Thursday, 16 October 2008

Seminar Preparations | 4

In answer to yesterdays question:
Before th PC can give redress the following facts have to be found:
  • The Pin-end starting mark was moved after the preparatory signal.
  • Marion was not aware she was over the line before her starting signal.
The first fact found constitutes a mistake under rule 62.1(a), because of RRS 27.2
The second fact is to establish that there was 'no fault of her own'. If Marion knew she was over the line but did not return, her redress can not be given.

If both these facts are found, I would give Marion her finishing position - the one she actually sailed in the race, adjusting all other scores accordingly.

Today's question:
In the picture you'll find the first page of a protest form. You are a member of the Protest Committee and before starting the hearing, you discuss if this is a valid protest?
Please give me your opinion including your reasoning.



  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. I'm wondering if this is a trick question- quite clearly, they've not filled in Section 7, and in Section 6, haven't used the appropriate rule number. They've also not ticked a box in Section 2.

    However, are these mere technicalities, as the rest of the form makes it clear what the incident was, and what form of protest it is, and therefore it is valid to open the hearing? The objections to it being a valid protest should be raised and dismissed at the start of the hearing?

  3. Opinion;
    This protest is valid.
    1. ‘Informing protestee’ stated in item6 meets rule 61.1(a).
    2. ‘Date and Race no.’ stated in item1, and the word ‘Race B, mark4’ stated in ‘Time and place of incident’ in item5, and the word ‘touching mark’ stated in ‘Rules alleged to have been broken’ in item5 meet rule 61.2(b).
    As the above requirement is met with rule 61.2, hearing will continue.
    And what’s more;
    3. Both ‘Class, Fleet and Sail no.’ stated in item3 and ‘Class, Fleet and Sail no.’ stated in item4 meet rule 61.2(a).
    4. The word ‘touching mark’ stated in ‘Rules alleged to have been broken’ meets both rule 61.2(c) and rule 64.1(a).
    5. ‘Represented by’ stated in item3 meets rule 61.2(d).

  4. To discuss if this is a valid protest:
    Facts -
    The protest form has not been filled in will necessary information /Time/Situation Drawing/Type of hearing
    Conclusion -
    RvW 63.5 - Not all requirements for the protest/request have been met

  5. The relevant rule is 61.2:

    (a) it identifies protestor and protestee

    (b) it describes the incident, when and where it occurred (Race B, Mark 4)

    (c) it states the rule believe to be broken (touching a mark)

    (d) it names the protestor's representative

    Only (b) need be on the form at the time of filing, the others can be added anytime up to the hearing or some of them during it.

    So the protest is valid (based on the information given).


  6. Jos,

    I think your answer is incorrect. The problem stated was "before starting the hearing, you [the PC] discuss if this is a valid protest." You did not state the problem as does the protest form comply with rule 61.2. To be a valid protest, more than compliance with 61.2 is required.

    Clearly from the face of the protest form, there is a question of validity presented regarding the timing of compliance (if required) with 61.1. The protest form states that the hail was made and the flag displayed "asap" Assuming this means "as soon as possible" the question the PC must decide in order for the protest to be valid is whether the hail and flag display complied with 61.1's requirement that both be done at the first reasonable opportunity. If not, and if both hail and flag were required by the size of the boat, the protest is invalid and the protest committee may not continue the hearing.

    Cheers, Dave C.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...