TOP OF THE GULF Regatta 2011

Case 1, 30^th April; Hobie 16 Class 9, Race 3.

CAT IN THE HAT (H16) (represented by G Southwick, father of the helm) requested redress claiming that after two races, before the start of race 3, the jib halyard block failed. Average points was requested for race 3.

CONCLUSION

The Jury accepted that the block had failed, and that this was not due to misuse. However, in this regatta, the Organising Authority does not offer boats for charter. It is entirely at the discretion of each competitor as to whether they use their own boat and equipment, or they borrow or charter.

Therefore the Organising Authority has made no ‘improper action or omission’ which is the requirement in rule 62.1(a) for a boat to be eligible for redress. Furthermore, there is no other rule which would entitle CAT IN THE HAT to redress.

DECISION

The Request is denied.

RULE APPLICABLE

Rule 62.1(a): ‘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 … an improper action or omission of the race committee … or organizing authority…’

Case 2, 30^th April THE FOX (Class 6, Platu) Race 1.

THE FOX (130) protested THE FERRET (124) claiming she was not given room to pass under a starboard tack boat.

VALIDITY

Both boats hailed ‘protest’ and flew a protest flag immediately after the incident. THE FERRET did not lodge a protest.

FACTS FOUND

Both boats were approaching the windward mark at the end of the second windward leg. At about 10 boat lengths from the mark, THE FERRET tacked on to port tack about two lengths under THE FOX which was already on port tack above the lay-line. At the completion of the tack, the boats were overlapped. As they reached the zone, they were overlapped. THE FERRET gave room to THE FOX to round the mark.

However, NIAID (116) was approaching the mark on starboard tack on the starboard tack layline. THE FOX needed to bear away slightly to avoid NIAID. There was contact between the starboard side of THE FOX and the port side of THE FERRET. There was no damage.

GROUNDS FOR DECISION

THE FERRET was required by rule 19.2(b) to give room to THE FOX to avoid NIAID and failed to do so. THE FOX broke rule 11 in not keeping clear as windward boat but is exonerated under rule 64.1(c) because she was compelled by THE FERRET to break rule 11 as a consequence of breaking rule 19.2(b).

DECISION

THE FERRET is disqualified.

This was a ‘majority decision’ (the Jury was not unanimous)

APPLICABLE RULES

Rule 11: ‘When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.’

Rule 19.2 (b): ‘When boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.’

Case 3: 1^st May. Class IRC 1, race 3.

Original hearing

EVOLUTION RACING (AUS 8898) protested HI FI, (HKG 2112) claiming that as EVOLUTION approached the windward mark on starboard tack with HI FI on port tack, EVOLUTION was forced to alter course aggressively to avoid a collision with HI FI.

FOUR JURY MEMBERS

The Jury was requested to start the hearing as soon as possible as some witnesses would not be available later. Both parties agreed to proceed with the hearing immediately on the basis that four Jury members were then available to hear the Protest. During the course of the hearing the fifth Jury member joined the hearing.

VALIDITY

EVOLUTION hailed ‘protest’ immediately the incident occurred and displayed a red flag. HI FI heard the hail and accepted that the flag was displayed in proper time. The Protest was ruled as valid.

FACTS FOUND

Both boats were approaching the windward mark. HI FI on port tack, tacked on the windward bow of PREMIER which was approaching on starboard tack on the layline. As the tack was completed, contact occurred between the port quarter of HI FI and the starboard side of PREMIER. HI FI then tacked back onto port tack and completed a two penalty turns before continuing around the mark. PREMIER continued on starboard tack and rounded the mark. EVOLUTION was approximately 3 boat lengths away from HI FI when HI FI tacked. EVOLUTION was able to continue on her course behind the stern of HI FI to lay the mark. No alteration of course was necessary to avoid HI FI.

GROUNDS FOR DECSION

HI FI on port tack was required to keep clear of EVOLUTION on starboard tack. HI FI kept clear and EVOLUTION was able to sail her course to the mark.

DECSION

The Protest is dismissed.

This was a ‘majority decision’ (the Jury was not unanimous)

(The hearing was later re-opened)

Re-opened hearing on 2^nd May

EVOLUTION requested to re-open the hearing (rule 66) claiming that significant new evidence had become available from the skipper Ray Roberts who was not available at the original hearing due to family health matters.

The Jury decided to re-open the hearing.

NEW FACTS FOUND

Within the zone, HI FI on port crossed ahead of PREMIER who was on starboard tack, forcing PREMIER to duck the stern of HI FI.

HI FI tacked on to starboard tack windward of PREMIER.

EVOLUTION tacked from port tack onto starboard tack when four to five hull lengths from the top mark and approximately one hull length to windward of the starboard layline.

PREMIER had to luff to shoot the mark.

HI FI tacked back onto port tack and there was contact between HI FI’s port quarter and the starboard side of PREMIER.

EVOLUTION’s tack onto starboard was completed before HI FI passed through head-to-wind.

EVOLUTION on starboard tack was forced to bear away to avoid HI FI on port tack.

HI FI continued on port tack and completed a two-turn penalty before rounding the mark.

GROUNDS FOR DECISION

HI FI on port tack was required to keep clear of the EVOLUTION on starboard tack and failed to do so (rule 10)

DECISION

The protest is upheld. HI FI is disqualified.

This was a ‘majority decision’ (the Jury was not unanimous)

Case 4 1^st May Class 4, Cruising Class, race number ?

FLUCTUATE protested REEF KNOT claiming that REEF KNOT on port tack failed to keep clear of FLUCTUATE on starboard tack.

It was reported that REEF KNOT elected not to attend the hearing.

FLUCTUATE hailed ‘protest’ but did not display a protest flag.

DECISION

A protest flag is mandatory. The protest is invalid and is therefore refused.

Rule 61.1(a).

Case 5 2^nd May Class 11, Lasers (Lasers full rig, 4.7 and Radial) all races

180992 was represented by Sophia-Maria who brought Alexandra as a supporting witness.

Sophie claimed that the Organising Authority made an improper action in not providing differential time limits (for finishing after the first boat to finish) which prejudiced the 4.7s especially in light winds. 180992 was not able to finish within the time limit in several races.

There was a single time limit for all three Laser classes which were racing on handicap in a single series. The first boat (of any of the three classes) was required to finish within one hour, the remaining boats within 20 minutes of the finishing time of the first boat to finish. Some 4.7s did finish within that time limit.

The Jury accepted that a single time limit does disadvantage boats that are slower especially in light and lightening winds.

However, although the Jury had sympathy with the claim, it decided there was no error or omission. The single time limit was clearly described in the sailing Instructions and accepted by the competitors on entering the Regatta.

DECISION

The Request was dismissed.

The Race Director agreed to look into the possibility of having three separate classes next year.

Cases 6 & 7 2^nd May Race 5 Class 2 (IRC2)

The Race Committee published provisional results based on times that boats crossed the finishing line, but then decided to score boats based on the time that boats rounded the last mark.

JING JING lodged a Request for Redress promptly after seeing the provisional results showing ICHI BAN as the winner.

ICHI BAN lodged a Request for Redress promptly after discovering that the provisional results were changed and she had not, after all, won the race.

The Jury decided that each Request was lodged within two hours after ‘the incident’ (posting the provisional results/publishing the final results) and ruled both Requests as valid.

ICHI BAN requested redress claiming that the Race Committee made an improper action in changing the provisional results that were posted for race 5.

JING JING supported the final results.

The course was number 13. No boat finished by 16h00. All boats finished (crossed the finishing line), and all boats did so between 16h00 and 18h00. After 16h00 no boat withdrew; they all continued to sail on and pass through the finishing line.

The original (provisional) results were based on the times that boats crossed the finishing line; the changed (final) results (on which the prize-giving was based) were based on the times of rounding the previous mark (which was at the end of a windward leg).

Sailing Instruction 15 refers to Time Limits. It has three parts.

15.1 The time limit for Courses 1- 5 will be two hours. Boats still racing when her time limit expires will be scored points equal to the number of boats finishing within the time limit plus 30% of the number of starters rounded to the nearest whole number, but no more points than the number of starters. Such boats will be scored Time Limit Expired (TLE). This changes RRS 35, A4.2 and A5.

15.2 The time limit for the first boat in each class for all other courses shall be 1600 hours. Boats still racing 120 minutes after this time will be scored points equal to the number of boats finishing within the time limit plus 30% of the number of starters rounded to the nearest whole number, but no more points than the number of starters. Such boats will be scored Time Limit Expired (TLE). This changes RRS 35, A4.2 and A5.

15.3 If 20% or less of a class finishes within the time limit, then the race committee may, for all boats in that class, use positions or times taken at the previous mark. This change rule 35.

The Jury is of the opinion that SI 15 is ambiguous. However, based on the most logical and fair interpretation, the Jury decided the following:

SI 15.1 applies only to courses 1-5 and this race used course 13. So 15.1 does not apply to this case.

SI 15.2 applied to the extent that no boat finished before 1600 hours and as a consequence the first part of the second sentence applied whereby the 'time limit' was extended for another 120 minutes, namely to 1800 hours by which time all boats finished. (Had a boat finished before 1600 hours, the ‘time limit’ would have been extended to 120 minutes after the time the first boat finished.)

SI 15.3 did not apply because all boats (rather than ‘20% or less’) finished within what the Jury interprets to mean as 'time limit' namely 1800 hours, and therefore the race committee did not have the possibility to apply 15.3 to 'use positions or times taken at the previous mark'.

CONCLUSION

The Organising Authority published Sailing Instructions which included SI 15.2 which is ambiguous. In addition, it would not be fair to take away a win from a boat that finished by 1800 and won on corrected time, as envisaged by SI 15.3. This was an improper action.

DECISION

Redress is granted; the race committee is directed to rescore the race using the finishing times on the finishing line.

Case 8, 2^nd May Race 5 (Class 6, Platu)

THE FERRET protested LUCKY LADY, claiming LUCKY LADY, overlapped to windward, did not keep clear when approaching the line to start, and then took a penalty but completed only one turn.

Scot, representing THE FERRET, gave evidence that several crew members on THE FERRET shouted ‘protest’ loudly at the time of the incident when LUCKY LADY was very close, and promptly displayed her protest flag conspicuously, and left it displayed.

Kenta Inaba representing LUCKY LADY was adamant that THE FERRET had not hailed ‘protest’ and had not displayed a flag. He also questioned whether the protest was lodged in time.

The jury was satisfied that the hail, flag, and lodgement times satisfied the requirements.

FACTS FOUND

On the approach to the starting line before the start, THE FERRET established an overlap to leeward, and after some time, luffed slowly. There was contact between LUCKY LADY’s port side and THE FERRET’s starboard side. LUCKY LADY then completed one penalty turn.

Kenta said that because he and his crew had some problems with the English language, they had misread the Sailing Instructions and thought the ‘One Turn’ penalty (the penalty prescribed for multihulls) applied to their class.

DECISION:

LUCKY LADY broke rules 11 and 14, did not take a Two-turn penalty, and is therefore disqualified.

The Jury decided by a majority not to proceed with a Rule 69 hearing against Kenta Inaba.