TOP OF THE GULF REGATTA
2nd to 5th May 2014
JURY HEARING
RESULTS
INTERNATIONAL JURY: Chantal
Herberholz (NJ) (THA); Rear Admiral Prasart Sribhadung (IJ) (THA);
Neil Semple (IJ) (GBR); Malee Whitcraft NJ (NED); Bryan Willis (IJ) (GBR) (Chairman)
Hearing
1, Race 5, 3rd May, Platu Class
Platu NATTAYA (131) represented by Matt
Jerwood, protested Platu MAGIC DRAGON (112) claiming MAGIC DRAGON forced
NATTAYA to hit the windward mark.
No representative from MAGIC DRAGON attended,
possibly because they did not know about the hearing.
During the incident both boats hailed
‘protest’. NATTAYA then took a one-turn penalty and then displayed a protest
flag. The flag was displayed ‘less than 5 minutes’ after the incident, possible
after 3 minutes, by which time the boats were some distance apart. Matt
accepted that MAGIC DRAGON may not have seen the flag.
The Jury decided the delay in displaying the
flag did not satisfy the ‘at the first reasonable opportunity’ requirement of Racings
Rules of Sailing (RRS) 61.1(a). (61.1(a) ‘A boat ... shall hail ‘Protest’ and
conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for
each...’)
Jury Decision: Protest is invalid.
Matt asked for an explanation of the rules
applicable to the scenario
JURY’S OPINION:
In
position 1 the boats are on opposite tacks so RRS 18 does not apply. At
position 2 blue passes head to wind inside the zone and is then on the same
tack as yellow which is fetching the mark, overlapped to leeward of yellow.
RRS 18.3(a) requires that Blue ‘shall not cause the other boat to sail
above close-hauled to avoid contact or prevent the other boat from passing
the mark on the required side’. Blue complied with this requirement. Yellow
luffs and breaks the overlap, then bears away such that the overlap is
re-established. As RRS 18.3 applied RRS18.2 did not thereafter apply. Yellow
is now windward boat required by RRS 11 to keep clear. Blue is not required
to give room to Yellow to fulfil that obligation under RRS 15 because Blue
became the right-of-way boat because of the action of Yellow. In bearing
away and forcing Blue to make contact with the mark, Yellow failed to keep
clear and as required by RRS 11. Blue did not sail above her proper course
as required by RRS 17.
Hearing 2, Race 1 3rd
May, Laser Standard Class
Laser
8 (Jordan Rumsby) protested Laser 205781 (Firdaus), claiming 205781 failed to
keep clear in a port-and-starboard incident on the beat. The Jury was satisfied
that Jordan was forced to bear away to avoid contact. The protest was upheld
and 205781 disqualified. Rule applicable: RRS 10.
Hearing 3, Race 1,
3rd May, Optimist Class.
The
race committee used the I flag in the starting sequence RRS26 and noted Bjarne
Bouwer (NED 313) was on the course side of the starting line in the last minute
before the starting signal thus breaking RRS 30.1. Bjarne requested redress claiming
that the Race Committee had wrongly scored him as OCS. (OCS – on course side of
the line at the start, or, breaking RRS30.1) In cases of this nature the Jury will
accept the decision of the Race Committee unless there is clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary. Although the Jury had considerable sympathy with
Bjarne whose results were not included at all on the first results posted by
the race committee, on the matter of the OCS score, the Jury was shown
contemporaneous notes made by the race committee, and heard the race
committee’s evidence. Bjarne’s evidence, and evidence from his witness Taylor
Yong, was insufficient for the Jury to be satisfied that the race committee had
erroneously judged Bjarne to be OCS.
Decision:
The score of ‘OCS’ is confirmed.
Hearing 4, Race 5,
3rd May, Multihull.
The
race committee requested the Jury to open a Redress Hearing. The Race Officer
explained that he erroneously answered a request over the VHF radio from MOJO,
by stating that racing was finished for the day. CEDAR SWAN then asked by VHF
for confirmation that there was no more racing for the day and received that
confirmation from the Race Officer. The Race Officer then immediately realised
that in fact there was a further race and broadcast this on VHF radio. However,
SONIC, having heard the two broadcasts stating there was no more racing,
switched off their VHF radio and sailed home.
SONIC
came to the Jury Office to lodge a Request for Redress but were told the Race
Officer had already made a Request and it was therefore unnecessary.
The
Race Committee made no visual signals on the committee boat to signal ‘no more
racing’ or ‘race postponed’.
Sailing
Instruction 22.4 states ‘Any radio communications by the Race Committee, any
naming or misnaming of boats and/or their numbers, colours, designs, logos, or
shapes cannot be used as evidence in and redress hearing. This changes RRS
62.1(a).
This
can be interpreted to mean: ‘Any radio communications by the Race Committee ...
cannot be used as evidence in and redress hearing. This changes RRS 62.1(a).’
For
SONIC to qualify for redress, her score must have been made worse through no
fault of her own. (See RRS 62.1 below)
The Jury finds that although, without doubt,
the Race Committee made an error in broadcasting that there would be no more
racing when in fact there was to be another race as scheduled, SONIC was partly
to blame in relying on the radio broadcast rather than signals displayed from
the Committee Boat (such as ‘N over A’ meaning ‘All races are abandoned. No
more racing today’)
DECISION:
The Request for Redress is dismissed.
RRS 62.1
A request for redress or a
protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or
possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of
her own, been made significantly worse by
(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee ...