Page 84 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

RYA 1994/3 RYA 1994/4
Rule 62.1(a), Redress Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 64.2, Decisions: Decisions on Redress Rule 18.1(c), Mark-Room: When Rule 18 applies
Rule 66, Reopening a Hearing Rule 64.1, Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
A boat that is not a party to a request for redress is not
entitled to request a reopening. She is, however, entitled A boat that breaks a rule while she is out of control
to seek redress in her own right when she believes that cannot be exonerated for that reason alone.
the redress given in that other hearing makes her own
finishing position significantly worse.

A protest committee is entitled to award the redress it
thinks most suitable for compliance with rule 64.2
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
A race at the 420 Class National Championships was
started under rule 30.4, the Black Flag rule. The sailing
instructions added that the sail numbers of boats
disqualified under this rule were to be displayed by a
committee vessel at the windward mark, when boats
affected were to retire. The numbers of two boats, A
and B were incorrectly radioed to the committee vessel,
which ordered them to retire. They did so, and
requested redress. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
The protest committee, accepting the evidence that the On approaching the windward mark, Buccaneer gybed
two had not broken rule 30.4, gave them redress of onto port tack from a starboard reach in order to pass
average points for that race. Another boat, C, then the mark, whereupon the tiller extension jammed
requested a reopening of the redress hearing on the between the foot of the sail and the boom and she
grounds that the protest committee had not heard all the became uncontrollable. She swung round in a circle
evidence. The protest committee decided that there was with hails of ‘Out of control’ and tacked onto starboard
no new evidence, and the reopening was refused. tack. Another boat, sailing slowly, luffed to keep clear
but failed to avoid a collision. There was no injury or
C then requested redress on the grounds that her damage.
finishing position had been made significantly worse by
the decision to award A average points. A should have The protest committee decided that there was no racing
been given, not average points, but her lowlier position rule that exonerated a boat that was out of control when
at the windward mark. C’s request was refused and she she broke a rule of Part 2. Buccaneer was disqualified
appealed. under rule 15 for tacking too close. The protest
committee then referred its decision to the RYA under
DECISION rule 70.2.
C’s appeal is dismissed.
DECISION
C's request for a reopening was correctly refused as, not The protest committee's decision is confirmed.
having been a party to the original redress hearing, she
was not entitled to seek a reopening of it under rule 66. S broke rule 11, but is exonerated under rule 64.1(a)
A protest committee may itself decide to reopen a because Buccaneer broke rule 15. If rule 18 had
hearing when material new evidence from whatever applied, Buccaneer would not have been exonerated by
source becomes available, but in this case C had none to rule 21 for breaking rule 15, since Buccaneer was no
offer. When an invalid request for a re-opening meets longer rounding the mark on her proper course. As it
the requirements of a request for redress, then it should was, rule 18 did not apply, because of rule 18.1(c), since
be regarded as a request for redress, and heard – see Buccaneer was leaving the mark and S was approaching
case RYA 2002/1 – but in this case there were no it.
grounds for doing so. It may appear harsh to disqualify a boat that is
C then asked for redress. She was entitled to do so, and genuinely out of control, but frequently the occurrence
there was a hearing, but the request was also correctly is caused by over-canvassing or careless handling,
refused. The protest committee, having found that A which are avoidable, or by inexperience, which is no
had not infringed the black flag rule, was entitled to justification for exoneration.
grant redress in whatever form it considered complied Buccaneer v Wayfarer 432
best with its responsibility under rule 64.2 to be as fair
as possible to all boats affected. The award of average RYA 1994/8
points was clearly appropriate as concerns fairness to Rule 29.1, Recalls: Individual Recall
the fleet as a whole, even if it was not favourable to the Rule 63.6, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding
appellant. Facts

Request for Redress by K46874, Pwllheli SC
In finding facts, a protest committee will be governed by
the weight of evidence. In general, a race official
84