Page 134 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

Race Signals, X have acted on the assumption from the two sound
signals alone that there had been a general recall.
When the race committee intends an individual recall
but, while displaying flag X, makes two sound signals in This is different from the situation, described in WS
addition to the starting sound signal, this is an Case 31, where flag X is displayed but no sound signal
improper action. However, a boat that ceases racing is made. In that case, there was no reason for a boat to
before she can see which recall flag, if any, is displayed look for a recall flag and, by continuing to race, her
may be at fault and hence not entitled to redress. score was affected through no fault of her own.
A race committee signal comprises both the flag and the RYA 2014, based on:
sound. Request for redress by Chaotic, Royal Yorkshire YC
Request for redress by Topper 45772, Largs SC
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
In starting a race, the race committee made the starting RYA 2014/3
signal with one sound signal and identified a boat as Rule 63.6, Hearings; Taking Evidence and Finding Facts
OCS. They then displayed flag X and made two further Rule 66, Reopening a Hearing
sound signals. Shortly afterwards, the OCS boat Whether evidence is new is only relevant to the decision
returned and flag X was removed.
to reopen a hearing. When a hearing has been
QUESTION 1 reopened, there is no restriction on the evidence that
Was there an improper action by the race committee? may be presented.
ANSWER 1 SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Yes. Rule 29.1 specifies that the individual recall signal An incident occurred in the first race of the National
is the display of flag X with one sound signal. Having Championship when J24 4247 made contact with 4206
displayed flag X and made one sound signal, making a resulting in serious damage. At the ensuing protest
second sound signal was an improper action by the race hearing, 4247 was disqualified. For that hearing, a
committee. potential witness for 4247 was present at the venue but
was not called to give evidence.
ADDITIONAL FACTS FOR QUESTION 2
Boat A, which was not OCS, believed there to have 4247 appealed and her appeal was upheld only to the
been a general recall and bore away back towards the extent that the case was returned to the protest
starting line until she was able to see that it was flag X committee to reopen the hearing in order to resolve
that was displayed. She then resumed racing. certain specified inconsistencies.
Boat B, also having heard two sounds, turned back At the reopened hearing, 4247 sought to present written
towards the starting line but was not able to see the flag evidence from her witness who could not be present, but
during the short time that it was displayed. When she this was refused by the protest committee on the
saw no flags displayed, she resumed her course to the grounds that it was not new evidence. The reopened
first mark. hearing dealt with the matters referred to it by the RYA
and confirmed its decision to disqualify 4247, and she
Both boats finished in worse positions as a result of appealed again.
turning back and requested redress on the grounds that
they believed that a general recall had been signalled. DECISION
The appeal is dismissed and the disqualification of 4247
QUESTION 2 is confirmed.
Is either boat A or B entitled to redress?
With respect to the non-admission of written evidence,
ANSWER 2 the protest committee misdirected itself when it refused
No, neither boat is entitled to redress.
the evidence on the basis that is was not 'new evidence'.
There was an improper action of the race committee, There is no limitation on evidence that may be
but rule 62.1 states that a boat must satisfy two presented once the decision to re-open the hearing has
additional conditions to be granted redress. been made, whatever the reason for the re-
opening. Written evidence from a witness who is not
Firstly, her score must be made worse; this condition is available for questioning can be accepted provided all
satisfied. Secondly, the worsening must be through no parties agree (see rule 63.6 and Appendix M3.2).
fault of her own. However, when the RYA considered the written
A recall signal is the combination of the visual flag and evidence, it found no grounds to uphold the appeal. The
the sound. It is only starting signals in accordance with other grounds for the second appeal were against the
rule 26 that are governed solely by the visual signal. facts found, but these are not open to appeal under rule
70.1(a).
Both boats were at fault and lost places through relying
solely on the sound element of the signal, and turning J24s 4206 v 4247 and 4247 v 4265, Royal Western YC
back when there was no need to do so before they could
see the flag signal. Rule 29.2 states that a general recall RYA 2014/4
signal is the display of the First Substitute with two Rule 19.2, Giving Room at an Obstruction
sounds. As that flag was not displayed, no General The test to determine whether a boat establishing an
Recall was signalled. Until the boats could see which inside overlap at a continuing obstruction is entitled to
flag was (or was not) being displayed, they should not
134