Page 92 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

Waverider v 527 and 4 other boats; Request for Redress by RYA 1999/4
Waverider, Lymington Town SC
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
A boat that believes she has been adversely affected by
RYA 1999/3 a mistake of the race committee, but which chooses not
Rule 3.1(a), Acceptance of the Rules to race or to continue racing although able to do so, is
Rule 63.1, Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing not without fault, since she contributes to her own
Rule 76.1, Exclusion of Boats or Competitors worsened score, and so is not entitled to redress.
By participating in a race, a competitor agrees to be SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
governed by the rules, as defined, despite any assertion The watch used by the race officer to start the race was
to the contrary. some 3 - 5 minutes fast, and so the race was started
A race committee cannot disqualify a boat, except as before its advertised time, in very light airs. Blue was
permitted by Appendix A5 for breaches of rules 30.3, not able to reach the starting line for her starting signal.
30.4 and 78.2. She would have been able to do so if the race had
To reject or cancel the entry of a boat in a series under started at the correct time. Other boats were able to
rule 76, the organizing authority or race committee make a satisfactory start. Blue did not try to start,
must do so before the first race of the series. returned to the shore, was scored DNS, and asked for
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS redress, which was refused. She appealed.
SI 14, Safety Regulations, placed the responsibility for a DECISION
boat’s safety on the boat. The owner of Shock believed Blue’s appeal is dismissed.
that the course set by the race committee was dangerous
and wrote to the organizing club saying that he would The race officer made a mistake, which affected only
hold the club liable for any damage to his boat. Blue. Any prejudice that might have resulted became
Nevertheless Shock started and completed the race, but irrelevant when, rather than sail the course, Blue made
was disqualified by the race officer and not awarded a no attempt to race and elected to return ashore. For the
finishing time. The race committee lodged no written purposes of rule 62.1, she was not without fault, as it
protest, nor did it explain the reasons for the was she that had deprived herself of a score for a
disqualification. Shock requested redress. finishing position.

After a hearing, the protest committee decided that, as Request for Redress by Blue, Pwllheli SC
the owner’s letter purported to repudiate acceptance of a
specific safety sailing instruction, Shock’s race entry RYA 1999/5
had been invalidated. She had therefore not been Definitions, Keep Clear
eligible to race. The protest committee refused redress Rule 2, Fair Sailing
and, invoking rule 76, reclassified Shock as DNS. Shock When a give-way boat is already breaking a rule of
appealed. Section A of Part 2 by not keeping clear, deliberate

DECISION contact does not necessarily break rule 2.
Shock’s appeal is upheld: she is to be reinstated and SUMMARY
given her finishing time and position. Before the starting signal, two boats were reaching on

The race committee disqualified Shock under rule 76 starboard tack toward the committee vessel at the end of
without protesting her. Rule A5 permits a race the starting line. L established her leeward overlap
committee to disqualify a boat without a hearing for a when there was room for W to keep clear. W made no
breach of rules 30.3, 30.4 and 78.2. Except in these attempt to keep clear. L’s crew leaned out and touched
circumstances a race committee has no powers to score an item of W’s equipment which was in its normal
a boat DSQ on its own initiative. Rule 76 permits an position. L protested W. L’s evidence was that her crew
organizing authority or race committee to reject or had touched W to prove that W was too close to be
refuse an entry, but not to disqualify a boat, and a race described as keeping clear.
committee or organizing authority wishing to use rule The protest committee found that W had broken rule 11
76 must, in a series, act before the first race of that and disqualified her. It also found that L had broken
series. rule 2 by making deliberate contact with W, citing WS
Case 73. W appealed.
The protest committee reclassified Shock as DNS, but
DNS (like DNC and DNF) is a statement of fact, and in DECISION
this case not appropriate since Shock started. W’s appeal is dismissed: however, L is to be reinstated.
Rule 3.1(a) states that by participating in a race each In WS Case 73, W was keeping clear, so that L’s action
competitor agrees to be governed by the rules. ‘Rule’ is in deliberately touching her could have had no other
a defined term that covers, in detail, all documents intention than to cause W to break rule 11. In the
governing an event. When a competitor races, he present case, the protest committee was satisfied that W
signifies that he agrees with the conditions of entry. By was already not keeping clear, as defined, before
racing, Shock’s owner accepted the entry terms and contact occurred (even though there was no contact
Shock was entitled to a result. between the hulls or equipment of the boats) and so W
was already breaking rule 11 when contact was made by
Request for Redress by Shock, Guernsey YC

92