Page 123 - Judge Manual 2017

N.2.2 Who Can be Subject to a Rule 69 Hearing

Rule 69 uses the terms, competitor, boat owner and support person; this means
any boat owner and any crew member and any support person.
Support persons are bound by the rules because the competitor agrees on
behalf of the support person to be bound by the rules (rule 3.2). In addition, a
parent or guardian who enters their child in a race thereby agrees to be bound
by the rules (rule 3.1(b)).

A parent or other support person might object to a rule 69 hearing on the
grounds that the competitor did not have authority to bind the support person
to comply with the rules, and that he or she did not know that providing support
would bind the person.

A way to deal with this is to point out to the support person that, if that is so, the
competitor broke rule 3.2 and must be disqualified. The limitation of a
disqualification in a single race in rule 64.4(b) 4.4 (b) does not apply to the
breach by the competitor of rule 3.2. In most cases that will cause the support
person to accept that he or she is bound.
It is important that the protest committee considers this point as a preliminary
issue and whether, on the facts it finds, the support person is bound to the rules.
If the protest committee is convinced that the support person was indeed bound
(such as the case of a coach which would be expected to know the rules,
including the provisions of rule 3.1 and 3.2), it should proceed with the rule 69
hearing. If the protest committee determines the support person is not bound
to the rules, then it cannot proceed against them and must turn its consideration
to the competitor’s compliance with rule 3.2

N.2.3 The Time and Place of the Misconduct
The act of misconduct must be associated with the event. It would therefore
normally occur within the period immediately prior to the event, commencing
with the competitor’s arrival at the venue for the purpose of the event and may
extend beyond their departure from the venue. Thus, a protest committee is not
at liberty to hold a rule 69 hearing to address alleged misconduct by a
competitor which happened before the beginning of the event, unless the
misconduct relates to the event. For example, before an event, a competitor
may threaten to do something at the event, or do something to prevent another
competitor to partake in an event, such as deliberately damaging another
competitor’s boat. Such an act, even though it happened before the event, will
be sufficiently closely connected to the event to say that the person is a
“competitor”.

The place where the act of misconduct occurred is irrelevant. For example, a
competitor who was involved in an assault during a fight in a public place
unrelated to the venue of the regatta, but brings the sport into disrepute
because the public associates the competitor with the event. He or she could
be the subject of a rule 69 hearing. If that fight took place between the
competitor and someone unrelated to the regatta, in private or in public, without
the public knowing the competitor was competing in the regatta, it would
probably not be appropriate for a protest committee to initiate a rule 69 hearing.

3