Page 81 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
S, a Mustang 30, was sailing close-hauled on starboard Samba was protested by another boat for being ‘out of
tack. At about one hundred yards, she saw P, a J24, on class’ in respect of several specific class measurement
port tack on a collision course. As the boats closed, S rules.
hailed three times but P took no avoiding action until it The protest committee referred the matter to a class
was too late, when she bore away into S's port quarter
approximately ten feet from the transom. When there association measurer who was present at the
championship. After receiving his report it disqualified
was no possibility of avoiding P, S tried to tack to
minimise the damage but a collision occurred which her for not complying with class rules. She appealed on
the grounds, among others, that the class measurer had
caused S to retire.
competed in the regatta.
The protest committee disqualified P under rule 10 and DECISION
S under rule 14 stating that it believed that S ‘by earlier
action could have avoided the collision’ S appealed, Samba’s appeal is dismissed.
stating that since a J24 was a very manoeuvrable boat it The protest committee misdirected itself when it took a
was only at a very late stage that it became clear that P class measurer who happened to be present as the
was not taking sufficient action; that the faces of the ‘authority responsible for interpreting the rule’ referred
crew aboard the J24 were clearly visible so that she had to in rule 64.3(b). This is so only when that authority
reason to believe P was aware of the situation, and that has previously specifically appointed such a person for
conditions were not so rough as to cause loss of control the event. In the case of the class concerned, the class
by either boat. S could indeed, the appellant stated, have rules state that the authority for deciding questions of
avoided the situation altogether by tacking at an earlier deviation from the design is the class committee. The
stage; however, she did not believe it was the intention protest committee was, however, correct to seek
or spirit of the rules that a port-and-starboard incident evidence from anyone it believed could contribute to
be resolved by S tacking to avoid P. resolving the case, including a class measurer, despite
the fact that he was a competitor.
DECISION
S’s appeal is upheld, and the case is returned to the Having received that evidence, the protest committee
protest committee for it to award redress to S. should then first have decided whether it was in doubt
about the meaning of the class rules. If there was no
The collision between S and P resulted in damage, so
the protest committee was correct to consider rule 14. doubt, it was able to decide the case. If there was doubt,
it was then that the matter would have had to be referred
A port-tack boat may steer a course to pass close astern for a binding interpretation to the ‘responsible
of a starboard-tack boat without breaking rule 10. authority’ - the class committee.
However, P may not take avoiding action so late that S
is thrown into the quandary of holding her course in In this case, the evidence before the protest committee
proved beyond doubt that that Samba broke the class
accordance with rule 16 or trying to avoid the collision
in accordance with rule 14. The protest committee was measurement rules, and she was rightly penalized
without the need to refer the matter to the class
therefore correct in disqualifying P under rule 10.
association.
Turning to S’s situation, it is a truism that, had S taken Requiem for Woodwind v Samba, Essex YC
earlier avoiding action, a collision would not have taken
place, but, under rule 14(a), S may hold her course, RYA 1992/7
presuming that P will keep clear, until it is clear that she Rule 63.6, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding
is not doing so. In this case, S held her course until the Facts
first moment it was clear that a collision was about to
occur, at which point she changed course in an attempt When there is no other evidence, the protest committee
to avoid or at least minimise the effects of the collision. is entitled to reach a decision on the evidence of the
Even though her effort was unsuccessful, it was carried protestor and protestee alone. An additional witness is
out no later than required by rule 14(a). desirable but not essential.
Another Dram v Gossip, Warsash SC SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
A protested B under rule 31 because she believed she
RYA 1992/2 saw the crew's back touch a mark. A hailed B to that
Rule 64.3, Decisions: Decisions on Protests Concerning effect but B did not take a penalty.
Class Rules
The protest committee disqualified B for hitting the
When a protest committee is not in doubt about the mark, stating that A had a clear view and that B
meaning of a measurement rule, there is no reason to possibly was not aware of what had occurred.
send questions to the relevant authority.
B appealed on the ground that without an outside
A class measurer is not the authority responsible for witness to confirm that the mark had been hit it was
interpreting a class measurement rule when the class incorrect to penalize her.
rules state otherwise, but may give evidence to assist a
protest committee to interpret a measurement rule. DECISION
B’s appeal is dismissed.

81