In a comment on my answer in yesterday's post Luigi said...
" Sorry Jos but a warning is an advice, not an action. The situation you described is under 60.3a. Jury can protest the trower at the hearing."
I thought it was worth posting about it so you can all join the discussion.
You can only protest the competitor who allegedly threw the can, in a rule 69 hearing. "Normal" protest are ALWAYS against a boat - not a person.
69.1(b) Final sentence: "If it decides that the competitor committed the alleged misconduct it shall either" .... and then continues with two possibilities:
(1) either warn
(2) or impose a penalty
In my opinion those are BOTH "disciplinary actions under rule 69.1(b)" as referred to in 62.1(d)
Someone can be disciplined by warning him or her. The disciplinary action is to set about a change in conduct, either by imposing a warning or a penalty.
Granted, most people would rather punish by a penalty...The "make them pay"-policy. But don't underestimate the social implications of being hauled in front of the protest committee on a rule 69 charge. A warning might serve better, if only not to incur rancor at an unnecessary (unjust) penalty.
If you limit the redress in 62.1(d) to only cases where the offender is penalized - by one way or another - you put undue pressure on the verdict if that is the only way for the PC to grant redress to the boat who has been damaged.
What are your thoughts on this subject?