a properly finished race.
Quixotic, which was not keeping a radio watch, sailed However, the race was never validly shortened, but that
(with others) to the OLM as her next mark, and rounded
it to starboard, passing between it and the shore mark. was not the fault of the competitors. The race committee
was responsible for this state of affairs, and all boats are
In the process, she crossed the race committee’s
intended finishing line, but not (in the race committee’s entitled to redress, as was set out in related
circumstances in case RYA 1993/1. Cancelling what
opinion) in the right direction relative to the last mark.
Quixotic was scored DNF. Having had her request for had previously been until the last few yards a perfectly
satisfactory race is not an acceptable outcome. The
redress refused, Quixotic appealed.
protest committee might consider:
DECISION
The appeal is upheld. The protest committee is directed  if the different courses sailed did not involve any
to award appropriate redress to all boats in the race, significantly extra distance or any change in the
Quixotic included, in accordance with rule 64.2. order, to award finishing positions to all
competitors based on their times of crossing either
The race committee did not act in accordance with rule finishing line regardless of direction (see WS Case
32, since no flags were displayed, nor was the required 45);
sound signal made. Nothing in the sailing instructions  to view the results as two separate races and award
validated an oral change to the sailing instructions – see Quixotic equal first with the leader of the wrongly
rule 90.2(c). shortened race and to pair those who ‘finished’ in
one direction with those that ‘finished’ in the other
While the race committee’s actions and omissions were nd rd
therefore sufficiently improper to open the possibility of direction, as equal 2 , 3 etc.;
redress, it should be noted that, for the course set by the  if the data were available, to award Quixotic and
race officer, the race could not validly be shortened on a the rest of the fleet finishing positions based on
line to the outfall buoy, even if the appropriate signals their times at the last mark correctly rounded.
had been made. Rule 32.2 prescribes three possibilities Request for redress by Quixotic, Sovereign Harbour YC
for shortening:

(a) at a rounding mark: the outfall buoy was never
a rounding mark;

(b) at a line the course requires boats to cross:
there was no required line from the shore to the RYA 2010/1
red outfall buoy; Rule 62.2, Redress
(c) at a gate: this was not a gate. The time within which a boat must lodge a claim for
redress regarding her score in the results begins when
The only line that might have been a valid finishing line
was from the shore mark to the OLM, because it the boat’s owner or person in charge learns of the
happened to be the next rounding mark, and could be score, even if the results are marked ‘provisional’.
used for shortening under rule 32.2(a). (Had it not also SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
been a rounding mark, then it too would not meet the The series comprised one race per day on a number of
requirements of (a), (b) or (c) above despite being a consecutive Sundays. The series sailing instructions said
mark of the starting and finishing line.) that the protest time limit was within two hours of the last
boat in the race finishing, and that the results of races
Quixotic crossed both the finishing line to the red
outfall buoy as actually (but wrongly) used by the race would be posted as soon as practicable on the notice
committee to shorten, and also what would have been a board situated in the main entrance hall of the club.
valid finishing line to the OLM had the race committee The last boat finished the first race of the series at 11:40
procedures been proper. The race committee claims that on Sunday. Results marked ‘provisional’ were posted in
she did so in the wrong direction. Assuming the the club’s bar shortly afterwards, at 12:15. The owner of
finishing line from shore mark to red outfall buoy to be Evelyn was in the bar at the time, and was heard to
0
about 0.2 nm long on an alignment only 17 different comment on the handicaps used. Lacking his reading
from the rhumb line to it from the previous mark 1.7 nm spectacles, he returned to inspect the results on the
away, it is clear that the shore mark was open of the red notice board in the hall at 10:00 on Tuesday and lodged
0
outfall buoy by as little as 2 from the previous mark. It a request for redress at 11:30 on that day, claiming that
was therefore almost end-on to the direction of the incorrect handicaps had been applied by the Club to
course from the last mark, and Quixotic is entitled to the Evelyn and other boats.
benefit of the doubt afforded to her in WS Case 82,
permitting her to cross it from either direction. At the hearing the protest committee found that the
results were available in the clubhouse on the Sunday
Even if Quixotic chose not to keep a radio watch, she afternoon, that Evelyn’s request was out of time because
was not at fault for the purposes of rule 62.1, since no the time for lodging the request began when the last
sailing instruction required her to do so, and she was boat finished and there were no grounds for extending
entitled to expect that any shortening of the course the time limit. The request was, therefore, invalid and
would be done using the flag and sound signals. would not be heard.

128