Page 86 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

The protest committee found that Laser II 8600 changed those eligible to re-start race 2 were displayed, and the
her spinnaker without authorisation in races 3, 4 and 5 competitors informed of this orally by the race officer.
of the series. She was disqualified from races 3, 4 and 5. Thus the sail numbers of nos. 424 and 430 were not
displayed on the board. They restarted the race and were
Laser II 8600 then requested redress on the grounds that scored DNE by the race committee. They requested
she had not had her sails inspected before the second redress.
points race, and that the race committee had later
required competitors to sign a declaration that they had The protest committee decided that redress was due,
complied with Sailing Instruction 8, thus appearing to and that, in the light of great confusion at the start, the
admit that inspection procedures at the event were most suitable redress was the abandonment of race 2,
inadequate and mismanaged. Laser II 8600 was which would not be resailed. After this decision, no.
therefore, she claimed, unfairly disqualified in races 3, 4 420 lodged an appeal on the grounds that the protest
and 5 because the inspection procedure was not up to committee erred in abandoning race 2. Some boats had
the standard expected at an event of this quality and she completed it correctly and were entitled to their points;
had been prejudiced thereby. In addition, before race 5, the protest committee's action had penalized these
she had received permission from the measurer to boats.
change her spinnaker and ‘the error was therefore more
that of the organizers than of her skipper’. DECISION
RS 400 420’s appeal is refused.
The protest committee then granted redress to the extent
that Laser II 8600 was reinstated in race 5 only. Laser II The decision may or may not have made the score or
place of RS400 420 worse, but she was not a party to
8600 appealed against her penalization in races 3 and 4.
the redress hearing as described in the definition Party.
DECISION Therefore, she had no right of appeal under rule 70.1(a).
Laser II 8600’s appeal is dismissed.
As soon as she learned of the abandonment, RS400 420
Two separate issues were raised by this appeal: firstly, should have herself requested redress, claiming that the
that of a competitor changing a sail without seeking decision to abandon the race was improper and that it
prior approval of the event measurer; and, secondly, adversely affected her score. If she had not then been
whether the failure of the race committee to inspect all given the redress she believed was due to her, she
the boats as required by the sailing instructions was would have been entitled to appeal – see WS Case 55.
prejudicial to the competitors.
Appeal by RS400 420, Hayling Island SC
Laser II 8600 was clearly in breach of SI 8(b) by
changing her spinnaker without prior approval, and she RYA 1996/1
admitted that this was so. However, it was only when a Part 2, Section D Preamble
protest was imminent that she sought the measurer's Rule 24.1, Interfering with Another Boat
permission to change her sail. The failure of the event
measurer to identify all the sails in accordance with SI The rules of Section A of Part 2 still apply when rule 24
8(a) does not nullify the appellant’s breach of SI 8(b). applies, and a port tack boat that is racing must keep
clear of a starboard tack boat that has been racing,
The failure to complete inspection in time is regrettable. independently of the obligation on the starboard tack
However, since inspection at events is a checking boat not to interfere with a boat that is racing.
process, it does not remove the obligation of every
competitor to comply with sailing instructions, which
are rules governing the event that a boat agrees to be A2
governed by when participating in the race. Wind B2
Laser II 9331 v Laser II 8600, Fowey Gallants SC A1
S1
B1 S2
RYA 1995/3
Definitions, Party C1 C2
Rule 70.1(a), Appeals and Requests to a National
Authority

A boat whose score or place in a race or series may
have been made significantly worse as a result of SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
redress sought by and given to other boats is not a party S, close-hauled on starboard tack, was on a collision
to the hearing, and so does not have the right to appeal course with A, close-hauled on port tack. The two boats
against the decision: her remedy is first to seek redress were racing in different races: A, followed by B and C,
herself. were coming through the starting line at the start of a
new lap as part of their course, while S’s race had been
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS started and then recalled about 20 seconds before the
During the RS400 National Championships rule 30.4, incident.
Black Flag rule, was in force for the start of race 2,
which was then recalled. So many boats were over the S bore sharply away to avoid a collision with A, then
line, including nos. 424 and 430, that it was not possible avoided B, the next boat behind her but collided with C,
to display their sail numbers. Instead, the numbers of causing damage that caused C to retire. C tried to avoid

86