ABSTRACTS BY RULE NUMBER 60-71  

PART 5 – PROTESTS, REDRESS, HEARINGS, MISCONDUCT AND APPEALS
Section A – Protests; Redress; Rule 69 Action

Rule 60, Right to Protest, Right to Request Redress or Rule 69 Action

CASE 1
A boat that breaks a rule while racing but continues to race may protest over a later incident, even though after the race she is disqualified for her breach.
CASE 19
An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.
CASE 39
Except when it receives a report of a breach of a class rule or of rule 43 from an equipment inspector or a measurer for an event, a race committee is not required to protest a boat. The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitor.
CASE 57
The race committee is required to protest only as a result of a report received from an equipment inspector or a measurer appointed for an event. When a current, properly authenticated certificate has been presented in good faith by an owner who has complied with the requirements of rule 78.1, the final results of a race or series must stand, even though the certificate is later withdrawn.
CASE 80
A hearing of a protest or a request for redress must be limited to the alleged incident, action or omission. Although a boat may be scored DNF if she does not finish according to that term’s definition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.

Rule 61.1, Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee

CASE 19
An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.
CASE 72
Discussion of the word ‘flag’.
CASE 85
If a racing rule is not one of the rules listed in rule 86.1(c), class rules are not permitted to change it. If a class rule attempts to change such a rule, that class rule is not valid and does not apply.
CASE 112
If one boat makes an error in sailing the course, a second boat may notify the first that she intends to protest when the error is made, or at the first reasonable opportunity after the first boat finishes, or at any time in-between.

Rule 61.2, Protest Requirements: Protest Contents

CASE 22
It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest committee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.
CASE 80
A hearing of a protest or a request for redress must be limited to the alleged incident, action or omission. Although a boat may be scored DNF if she does not finish according to that term’s definition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.

Rule 62.1(a), Redress

CASE 37
Each race of a regatta is a separate race; in a multi-class regatta, abandonment may be suitable for some classes, but not for all.
CASE 44
A boat may not protest a race committee for breaking a rule. However, she may request redress, and is entitled to it when she establishes that, through no fault of her own, an improper action or omission of the race committee made her score significantly worse.
CASE 45
When a boat fails to finish correctly because of a race committee error, but none of the boats racing gains or loses as a result, an appropriate and fair form of redress is to score all the boats in the order they crossed the finishing line.
CASE 68
The failure of a race committee to discover that a rating certificate is invalid does not entitle a boat to redress. A boat that may have broken a rule and that continues to race retains her rights under the racing rules, including her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her rights to protest and appeal, even if she is later disqualified.
CASE 71
A hail is not the ‘sound signal’ required when flag X is displayed. Answers to questions arising from requests for redress after a procedural error by the race committee.
CASE 80
A hearing of a protest or a request for redress must be limited to the alleged incident, action or omission. Although a boat may be scored DNF if she does not finish according to that term’s definition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.
CASE 82
When a finishing line is laid so nearly in line with the last leg that it cannot be determined which is the correct way to cross it in order to finish according to the definition, a boat may cross the line in either direction and her finish is to be recorded accordingly.

Rule 62.1(b), Redress

CASE 19
An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.
CASE 110
A boat physically damaged from contact with a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 is eligible for redress only if the damage itself significantly worsened her score. Contact is not necessary for one boat to cause injury or physical damage to another. A worsening of a boat’s score caused by an avoiding manoeuvre is not, by itself, grounds for redress. ‘Injury’ refers to bodily injury to a person and, in rule 62.1(b), ‘damage’ is limited to physical damage to a boat or her equipment.

Rule 62.1(c), Redress

CASE 20
When it is possible that a boat is in danger, another boat that gives help is entitled to redress, even if her help was not asked for or if it is later found that there was no danger.

Rule 62.1(d), Redress

CASE 34
Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule 2 and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 69.1.

Rule 62.2, Redress

CASE 102
When a boat requests redress because of an incident she claims affected her score in a race, and thus in a series, the time limit for making the request is the time limit for the race, rather than a time limit based on the posting of the series results.

Section B – Hearings and Decisions
Rule 63.1, Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing

CASE 1
A boat that breaks a rule while racing but continues to race may protest over a later incident, even though after the race she is disqualified for her breach. Rule 63.2, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing; Time for Parties to Prepare
CASE 48
Part 5 of the racing rules aims to protect a boat from miscarriage of justice, not to provide loopholes for protestees. A protestee has a duty to protect herself by acting reasonably before a hearing.

Rule 63.3, Hearings: Right to be Present

CASE 49
When two protests arise from the same incident, or from very closely connected incidents, they should be heard together in the presence of representatives of all the boats involved.

Rule 63.5, Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress

CASE 19
An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.
CASE 22
It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest committee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.

Rule 63.6, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding Facts

CASE 104
Attempting to distinguish between facts and conclusions in a protest committee's findings is sometimes unsatisfactory because findings may be based partially on fact and partially on a conclusion. A national authority can change a protest committee’s decision and any other findings that involve reasoning or judgment, but not its findings of fact. A national authority may derive additional facts by logical deduction. Neither written facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other. Protest committees must resolve conflicts between facts when so required by a national authority.

Rule 63.7, Hearings: Conflict between the Notice of Race and the Sailing Instructions

CASE 98
The rules listed in the definition Rule apply to races governed by The Racing Rules of Sailing whether or not the notice of race or sailing instructions explicitly state that they apply. A sailing instruction, provided it is consistent with any prescription to rule 88.2, may change some or all of the prescriptions of the national authority. Generally, neither the notice of race nor the sailing instructions may change a class rule. When a boat races under a handicapping or rating system, the rules of that system apply, and some or all of her class rules may apply as well. When the notice of race conflicts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

CASE 22
It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest committee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.
CASE 66
A race committee may not change, or refuse to implement, the decision of a protest committee, including a decision based on a report from an authority qualified to resolve questions of measurement.

Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

CASE 10
When two boats are involved in an incident and one of them breaks a rule, she shall be exonerated when a third boat that also broke a rule caused the incident.
CASE 99
The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule 14 to ‘avoid contact . . . if reasonably possible’ and the only way to do so is to crash-gybe, she does not break the rule if she does not crash-gybe. When a boat’s penalty under rule 44.1(b) is to retire, and she does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disqualified.
CASE 107
A boat that is not keeping a lookout may thereby fail to do everything reasonably possible to avoid contact. Hailing is one way that a boat may ‘act to avoid contact’. When a boat’s breach of a rule of Part 2 causes serious damage and she then retires, she has taken the applicable penalty and is not to be disqualified for that breach.

Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

CASE 3
A leeward port-tack boat, hailing for room to tack when faced with an oncoming starboard-tack boat, an obstruction, is not required to anticipate that the windward boat will fail to comply with her obligation to tack promptly or otherwise provide room.
CASE 10
When two boats are involved in an incident and one of them breaks a rule, she shall be exonerated when a third boat that also broke a rule caused the incident.
CASE 11
When boats are overlapped at an obstruction, including an obstruction that is a right-of-way boat, the outside boat must give the inside boat room to pass between her and the obstruction.
CASE 28
When one boat breaks a rule and, as a result, causes another to touch a mark, the other boat is to be exonerated. The fact that a starting mark has moved, for whatever reason, does not relieve a boat of her obligation to start. A race committee may abandon under rule 32.1(d) only when the change in the mark’s position has directly affected the safety or fairness of the competition.
CASE 30
A boat clear astern that is required to keep clear but collides with the boat clear ahead breaks the right-of-way rule that was applicable before the collision occurred. A boat that loses right of way by unintentionally changing tack is nevertheless required to keep clear.
CASE 49
When two protests arise from the same incident, or from very closely connected incidents, they should be heard together in the presence of representatives of all the boats involved.
CASE 51
A protest committee must exonerate boats when, as a result of another boat’s breach of a rule, they are all compelled to break a rule.
CASE 76
When a boat changes course she may break rule 16, even if she is sailing her proper course.
CASE 93
If a boat luffs immediately after she becomes overlapped to leeward of another boat and there is no seamanlike action that would enable the other boat to keep clear, the boat that luffed breaks rules 15 and 16.1. The other boat breaks rule 11, but is exonerated under rule 64.1(c).
CASE 95
Rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply when either the boat entitled to mark-room or the boat required to give it turns past head to wind. When a right-of-way boat is compelled to touch a mark as a result of the other boat’s failure to keep clear, she is exonerated from her breach of rule 31.

Rule 64.2, Decisions: Decisions on Redress

CASE 31
When the correct visual recall signal for individual recall is made but the required sound signal is not, and when a recalled boat in a position to hear a sound signal does not see the visual signal and does not return, she is entitled to redress. However, if she realizes she is over the line she must return and start correctly.
CASE 45
When a boat fails to finish correctly because of a race committee error, but none of the boats racing gains or loses as a result, an appropriate and fair form of redress is to score all the boats in the order they crossed the finishing line.
CASE 71
A hail is not the ‘sound signal’ required when flag X is displayed. Answers to questions arising from requests for redress after a procedural error by the race committee.

Rule 64.3(a), Decisions: Decisions on Measurement Protests

CASE 19
An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.

Section C – Gross Misconduct
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Committee

CASE 34
Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule 2 and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 69.1.
CASE 65
When a boat knows that she has broken the Black Flag rule, she is obliged to retire promptly. When she does not do so and then deliberately hinders another boat in the race, she commits a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.
CASE 67
When a boat is racing and meets a vessel that is not, both are bound by the government right-of-way rules. When, under those rules, the boat racing is required to keep clear but intentionally hits the other boat, she may be penalized for gross misconduct.

Section D – Appeals
Rule 70.1, Appeals and Requests to a National Authority

CASE 55
A boat cannot protest the race committee or the protest committee. However, she may request redress or, if she is a party to a hearing, request that it be reopened. A boat has no right of appeal from a redress decision when she was not a party to the hearing. When she believes that her score has been made significantly worse by the arrangement reached in that decision she must herself request redress. She may then appeal the decision of that hearing.
CASE 104
Attempting to distinguish between facts and conclusions in a protest committee's findings is sometimes unsatisfactory because findings may be based partially on fact and partially on a conclusion. A national authority can change a protest committee’s decision and any other findings that involve reasoning or judgment, but not its findings of fact. A national authority may derive additional facts by logical deduction. Neither written facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other. Protest committees must resolve conflicts between facts when so required by a national authority.

Rule 71.4, National Authority Decisions

CASE 61
When the decision of a protest committee is changed or reversed upon appeal, the final standings and the awards must be adjusted accordingly.