Page 110 - Judge Manual 2017

be present throughout the hearing of all evidence. However, bringing the
associated competitor into the hearing by way of a protest against the boat may
not be appropriate for some hearings called under rule 60.3(d) unless the
protest committee believes a penalty against the boat is a reasonable
possibility.
In some cases, the protest committee may decide to penalize the boat
associated with the support person, especially when the boat gained a
competitive advantage from the support person's breach. To apply a penalty to
the boat, the protest committee will turn to rule 64.4(b), not rule 64.1. This
means that the boat's penalty can be less than disqualification. Rule 64.4(b)(2)
also allows the protest committee to penalize the boat when the support person
repeats the offense, provided that the protest committee had previously warned
the competitor. The advantage of a warning to the competitor is that the
competitor is put on notice that they are exposed to a penalty by virtue of the
conduct of their support person. However, a waring is not mandatory, and the
circumstances of the support person’s actions must be considered.

A forward-thinking protest committee may want the initial decision to include a
statement to that effect:
Jane Smythe broke SI 22.4, by entering the course while boats were racing and
has been given a warning under RRS 64.4(a)(1). The competitor GBR 99704,
Gavin Pickering, has been given a warning under RRS 64.4(b)(2) that a penalty
may be imposed should the support person commit a further breach.

The World Sailing International Judges Sub-Committee encourages
International Judges to include information about any hearings about support
persons in the Regatta Report to help refine these new rules.

K.31 Requests to Reopen

Any party to the hearing may request a re-opening of the hearing. In cases
where the request for redress was from the Race Committee or the Technical
Committee, or considered by the Protest Committee under rule 60.3(b),
according to the definition of Party, this is a boat requesting redress or for which
redress is requested. All other boats are “affected” boats but they are not
Parties.

The word “may” in the first sentence of rule 66 means that there is no absolute
obligation on the protest committee to reopen. A protest committee should re-
open a hearing when either one of the two requirements of rule 66 is met. The
first is when the protest committee decides that it may have made a significant
error. The second is when significant new evidence which was not available at
the time of the original hearing becomes available within a reasonable time.
That said, it is not in the best interests of the event to allow an unsuccessful
party a reopening only for the purpose of re-stating an argument or testimony
that had already been considered. In those circumstances, a reopening would
be unreasonably burdensome to the protest committee and to the other parties
involved.
Errors by the protest committee that should lead to a reopening include