For those of you who want to read it first: Jury Decision AC33/001
The first issue is the validity. How can a request for redress be considered before a race has been sailed? Before there’s any score – let alone made significantly worse.
I wrote about this in an earlier post on LTW: Redress about amended AC33-NoR and SI?
The AC 33 Jury found a solution. Quoting:
9. The Jury determines that the words ‘possibility that a boat’s score’ used in RRS 62.1 permit the Jury to consider a Request for Redress before the race.A nice clean solution.
Or is it?
In my opinion it does change rule RRS 62.1!
Instead of a score that “…has been made…” significantly worse, this now also is a score that … could be made … significantly worse.
This means that when a Notice of Race is published and/or the Sailing Instructions, boats now can request redress before any races and the Protest Committee/International Jury will have to conduct a hearing. There’s no issue with any time limit, a request for redress can be delivered within the protest time or two hours after the incident, whichever is later.
As long as it is in writing, the PC/IJ will have to look at it.
In my experience most Jury’s do not convene until just before the event and most PC’s are only formed after racing. The OA, the RC and the Jury/PC will all have to think about a different approach accordingly.
The AC 33 Jury considered five requests. I’ve copy-pasted the title and the decision from the document and then commented. If you want to read all reasons go back to: Jury Decision AC33/001
REQUEST 01-1: INCORRECT RULES PRECEDENCEThis was the expected result. By removing the NoR and SI from the list the Jury made sure that in case of conflict they at least have a chance to find a solution that provides the fairest result for all boats affected. As is already written in the RRS.
19. The Request is upheld. The OA/RC are directed to issue an amendment deleting NoR 1.2 and SI 1.2, and replacing them with ‘The Deed of Gift shall prevail over any other conflicting rule’.
REQUEST 01-2: CHANGING THE RULES TO OUTLAW WIND DETECTION EQUIPMENT.
25. Consequently, the Jury has allowed the request to be withdrawn (RRS 63.1).OA and USA reached an agreement. There was no longer a need for the RfR and USA requested withdrawal, which the AC 33 Jury allowed.
REQUEST 01-3: FAILURE TO MUTUALLY AGREE ON THE START TIME FOR RACES.Someone has to pick a time, otherwise there would not be a race. If parties can’t agree, that is the OA/ RC. To bad that in this particular series the Defender is also the OA.
38. The Request is denied.
This one is a little strange. I don’t understand why the AC 33 Jury used the word “granted” instead of upheld. As in 01-1, the OA is directed to change the NoR and there’s not any score awarded to any boat…
REQUEST 01-4: IMPOSING WIND AND WAVE LIMITS THAT DIRECTLY
FAVOUR SNG’S OWN YACHT.
52. Redress is granted. The OA is directed to issue an amendment deleting NoR 6.7.
53. The Jury recognizes that the RC has the obligation to comply with
appropriate safety and legal obligations when making a decision to start or continue a race.
This issue would normally be handled by one of the parties asking a written question to the Jury and they then would answer with the decision as printed above. I.e. sentence 61. Not really a request for redress at all, in my opinion. But that can also be said about 01-2
REQUEST 01-5: IMPOSING RULES REGARDING SKIN FRICTION
61. For the purpose of SI 24, ‘trash’ does not include substances released into the water from a boat that are not in breach of any laws or regulations.
62. SI 24 has not reinstated RRS 53 and therefore there is no improper action by the OA and the Request is therefore denied.
This makes two request denied, two upheld and one withdrawn.
I’m sure the spin-doctors of the parties will count differently.