Page 64 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

Whitewash was disqualified without any further action proceeded on the basis that the ‘protests’ were in fact
being taken and she appealed. requests for redress.
DECISION There was nothing in the appeals to show that the
Whitewash’s appeal is valid as she was penalised when protest committee was wrong to decide that neither
not a party to the hearing, contrary to rule 63.1 and was boat’s score had, or may have, been made significantly
denied a hearing giving her the right of appeal under worse by the race officer’s mistake in the timing of the
rule 70.1(b). starting signal.
Whitewash’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be Request for Redress by N3089 and E9574, Walton and Frinton YC
reinstated to her finishing position.
RYA 1982/6
It was from the evidence at the hearing of the protest A Rule 20.2, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Responding
v B that the protest committee first had grounds for Rule 21, Exoneration
supposing that Whitewash, which was not a party to that
hearing, might have broken a rule.. As stated in rule A boat that responds to a hail for room to tack by
63.1, Whitewash could not be penalised without a starting to tack, but so slowly that she delays
protest hearing; however, the protest committee was completion of the tack beyond a reasonable time, is not
permitted by rule 60.3(a)(2) to protest her. To do so, it responding as soon as possible after the hail.
was required by rule 61.1(c) to close the current
hearing, to inform Whitewash as soon as reasonably
possible that it intended to protest her, and then, in L4
accordance with rule 61.2 and 63.2, to inform her in W4
writing, identifying the incident, and give her Wind
reasonable time to prepare for the hearing. The original L3
protest and the new protest had then to be heard
together.
W3
This procedure was not complied with and Whitewash
was disqualified without having been protested, or even L2
informed that she was alleged to have broken a rule.
She had no opportunity to state her case or to call or W2
question witnesses. The protest committee’s procedures
were flawed, and the reinstatement of Whitewash is the
only appropriate outcome. L1
Race Committee v Whitewash, Errwood SC W1
Water
RYA 1982/3 to tack,
Rule 60.1, Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or please!
Rule 69 Action
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
A boat is eligible for redress only when she can show
that, through no fault of her own, her score or place has L and W were tacking in a light wind against the
been or may be made significantly worse. She cannot current, taking full advantage of the slacker current by
protest the race committee. the bank. They were overlapped on port tack when L
neared the bank and hailed for room to tack. There was
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS approximately a one-second delay between the hail and
The starting signal was made one minute early but the L beginning her manoeuvre. W also began her
race officer judged it advisable to allow the race to manoeuvre at the same time.
continue. No boat was recalled. Two boats lodged what
purported to be protests against the race committee. The Both boats began tacking, W only slowly, and there was
facts were not in dispute. Neither of the two boats contact without damage or injury between them after L
delayed her start until the correct time. The protest tacked to a close-hauled course on starboard tack when
committee, after a hearing, held that no boat’s score W had just passed beyond head to wind.
had, or may have, been made worse by the admitted The protest committee disqualified W for breaking rules
error, and decided to let the results stand. The two boats 13 and 20.2(c). W appealed, saying that she had started
appealed. to tack instantly and completed her tack in about ten
seconds which was not too long a period for a Merlin
DECISION
The appeals are dismissed. Rocket in light winds. Alternatively, if she (W) had
broken rule 13, she was entitled to exoneration under
A boat cannot protest the race committee; she can seek rule 21.
redress under rule 62.1(a) and must show that, through
no fault of her own, her score was, or may have been, DECISION
made significantly worse by an error of the race W’s appeal is dismissed.
committee. The protest committee was correct to have W was still in the process of tacking nine to ten seconds
after the hail, when L had already completed her tack.
64