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 ...