Wednesday, 27 August 2008

Olympic Protest 74; LTW Readers Q&A | 7

I received a Q&A from Sen about one of the Olympic Protests; nr. 74
He asked a couple of questions. For your information I've first copied the facts found, conclusion and decision from the panel as they were published:
Protest No. 74;
Event: RS:X - Men;
Race: 8;
Protestor: UKR - Protestee: JPN

Protest details: N12

Facts found:
UKR on starboard and JPN on port approached the leeward mark with JPN on the layline. UKR gybed to port. Soon afterwards JPN established an overlap to windward and there was contact between the two boards. The two boards were approximately 5 seconds from the mark. The contact continued until UKR hit the mark. JPN luffed and slowed down. Neither boat did a penalty turn.

JPN failed to keep clear as a windward boat. UKR did not make every attempt to give JPN room at the mark. JPN broke rule 11 and UKR broke rule 18.2(a)

Rule(s) applicable: RRS 11 and 18.2(a)

Decision: JPN and UKR are disqualified from race 8.

These were Sen's questions (abbreviated; red)
In Protest No. 74 , JPN broke rule 11, UKR broke rule 18.2(a) and both boards were DSQ. This case happened near the leeward (gate) mark, but which mark was not clear. Was it 3S, 3P, 4S, or 4P in the facts? I guess the mark is 3P or 4P.

There are relatively not many cases that both boats are DSQ. The typical example is that a keep clear boat breaks a rule and is DSQ-ed and the other boat with R-O-W breaks rule 14 and is also DSQ-ed.

While there are so many cases that a boat is DSQ under her breach of a rule and another boat is exonerated as the innocent victim under rule 64.1(b), Protest No. 74 is neither one nor the other in the examples mentioned above. Then by only the facts, I can not understand why both boards were DSQ?

Please show the supposed situation or diagram.

First of all, the protest involves surfboards, so we need to go to appendix B as well as the "normal" rules. In appendix B a lot of rules are changed or deleted. For instance boards may touch a mark. They shall not hold on to it, but touching is no problem.

I've drawn the following TSS diagrams from the facts in the protest:

static image

animated image (one by one)

All through the incident UKR was R-O-W boat. First as SB-, then as clear ahead- and finally as leeward boat. When JPN established a windward overlap she had no protection from rule 15 and if after her gybe UKR did not change course, JPN had also no solace from rule 16. When the overlap was established JPN had to keep clear.
She failed to do so and broke rule 11. Nobody forced her to do this, so rule 64.1(b) does not come into play.

The facts state that first contact occurred approximately five seconds from the mark. Five seconds is a long time, so initial contact occurred well before the boards approached the mark. It was blowing 14 - 17 kts in race 8. The course stated in the SI was a trapezium Outer Loop so mark 3P sounds about right.

Once approaching that mark, JPN - still keep clear board - had to be given room as inside board. Boards don't have rule 18.2(b) and 18.2(c). Both are deleted in appendix B.
Once you establish an overlap, the other board has to give you room to pass the mark.
By not giving that room, while JPN was inside boat, UKR broke rule 18.2(a.

Both boards brok a rule, neither was forced to do so, therefore both were disqualified.

UPDATE: 28/08/08; 18:22 hours

Bill Heintz mailed me today with a link to a series of photos capturing the sequence of this protest. We can't see the initial gybe and start of the overlap, nor the distance to the mark, but it illustrates UKR's infringement of 18.2(a) perfectly.
Got to: Just Too Good To Miss!
Thanks Bill!

1 comment:

  1. Thanks Jos;
    Your explanation entirely satisfied me. The static image and animated image assisted with my understanding.
    Guy's picture is indeed proof of your answer.
    Thanks Guy;
    You took a picture of two boards at the decisive moment when both boards encountered. Great job. Arigatou.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...