US Sailing - THE APPEALS BOOK for2009–2012. United States Sailing Association January 2009

Notice to online users of the US SAILING Appeals Book for !""#-!"$! January !""#$is online edition of the US SAILING Appeals Book for !""#-!"$! has been updated to conform to %e Racing Rules of Sailing for !""#-!"$!.In particular, readers of previous editions will notice changes to Appeals involving rules %& and %#, i.e., situations at marks and obstructions. In addition, sixteen Appeals have been added since the !""' edition, and six Appeals have been deleted. See the listing of deleted Appeals to learn the reasons for the deletions.$is online edition does not contain the ISAF Cases, but to be helpful the Cases are listed in the Index of Abstracts. $e ISAF Case Book can be linked to from the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee web page www.ussailing.org/appeals <h(p://www.ussailing.org/appeals>.%e Appeals Book for !""#-!"$! will continue to be published in hard copy, and will continue to include the ISAF Case Book. It can be purchased from the store at the US SAILING website <www.ussailing.org>. $e target date for availability is April %, !""#.Updates to %e Appeals Book for !""#-!"$!, including new Appeals and notices of deletions and revisions, will appear on the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee web page <www.ussailing. org/appeals>. $e posting date will appear on the link so readers will know that they are accessing the most recent edition of the book.Dave Perry, Chairman US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee

THE APPEALS BOOKfor

!""#$!"%!

United States Sailing Association

January !""#

© 2009United States Sailing Association, Inc.Post O)ce Box 126015 Maritime DrivePortsmouth, RI 02871

All rights reserved

ISBN: 0-9821676-1-X

THE APPEALS BOOK FOR !""#$!"%!

CONTENTS

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................vHistory of the Appeals Book ............................................................................................................... viMembers of the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee ........................................................................ viiLe(ers Used to Designate Boats in Diagrams ................................................................................viiiIndex of Key Words and Phrases in the US SAILING Appeals ........................................................ ixAppeals Deleted Since the 1997–2000 Edition ............................................................................... xiSection 1 – Abstracts of Appeals by Rule Number ...................................................................... A-1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................A-1 Part 1 – Fundamental Rules ......................................................................................................A-1 Part 2 – When Boats Meet ........................................................................................................ A-3 Part 3 – Conduct of a Race ............................................................................................................. A-19 Part 4 – Other Requirements When Racing .............................................................................. A-21 Part 5 – Protests, Redress, Hearings, Misconduct and Appeals ............................................A-23 Part 6 – Entry and Quali*cation ...................................................................................................A-35 Part 7 – Race Organization ............................................................................................................A-35Appendices ........................................................................................................................................A-38De*nitions ..........................................................................................................................................A-39Race Signals ........................................................................................................................................A-45ISAF Regulations .............................................................................................................................A-45Section 2 – Appeals and Questions ..................................................................................................B-1$e ISAF Case Book

January !""# vii

INTRODUCTION!e Appeals Book for "##$-"#%" contains decisions of the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee. Typically, protest commi(ees conform their decisions to the Appeals when the facts are similar, which makes them invaluable to know and use whether a competitor or o)cial. $e ISAF publishes its own book called !e Case Book for "##$-"#%". $e ISAF Cases are authoritative interpretations of the rules and contain selected Appeals from member national authorities around the world such as US SAILING.Most Appeals and Cases are only a few paragraphs long, with a clear explanation of the facts and o+en a diagram, followed by a clear interpretation and application of the rules to those facts. One of !e Appeals Book’s best features is the Index of Abstracts of Appeals by Rule Number (summaries of each Appeal) sorted by rule number. So, if you are in a protest involving rule %, (proper course), you can quickly scan through each Appeal pertaining to rule %, to see if one applies to your situation. Another useful feature is the Index of Key Words and Phrases in US SAILING Appeals.Some of the Appeals and Cases are actual situations, and some are hypothetical situations and questions sent in by yacht clubs and other organizations. I strongly recommend and urge all sailors, race o)cers and judges (including any sailor who may be hearing a protest or request for redress) to take a look at !e Appeals Book and !e Case Book. !e Appeals Book is available online at no cost to US SAILING members at <www.ussailing.org/appeals>. !e Case Book is also available online at no cost (you can link to it from <www.ussailing.org/appeals>). !e Appeals Book will also continue to be published and sold in hard copy and the hard copy will continue to include the ISAF Cases. !e Appeals Book can be purchased through the store on the US SAILING website <www.ussailing.org>.!e Appeals Book for "##$-"#%" has been updated to conform to !e Racing Rules of Sailing for "##$-"#%". In particular, readers of previous editions will notice changes to Appeals involving rules %& and %#, i.e., situations at marks and obstructions. In addition, sixteen Appeals have been added since the !""' edition, and six Appeals have been deleted. For a complete list of the Appeals that have been deleted from !e Appeals Book for "##$-"#%" since it was updated with the new rules and renumbered in %##,, and the reasons for doing so, see page xi. Future changes in the book, including new Appeals and notices of deletions, will appear on the US SAILING website <www.ussailing.org/appeals>. I am indebted to Pat Seidenspinner, the Secretary of the Appeals Commi(ee, who served as the editor of this edition and also revised many of the diagrams included in the book; and to all the members of the Appeals Commi(ee who worked hard to complete the updated book by January of !""#.Dave Perry, ChairmanUS SAILING Appeals Commi(eeReaders with comments are invited to send them to:US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee-. Maritime DrivePO Box -/01Portsmouth, RI 1/23- E-mail: appeals@ussailing org

??

January !""#

The Appeals Book for !""#-!"$!

viii

HISTORY OF THE APPEALS BOOKFrom %#4! until the fall of %#5!, Appeals were decided by the Executive Commi(ee of the North American Yacht Racing Union and were published as supplements to the minutes of the NAYRU annual meetings. Beginning in September, %#5!, Appeals were decided by an Appeals Commi(ee whose members were elected at annual meetings. Today, members of the Appeals Commi(ee are appointed by the US SAILING Board of Directors for three-year terms.$e Appeals Commi(ee regularly publishes Appeals that it considers have educational value to the racing community. Many of the published Appeals are hypothetical rules questions submi(ed under rule ,".5 (Appeals and Requests to a National Authority).$e Appeals were *rst published separately in %#'". For the second edition in %#'4 they were conformed to the new NAYRU racing rules with the help of their originator, Harold S. Vanderbilt. Subsequent editions were published in %#6!, %#6', %#,", %#,&, %#&!, %#&6, %##", %##5, %##,, !""!, !""' and !""#.!e Appeals Book was placed on-line in !""&, and can be found at www.ussailing.org/appeals. !e ISAF Case Book can also be linked to from there.

January !""# ix

MEMBERS OF THE US SAILING APPEALS COMMITTEECharles Francis Adams %#5!–%#'!Clinton H. Crane %#5!–%#'# (ex o)cio %#5'–%#'")J. Amory Je7ries %#5!–%#,! (ex o)cio %#'&–%#6!), Chairman %#64–%#,!George Nichols %#5!–%#'%W. A. W. Stewart %#5!–%#6% Chairman %#54–%#6%J. Lewis Stackpole %#5!–%#5#Harold S. Vanderbilt %#5!–%#6#Clare Udell %#'"–%#',Henry S. Morgan %#'%–%#,5 (ex o)cio %#'%–%#',)George R. Hinman %#'5–%#,, (ex o)cio %#64–%#6,)J. Herbert Ware %#'&–%#65George E. Roosevelt %#6"–%#65F. Gregg Bemis %#6!–%#&5 Chairman %#6!Robert N. Bavier, Jr. %#6'–%#&" (ex o)cio %#6&–%#,!), Chairman %#,4–%#,'Henry H. Anderson, Jr. %#6'–%##" Secretary %#&"–%#&6Richard B. Nye %#,"–%#,&James Michael %#,4–%#&4 (ex o)cio %#,4–%#,'), Chairman %#,6–%#&4Lynn A. Wa(ers %#,'Lynn G. Stedman, Jr. %#,6, %#,#–%#&4 (ex o)cio %#,6)$eodore E. Tolson, Jr. %#,&–%#&5 Harman Hawkins %#&"–%##4 Chairman %#&5–%#&&William H. Foulk, Jr. %#&%–%#&'Richard S. Latham %#&5–%##% Chairman %#&#–%##%William P. Ficker %#&5–%#&,William Bentsen %#&5– Chairman %##&–!""!Mark H. Baxter %#&'–%#&6David M. Perry %#&6– Chairman !"",–$omas H. Farquhar %#&,– Secretary %#&,–%##%, Chairman %##!–%##', !""4–!""6Roger W. Eldridge %#&&–%##"Charles A. Cook %##%–!""! Chairman %##6–%##,Charles M. Kober %##%–%##'Charles W. Raulston %##5–%##&Frederick H. Hagedorn %##5–%##& Secretary %##5–%##&Pete Ives %##6–%##&Bradley W. Dellenbaugh %##&–!""!Jim Capron %###–!""6 Kirk S. Brown !""!–!""&Dean M. Brenner !""4–!""5Bryan H. McDonald !""'–!""& Steven Shepstone !"",–Dick Rose !""#–

January !""#


x

LETTERS USED TO DESIGNATE BOATS IN DIAGRAMSA, B, C, X, Y, Z, etc. ..............Any boatI .................................................Inside boatL ................................................Leeward boatM ..............................................Middle or intervening boatO ...............................................Outside boatP ................................................Port-tack boatS ................................................Starboard-tack boatW ..............................................Windward boatCombinations of these le(ers are also used.

January !""# xi

($e numbers a+er the keywords or phrases are Appeal numbers.)abandonment a+er a race: %""advertising: '#allegations: #%anchor line: %"anticipate: 5', '%Appeals and Cases, status of: ##changing course: 6, %!, %6, 44, 4', '%, '!, ,%, &#, #!changing rules: '6, '&, &,, #4class rules: &,collision: see contactcompelled: !, ', %!, %#, '%, ,&, &!, #!, %"%competitors’ meeting: 5", '"con8icting testimony: %"!conspicuously displayed: 66contact: 4, 6, %", %!, %4, %6, !", !5, 4', 46, 54, 5', '%, '!, '6, 6", ,%, ,&, #!, #,continuing obstruction: ,%course length: !%crew: !4, ,!, #&current: 4"damage: %6, 4', 5', '!, ,%, #,doubt: #!equipment: '#, #4excluded witness: 6!, 64exoneration: !, 6, ,, %!, %#, 46, ,&, &5, &6, #!, %"%*nish: %6, &6*nishing line: %6, !,, 45, 5", 6%*nishing place: '5, 65, 6&, %"%*nishing mark: !6, !,, &6*rst reasonable opportunity: 56, 6%, 6,, &!8ag, blue: 45hail: %!, %4, %', %#, !5, !,, 54, 5', 6%, 6', &!head to wind: %!, %6, ,&help: #4

“Hold your course”: !,incident: 56, 6%, 6', 6,, #"interested party: %&, !!, 4#, 5!keep clear: !, 4, 5, 6, ,, %!, %4, %6, %#, !", !5, 45, 4', 46, 54, 5', '%, '!, ,", ,%, ,4, ,&, &#, #!local race: '&mark-room: !, ', !", 4", ,", ,%, &#, #!, %"'measurer: !!, 5!measurement certi*cate: !!measurement protest: !!, 5!misconduct: #%

INDEX OF KEY WORDS AND PHRASES IN US SAILING APPEALS

??

January !""#


xii

no inside/outside: #,obstruction: !, 5, 6, ,, %', %#, !5, 46, '%, ,%, &4obstruction, boat racing: !, 6, ,, %!, %#, !5, 46, 5', '%outrigger: !4, 4%party to a hearing: 6, &, 65, &5, #5penalty without a hearing: &5proper course: 4, 5, %4, 54, ,"protest commi(ee: 5!, #5protest 8ag: 56, 66, 6,, &!protest time limit: 5%, #"racing: %6, !6radio: 6&, #4rating certi*cate: '4reasonable doubt: 45, #!redress: !%, 4,, 4#, 5", 55, '5, '6, 65, 6&, #", %"", %"5redress, without a hearing: #5rejecting an entry: '4reopen a hearing: 65, &5representative, party’s: &restricted area: 45right of appeal: !!, '6, 65right to protest: %, %&, #5room: ', 6, ,, %!, %6, %&, !5, 46, '%, ,&, &5room to tack: !, %', %#, !5rudder: !'safety: 4#, '4sailing instructions: !%, !!, 45, 5", '", '4, '5, '6, 6&, &4, %"4scoring: 55series: !!, '5, '6, 65spinnaker: 4%, ,! spinnaker pole: 4%starting line: %&, 45, 46, 5", ,%, %"%starting penalty: #6time limit: 4,touching a mark: %", %&, !6, &6,#!Two-Turns Penalty: 56, 6"unsolicited: #4validity of a protest: 5%, 56, 6%, 6', 66, 6,, 6#, &!, #"witness: &, 6!, 64wri(en decision: &, #5wri(en testimony: 64

January !""# xiii

APPEALS DELETED SINCE THE &''()*+++ EDITION# Rule 5!.! was changed in !""'.%% $e decision was no longer correct because of changes in rule 6%.%(a) in !""%.%5 Rule %,.! was deleted in !""#.!& $ere was no signi*cant point to be made following the rule changes.!# $e facts created an implausible situation.4! $e facts were insu)cient to support the decision and therefore it may have been incorrect.4& ISAF #! discusses an almost identical incident.5, Changes in the rules in !""% made the questions and answers less helpful.5& $e facts were insu)cient to decide the appeal.5# $e decision was incorrect.'' Now ISAF Case #%.', $e decision was no longer correct because rule J!.%(') was changed in !""% to require sailing instructions to identify all rounding marks.,4 Now ISAF Case %%".,5 No longer needed.,' Now ISAF Case #!.,6 Now ISAF Case #4.,, Now ISAF Case %"4.,# $e preamble to Part ! was changed in !""'.&" Now ISAF Case #&.&% No longer needed.&' Now ISAF Case %"5.&& Con8icted with ISAF Case %%!.#' $e phrase “about to round” was removed from rule %& in !""#.#& Now ISAF Case %%".

January !""#

Section $ – Abstracts of Appeals and ISAF Cases by Rule Number

A-$

SECTION 1–ABSTRACTS OF APPEALS AND CASES BY RULE NUMBERSection % enables readers to *nd Appeals and Cases that interpret a particular rule. $e abstracts do not necessarily mention every rule interpreted, however, so the reader should also read the entire Appeal or Case.

INTRODUCTIONQuestion ##–The ISAF Cases do not have the status of rules but are “authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules.” $erefore, when the relevant facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a Case, the interpretations in the Case should be accepted by the protest commi(ee as correct interpretations of the racing rules for that protest.Like the ISAF Cases, the published US SAILING Appeals are not rules. However, decisions of the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee are *nal; therefore, when the relevant facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a US SAILING appeal, and no ISAF Case con8icts with the interpretations in the appeal, a protest commi(ee in the United States is well advised to follow the appeal in making its decision.

BASIC PRINCIPLE

Sportsmanship and the RulesCase 4%–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 4#–Except when it receives a report of a breach of a class rule or of rule 54 from an equipment inspector or a measurer for an event, a race commi(ee is not required to protest a boat. $e primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitor.Case 6'–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 !, and her helmsman cokmmits a gross breach of sportsmanship.Case ,%–A hail is not the ‘sound signal’ required when 8ag X is displayed. Answers to questions arising from requests for redress a+er a procedural error by the race commi(ee.

PART 1–FUNDAMENTAL RULES

Rule !.!, Safety: Helping "ose in DangerCase !"–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 #, Fair SailingAppeal 5!–It is not contrary to recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair sailing for several boats to consult about a protest and then deliver multiple protests or a joint protest. $e rules do not prohibit protest commi(ees of one person. A protest commi(ee member is not an interested party because of being the measurer.

January !""#


A-!

Case !,–A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule. When a boat acquires right of way as a result of her own actions, the other boat is entitled to room to keep clear.Case 4%–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–Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule ! and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 6#.%.Case 5,–A boat that deliberately hails ‘Starboard’ when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly, and has broken rule !.Case 6'–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 !, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.Case ,4–When, by deliberate action, L’s crew reaches out and touches W, which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule %%, then L breaks rule !.Case ,5–$ere is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit; contact with a windward boat does not break rule ! unless the helmsman’s or crew’s position is deliberately misused.Case ,&–A boat may position herself in a tactically controlling position over another boat and then slow that boat’s progress so that other boats pass both of them, provided that, if she is protested under rule ! for doing so, the protest commi(ee *nds that that there was a reasonable chance of her tactic bene*ting her series result. However, she breaks rule ! if she intentionally breaks another rule to increase the likelihood of the tactic succeeding.

Rule $(a), Acceptance of the RulesCase #&–$e rules listed in the de*nition Rule apply to races governed by $e 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 &&.!, 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 con8icts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

Rule %, Decision to RaceAppeal 4#–$e responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone. Appeal 5"–If she does not start and is scored accordingly, she cannot receive redress by claiming that the race commi(ee acted improperly in deciding to conduct the race in conditions it considered to be suitable. Protest commi(ee members who believe they have a close personal interest in a decision concerning their actions as race commi(ee members act properly when they decline to take part in the hearing.

January !""#


A-%

PART 2–WHEN BOATS MEET

Part # PreambleAppeal %6–When no part of a boat’s hull, equipment or crew is still on the *nishing line, she has cleared it. A boat that has *nished and cleared the *nishing line and its marks is no longer racing and is not subject to penalty, unless she interferes with a boat still racing. Rule %5 applies to a boat that is racing, even if the contact is with a boat no longer racing.Case 6,–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.Case %"#–$e IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules apply between boats that are racing only if the sailing instructions say so, and in that Case all of the Part ! rules are replaced. An IRPCAS or government rule may be made to apply by including it in the sailing instructions or in another document governing the event.

Section A–Right of Way

Rule !&, On Opposite TacksAppeal !–When a port-tack leeward boat, on a collision course with a starboard-tack boat, hails the port-tack windward boat for room to tack and she fails to respond, the port-tack leeward boat’s obligation under rule %" continues. A boat breaking a rule is not entitled to exoneration unless she could not avoid breaking it.Appeal 6–A leeward port-tack boat must give a windward port-tack boat room to pass a starboard-tack boat that is an obstruction. Rule 65.%(a) permits the disquali*cation of a boat that was a party to a protest hearing, even if she was not protested.Appeal !,–A hail to hold course is not binding on a right-of-way boat.Appeal '%–When she cannot see behind an obstruction, an obligated boat must anticipate what might appear from the other side of the obstruction.Appeal #,–When rule %& applies, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat in order for rule %&.! to create rights and obligations. When boats are approaching a mark from di7erent directions, there may be no “inside” or “outside” boat, in which Case the rules of Section A and B apply.Case #–When a starboard-tack boat chooses to sail past a windward mark, a port-tack boat must keep clear. $ere is no rule that requires a boat to sail a proper course.Case !4–On a run, rule %# does not apply to a starboard-tack boat that passes between two port-tack boats ahead of her. Rule %" requires both port-tack boats to keep clear.Case 54–A close-hauled port-tack boat that is sailing parallel and close to an obstruction must keep clear of a boat that has completed her tack to starboard and is approaching on a collision course.Case '"–When a protest commi(ee *nds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the commi(ee *nds that S did change course and

January !""#


A-&

that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disquali*ed.Case ,'–When rule %& applies, the rules of Sections A and B apply as well. When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark, she is entitled to sail her proper course until she gybes. A starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule %6.% if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly.Case &,–A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.Case &&–A boat may avoid contact and yet fail to keep clear.Case ##–$e fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part !. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule %5 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 55.%(b) is to retire, and she does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disquali*ed.Case %"'–When two boats are running on opposite tacks, the starboard-tack boat may change course provided she gives the port-tack boat room to keep clear.

Rule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedAppeal 4–An inside windward boat, given su)cient mark-room at a mark, is required to keep clear of an outside leeward boat. A right-of-way boat may not be penalized under rule %5 unless there is damage or injury.Appeal 6–A leeward port-tack boat must give a windward port-tack boat room to pass a starboard-tack boat that is an obstruction. Rule 65.%(a) permits the disquali*cation of a boat that was a party to a protest hearing, even if she was not protested.Appeal %4–Di7erent boats may have di7erent proper courses at any given moment. When those proper courses con8ict, the right-of-way boat is entitled to sail her proper course.Appeal !"–Mark-Room is not de*ned to allow an inside boat without right of way to sail to a mark in a tactically desirable manner.Appeal 54–Once a leeward boat, a+er establishing an overlap from clear astern, has initially given the windward boat room to keep clear, the windward boat breaks rule %% if by lu)ng she causes contact.Appeal '!–A starboard-tack boat that gybes and becomes a leeward boat does not thereby acquire right of way. A right-of-way boat failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so breaks rule %5.Appeal ,"–When about to pass a windward mark, a boat’s proper course may be to sail above close-hauled.Case ,–When, a+er having been clear astern, a boat becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths of the other boat, the windward boat must keep clear, but the leeward

January !""#


A-'

boat must initially give the windward boat room to keep clear and must not sail above her proper course.Case %!–In determining the right of an inside boat to mark-room under rule %&.!(b), it is irrelevant that boats are on widely di7ering courses, provided that an overlap exists when the *rst of them reaches the zone.Case %4–Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.Case %5–When, owing to a di7erence of opinion about a leeward boat’s proper course, two boats on the same tack converge, the windward boat must keep clear. Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have di7erent proper courses.Case !5–When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the other boat must act promptly to keep clear. When she cannot do so in a seamanlike way, she has not been given su)cient room. If she takes unnecessary action that causes contact, she fails to keep clear as required.Case !'–When an inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to mark-room sails below her proper course while at the mark, she must keep clear of the outside leeward boat, and the outside boat may lu7 provided that she gives the inside boat room to keep clear.Case 56–A leeward boat is entitled to sail up to her proper course, even when she has established a leeward overlap from clear astern and within two of her hull lengths of the windward boat.Case '%–A protest commi(ee must exonerate boats when, as a result of another boat’s breach of a rule, they are all compelled to break a rule.Case '4–A boat clear ahead need not take any action to keep clear before being overlapped to leeward from clear astern.Case ,"–An inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to and is receiving mark-room from the outside boat must keep clear of the outside boat.Case ,4–When, by deliberate action, L’s crew reaches out and touches W, which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule %%, then L breaks rule !.Case ,5–$ere is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit; contact with a windward boat does not break rule ! unless the helmsman’s or crew’s position is deliberately misused.

Rule !#, On the Same Tack, Not OverlappedAppeal ,–A boat clear ahead of other boats is an obstruction that may be passed on either side. As boats approach to pass her, the one with an inside overlap is entitled to room under rule %#.!(b).Case !–Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between a boat clear ahead and a boat clear astern if the boat clear astern reaches the zone before the boat clear ahead. Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between two boats that were not overlapped before the *rst of them to reach the zone does so. Rule %&.!(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.

January !""#


A-(

Case %'–In tacking to round a mark, a boat clear ahead must comply with rule %4; a boat clear astern is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking.Case !5–When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the other boat must act promptly to keep clear. When she cannot do so in a seamanlike way, she has not been given su)cient room. If she takes unnecessary action that causes contact, she fails to keep clear as required.Case 5%–If an obstruction can be passed on either side by two overlapped boats, the right-of-way boat, if she chooses to pass it to leeward, must give room to the other. If the right-of-way boat chooses to pass it to windward, she is entitled to room to do so, and the other boat must keep clear. $ere is no obligation to hail for room at an obstruction.Case ,,–Contact with a mark by a boat’s equipment constitutes touching it. A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position.Case #%–A boat required to keep clear must keep clear of another boat’s equipment out of its normal position when the equipment has been out of its normal position long enough for the equipment to have been seen and avoided.

Rule !$, While TackingAppeal %,– “Head to wind” refers to the bow and centerline of a boat, not the position of her sails.Appeal 4'–A boat that completes a tack onto starboard need not therea+er remain close-hauled, but is subject to rules %6.% and %6.! as she changes course.Appeal 5'–A leeward boat that hails and tacks simultaneously breaks rule !".%. A windward boat is not required to anticipate a leeward boat’s actions with respect to a converging right-of-way boat.Appeal &#–A boat that enters the zone clear astern does not necessarily have to give the boat clear ahead mark-room under rule %&.!(b) until the boat clear ahead completes her rounding maneuver. During the maneuver, all of rule %& may cease to apply, or rule %&.!(b) alone may cease to apply. In either Case, if the boat clear ahead tacks she becomes subject to rule %4 when she passes head to wind.Case %'–In tacking to round a mark, a boat clear ahead must comply with rule %4; a boat clear astern is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking.Case %,–A boat is no longer subject to rule %4 when she is on a close-hauled course, regardless of her movement through the water or the sheeting of her sails.

Section B–General Limitations

Rule !%, Avoiding ContactAppeal 4–An inside windward boat, given su)cient mark-room at a mark, is required to keep clear of an outside leeward boat. A right-of-way boat may not be penalized under rule %5 unless there is damage or injury.

January !""#


A-)

Appeal %6–When no part of a boat’s hull, equipment or crew is still on the *nishing line, she has cleared it. A boat that has *nished and cleared the *nishing line and its marks is no longer racing and is not subject to penalty, unless she interferes with a boat still racing. Rule %5 applies to a boat that is racing, even if the contact is with a boat no longer racing.Appeal %,– “Head to wind” refers to the bow and centerline of a boat, not the position of her sails.Appeal !"–Mark-Room is not de*ned to allow an inside boat without right of way to sail to a mark in a tactically desirable manner.Appeal !5–When PL and PW are approaching an obstruction, and when rule !" applies, the decision as to whether PL will pass astern of the obstruction or tack is PL’s to make. If PL decides to tack she must hail and give PW time to respond.Appeal 4'–A boat that completes a tack onto starboard need not therea+er remain close-hauled, but is subject to rules %6.% and %6.! as she changes course.Appeal 46–A boat clear ahead is an obstruction to boats clear astern.Appeal 54–Once a leeward boat, a+er establishing an overlap from clear astern, has initially given the windward boat room to keep clear, the windward boat breaks rule %% if by lu)ng she causes contact.Appeal 5'–A leeward boat that hails and tacks simultaneously breaks rule !".%. A windward boat is not required to anticipate a leeward boat’s actions with respect to a converging right-of-way boat.Appeal '!–A starboard-tack boat that gybes and becomes a leeward boat does not thereby acquire right of way. A right-of-way boat failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so breaks rule %5.Appeal #,–When rule %& applies, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat in order for rule %&.! to create rights and obligations. When boats are approaching a mark from di7erent directions, there may be no “inside” or “outside” boat, in which Case the rules of Section A and B apply.Case !–Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between a boat clear ahead and a boat clear astern if the boat clear astern reaches the zone before the boat clear ahead. Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between two boats that were not overlapped before the *rst of them to reach the zone does so. Rule %&.!(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.Case ,–When, a+er having been clear astern, a boat becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths of the other boat, the windward boat must keep clear, but the leeward boat must initially give the windward boat room to keep clear and must not sail above her proper course.Case %%–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 %4–Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.

January !""#


A-*

Case %5–When, owing to a di7erence of opinion about a leeward boat’s proper course, two boats on the same tack converge, the windward boat must keep clear. Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have di7erent proper courses.Case !4–On a run, rule %# does not apply to a starboard-tack boat that passes between two port-tack boats ahead of her. Rule %" requires both port-tack boats to keep clear.Case !'–When an inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to mark-room sails below her proper course while at the mark, she must keep clear of the outside leeward boat, and the outside boat may lu7 provided that she gives the inside boat room to keep clear.Case !6–A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid a collision until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. However, if the right-of-way boat could then have avoided the collision and the collision resulted in damage, she must be penalized under rule %5.Case !,–A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule. When a boat acquires right of way as a result of her own actions, the other boat is entitled to room to keep clear.Case 4"–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 54–A close-hauled port-tack boat that is sailing parallel and close to an obstruction must keep clear of a boat that has completed her tack to starboard and is approaching on a collision course.Case '"–When a protest commi(ee *nds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the commi(ee *nds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disquali*ed.Case '5–When a boat approaching an obstruction has hailed for room to tack, the protest commi(ee should normally accept her judgment as to when safety required the hail. When the hailing boat observes no response to her hail, she should hail again more loudly. If a+er hailing she waits only a short time before tacking, she deprives the other boat of a choice of actions and risks contact with her. If a boat fails to keep a lookout she may fail to act reasonably to avoid contact.Case ,'–When rule %& applies, the rules of Sections A and B apply as well. When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark, she is entitled to sail her proper course until she gybes. A starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule %6.% if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly.Case ,,–Contact with a mark by a boat’s equipment constitutes touching it. A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position.Case &%–When a boat entitled to mark-room under rule %&.!(b) passes head to wind, rule %&.!(b) ceases to apply and she must comply with the applicable rule of Section A.

January !""#


A-#

Case &,–A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.Case &&–A boat may avoid contact and yet fail to keep clear.Case #%–A boat required to keep clear must keep clear of another boat’s equipment out of its normal position when the equipment has been out of its normal position long enough for the equipment to have been seen and avoided.Case #!–When a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently.Case ##–$e fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part !. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule %5 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 55.%(b) is to retire, and she does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disquali*ed.Case %"'–When two boats are running on opposite tacks, the starboard-tack boat may change course provided she gives the port-tack boat room to keep clear.Case %",–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 ! causes serious damage and she then retires, she has taken the applicable penalty and is not to be disquali*ed for that breach.

Rule !%(a), Avoiding ContactAppeal #!–“Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi(ee. Even when rounding a mark, a right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact when it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.

Rule !%(b), Avoiding ContactCase %#–An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.

Rule !', Acquiring Right of WayAppeal %4–Di7erent boats may have di7erent proper courses at any given moment. When those proper courses con8ict, the right-of-way boat is entitled to sail her proper course.Appeal !5–When PL and PW are approaching an obstruction, and when rule !" applies, the decision as to whether PL will pass astern of the obstruction or tack is PL’s to make. If PL decides to tack she must hail and give PW time to respond.Appeal 46–A boat clear ahead is an obstruction to boats clear astern.Appeal 54–Once a leeward boat, a+er establishing an overlap from clear astern, has initially given the windward boat room to keep clear, the windward boat breaks rule %% if by lu)ng she causes contact.

January !""#


A-$"

Appeal '!–A starboard-tack boat that gybes and becomes a leeward boat does not thereby acquire right of way. A right-of-way boat failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so breaks rule %5.Appeal ,&–A boat that acquires right of way over a second boat and causes her to collide with a third boat has compelled the second boat to maneuver in an unseamanlike way. In doing so the *rst boat breaks rule %' by not initially giving the second boat room to keep clear.Case !–Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between a boat clear ahead and a boat clear astern if the boat clear astern reaches the zone before the boat clear ahead. Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between two boats that were not overlapped before the *rst of them to reach the zone does so. Rule %&.!(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.Case ,–When, a+er having been clear astern, a boat becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths of the other boat, the windward boat must keep clear, but the leeward boat must initially give the windward boat room to keep clear and must not sail above her proper course.Case %4–Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.Case !5–When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the other boat must act promptly to keep clear. When she cannot do so in a seamanlike way, she has not been given su)cient room. If she takes unnecessary action that causes contact, she fails to keep clear as required.Case !,–A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule. When a boat acquires right of way as a result of her own actions, the other boat is entitled to room to keep clear.Case '4–A boat clear ahead need not take any action to keep clear before being overlapped to leeward from clear astern.Case &%–When a boat entitled to mark-room under rule %&.!(b) passes head to wind, rule %&.!(b) ceases to apply and she must comply with the applicable rule of Section A.Case #4–If a boat lu7s immediately a+er 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 lu7ed breaks rules %' and %6.%. $e other boat breaks rule %%, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c).Case %"'–When two boats are running on opposite tacks, the starboard-tack boat may change course provided she gives the port-tack boat room to keep clear.

Rule !(.!, Changing CourseAppeal %!–In an incident between two boats, the boat breaking a rule must be exonerated when a breach of a rule by a third boat made it impossible for the other boat that broke a rule to avoid doing so.Question 44–To change course means to change the direction in which the boat is heading or moving.

January !""#


A-$$

Appeal 4'–A boat that completes a tack onto starboard need not therea+er remain close-hauled, but is subject to rules %6.% and %6.! as she changes course.Appeal '%–When she cannot see behind an obstruction, an obligated boat must anticipate what might appear from the other side of the obstruction.Appeal ,%–Section C rules apply at starting marks not surrounded by navigable water. Rule %#, not rule %&, applies when the mark is a continuing obstruction. Rule %# does not apply until boats are at an obstruction. A penalty can be given even when the protesting boat does not mention the applicable rule.Case 6–A starboard-tack boat that tacks a+er a port-tack boat has borne away to go astern of her does not necessarily break a rule.Case ,–When, a+er having been clear astern, a boat becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths of the other boat, the windward boat must keep clear, but the leeward boat must initially give the windward boat room to keep clear and must not sail above her proper course.Case %4–Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.Case %5–When, owing to a di7erence of opinion about a leeward boat’s proper course, two boats on the same tack converge, the windward boat must keep clear. Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have di7erent proper courses.Case !'–When an inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to mark-room sails below her proper course while at the mark, she must keep clear of the outside leeward boat, and the outside boat may lu7 provided that she gives the inside boat room to keep clear.Case !6–A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid a collision until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. However, if the right-of-way boat could then have avoided the collision and the collision resulted in damage, she must be penalized under rule %5.Case 56–A leeward boat is entitled to sail up to her proper course, even when she has established a leeward overlap from clear astern and within two of her hull lengths of the windward boat.Case '!–Rule %6.% does not restrict the course of a keep-clear boat. Manoeuvring to drive another boat away from the starting line does not necessarily break this rule.Case 6"–When a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule %6.%.Case ,'–When rule %& applies, the rules of Sections A and B apply as well. When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark, she is entitled to sail her proper course until she gybes. A starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule %6.% if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly.Case ,6–When a boat changes course she may break rule %6, even if she is sailing her proper course.

January !""#


A-$!

Case #!–When a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently.Case #4–If a boat lu7s immediately a+er 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 lu7ed breaks rules %' and %6.%. $e other boat breaks rule %%, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c).Case %"'–When two boats are running on opposite tacks, the starboard-tack boat may change course provided she gives the port-tack boat room to keep clear.Case %%5–When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space for her to keep clear of or give room to other boats when required to do so by the rules.

Rule !(.#, Changing CourseQuestion 44–To change course means to change the direction in which the boat is heading or moving.Appeal 4'–A boat that completes a tack onto starboard need not therea+er remain close-hauled, but is subject to rules %6.% and %6.! as she changes course.Case 6–A starboard-tack boat that tacks a+er a port-tack boat has borne away to go astern of her does not necessarily break a rule.Case #!–When a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently.

Rule !), On the Same Tack; Proper CourseAppeal 5–When a boat intervenes between two others on the same tack, her proper course is to keep clear of the leeward boat.Appeal %4–Di7erent boats may have di7erent proper courses at any given moment. When those proper courses con8ict, the right-of-way boat is entitled to sail her proper course.Appeal ,"–When about to pass a windward mark, a boat’s proper course may be to sail above close-hauled.Case ,–When, a+er having been clear astern, a boat becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths of the other boat, the windward boat must keep clear, but the leeward boat must initially give the windward boat room to keep clear and must not sail above her proper course.Case %4–Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.Case %5–When, owing to a di7erence of opinion about a leeward boat’s proper course, two boats on the same tack converge, the windward boat must keep clear. Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have di7erent proper courses.

January !""#


A-$%

Case 56–A leeward boat is entitled to sail up to her proper course, even when she has established a leeward overlap from clear astern and within two of her hull lengths of the windward boat.

Section C–At Marks and Obstructions

Section C PreambleAppeal '–Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for breaking a rule. A boat without right to mark-room that takes room given in error breaks no rule.Appeal ,%–Section C rules apply at starting marks not surrounded by navigable water. Rule %#, not rule %&, applies when the mark is a continuing obstruction. Rule %# does not apply until boats are at an obstruction. A penalty can be given even when the protesting boat does not mention the applicable rule.

Rule !*, Mark-Room Appeal #,–When rule %& applies, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat in order for rule %&.! to create rights and obligations. When boats are approaching a mark from di7erent directions, there may be no “inside” or “outside” boat, in which Case the rules of Section A and B apply.

Rule !*.!, Mark-Room: When Rule !* AppliesAppeal &#–A boat that enters the zone clear astern does not necessarily have to give the boat clear ahead mark-room under rule %&.!(b) until the boat clear ahead completes her rounding maneuver. During the maneuver, all of rule %& may cease to apply, or rule %&.!(b) alone may cease to apply. In either Case, if the boat clear ahead tacks she becomes subject to rule %4 when she passes head to wind.Appeal #,–When rule %& applies, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat in order for rule %&.! to create rights and obligations. When boats are approaching a mark from di7erent directions, there may be no “inside” or “outside” boat, in which Case the rules of Section A and B apply.Case #–When a starboard-tack boat chooses to sail past a windward mark, a port-tack boat must keep clear. $ere is no rule that requires a boat to sail a proper course.Case %!–In determining the right of an inside boat to mark-room under rule %&.!(b), it is irrelevant that boats are on widely di7ering courses, provided that an overlap exists when the *rst of them reaches the zone.Case %'–In tacking to round a mark, a boat clear ahead must comply with rule %4; a boat clear astern is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking.Case !6–A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid a collision until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. However, if the right-of-way boat could then have avoided the collision and the collision resulted in damage, she must be penalized under rule %5.Case 6"–When a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule %6.%.

January !""#


A-$&

Case ,6–When a boat changes course she may break rule %6, even if she is sailing her proper course.

Rule !*.!(d), Mark-Room: When Rule !* AppliesAppeal ,%–Section C rules apply at starting marks not surrounded by navigable water. Rule %#, not rule %&, applies when the mark is a continuing obstruction. Rule %# does not apply until boats are at an obstruction. A penalty can be given even when the protesting boat does not mention the applicable rule.

Rule !*.#, Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomAppeal '–Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for breaking a rule. A boat without right to mark-room that takes room given in error breaks no rule.Appeal &#–A boat that enters the zone clear astern does not necessarily have to give the boat clear ahead mark-room under rule %&.!(b) until the boat clear ahead completes her rounding maneuver. During the maneuver, all of rule %& may cease to apply, or rule %&.!(b) alone may cease to apply. In either Case, if the boat clear ahead tacks she becomes subject to rule %4 when she passes head to wind.Appeal #,–When rule %& applies, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat in order for rule %&.! to create rights and obligations. When boats are approaching a mark from di7erent directions, there may be no “inside” or “outside” boat, in which Case the rules of Section A and B apply.Case %%5–When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space for her to keep clear of or give room to other boats when required to do so by the rules.

Rule !*.#(a), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomCase !–Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between a boat clear ahead and a boat clear astern if the boat clear astern reaches the zone before the boat clear ahead. Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between two boats that were not overlapped before the *rst of them to reach the zone does so. Rule %&.!(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.Case '#–When a boat comes abreast of a mark but is outside the zone, and when her change of course towards the mark results in a boat that is in the zone and that was previously clear astern becoming overlapped inside her, rule %&.!(a) requires her to give mark-room to that boat, whether or not her distance from the mark was caused by giving mark-room to other boats overlapped inside her.

Rule !*.#(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomAppeal 4–An inside windward boat, given su)cient mark-room at a mark, is required to keep clear of an outside leeward boat. A right-of-way boat may not be penalized under rule %5 unless there is damage or injury.Appeal !"–MarkRoom is not de*ned to allow an inside boat without right of way to sail to a mark in a tactically desirable manner.Appeal ,"–When about to pass a windward mark, a boat’s proper course may be to sail above close-hauled.

January !""#


A-$'

Appeal #!–“Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi(ee. Even when rounding a mark, a right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact when it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.Appeal %"'–In the de*nition Mark-Room, the phrase “room to sail to the mark” means space to sail in a seaman like way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark. When the mark is abeam of the boat’s bow and she is close to it, she has arrived “at” it. While “at” the mark, the boat is entitled to room to sail her proper course.

Rule !*.#(c), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomCase !–Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between a boat clear ahead and a boat clear astern if the boat clear astern reaches the zone before the boat clear ahead. Rule %&.!(b) does not apply between two boats that were not overlapped before the *rst of them to reach the zone does so. Rule %&.!(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.Case %!–In determining the right of an inside boat to mark-room under rule %&.!(b), it is irrelevant that boats are on widely di7ering courses, provided that an overlap exists when the *rst of them reaches the zone.Case %'–In tacking to round a mark, a boat clear ahead must comply with rule %4; a boat clear astern is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking.Case !'–When an inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to mark-room sails below her proper course while at the mark, she must keep clear of the outside leeward boat, and the outside boat may lu7 provided that she gives the inside boat room to keep clear.Case '#–When a boat comes abreast of a mark but is outside the zone, and when her change of course towards the mark results in a boat that is in the zone and that was previously clear astern becoming overlapped inside her, rule %&.!(a) requires her to give mark-room to that boat, whether or not her distance from the mark was caused by giving mark-room to other boats overlapped inside her.Case 64–At a mark, when room is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the room.Case ,"–An inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to and is receiving mark-room from the outside boat must keep clear of the outside boat.Case ,'–When rule %& applies, the rules of Sections A and B apply as well. When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark, she is entitled to sail her proper course until she gybes. A starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule %6.% if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly.Case &%–When a boat entitled to mark-room under rule %&.!(b) passes head to wind, rule %&.!(b) ceases to apply and she must comply with the applicable rule of Section A.Case #'–Rule %&.!(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 4%.

January !""#


A-$(

Rule !*.#(c), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomAppeal 4"–Establishing a late overlap breaks no rule, so long as the boat doing so gives mark-room.

Rule !*.#(d), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomAppeal #!–“Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi(ee. Even when rounding a mark, a right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact when it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.

Rule !*.$, Mark-Room: Tacking When Approaching a MarkCase #4–If a boat lu7s immediately a+er 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 lu7ed breaks rules %' and %6.%. $e other boat breaks rule %%, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c).Case #'–Rule %&.!(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 4%.

Rule !*.%, Mark-Room: GybingCase ,'–When rule %& applies, the rules of Sections A and B apply as well. When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark, she is entitled to sail her proper course until she gybes. A starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule %6.% if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly.

Rule !*.', Mark-Room: ExonerationAppeal #!–“Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi(ee. Even when rounding a mark, a right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact when it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.Case %!–In determining the right of an inside boat to mark-room under rule %&.!(b), it is irrelevant that boats are on widely di7ering courses, provided that an overlap exists when the *rst of them reaches the zone.Case 64–At a mark, when room is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the room.Case ,"–An inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to and is receiving mark-room from the outside boat must keep clear of the outside boat.Case #4–If a boat lu7s immediately a+er 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 lu7ed breaks rules %' and %6.%. $e other boat breaks rule %%, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c).

January !""#


A-$)

Rule !+, Room to Pass an ObstructionCase 4–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 %%–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 !4–On a run, rule %# does not apply to a starboard-tack boat that passes between two port-tack boats ahead of her. Rule %" requires both port-tack boats to keep clear.Case !#–A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third boat clear astern. $e boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat to pass between her and the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that room from the time the overlap began.Case 4"–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 44–A boat that hails for room to tack before safety requires her to tack is entitled to receive room under rule !".%(b), but by hailing at that time she breaks rule !".4. An inside overlapped boat is entitled to room between the outside boat and an obstruction under rule %#.!(b) even though she has tacked into the inside overlapping position.Case 5%–If an obstruction can be passed on either side by two overlapped boats, the right-of-way boat, if she chooses to pass it to leeward, must give room to the other. If the right-of-way boat chooses to pass it to windward, she is entitled to room to do so, and the other boat must keep clear. $ere is no obligation to hail for room at an obstruction.Case 54–A close-hauled port-tack boat that is sailing parallel and close to an obstruction must keep clear of a boat that has completed her tack to starboard and is approaching on a collision course.Case 5#–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 !+.!, Room to Pass an Obstruction: When Rule !+ AppliesAppeal ,%–Section C rules apply at starting marks not surrounded by navigable water. Rule %#, not rule %&, applies when the mark is a continuing obstruction. Rule %# does not apply until boats are at an obstruction. A penalty can be given even when the protesting boat does not mention the applicable rule.

Rule !+.#(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an ObstructionAppeal 5–When a boat intervenes between two others on the same tack, her proper course is to keep clear of the leeward boat.

January !""#


A-$*

Appeal 6–A leeward port-tack boat must give a windward port-tack boat room to pass a starboard-tack boat that is an obstruction. Rule 65.%(a) permits the disquali*cation of a boat that was a party to a protest hearing, even if she was not protested.Appeal ,–A boat clear ahead of other boats is an obstruction that may be passed on either side. As boats approach to pass her, the one with an inside overlap is entitled to room under rule %#.!(b).Appeal !5–When PL and PW are approaching an obstruction, and when rule !" applies, the decision as to whether PL will pass astern of the obstruction or tack is PL’s to make. If PL decides to tack she must hail and give PW time to respond.Appeal 46–A boat clear ahead is an obstruction to boats clear astern.

Rule #&, Room to Tack at an ObstructionAppeal %'–A boat is permi(ed to hail another for room to tack when a substantial course change is required for her to avoid the obstruction.Appeal !5–When PL and PW are approaching an obstruction, and when rule !" applies, the decision as to whether PL will pass astern of the obstruction or tack is PL’s to make. If PL decides to tack she must hail and give PW time to respond.

Rule #&.!, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and RespondingAppeal !–When a port-tack leeward boat, on a collision course with a starboard-tack boat, hails the port-tack windward boat for room to tack and she fails to respond, the port-tack leeward boat’s obligation under rule %" continues. A boat breaking a rule is not entitled to exoneration unless she could not avoid breaking it.Appeal %#–When a boat makes a timely hail for room to tack to avoid a right-of-way boat, but the hailed boat fails to respond and compels the hailing boat to break a rule, the hailing boat must be exonerated.Appeal 5'–A leeward boat that hails and tacks simultaneously breaks rule !".%. A windward boat is not required to anticipate a leeward boat’s actions with respect to a converging right-of-way boat.Case 4–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 %"–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 %%–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 44–A boat that hails for room to tack before safety requires her to tack is entitled to receive room under rule !".%(b), but by hailing at that time she breaks rule !".4. An inside overlapped boat is entitled to room between the outside boat and an obstruction under rule %#.!(b) even though she has tacked into the inside overlapping position.

January !""#


A-$#

Case 4'–When a boat is hailed for room to tack at an obstruction and replies ‘You tack’, and the hailing boat is then able to tack and avoid the hailed boat, the hailed boat has complied with rule !".%(b).Case '5–When a boat approaching an obstruction has hailed for room to tack, the protest commi(ee should normally accept her judgment as to when safety required the hail. When the hailing boat observes no response to her hail, she should hail again more loudly. If a+er hailing she waits only a short time before tacking, she deprives the other boat of a choice of actions and risks contact with her. If a boat fails to keep a lookout she may fail to act reasonably to avoid contact.Case %"%–When, in reply to her call for room to tack when close-hauled approaching an obstruction, a boat is hailed ‘You tack’, and when she does so and is then able to tack again to keep clear in a seamanlike way, the other boat has given the room required.Case %%4– When a boat hails under rule 20.1 for room to tack, all boats that hear her hail and that will have to respond to give her room must do so.

Section D–Other Rules

Rule #$.!, Interfering with Another BoatAppeal %6–When no part of a boat’s hull, equipment or crew is still on the *nishing line, she has cleared it. A boat that has *nished and cleared the *nishing line and its marks is no longer racing and is not subject to penalty, unless she interferes with a boat still racing. Rule %5 applies to a boat that is racing, even if the contact is with a boat no longer racing.

PART 3–CONDUCT OF A RACE

Rule #(, Starting RacesCase 4%–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.

Rule #*.!, Sailing the CourseQuestion %"%–A right-of-way boat compelled by a keep-clear boat to cross the starting line early is not relieved of her obligation to start as described in the de*nition Start.Appeal %"4–When the sailing instructions do not identify which marks are rounding marks as required by the rules, boats are not required to treat any marks as rounding marks. When this omission results in some boats sailing farther than others, those boats may be entitled to redress.Case !&–When one boat breaks a rule and, as a result, causes another to touch a mark, the other boat is to be exonerated. $e fact that a starting mark has moved, for whatever reason, does not relieve a boat of her obligation to start. A race commi(ee may abandon under rule 4!.%(d) only when the change in the mark’s position has directly a7ected the safety or fairness of the competition.

January !""#


A-!"

Case #"–When a boat’s string passes a mark on the required side, she does not break rule !&.% if her string, when drawn taut, also passes that mark on the non-required side.Case %"6–When a boat’s ‘string’ lies on the required sides of *nishing marks or gate marks, it is not relevant that the string representing her track, when drawn taut, also passes one of those marks on the non-required side.Case %"&–When taking a penalty a+er touching a mark, a boat need not complete a full 46"°turn, and she may take her penalty while simultaneously rounding the mark. Her turn to round the mark will serve as her penalty if it includes a tack and a gybe, if it is carried out promptly a+er clearing and remaining clear of the mark and other boats, and when no question of advantage arises.Case %%!–If one boat makes an error in sailing the course, a second boat may notify the *rst that she intends to protest when the error is made, or at the *rst reasonable opportunity a+er the *rst boat *nishes, or at any time in-between.

Rule #*.#, Sailing the CourseCase '&–If a buoy or other object speci*ed in the sailing instructions as a *nishing-line limit mark is on the post-*nish side of the *nishing line, it is not a mark.

Rule #+.!, Recalls: Individual RecallCase 4%–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 ,%–A hail is not the ‘sound signal’ required when 8ag X is displayed. Answers to questions arising from requests for redress a+er a procedural error by the race commi(ee.Case ,#–When a boat has no reason to know that she crossed the starting line early and the race commi(ee fails to promptly signal ‘Individual recall’ and scores her OCS, this is an error that signi*cantly worsens the boat’s score through no fault of her own, and therefore entitles her to redress.

Rule $&.#, Starting Penalties: Z Flag RuleAppeal #6–When the Z Flag Rule is in e7ect, a boat in the triangle de*ned in that rule during the minute before the starting signal can avoid being penalized only if the race is postponed or abandoned before the starting signal that would end that one-minute period.Case %%%–If a boat is penalized under rule 4".! or rule 4".4 a+er a starting sequence that results in a general recall, it is a proper action of the race commi(ee to penalize her even if the race had been postponed before that starting sequence or if, during a later starting sequence, a postponement was signalled before the starting signal.

Rule $&.$, Starting Penalties: Black Flag RuleCase 6'–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 !, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.

January !""#


A-!$

Case #6–When a+er a general recall a boat learns from seeing her sail number displayed that she has been disquali*ed by the race commi(ee under rule 4".4 and believes the race commi(ee has made a mistake, her only option is not to start, and then to seek redress. When a boat breaks the rule in the *rst sentence of rule 4".4, she is not entitled to redress because of a procedural error by the race commi(ee that is unrelated to her breach.Case %%%–If a boat is penalized under rule 4".! or rule 4".4 a+er a starting sequence that results in a general recall, it is a proper action of the race commi(ee to penalize her even if the race had been postponed before that starting sequence or if, during a later starting sequence, a postponement was signalled before the starting signal.

Rule $!, Touching a MarkAppeal %"–Although a boat does not break rule 4% by touching a mark’s anchor line, if that causes the mark to be drawn into contact with the boat, she does break it.Appeal !6–A boat cannot be penalized for touching a *nishing mark when she is no longer racing.Appeal #!–“Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi(ee. Even when rounding a mark, a right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact when it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.Case ,,–Contact with a mark by a boat’s equipment constitutes touching it. A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position.

Rule $#.!, Shortening or Abandoning A,er the StartQuestion %""–A race commi(ee may abandon a race a+er all the boats have *nished or retired. If it is on shore, the commi(ee need not announce the abandonment with race signals.

Rule $', Time Limit and ScoresAppeal 4,–When a boat is competing in more than one race at the same time, for example, both in her class and for an overall trophy with boats in other classes, a time limit applies separately to each race.Case !&–When one boat breaks a rule and, as a result, causes another to touch a mark, the other boat is to be exonerated. $e fact that a starting mark has moved, for whatever reason, does not relieve a boat of her obligation to start. A race commi(ee may abandon under rule 4!.%(d) only when the change in the mark’s position has directly a7ected the safety or fairness of the competition.Case 4,–Each race of a rega(a is a separate race; in a multi-class rega(a, abandonment may be suitable for some classes, but not for all.

PART 4–OTHER REQUIREMENTS WHEN RACING

Rule %!, Outside HelpCase %""–When a boat asks for and receives tactical racing advice she receives outside help, even if she asks for and receives it on a public radio channel.

Rule %!(c), Outside HelpQuestion #4–$e term “information freely available” in rule 5%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with li(le e7ort. $e term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so+ware needed to receive or read the information.

Rule %!(d), Outside HelpQuestion #4–$e term “information freely available” in rule 5%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with li(le e7ort. $e term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so+ware needed to receive or read the information.

Rule %#, PropulsionCase &–While reaching at good speed, a boat does not break rule 5! when her helmsman, anticipating and taking advantage of waves generated by a passing vessel, makes helm movements timed to the passage of each wave. $is is not sculling but using the natural action of the water on the hull.Case 6#–Momentum of a boat a+er her preparatory signal that is the result of being propelled by her engine before the signal does not break rule 5!.%.

Rule %#.!, Propulsion: Basic RuleQuestion !'–Using double rudders in opposition to decrease speed does not break rule 5!.

Rule %$.!(a), Competitor Clothing and EquipmentCase &#–A competitor may not wear or otherwise a(ach to his person a beverage container.

Rule %%.!, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a PenaltyAppeal 56–$e failure of a boat to take a Two-Turns Penalty does not break a rule. A boat may not be disquali*ed for an incident not described in a valid protest.Appeal 6"–Rule 55.% does not provide time for a boat to deliberate whether she has broken a rule. If a boat decides too late that she has broken a rule, the penalty provided by rule 55 is not available to her.

Rule %%.#, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: One-Turn and Two-Turns PenaltiesAppeal 6"–Rule 55.% does not provide time for a boat to deliberate whether she has broken a rule. If a boat decides too late that she has broken a rule, the penalty provided by rule 55 is not available to her.Case %#–An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.Case ##–$e fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part !. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule %5 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 55.%(b)

January !""#


A-!%

is to retire, and she does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disquali*ed.Case %",–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 ! causes serious damage and she then retires, she has taken the applicable penalty and is not to be disquali*ed for that breach.Case %"&–When taking a penalty a+er touching a mark, a boat need not complete a full 46"°turn, and she may take her penalty while simultaneously rounding the mark. Her turn to round the mark will serve as her penalty if it includes a tack and a gybe, if it is carried out promptly a+er clearing and remaining clear of the mark and other boats, and when no question of advantage arises.

Rule %(, Person in ChargeCase 5"–Unless otherwise speci*cally stated in the class rules, notice of race or sailing instructions, the owner or other person in charge of a boat is free to decide who steers her in a race, provided that rule 56 is not broken.

Rule %*, Fog Signals and LightsCase %"#–$e IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules apply between boats that are racing only if the sailing instructions say so, and in that Case all of the Part ! rules are replaced. An IRPCAS or government rule may be made to apply by including it in the sailing instructions or in another document governing the event.

Rule %+, Crew PositionCase 5–A competitor may hold a sheet outboard.Case 46–Positioning of crew members relative to lifelines.Case &4–Repeated sail trimming with a competitor’s torso outside the lifelines is not permi(ed.

Rule %+.#, Crew PositionAppeal ,!–A crew member brie8y leaning out over a boat’s lifelines to hold a spinnaker guy a+er the pole has been removed in preparation for rounding a mark does not break rule 5#.!.

Rule '&.$, Se-ing and Sheeting Sails: Use of OutriggersAppeal !4–No part of a crew’s body is an outrigger or *(ing.Appeal 4%–A paddle used to support the midsection of a spinnaker is not an outrigger.Case 5–A competitor may hold a sheet outboard.Case #,–A jockey pole a(ached to a spinnaker guy is not an outrigger.

January !""#


A-!&

PART 5–PROTESTS, REDRESS, HEARINGS, MISCONDUCT AND APPEALS

Section A–Protests; Redress; Rule ,# Action

Rule (&, Right to Protest, Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionCase %–A boat that breaks a rule while racing but continues to race may protest over a later incident, even though a+er the race she is disquali*ed for her breach.Case %#–An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.Case 4#–Except when it receives a report of a breach of a class rule or of rule 54 from an equipment inspector or a measurer for an event, a race commi(ee is not required to protest a boat. $e primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitor.Case ',–$e race commi(ee 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 certi*cate has been presented in good faith by an owner who has complied with the requirements of rule ,&.%, the *nal results of a race or series must stand, even though the certi*cate is later withdrawn.Case &"–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 *nish according to that term’s de*nition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.

Rule (&.!(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionAppeal %–$e decision that a rule has been broken can be made only in a protest hearing. A boat that is being protested but continues to race retains her rights under the rules, including the right to protest another boat.Appeal 5!–It is not contrary to recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair sailing for several boats to consult about a protest and then deliver multiple protests or a joint protest. $e rules do not prohibit protest commi(ees of one person. A protest commi(ee member is not an interested party because of being the measurer.

Rule (&.#, Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionAppeal %&–A boat touching a starting mark but not forcing room breaks only rule 4% (Touching a Mark). A race commi(ee member who is also a member of the protest commi(ee does not become an interested party by the race commi(ee’s act of protesting under rule 6".!.

Rule (&.#(b), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionQuestion #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.

Rule (&.$, Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionAppeal &5–An appeals commi(ee cannot require a protest commi(ee to protest a boat. A protest commi(ee can *nd as a fact that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although

January !""#


A-!'

it cannot penalize her. A protest commi(ee complying with rule F6 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.

Rule (&.$(a)(#), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionAppeal ,&–A boat that acquires right of way over a second boat and causes her to collide with a third boat has compelled the second boat to maneuver in an unseamanlike way. In doing so the *rst boat breaks rule %' by not initially giving the second boat room to keep clear.

Rule (&.$(b), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionQuestion #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.

Rule (!.!, Protest Requirements: Informing the ProtesteeAppeal 6%–“First reasonable opportunity” means as soon as practicable, not as soon as convenient.Case %#–An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.Case ,!–Discussion of the word ‘8ag’.Case &'–If a racing rule is not one of the rules listed in rule &6.%(c), class rules are not permi(ed to change it. If a class rule a(empts to change such a rule, that class rule is not valid and does not apply.Case %%!–If one boat makes an error in sailing the course, a second boat may notify the *rst that she intends to protest when the error is made, or at the *rst reasonable opportunity a+er the *rst boat *nishes, or at any time in-between.

Rule (!.!(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the ProtesteeAppeal 56–$e failure of a boat to take a Two-Turns Penalty does not break a rule. A boat may not be disquali*ed for an incident not described in a valid protest.Appeal 6'–$e test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occurrence was the inevitable result of the *rst. A boat intending to protest another boat for two incidents during a race, no ma(er how close in time, must inform the protested boat that two protests will be lodged.Appeal 66–A !” by &” protest 8ag on a 5"-foot boat is not of su)cient size or of suitable proportions to be “conspicuously displayed.”Appeal 6,–Failure to display a protest 8ag during a period of time when some member of the crew is not otherwise occupied is a failure to display it “at the *rst reasonable opportunity.” If a protest 8ag is not displayed at the *rst reasonable opportunity, the protest is invalid and the hearing must be closed.Appeal &!–A boat is not obligated to give priority to displaying a protest 8ag at the cost of the crew failing to act to keep the boat under control or delaying a spinnaker set.

January !""#


A-!(

Rule (!.!(c), Protest Requirements: Informing the ProtesteeAppeal &5–An appeals commi(ee cannot require a protest commi(ee to protest a boat. A protest commi(ee can *nd as a fact that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her. A protest commi(ee complying with rule F6 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.

Rule (!.#, Protest Requirements: Protest ContentsCase !!–It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest commi(ee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.Case &"–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 *nish according to that term’s de*nition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.

Rule (!.#(b), Protest Requirements: Protest Contents Appeal 56–$e failure of a boat to take a Two-Turns Penalty does not break a rule. A boat may not be disquali*ed for an incident not described in a valid protest.

Rule (!.$, Protest Requirements: Protest Time LimitAppeal 5%–Competitors are entitled to reasonable means to ful*ll whatever time requirements there are for delivering a protest. $e protest commi(ee must extend the time if there is good reason to do so.

Rule (#, RedressAppeal 4#–$e responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone. Appeal 5"–If she does not start and is scored accordingly, she cannot receive redress by claiming that the race commi(ee acted improperly in deciding to conduct the race in conditions it considered to be suitable. Protest commi(ee members who believe they have a close personal interest in a decision concerning their actions as race commi(ee members act properly when they decline to take part in the hearing.

Rule (#.!, RedressAppeal !%–A race commi(ee may use a course length for handicapping purposes that is di7erent from the actual length, provided that the sailing instructions state that this will be done.Question &6–A boat that touches a *nishing mark and takes a penalty does not *nish until she starts to cross the *nishing line a+er taking the penalty. Exoneration does not provide for cancelling a penalty a boat has taken voluntarily or for compensating her for distance, time or places lost in taking the penalty. A boat that voluntarily takes a penalty and thereby worsens her score is not entitled to redress.

Rule (#.!(a), RedressQuestion 55–A race commi(ee that corrects a boat’s score does not act improperly. $e boat therefore has no valid claim for redress.

January !""#


A-!)

Appeal '5–A race commi(ee is bound by the sailing instructions because they are rules. When a boat’s score in a series is made signi*cantly worse by a race commi(ee action which is contrary to a sailing instruction, the boat is entitled to redress.Appeal 6&–When a race commi(ee’s failure to comply with a sailing instruction prevents a boat from learning of her starting error, the redress given the boat does not change the fact that she has broken a rule. It frees her from blame and penalty for the breach, as well as compensates her for her score being made signi*cantly worse.Appeal %"5–A race commi(ee does not have the authority to re-score a race by using a new rating issued a+er the race has been completed. An appeals commi(ee may consider an allegation that a boat has broken a rule only when it is deciding an appeal of a protest commi(ee decision concerning that allegation.Case 4,–Each race of a rega(a is a separate race; in a multi-class rega(a, abandonment may be suitable for some classes, but not for all.Case 55–A boat may not protest a race commi(ee 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 commi(ee made her score signi*cantly worse.Case 5'–When a boat fails to *nish correctly because of a race commi(ee 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 *nishing line.Case 6&–$e failure of a race commi(ee to discover that a rating certi*cate 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 ! and her rights to protest and appeal, even if she is later disquali*ed.Case ,%–A hail is not the ‘sound signal’ required when 8ag X is displayed. Answers to questions arising from requests for redress a+er a procedural error by the race commi(ee.Case &"–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 *nish according to that term’s de*nition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.Case &!–When a *nishing 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 *nish according to the de*nition, a boat may cross the line in either direction and her *nish is to be recorded accordingly.

Rule (#.!(b), RedressCase %#–An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.Case %%"–A boat physically damaged from contact with a boat that was breaking a rule of Part ! is eligible for redress only if the damage itself signi*cantly 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 6!.%(b), ‘damage’ is limited to physical damage to a boat or her equipment.

January !""#


A-!*

Rule (#.!(c), RedressCase !"–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 (#.!(d), RedressCase 45–Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule ! and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 6#.%.

Rule (#.#, RedressAppeal #"–“Relevant incident” in rule 6!.! refers to an occurrence that *ts within one of the four categories listed in rule 6!.%. When a boat is scored OCS and requests redress, the incident is the alleged race commi(ee error made soon a+er the start of the race. When there is good reason to do so, the protest commi(ee is required to extend the time limit for delivering a request for redress.Question #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.Case %"!–When a boat requests redress because of an incident she claims a7ected 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 ($.!, Hearings: Requirement for a HearingAppeal %–$e decision that a rule has been broken can be made only in a protest hearing. A boat that is being protested but continues to race retains her rights under the rules, including the right to protest another boat.Question #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.Case %–A boat that breaks a rule while racing but continues to race may protest over a later incident, even though a+er the race she is disquali*ed for her breach.

Rule ($.#, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing: Time for Parties to PrepareAppeal &–A protest must be made available to the parties, but providing a copy is not required. A wri(en decision is not necessary unless requested by one of the parties. However, each party is entitled to be represented at the hearing and witnesses must be allowed to testify. Failure to meet any of these requirements makes the hearing invalid.Appeal 6#–A protest commi(ee must *nd facts to decide whether or not a protest is valid, basing that decision on evidence taken in a protest hearing in compliance with the rules.

January !""#


A-!#

Case 5&–Part ' 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 ($.$, Hearings: Right to be PresentCase 5#–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 ($.$(a), Hearings: Right to Be PresentAppeal &–A protest must be made available to the parties, but providing a copy is not required. A wri(en decision is not necessary unless requested by one of the parties. However, each party is entitled to be represented at the hearing and witnesses must be allowed to testify. Failure to meet any of these requirements makes the hearing invalid.Appeal 6!–If witnesses can overhear or observe any portion of the hearing except when present to give testimony, they are not “excluded.”Appeal 64–If the protest commi(ee accepts wri(en testimony from witnesses who are not available to be questioned, or fails to exclude witnesses except when they are giving their own testimony, the hearing is invalid.Appeal 6#–A protest commi(ee must *nd facts to decide whether or not a protest is valid, basing that decision on evidence taken in a protest hearing in compliance with the rules.

Rule ($.%, Hearings: Interested PartyAppeal !!–A competitor in a race or series is an interested party. His participation in any part of a protest hearing, except as a witness or a party to the hearing, makes the hearing invalid. Unless rule ,".' applies, the right of appeal cannot be denied.Appeal 4#–$e responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone. Appeal 5"–If she does not start and is scored accordingly, she cannot receive redress by claiming that the race commi(ee acted improperly in deciding to conduct the race in conditions it considered to be suitable. Protest commi(ee members who believe they have a close personal interest in a decision concerning their actions as race commi(ee members act properly when they decline to take part in the hearing.

Rule ($.', Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for RedressAppeal 66–A !” by &” protest 8ag on a 5"-foot boat is not of su)cient size or of suitable proportions to be “conspicuously displayed.”Appeal 6#–A protest commi(ee must *nd facts to decide whether or not a protest is valid, basing that decision on evidence taken in a protest hearing in compliance with the rules.Case %#–An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.Case !!–It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest commi(ee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.

January !""#


A-%"

Rule ($.(, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding FactsAppeal &–A protest must be made available to the parties, but providing a copy is not required. A wri(en decision is not necessary unless requested by one of the parties. However, each party is entitled to be represented at the hearing and witnesses must be allowed to testify. Failure to meet any of these requirements makes the hearing invalid.Appeal 64–If the protest commi(ee accepts wri(en testimony from witnesses who are not available to be questioned, or fails to exclude witnesses except when they are giving their own testimony, the hearing is invalid.Appeal 6#–A protest commi(ee must *nd facts to decide whether or not a protest is valid, basing that decision on evidence taken in a protest hearing in compliance with the rules.Appeal %"!–A protest commi(ee may *nd it di)cult to reconcile con8icting testimony, but must not penalize a boat without *rst *nding facts about the incident that led to the protest and basing its decision on them.Case %"5–A(empting to distinguish between facts and conclusions in a protest commi(ee’s *ndings is sometimes unsatisfactory because *ndings may be based partially on fact and partially on a conclusion. A national authority can change a protest commi(ee’s decision and any other *ndings that involve reasoning or judgment, but not its *ndings of fact. A national authority may derive additional facts by logical deduction. Neither wri(en facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other. Protest commi(ees must resolve con8icts between facts when so required by a national authority.

Rule ($.), Hearings: Con.ict between the Notice of Race and the Sailing InstructionsCase #&–$e rules listed in the de*nition Rule apply to races governed by $e 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 &&.!, 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 con8icts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

Rule (%.!(a), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationAppeal 6–A leeward port-tack boat must give a windward port-tack boat room to pass a starboard-tack boat that is an obstruction. Rule 65.%(a) permits the disquali*cation of a boat that was a party to a protest hearing, even if she was not protested.Appeal 4'–A boat that completes a tack onto starboard need not therea+er remain close-hauled, but is subject to rules %6.% and %6.! as she changes course.Appeal ,%–Section C rules apply at starting marks not surrounded by navigable water. Rule %#, not rule %&, applies when the mark is a continuing obstruction. Rule %# does not apply until boats are at an obstruction. A penalty can be given even when the protesting boat does not mention the applicable rule.Case !!–It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest commi(ee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.

January !""#


A-%$

Case 66–A race commi(ee may not change, or refuse to implement, the decision of a protest commi(ee, including a decision based on a report from an authority quali*ed to resolve questions of measurement.

Rule (%.!(b), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationAppeal '6–$e sailing instructions may change a rule only if permi(ed to do so in rule &6.%(b). Denying any of the results of a successful appeal is equivalent to denying the right of appeal. A boat that retires in acknowledgment of breaking a rule in an incident thereby takes a penalty. Although she may be protested for that incident she may not be penalized further.

Rule (%.!(b), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationCase %"–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 ##–$e fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part !. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule %5 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 55.%(b) is to retire, and she does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disquali*ed.Case %",–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 ! causes serious damage and she then retires, she has taken the applicable penalty and is not to be disquali*ed for that breach.

Rule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationAppeal !–When a port-tack leeward boat, on a collision course with a starboard-tack boat, hails the port-tack windward boat for room to tack and she fails to respond, the port-tack leeward boat’s obligation under rule %" continues. A boat breaking a rule is not entitled to exoneration unless she could not avoid breaking it.Appeal 6–A leeward port-tack boat must give a windward port-tack boat room to pass a starboard-tack boat that is an obstruction. Rule 65.%(a) permits the disquali*cation of a boat that was a party to a protest hearing, even if she was not protested.Appeal ,–A boat clear ahead of other boats is an obstruction that may be passed on either side. As boats approach to pass her, the one with an inside overlap is entitled to room under rule %#.!(b).Appeal %!–In an incident between two boats, the boat breaking a rule must be exonerated when a breach of a rule by a third boat made it impossible for the other boat that broke a rule to avoid doing so.Appeal %#–When a boat makes a timely hail for room to tack to avoid a right-of-way boat, but the hailed boat fails to respond and compels the hailing boat to break a rule, the hailing boat must be exonerated.Appeal 46–A boat clear ahead is an obstruction to boats clear astern.

January !""#


A-%!

Appeal '%–When she cannot see behind an obstruction, an obligated boat must anticipate what might appear from the other side of the obstruction.Appeal ,&–A boat that acquires right of way over a second boat and causes her to collide with a third boat has compelled the second boat to maneuver in an unseamanlike way. In doing so the *rst boat breaks rule %' by not initially giving the second boat room to keep clear.Appeal &5–An appeals commi(ee cannot require a protest commi(ee to protest a boat. A protest commi(ee can *nd as a fact that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her. A protest commi(ee complying with rule F6 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.Question &6–A boat that touches a *nishing mark and takes a penalty does not *nish until she starts to cross the *nishing line a+er taking the penalty. Exoneration does not provide for cancelling a penalty a boat has taken voluntarily or for compensating her for distance, time or places lost in taking the penalty. A boat that voluntarily takes a penalty and thereby worsens her score is not entitled to redress.Appeal #!–“Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi(ee. Even when rounding a mark, a right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact when it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.Question %"%–A right-of-way boat compelled by a keep-clear boat to cross the starting line early is not relieved of her obligation to start as described in the de*nition Start.

Rule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationCase 4 –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 %"–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 %%–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 !&–When one boat breaks a rule and, as a result, causes another to touch a mark, the other boat is to be exonerated. $e fact that a starting mark has moved, for whatever reason, does not relieve a boat of her obligation to start. A race commi(ee may abandon under rule 4!.%(d) only when the change in the mark’s position has directly a7ected the safety or fairness of the competition.Case 4"–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 5#–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.

January !""#


A-%%

Case '%–A protest commi(ee must exonerate boats when, as a result of another boat’s breach of a rule, they are all compelled to break a rule.Case ,6–When a boat changes course she may break rule %6, even if she is sailing her proper course.Case #4–If a boat lu7s immediately a+er 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 lu7ed breaks rules %' and %6.%. $e other boat breaks rule %%, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c).Case #'–Rule %&.!(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 4%.

Rule (%.#, Decisions: Decisions on RedressQuestion 55–A race commi(ee that corrects a boat’s score does not act improperly. $e boat therefore has no valid claim for redress.Appeal 6&–When a race commi(ee’s failure to comply with a sailing instruction prevents a boat from learning of her starting error, the redress given the boat does not change the fact that she has broken a rule. It frees her from blame and penalty for the breach, as well as compensates her for her score being made signi*cantly worse.Question #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.Case 4%–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 5'–When a boat fails to *nish correctly because of a race commi(ee 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 *nishing line.Case ,%–A hail is not the ‘sound signal’ required when 8ag X is displayed. Answers to questions arising from requests for redress a+er a procedural error by the race commi(ee.

Rule (%.$, Decisions: Decisions on Measurement ProtestsAppeal 5!–It is not contrary to recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair sailing for several boats to consult about a protest and then deliver multiple protests or a joint protest. $e rules do not prohibit protest commi(ees of one person. A protest commi(ee member is not an interested party because of being the measurer.

Rule (%.$(a), Decisions: Decisions on Measurement ProtestsCase %#–An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.

January !""#


A-%&

Rule ('.#, Informing the Parties and OthersAppeal &–A protest must be made available to the parties, but providing a copy is not required. A wri(en decision is not necessary unless requested by one of the parties. However, each party is entitled to be represented at the hearing and witnesses must be allowed to testify. Failure to meet any of these requirements makes the hearing invalid.Question #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.

Section C–Gross Misconduct

Rule (+.!, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Commi-eeCase 45–Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule ! and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 6#.%.Case 6'–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 !, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.Case 6,–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.

Rule (+.!(a), Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Commi-eeAppeal #%–An allegation of misconduct must be su)ciently speci*c to permit the competitor to prepare a defense.

Section D–Appeals

Rule )&, Appeals and Requests to a National AuthorityAppeal '6–$e sailing instructions may change a rule only if permi(ed to do so in rule &6.%(b). Denying any of the results of a successful appeal is equivalent to denying the right of appeal. A boat that retires in acknowledgment of breaking a rule in an incident thereby takes a penalty. Although she may be protested for that incident she may not be penalized further.

Rule )&.!, Appeals and Requests to a National AuthorityAppeal 65–A boat may appeal a protest decision only if she is a party to the hearing in which the decision was made. A boat is not a party to a hearing merely because her *nishing place is a7ected by a decision on another boat’s request for redress. A boat does not become a party to a hearing by requesting that the hearing be reopened.

Rule )&.!, Appeals and Requests to a National AuthorityCase ''–A boat cannot protest the race commi(ee or the protest commi(ee. 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

January !""#


A-%'

believes that her score has been made signi*cantly worse by the arrangement reached in that decision she must herself request redress. She may then appeal the decision of that hearing.Case %"5–A(empting to distinguish between facts and conclusions in a protest commi(ee’s *ndings is sometimes unsatisfactory because *ndings may be based partially on fact and partially on a conclusion. A national authority can change a protest commi(ee’s decision and any other *ndings that involve reasoning or judgment, but not its *ndings of fact. A national authority may derive additional facts by logical deduction. Neither wri(en facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other. Protest commi(ees must resolve con8icts between facts when so required by a national authority.

Rule )&.', Appeals and Requests to a National AuthorityAppeal !!–A competitor in a race or series is an interested party. His participation in any part of a protest hearing, except as a witness or a party to the hearing, makes the hearing invalid. Unless rule ,".' applies, the right of appeal cannot be denied.

Rule )!.#, National Authority Decisions Appeal &–A protest must be made available to the parties, but providing a copy is not required. A wri(en decision is not necessary unless requested by one of the parties. However, each party is entitled to be represented at the hearing and witnesses must be allowed to testify. Failure to meet any of these requirements makes the hearing invalid.

Rule )!.%, National Authority DecisionsQuestion ##–The ISAF Cases do not have the status of rules but are “authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules.” $erefore, when the relevant facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a Case, the interpretations in the Case should be accepted by the protest commi(ee as correct interpretations of the racing rules for that protest.Like the ISAF Cases, the published US SAILING Appeals are not rules. However, decisions of the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee are *nal; therefore, when the relevant facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a US SAILING appeal, and no ISAF Case con8icts with the interpretations in the appeal, a protest commi(ee in the United States is well advised to follow the appeal in making its decision.Case 6%–When the decision of a protest commi(ee is changed or reversed upon appeal, the *nal standings and the awards must be adjusted accordingly.

PART 6–ENTRY AND QUALIFICATION

Rule )(.!, Exclusion of Boats or CompetitorsAppeal '4–$e organizing authority or the race commi(ee may reject or cancel the entry of a boat so long as it states its reason for doing so and complies with the US SAILING prescription to rule ,6.%.

Rule )*.$, Compliance with Class Rules; Certi/catesCase ',–$e race commi(ee 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 certi*cate has been presented in good faith by an owner who has complied

January !""#


A-%(

with the requirements of rule ,&.%, the *nal results of a race or series must stand, even though the certi*cate is later withdrawn.

PART 7–RACE ORGANIZATION

Rule *', Governing RulesAppeal '5–A race commi(ee is bound by the sailing instructions because they are rules. When a boat’s score in a series is made signi*cantly worse by a race commi(ee action which is contrary to a sailing instruction, the boat is entitled to redress.Case 55–A boat may not protest a race commi(ee 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 commi(ee made her score signi*cantly worse.Case 66–A race commi(ee may not change, or refuse to implement, the decision of a protest commi(ee, including a decision based on a report from an authority quali*ed to resolve questions of measurement.Case #&–$e rules listed in the de*nition Rule apply to races governed by $e 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 &&.!, 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 con8icts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

Rule *(.!(b), Changes to the Racing RulesAppeal '6–$e sailing instructions may change a rule only if permi(ed to do so in rule &6.%(b). Denying any of the results of a successful appeal is equivalent to denying the right of appeal. A boat that retires in acknowledgment of breaking a rule in an incident thereby takes a penalty. Although she may be protested for that incident she may not be penalized further.Question #4–$e term “information freely available” in rule 5%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with li(le e7ort. $e term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so+ware needed to receive or read the information.

Rule *(.!(c), Changes to the Racing RulesQuestion &,–“Class rules” as used in rule &6.%(c) and elsewhere in the racing rules refers to rules of a class association. A class association is an association of people who, among other things, control the rules that state the physical speci*cations for boats of that class. Only class associations have the authority to change racing rules under rule &6.%(c).Case &'–If a racing rule is not one of the rules listed in rule &6.%(c), class rules are not permi(ed to change it. If a class rule a(empts to change such a rule, that class rule is not valid and does not apply.

January !""#


A-%)

Rule *(.$, Changes to the Racing RulesQuestion '&–De*nes “local races.”

Rule *), Changes to Class RulesCase #&–$e rules listed in the de*nition Rule apply to races governed by $e 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 &&.!, 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 con8icts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

Rule **.#, National PrescriptionsCase #&–$e rules listed in the de*nition Rule apply to races governed by $e 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 &&.!, 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 con8icts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

Rule *+.#(a), Notice of Race; Appointment of Race O0cialsQuestion #4–$e term “information freely available” in rule 5%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with li(le e7ort. $e term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so+ware needed to receive or read the information.

Rule *+.#(b), Notice of Race; Appointment of Race O0cialsQuestion #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.

Rule +&.#, Race Commi-ee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing InstructionsAppeal 45–Misinterpretation of sailing instructions when their intent is clear does not mean they are ambiguous.Appeal 5"–Changes to sailing instructions, when made ashore, must be in writing and posted on time on the o)cial notice board.

Rule +&.#(a), Race Commi-ee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing InstructionsQuestion #4–$e term “information freely available” in rule 5%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to

January !""#


A-%*

be aware of and can locate with li(le e7ort. $e term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so+ware needed to receive or read the information.

Rule +&.#(c), Race Commi-ee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing InstructionsQuestion '"–Requiring a(endance at a competitors’ meeting does not break a rule. Intended changes in the sailing instructions announced at the competitors’ meeting have no e7ect unless they are posted within the required time on the o)cial notice board.Case 4!–A competitor is entitled to look exclusively to wri(en sailing instructions and to any wri(en amendments for all details relating to sailing the course.

Rule +!, Protest Commi-eeAppeal 5!–It is not contrary to recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair sailing for several boats to consult about a protest and then deliver multiple protests or a joint protest. $e rules do not prohibit protest commi(ees of one person. A protest commi(ee member is not an interested party because of being the measurer.Question #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.

APPENDICES

Rule A#, Series ScoresCase ,&–A boat may position herself in a tactically controlling position over another boat and then slow that boat’s progress so that other boats pass both of them, provided that, if she is protested under rule ! for doing so, the protest commi(ee *nds that that there was a reasonable chance of her tactic bene*ting her series result. However, she breaks rule ! if she intentionally breaks another rule to increase the likelihood of the tactic succeeding.

Rule A$, Starting Times and Finishing PlacesAppeal %"5–A race commi(ee does not have the authority to re-score a race by using a new rating issued a+er the race has been completed. An appeals commi(ee may consider an allegation that a boat has broken a rule only when it is deciding an appeal of a protest commi(ee decision concerning that allegation.

Rule A', Scores Determined by the Race Commi-eeCase !&–When one boat breaks a rule and, as a result, causes another to touch a mark, the other boat is to be exonerated. $e fact that a starting mark has moved, for whatever reason, does not relieve a boat of her obligation to start. A race commi(ee may abandon under rule 4!.%(d) only when the change in the mark’s position has directly a7ected the safety or fairness of the competition.Case &"–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 *nish according to that term’s de*nition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.

January !""#


A-%#

Rule E'.', Radio-Controlled Boat Racing Rules: RedressQuestion #5–At a radio-controlled boat rega(a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee, and may be a commi(ee of one. Properly submi(ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi(ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. $e protest commi(ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.

Rule F(, Procedures for Appeals and Requests: Inadequate Facts; ReopeningAppeal &5–An appeals commi(ee cannot require a protest commi(ee to protest a boat. A protest commi(ee can *nd as a fact that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her. A protest commi(ee complying with rule F6 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.Case %"5–A(empting to distinguish between facts and conclusions in a protest commi(ee’s *ndings is sometimes unsatisfactory because *ndings may be based partially on fact and partially on a conclusion. A national authority can change a protest commi(ee’s decision and any other *ndings that involve reasoning or judgment, but not its *ndings of fact. A national authority may derive additional facts by logical deduction. Neither wri(en facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other. Protest commi(ees must resolve con8icts between facts when so required by a national authority.

Appendix J–Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions

Rule J!.#, Notice of Race ContentsQuestion #4–$e term “information freely available” in rule 5%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with li(le e7ort. $e term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so+ware needed to receive or read the information.

Rule J#.!(')Appeal %"4–When the sailing instructions do not identify which marks are rounding marks as required by the rules, boats are not required to treat any marks as rounding marks. When this omission results in some boats sailing farther than others, those boats may be entitled to redress.

Rule J#.#, Sailing Instruction ContentsAppeal !%–A race commi(ee may use a course length for handicapping purposes that is di7erent from the actual length, provided that the sailing instructions state that this will be done.Rule J!Case #&–$e rules listed in the de*nition Rule apply to races governed by $e 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 &&.!, 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

January !""#


A-&"

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 con8icts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

DEFINITIONS

Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; OverlapAppeal #,–When rule %& applies, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat in order for rule %&.! to create rights and obligations. When boats are approaching a mark from di7erent directions, there may be no “inside” or “outside” boat, in which Case the rules of Section A and B apply.Case %!–In determining the right of an inside boat to mark-room under rule %&.!(b), it is irrelevant that boats are on widely di7ering courses, provided that an overlap exists when the *rst of them reaches the zone.Case !4–On a run, rule %# does not apply to a starboard-tack boat that passes between two port-tack boats ahead of her. Rule %" requires both port-tack boats to keep clear.Case 44–A boat that hails for room to tack before safety requires her to tack is entitled to receive room under rule !".%(b), but by hailing at that time she breaks rule !".4. An inside overlapped boat is entitled to room between the outside boat and an obstruction under rule %#.!(b) even though she has tacked into the inside overlapping position.Case 54–A close-hauled port-tack boat that is sailing parallel and close to an obstruction must keep clear of a boat that has completed her tack to starboard and is approaching on a collision course.Case #%–A boat required to keep clear must keep clear of another boat’s equipment out of its normal position when the equipment has been out of its normal position long enough for the equipment to have been seen and avoided.

FinishQuestion &6–A boat that touches a *nishing mark and takes a penalty does not *nish until she starts to cross the *nishing line a+er taking the penalty. Exoneration does not provide for cancelling a penalty a boat has taken voluntarily or for compensating her for distance, time or places lost in taking the penalty. A boat that voluntarily takes a penalty and thereby worsens her score is not entitled to redress.Case 5'–When a boat fails to *nish correctly because of a race commi(ee 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 *nishing line.Case '&–If a buoy or other object speci*ed in the sailing instructions as a *nishing-line limit mark is on the post-*nish side of the *nishing line, it is not a mark.Case &!–When a *nishing 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 *nish according to the de*nition, a boat may cross the line in either direction and her *nish is to be recorded accordingly.

January !""#


A-&$

Case %%!–If one boat makes an error in sailing the course, a second boat may notify the *rst that she intends to protest when the error is made, or at the *rst reasonable opportunity a+er the *rst boat *nishes, or at any time in-between.

Interested PartyAppeal %&–A boat touching a starting mark but not forcing room breaks only rule 4% (Touching a Mark). A race commi(ee member who is also a member of the protest commi(ee does not become an interested party by the race commi(ee’s act of protesting under rule 6".!.Appeal !!–A competitor in a race or series is an interested party. His participation in any part of a protest hearing, except as a witness or a party to the hearing, makes the hearing invalid. Unless rule ,".' applies, the right of appeal cannot be denied.Appeal 4#–$e responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone. Appeal 5"–If she does not start and is scored accordingly, she cannot receive redress by claiming that the race commi(ee acted improperly in deciding to conduct the race in conditions it considered to be suitable. Protest commi(ee members who believe they have a close personal interest in a decision concerning their actions as race commi(ee members act properly when they decline to take part in the hearing.Appeal 5!–It is not contrary to recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair sailing for several boats to consult about a protest and then deliver multiple protests or a joint protest. $e rules do not prohibit protest commi(ees of one person. A protest commi(ee member is not an interested party because of being the measurer.

Keep ClearCase 4"–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 '"–When a protest commi(ee *nds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the commi(ee *nds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disquali*ed.Case 6"–When a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule %6.%.Case ,,–Contact with a mark by a boat’s equipment constitutes touching it. A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position.Case &,–A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.Case &&–A boat may avoid contact and yet fail to keep clear.

January !""#


A-&!

Case #%–A boat required to keep clear must keep clear of another boat’s equipment out of its normal position when the equipment has been out of its normal position long enough for the equipment to have been seen and avoided.

Mark Appeal %"–Although a boat does not break rule 4% by touching a mark’s anchor line, if that causes the mark to be drawn into contact with the boat, she does break it.Question &4–Government buoys marking a security zone are not obstructions unless they *t the terms of the de*nition Obstruction. Boats may pass such obstructions on either side unless the sailing instructions prohibit sailing inside the security zone. A boat cannot be penalized under the racing rules for violating government regulations unless the sailing instructions make the regulations a rule governing the event.Case '&–If a buoy or other object speci*ed in the sailing instructions as a *nishing-line limit mark is on the post-*nish side of the *nishing line, it is not a mark.

Mark-RoomAppeal 4–An inside windward boat, given su)cient mark-room at a mark, is required to keep clear of an outside leeward boat. A right-of-way boat may not be penalized under rule %5 unless there is damage or injury.Appeal !"–Mark-Room is not de*ned to allow an inside boat without right of way to sail to a mark in a tactically desirable manner.Appeal &#–A boat that enters the zone clear astern does not necessarily have to give the boat clear ahead mark-room under rule %&.!(b) until the boat clear ahead completes her rounding maneuver. During the maneuver, all of rule %& may cease to apply, or rule %&.!(b) alone may cease to apply. In either Case, if the boat clear ahead tacks she becomes subject to rule %4 when she passes head to wind.Appeal %"'–In the de*nition Mark-Room, the phrase “room to sail to the mark” means space to sail in a seaman like way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark. When the mark is abeam of the boat’s bow and she is close to it, she has arrived “at” it. While “at” the mark, the boat is entitled to room to sail her proper course. Case %'–In tacking to round a mark, a boat clear ahead must comply with rule %4; a boat clear astern is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking.Case !%–$e amount of space that a right-of-way boat obligated to give mark-room to an inside overlapped boat must give at the mark depends on the inside boat’s proper course in the existing conditions.Case 64–At a mark, when room is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the room.Case ,"–An inside overlapped windward boat that is entitled to and is receiving mark-room from the outside boat must keep clear of the outside boat.Case %%5–When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space for her to keep clear of or give room to other boats when required to do so by the rules.

January !""#


A-&%

Obstruction Appeal 6–A leeward port-tack boat must give a windward port-tack boat room to pass a starboard-tack boat that is an obstruction. Rule 65.%(a) permits the disquali*cation of a boat that was a party to a protest hearing, even if she was not protested.Appeal ,–A boat clear ahead of other boats is an obstruction that may be passed on either side. As boats approach to pass her, the one with an inside overlap is entitled to room under rule %#.!(b).Appeal %'–A boat is permi(ed to hail another for room to tack when a substantial course change is required for her to avoid the obstruction.Appeal 46–A boat clear ahead is an obstruction to boats clear astern.Question &4–Government buoys marking a security zone are not obstructions unless they *t the terms of the de*nition Obstruction. Boats may pass such obstructions on either side unless the sailing instructions prohibit sailing inside the security zone. A boat cannot be penalized under the racing rules for violating government regulations unless the sailing instructions make the regulations a rule governing the event.Case %"–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 !4–On a run, rule %# does not apply to a starboard-tack boat that passes between two port-tack boats ahead of her. Rule %" requires both port-tack boats to keep clear.Case !#–A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third boat clear astern. $e boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat to pass between her and the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that room from the time the overlap began.Case 5%–If an obstruction can be passed on either side by two overlapped boats, the right-of-way boat, if she chooses to pass it to leeward, must give room to the other. If the right-of-way boat chooses to pass it to windward, she is entitled to room to do so, and the other boat must keep clear. $ere is no obligation to hail for room at an obstruction.

Party Appeal 65–A boat may appeal a protest decision only if she is a party to the hearing in which the decision was made. A boat is not a party to a hearing merely because her *nishing place is a7ected by a decision on another boat’s request for redress. A boat does not become a party to a hearing by requesting that the hearing be reopened.Case ''–A boat cannot protest the race commi(ee or the protest commi(ee. 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 signi*cantly worse by the arrangement reached in that decision she must herself request redress. She may then appeal the decision of that hearing.

Proper CourseAppeal 5–When a boat intervenes between two others on the same tack, her proper course is to keep clear of the leeward boat.

January !""#


A-&&

Appeal %4–Di7erent boats may have di7erent proper courses at any given moment. When those proper courses con8ict, the right-of-way boat is entitled to sail her proper course.Case #–When a starboard-tack boat chooses to sail past a windward mark, a port-tack boat must keep clear. $ere is no rule that requires a boat to sail a proper course.Case %4–Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.Case %5–When, owing to a di7erence of opinion about a leeward boat’s proper course, two boats on the same tack converge, the windward boat must keep clear. Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have di7erent proper courses.Case !%–$e amount of space that a right-of-way boat obligated to give mark-room to an inside overlapped boat must give at the mark depends on the inside boat’s proper course in the existing conditions.Case 56–A leeward boat is entitled to sail up to her proper course, even when she has established a leeward overlap from clear astern and within two of her hull lengths of the windward boat.

Racing Appeal %6–When no part of a boat’s hull, equipment or crew is still on the *nishing line, she has cleared it. A boat that has *nished and cleared the *nishing line and its marks is no longer racing and is not subject to penalty, unless she interferes with a boat still racing. Rule %5 applies to a boat that is racing, even if the contact is with a boat no longer racing.Appeal !6–A boat cannot be penalized for touching a *nishing mark when she is no longer racing.Case 6&–$e failure of a race commi(ee to discover that a rating certi*cate 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 ! and her rights to protest and appeal, even if she is later disquali*ed.

Room Appeal ,&–A boat that acquires right of way over a second boat and causes her to collide with a third boat has compelled the second boat to maneuver in an unseamanlike way. In doing so the *rst boat breaks rule %' by not initially giving the second boat room to keep clear.Case !%–$e amount of space that a right-of-way boat obligated to give mark-room to an inside overlapped boat must give at the mark depends on the inside boat’s proper course in the existing conditions.Case 6"–When a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule %6.%.Case #4–If a boat lu7s immediately a+er 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 lu7ed breaks rules %' and %6.%. $e other boat breaks rule %%, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c).

January !""#


A-&'

Case %"4–$e phrase ‘seamanlike way’ in the de*nition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat.Case %%5–When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space for her to keep clear of or give room to other boats when required to do so by the rules.

Rule Appeal '5–A race commi(ee is bound by the sailing instructions because they are rules. When a boat’s score in a series is made signi*cantly worse by a race commi(ee action which is contrary to a sailing instruction, the boat is entitled to redress.Question &4–Government buoys marking a security zone are not obstructions unless they *t the terms of the de*nition Obstruction. Boats may pass such obstructions on either side unless the sailing instructions prohibit sailing inside the security zone. A boat cannot be penalized under the racing rules for violating government regulations unless the sailing instructions make the regulations a rule governing the event.Question ##–The ISAF Cases do not have the status of rules but are “authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules.” $erefore, when the relevant facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a Case, the interpretations in the Case should be accepted by the protest commi(ee as correct interpretations of the racing rules for that protest.Like the ISAF Cases, the published US SAILING Appeals are not rules. However, decisions of the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee are *nal; therefore, when the relevant facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a US SAILING appeal, and no ISAF Case con8icts with the interpretations in the appeal, a protest commi(ee in the United States is well advised to follow the appeal in making its decision.Case &'–If a racing rule is not one of the rules listed in rule &6.%(c), class rules are not permi(ed to change it. If a class rule a(empts to change such a rule, that class rule is not valid and does not apply.Case #&–$e rules listed in the de*nition Rule apply to races governed by $e 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 &&.!, 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 con8icts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

RACE SIGNALS

Race Signals, XQuestion %""–A race commi(ee may abandon a race a+er all the boats have *nished or retired. If it is on shore, the commi(ee need not announce the abandonment with race signals.Case 4%–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

January !""#


A-&(

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.

ISAF REGULATIONS

Regulation #&, Advertising CodeQuestion '#–Sailbags and turtles are “equipment,” and are subject to the rules of the ISAF Advertising Code.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEACase 4&–$e International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) are intended to ensure the safety of vessels at sea by precluding situations that might lead to collisions. When the IRPCAS right-of-way rules replace the rules of Part !, they e7ectively prohibit a right-of-way boat from changing course towards the boat obligated to keep clear when she is close to that boat.Case %"#–$e IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules apply between boats that are racing only if the sailing instructions say so, and in that case all of the Part ! rules are replaced. An IRPCAS or government rule may be made to apply by including it in the sailing instructions or in another document governing the event.

January !""#

Section ! – Appeals and Questions

B-$

APPEAL 1

Pilgrim vs. Maori

Rule (&.!(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ Action Rule ($.!, Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing

!e decision that a rule has been broken can be made only in a protest hearing. A boat that is being protested but continues to race retains her rights under the rules, including the right to protest another boat.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Pilgrim (X) and Y were involved in an incident early in a race, and each protested the other. Later in the same race, Maori (Z), which had observed the incident and believed X to have been in the wrong, refused to yield right of way to her. X protested Z.$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed X for breaking a rule in the *rst incident. It then disquali*ed Z, despite her contention that X, having been disquali*ed for a breach of a rule in the *rst incident, was no longer entitled to rights under the rules. Z appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee Rule 64.% provides that a boat shall not be penalized without a protest hearing. Boats that have observed an incident in which a breach of a rule may have occurred cannot know with certainty that there was such a breach until the protest commi(ee hears a protest, *nds facts, and makes a decision. $erefore, X retained her rights under the racing rules and Z was required to honor those rights. One such right, the right to protest as provided in rule 6".%(a), allowed X to protest Z, whether or not X broke a rule in the earlier incident. Z’s appeal is denied. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and both X and Z remain disquali*ed.

November 1935

SECTION 2$APPEALS AND QUESTIONS

January !""#B-2

The Appeals Book for !""#–!"$!

APPEAL 2

Doon vs. EsperanzaCacoue&e vs. Doon

Rule !&, On Opposite TacksRule #&.!, Room to Tack at an ObstructionRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

When a port-tack leeward boat, on a collision course with a starboard-tack boat, hails the port-tack windward boat for room to tack and she fails to respond, the port-tack leeward boat’s obligation under rule %# continues. A boat breaking a rule is not entitled to exonera-tion unless she could not avoid breaking it.

PL1

PL2PW1

PW2

PW4

PL4

S1

S2

S4

12-15 KNOTS COURSE TO NEW MARK

Mark

PL3

PW3 S3WIND COURSE TO

NEXT MARK

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $ree small scow-type boats approached a windward mark to be le+ to port, one on starboard tack and two on port. Esperanza (PW) hailed Doon (PL) for mark-room under rule %&.!(b) (Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room), and PL hailed PW for room to tack under rule !".%. PW failed to respond. Cacoue&e (S) lu7ed to avoid a collision, and both PW and PL tacked around the mark inside her.PL claimed that she did not bear away under the stern of S because she thought that, with the type of boat and the strength of wind, a collision would result. However, the protest commi(ee found that she could have borne away safely or slacked her sheets.PW was disquali*ed under rule !".% on PL’s protest and did not appeal. PL was disquali*ed under rule %" on S’s protest and she appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee Both PW and PL were obligated to keep clear of S, under rule %" while on port tack and under rule %4 (While Tacking) a+er passing head to wind while tacking. PW was correctly disquali*ed for breaking rule !".%, by not responding to a hail for room to tack.

January !""#


B-%

When PW failed to respond to PL’s hail for room to tack, PL was faced with the necessity of taking alternative action to avoid S. $is raises the question of whether she should be exonerated under rule 65.%(c) as the innocent victim of another boat’s breach. We think not, since the protest commi(ee found that she could have gone astern of S. A boat breaking a rule is not entitled to exoneration unless she was compelled by another boat to break a rule. PL’s appeal is denied. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and both PL and PW remain disquali*ed.

November 1940

APPEAL 3

Red Hed vs. Sea Urchin

Rule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule !*.#(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomDe/nitions, Mark-Room

An inside windward boat, given su'cient mark-room at a mark, is required to keep clear of an outside leeward boat. A right-of-way boat may not be penalized under rule %( unless there is damage or injury.

L2

W2

L3

W3

W5

W6

L4

W4

L1

W1

L5

L6

COURSE TO NEXT MARK

MARK

6 KNOTS

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Two boats, %6 feet long, broad-reaching on starboard tack, were approaching a mark to be le+ to starboard, the next leg being a beat. L established an outside overlap on W from clear astern shortly before W reached the zone. As the boats rounded the mark, W bore away as a consequence of poor seamanship, and L continued to yield in order to avoid contact until the boats were three hull lengths beyond the mark. At that point beam to beam contact occurred without damage or injury.$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed W for breaking rule %%. W appealed.

January !""#B-4


Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee $e association appeals commi(ee con*rmed W’s disquali*cation and also disquali*ed L for breaking rule %5 by failing to avoid contact. L appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee L was entitled to sail up to her proper course. W failed to keep clear of L, breaking rule %%. Accordingly, W’s disquali*cation is con*rmed. In this situation, rule %&.!(b) makes exception to rule %% only so far as to require the outside boat, although holding right of way, to give the inside boat mark-room. $e room to which W is entitled is only that necessary in the circumstances to sail to the mark in a seamanlike way and then sail her proper course while at the mark (see the de*nition Mark-Room). $e disquali*cation of L for breaking rule %5 was incorrect. Rule %5(b) expressly provides that a right-of-way boat may be disquali*ed only when the contact causes damage or injury. No damage or injury occurred in this case. L’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the association appeals commi(ee disqualifying L is reversed. $e decisions of the association appeals commi(ee and the protest commi(ee regarding W are unchanged.

July 1941

APPEAL 4

Solenta vs. Mist

Rule !), On the Same Tack; Proper CourseRule !+.#(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an ObstructionDe/nitions, Proper Course

When a boat intervenes between two others on the same tack, her proper course is to keep clear of the leeward boat.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee While sailing on a broad reach towards a leeward mark, Mist (M) overtook Solenta (W) and L, and obtained an overlap between them when they were about '" feet apart. $e boats were about !' feet in length. L lu7ed slightly and M responded, but W maintained her course and trimmed in her mainsail to avoid contact with M.W protested M, claiming she broke rule %,, in that, as a leeward boat having become overlapped from clear astern, she had sailed above her proper course. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed M, who appealed the decision.

January !""#


B-'

W1

W2

W3

M3

L3

M1

M2

L2

L1

50'

25' 15'

WIND

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee When M became overlapped with W, W was able to give M room to pass L, an obstruction; therefore W was required to give M room to pass L under rule %#.!(b), and was also required by rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped) to keep clear of M. Concerning W’s argument, M’s proper course in the absence of W, the other boat referred to in rule %, (see the de*nition Proper Course), was to lu7 in response to L’s lu7, which she did as required by rule %%. M’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and M is reinstated in her *nishing place. Since W kept clear of M by trimming in her mainsail, she complied with rule %% and also gave M room as required by rule %#.!(b).

February 1942

January !""#B-6


APPEAL 5

L vs. M and W

Part #, Section C PreambleRule !*.#, Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for breaking a rule. A boat without right to mark-room that takes room given in error breaks no rule.

W1

M1 L1

W2

M2L2

COURSE TOFIRST MARK

WIND

STARTING LINE

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $ree boats, W, M, and L, were approaching the starting line on port tack to start at the port-end mark. L was close-hauled and heading just to leeward of the mark. W and M converged with L and compelled her, in order to avoid a collision, to bear away and allow them room to pass between her and the mark. Both W and M took advantage of the room provided by L to pass between L and the mark. L protested both M and W for breaking rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped).At the hearing, M stated that she was unaware of the preamble to Section C. She thought that she had to give mark-room to W under rule %&.!(a), and L had to give mark-room to both M and W. W knew she was not entitled to mark-room at the mark, and she had made no such claim, but simply took advantage of the room given by M, and passed between her and the mark.$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed both M and W for breaking rule %%. W appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee Since L did not owe M mark-room under rule %&.!(a), because of the exception in the Section C preamble, M’s disquali*cation for breaking rule %% is upheld. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for breaking a rule.With regard to the disquali*cation of W, when a boat voluntarily or unintentionally makes room available to another boat that, under the rules, has no right to that room and makes no

January !""#


B-)

claim to it, that other boat may take advantage, at her own risk, of the room so given. In that case, she breaks no rule.W’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee disqualifying W is reversed, and she is reinstated in her *nishing place. M remains disquali*ed.9

December 1950

APPEAL 6

Great Scot and Jolee vs. Black Jac

Rule !&, On Opposite TacksRule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedRule !+.#(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an ObstructionRule (%.!(a), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationDe/nitions, Obstruction

A leeward port-tack boat must give a windward port-tack boat room to pass a starboard-tack boat that is an obstruction. Rule )(.%(a) permits the disquali*cation of a boat that was a party to a protest hearing, even if she was not protested.

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

M1

L1

L2

L3

L4

M2

M3

M4

APPROXIMATELY7 MPH

5 LENGTHS

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $ree $istles, Jolee (WS), Black Jac (M), and Great Scot (L), were broad-reaching on port tack on approximately parallel courses toward a distant mark. WS and L were separated by about *ve hull lengths when M intervened and established an overlap on both WS and L. Midway

January !""#B-8


between positions 4 and 5 in the diagram, WS gybed onto starboard tack to close with the mark. Shortly a+erward, L lu7ed, forcing M to lu7 into the path of WS. WS, in order to avoid a collision, lu7ed sharply and passed astern of both M and L. M stopped lu)ng because of the proximity of WS, and M and L collided. $ere was no damage or injury. WS protested M for breaking rule %", and L protested M for breaking rule %%. $e protest commi(ee dismissed L’s protest against M on the grounds that she did not have the right to force M into the path of WS when both M and L were obligated to keep clear of WS. Although M broke rule %", the protest commi(ee exonerated her on the grounds that it was L’s improper lu7 that prevented M from keeping clear of WS. M did not break rule %5, because it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with L. L broke rule %5, but was not disquali*ed under that rule because there was no damage or injury. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed L under rules %6.% (Changing Course) and %#.!(b), and she appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee WS, on starboard tack, had right of way over both M and L, and was therefore an obstruction to both of them. M, overlapped inside L, was entitled, under rule %#.!(b), to room from L to pass the obstruction. L failed to give her that room. Furthermore, when L lu7ed she was required by rule %6.% to give M room to keep clear, which she also failed to do.M broke rule %", but since she was the victim of another boat’s breach of the rules, namely L’s failure to give her room, she was correctly exonerated under rule 65.%(c).Inasmuch as L was a party to a hearing, she was subject to penalty under rule 65.%(a) even though she had not been protested. L’s appeal is denied. $e decisions of the protest commi(ee to disqualify L and exonerate M are upheld.

November 1951

APPEAL 7

L vs. M

Rule !#, On the Same Tack, Not OverlappedRule !+.#(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction De/nitions, Obstruction

A boat clear ahead of other boats is an obstruction that may be passed on either side. As boats approach to pass her, the one with an inside overlap is entitled to room under rule %$."(b).

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Four boats were approaching the starting line to start, one of them being near the line, wayless with sheets untrimmed and clear ahead of the other three. $e middle boat, M, was heading for the wayless boat, and W and L were on courses to pass her to windward and leeward respectively. M bore away to pass to leeward of the wayless boat and, ten seconds or so before the starting signal, came within inches of L and the boom of the wayless boat. L protested her.

January !""#


B-#

At the hearing, the helmsman of M admi(ed being unaware of L’s presence when he bore away. Upon being asked what he probably would have done, had he been aware, he stated that he probably would have exercised his right to change course and pass the wayless boat to windward. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed M for failing to keep clear of a leeward boat as required by rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped). M appealed.

STARTING LINE

W1

M1

L1

L2

L3

M2

WAYLESSBOAT

M3 W2

W3 WIND

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee $e wayless boat held right of way over L and M under rule %! as a boat clear ahead, and therefore was an obstruction to both. When L was clear astern, she was required by rule %! to keep clear of M, and M had the option of passing the wayless boat either to windward or to leeward.A+er L established an overlap to leeward of M and gained rights under rule %%, L had the option of passing the wayless boat either to windward or to leeward. When L chose to pass the wayless boat to leeward, rule %#.!(b) required her, as an outside boat, to give M room to pass the obstruction (the wayless boat) on the same side as L chose to pass it. She failed to do so because the space she gave was not enough for W to sail in a seamanlike way between L and the obstruction.$e fact that M was unaware of L’s presence in no way changed L’s obligation under the rules or justi*ed her not giving M room to pass the obstruction. M’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee disqualifying M is reversed. L is disquali*ed for breaking rule %#.!(b). M broke rule %% but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c) and is reinstated in her *nishing place.

June 1952

January !""#B-10


APPEAL 8

Lemolo Request for Redress

Rule ($.#, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing; Time for Parties to PrepareRule ($.$(a), Hearings: Right to Be PresentRule ($.(, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding FactsRule ('.#, Informing the Parties and OthersRule )!.#, National Authority Decisions

A protest must be made available to the parties, but providing a copy is not required. A wri&en decision is not necessary unless requested by one of the parties. However, each party is entitled to be represented at the hearing and witnesses must be allowed to testify. Failure to meet any of these requirements makes the hearing invalid.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Lemolo (X) was disquali*ed for breaking a rule of Part ! and appealed. She contended that, since the procedures followed by the protest commi(ee in the hearing did not conform to many of the requirements in rule 64 (Hearings), her disquali*cation should be set aside.$e grounds for her appeal were that: neither the protest nor a copy of it had been furnished to her; her representative had not been allowed to be present during Y’s testimony; witnesses waiting to be heard were not permi(ed to testify; and a copy of the decision was not communicated to her in writing as required by rule 6'.!.$e protest commi(ee responded that its failure to comply with the provisions of rule 64 on the last day of a rega(a was because “It had to deal with a large number of protests on that day. $e wind was light, and the races were not completed until fairly late in the a+ernoon. $e commi(ee just did not have time to comply with all the formalities usually required.”

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule 64.! required that the protest be made available to her, but not that it be “furnished” or given to her with no request from her. $ere is no evidence that it was not available. Rule 6'.! requires that a protest commi(ee give a party its decision in writing, but only if the party asks for it. $ere is no evidence that the appellant did so. However, the protest commi(ee should not have excluded X’s representative from the hearing, or prevented witnesses from testifying (rule 64.4(a) and rule 64.6). X’s appeal is upheld. $e protest commi(ee’s errors made the hearing invalid; therefore the decision of the protest commi(ee is nulli*ed. However, because those errors are correctable, the protest is returned for a new hearing and decision by the same protest commi(ee, as permi(ed by rule ,%.!.

December 1953

January !""#


B-$$

APPEAL 10

Race Commi&ee vs. Lightning "+,"

Rule $!, Touching a MarkDe/nitions, Mark

Although a boat does not break rule ,% by touching a mark’s anchor line, if that causes the mark to be drawn into contact with the boat, she does break it.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed Lightning "+," for breaking rule 4%, in that she touched a mark and did not exonerate herself under rule 55.! (One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties). She cleared the mark by *ve feet or more, but it was drawn against her hull as she rounded. $is was a consequence of its submerged anchor line passing along the forward edge of her centerboard, the bo(om of which was almost *ve feet below the surface. Lightning "+," appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeAn anchor line, as stated in the de*nition Mark, is not part of a mark. $erefore, there is no penalty for touching it. If, however, fouling its anchor line causes the mark to be drawn against the boat, the boat has broken rule 4%. Lightning "+,"’s appeal is denied. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and Lightning "+," remains disquali*ed.9

December 1954

APPEAL 12

Julie vs. Solution

Rule !(.!, Changing CourseRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

In an incident between two boats, the boat breaking a rule must be exonerated when a breach of a rule by a third boat made it impossible for the other boat that broke a rule to avoid doing so.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Before the preparatory signal, PW and Julie (PL) were approaching Solution (S), on starboard tack, on converging courses. All three were relatively large boats. $e wind was very light, and all boats were moving slowly, but S somewhat faster than the others. At position !, about one minute a+er the preparatory signal, PW a(empted to tack but lost way and was head to wind when S, having held her course until she was about eight feet from PW, then turned to port about 6" degrees to avoid contact with PW.$e drastic turn by S to avoid PW resulted in a collision between S and PL; otherwise PL would have passed well to leeward of S. $ere was ample room for S to pass astern of PW and to windward of PL without causing PL to change course. S a(empted to do so and hailed

January !""#B-12


PL that she was turning to starboard. However S failed to respond to her helm and hit PL amidships at approximately right angles.S protested PW and PL under rule %" (On Opposite Tacks), and PL protested S for breaking rule %6.% by changing course and failing to give PL room to keep clear.$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed PW for breaking rule %", disquali*ed S for breaking rule %6.%, and dismissed S’s protest against PL. S appealed.

S1PW2

S2PL1

PL2

PW1

APPROXIMATELY1.5 BOAT LENGTHS

STARTING LINE

CURRENT

WIND

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee reversed the decision of the protest commi(ee with respect to S and PL, reinstated S, and disquali*ed PL for breaking rule %". PL appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eePL was under no obligation to foresee that S would be unable to reverse course, particularly in view of S’s hail that she was turning to starboard. Furthermore, it is doubtful that PL could have avoided the collision by changing her course a+er it became apparent to her that a collision was imminent. Indeed, the facts do not disclose any failure on PL’s part to act as required by the rules.When S bore away to avoid PW, she changed course so as to prevent PL from keeping clear, breaking rule %6.%. However, rule 65.%(c) gives recognition to extenuating circumstances, by providing for the exoneration of a boat that was compelled to break a rule. $e principle is that the boat that caused the trouble should be penalized, rather than some other boat (o+en referred to as the innocent victim).While S might have changed course before she did, she was under no obligation, in the circumstances, to foresee sooner that PW would not clear her. Inasmuch as S’s change of course and the subsequent collision between S and PL were the direct consequences of PW’s breach of rule %", S and PL were entitled to be exonerated under rule 65.%(c). Because it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid the collision, she did not break rule %5.PL’s appeal is upheld. $e decisions of both the association appeals commi(ee and the protest commi(ee with respect to S and PL are changed. PL is reinstated in her *nishing place, S is exonerated, and PW remains disquali*ed.

August 1958

January !""#


B-$%

APPEAL 13

L vs. W

Rule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedRule !', Acquiring Right of WayRule !), On the Same Tack; Proper CourseDe/nitions, Proper Course

Di-erent boats may have di-erent proper courses at any given moment. When those proper courses con.ict, the right-of-way boat is entitled to sail her proper course.

W1

W2

L2

L3

L4

W3

W4

L1

COLLISION 1.2 MILES TO NEXT MARK

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee About %.! miles from the leeward mark, L and W were broad-reaching on starboard tack, W using only her main and jib and L carrying a spinnaker. L established a leeward overlap from astern, which continued for at least eight to ten hull lengths when L bore away to try to avoid contact. W was not heading below the leeward mark.When the overlap was *rst established, L was between one and two of her lengths to leeward. She did not change course until just before the collision. W hailed L twice before the collision. L did not hear the hails and was unaware that a collision was imminent. No damage or injury resulted from the collision. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed W under rule %% for failing to keep clear and under rule %5 for failing to avoid contact. It also decided that L broke rule %5, but could not be penalized for that breach because the contact did not cause damage or injury. W appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e protest commi(ee found that when L *rst established her overlap she was at least a hull length to leeward of W. $at being so, there can be no question that L “initially” gave W room to keep clear as required by rule %'. W was required to keep clear under rule %%. Conversely, L, having been clear astern before the overlap began, was required by rule %, not to sail above her proper course while the boats remained on the same tack and overlapped within two lengths.

January !""#B-14


Different boats may have different proper courses at any moment depending on the circumstances. However, when those proper courses put the boats on converging courses, the windward boat must keep clear of the leeward boat.L’s proper course was the course that she would sail, in the absence of W (the other boat referred to in rule %,), to *nish as quickly as possible. $e mark was a considerable distance away. $ere is no evidence that L was sailing above her proper course. $us, she was ful*lling her requirement with respect to rule %,. W was required by rule %% to keep clear of L, and she failed to do so.W’s appeal is denied, the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and W remains disquali*ed.

February 1959

APPEAL 15

Brigadoon vs. Magoo

Rule #&, Room to Tack at an ObstructionDe/nitions, Obstruction

A boat is permi&ed to hail another for room to tack when a substantial course change is required for her to avoid the obstruction.

50’ POLICE LAUNCH

*

L2

L1

W2

W1

CAPSIZED BOAT

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Brigadoon (W) and Magoo (L) were sailing on a windward leg with L to leeward and clear ahead. Both were on starboard tack and approaching a '"-foot police launch that was aiding a capsized boat. $e police launch was close to the capsized boat, which was to leeward of the launch. L could not pass to windward of the launch without changing course and hailed W for room to tack. L then tacked and W, instead of tacking or replying ‘You tack,’ bore away to clear her.

January !""#


B-$'

W protested L on the grounds that L was not entitled by rule !".% to hail W for room to tack. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed L, stating that “L could have avoided the obstruction by bearing away herself. $ere was open water all around it.” L appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e police launch was an obstruction since L could not pass it without “changing course substantially” if she were “one of her hull lengths from it.” $is, however, did not necessarily give her the right to hail W for room to tack. If she had approached the police launch su)ciently close to its leeward end so that, with only a slight change of course when one of her hull lengths from it, she could have safely passed to leeward of it, she should have done so. $at was not the case here. As is clear in the diagram, L’s course brought her close to the windward end of the police launch. She had to either tack to pass it to windward or bear away substantially to pass it to leeward. Inasmuch as she was required to change course substantially to clear the obstruction whichever side she passed it, she had a right under rule !".% to hail W for room to tack.Rule !".% covers this situation, and L complied with its requirements. When L hailed, rule !".%(b) required W to respond by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying ‘You tack,’ even if she thought L’s hail was not permi(ed by rule !".4. W failed to do so.L’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, L is reinstated in her *nishing place, and W is disquali*ed for breaking rule !".%(b).

December 1959

APPEAL 16

Flying Dutchman USA /() vs. Flying0Dutchman0USA01##

Part # PreambleRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule #$.!, Interfering with Another BoatDe/nitions, Racing

When no part of a boat’s hull, equipment or crew is still on the *nishing line, she has cleared it. A boat that has *nished and cleared the *nishing line and its marks is no longer racing and is not subject to penalty, unless she interferes with a boat still racing. Rule %( applies to a boat that is racing, even if the contact is with a boat no longer racing.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee In a race of a Flying Dutchman national championship, USA 1## *nished *rst, to leeward and one-and-a-half or more hull lengths ahead of USA /(). Both boats were beating on starboard tack. USA 1## lu7ed head to wind to *nish, her genoa backwinded, and she was forced onto port tack. She was then hit by USA /(), who protested under rule %4 (While Tacking). Damage resulted from the contact.

January !""#B-16


$e protest commi(ee dismissed the protest, because USA 1## had *nished and cleared the *nishing line. No part of her hull or equipment was still on the line. $erefore, she was no longer racing or subject to disquali*cation.USA /() appealed, on the grounds that “clears the *nishing line” must be interpreted to mean that a boat continues racing until she is su)ciently far from the *nishing line that her maneuvers will no longer a7ect other boats that are still racing, and also that rule !4.% applied.

800

546

FINISHING LINE

WIND

RC

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeIt is clear that USA 1## broke either rule %4 or rule %" (On Opposite Tacks). $e question is whether she was still subject to disquali*cation. $e preamble to Part ! states: “.9.9.9a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule !4.%.” $e de*nition Racing states: “A boat is racing99.9.9.9until she *nishes and clears the *nishing line and marks99.9.9.” Failure to clear the *nishing marks is not at issue here, and when no part of a boat’s hull, equipment or crew is still on the *nishing line, she has cleared it. $erefore USA 1## was no longer racing at the time of the incident and cannot be penalized for breaking a rule of Part ! (When Boats Meet), except rule !4.%.Rule !4.% states: “If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.” In this case, USA 1## was not racing, but interfered with USA /() who was still racing. Furthermore, it was clearly possible for her to avoid the incident. $erefore, the decision of the protest commi(ee is changed to disqualify USA 1## for breaking rule !4.%. To that extent, USA /()’s appeal is sustained.However, USA /() was racing at the time of the incident, and was obligated by rule %5, even though she was the right-of-way boat, to avoid the contact if it was reasonably possible to do so. As USA 1## tacked, USA /() could have borne away to avoid the contact, but she failed to do so, and therefore USA /() broke rule %5, and is to be penalized because there was damage.USA /()’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is changed. Both USA /() and USA 1## are disquali*ed.

January 1965

January !""#


B-$)

APPEAL 17

Windmill $,( vs. Windmill %,)+

Rule !$, While TackingRule !%, Avoiding Contact

“Head to wind” refers to the bow and centerline of a boat, not the position of her sails.

3-5 MPHLAY LINE

MARK

W1

W2

W3

W4

L1

L2

L3

L4

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Windmill %,)+ (L) tacked from port to starboard into a position to leeward of Windmill $,( (W), which was beating along the lay line to the mark. W, sailing faster, began passing L to windward, allowing three to four feet clearance. L changed course in two stages until head to wind. $at position was evidenced by the fact that both boats’ mains were lu)ng, and L’s boom was along her centerline. Her jib was still cleated on the port side, however, and it consequently back-winded, causing the boats to dri+ together with no damage or injury.W protested L under rule %4, and L protested W under rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped) claiming that she had the right to sail above her proper course provided she met her requirement under rule %6.% (Changing Course) to give W room to keep clear.$e protest commi(ee decided that L did not go beyond head to wind. It also decided that L had given W room to keep clear. It disquali*ed W for breaking rules %% and %5, and dismissed W’s protest.W appealed and the protest commi(ee requested con*rmation or correction of its decision under rule ,".! (Appeals and Requests to a National Authority), believing that reasonable doubt

January !""#B-18


existed as to the determination of “head to wind,” which was assumed to be when the centerline of the hull is parallel to the wind with bow upwind, irrespective of the position of sails.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeA boat is head to wind when her bow is facing the wind, and the centerline of her hull is parallel to it, irrespective of the position of her sails. W’s appeal is denied, the decision of the protest commi(ee is con*rmed, and W remains disquali*ed.

September 1965

APPEAL 18

Lightning $(/, vs. Lightning $%#%

Rule (&.#, Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionDe/nitions, Interested Party

A boat touching a starting mark but not forcing room breaks only rule ,% (Touching a Mark). A race commi&ee member who is also a member of the protest commi&ee does not become an interested party by the race commi&ee’s act of protesting under rule )#.".

LA1

LA2

LA3

LB1

LB2

LB3

W1

W2

W3

WIND

RC

January !""#


B-$#

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $ree boats of the Lightning class started on starboard tack at the starboard, commi(ee-boat end of the starting line. LA passed fairly near the commi(ee boat, close-hauled and clear ahead of Lightning $%#% (LB), also close-hauled. Lightning $(/, (W) reached in to pass astern of the commi(ee boat, which she touched while changing course to avoid LA and LB.W protested LB under rule %' (Acquiring Right of Way) for not initially giving W room to keep clear a+er establishing an overlap to leeward from clear astern. $e race commi(ee, acting under rule 6".!(a), protested W because she touched the commi(ee boat.$e protest commi(ee, which included a member of the race commi(ee, acted on both protests. It *rst dismissed W’s protest against LB. It found that W had changed course, thereby giving LB the right of way by her own actions; therefore rule %' did not apply. $e protest commi(ee then acted on the race commi(ee’s protest and disquali*ed W for breaking rule 4% (Touching a Mark), having found that she hit the race commi(ee boat. W appealed, arguing in part that a member of the protest commi(ee had also served on the race commi(ee, and was therefore an interested party.

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee ruled that the facts found by the protest commi(ee were clear and supported its decision. $e appeals commi(ee also stated its opinion that an interested party must be one who would bene*t in some speci*c manner from a decision favorable to him. Hence, it denied the appeal. W appealed again on the same grounds.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e de*nition Interested Party is “A person who may gain or lose as a result of a protest commi(ee’s decision, or who has a close personal interest in the decision.” A member of the race commi(ee is not an interested party merely because the race commi(ee protests a boat as permi(ed in rule 6".!(a). W’s appeal is denied, and the decisions of the protest commi(ee and the association appeals commi(ee are upheld. W remains disquali*ed.

October 1966

January !""#B-20


APPEAL 19

El Cordobes vs. Beachcomber and Diablo

Rule #&.!, Room to Tack at an ObstructionRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

When a boat makes a timely hail for room to tack to avoid a right-of-way boat, but the hailed boat fails to respond and compels the hailing boat to break a rule, the hailing boat must be exonerated.

S1

PL2

PL1

PW2

PW1

S2

15 KNOTS

COURSE TONEXT MARK

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $ree boats of the Dragon class, Diablo (PW), Beachcomber (PL), and El Cordobes (S) were close-hauled on port tack. S, which was to leeward and ahead of both PW and PL, tacked to starboard. S completed her tack in compliance with rule %' (Acquiring Right of Way).Twice, PL hailed PW to tack, so that she also could tack and avoid S. By the time it was clear that PW would not respond, it was too late for PL to make any alternative maneuver without interfering with the oncoming S. PL called to S that she could not respond, whereupon S tacked back to port to avoid a collision.S protested PL and PW under rule %" (On Opposite Tacks). PL protested PW under rule !".%. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed PW and PL under the rules cited. PL appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeInasmuch as PL would have had to make a substantial course change to pass astern of S, even if she had borne away instantly when S tacked to starboard, she had the right to hail PW as she did. However, by the time it was clear that PW would not respond, it was too late for PL to avoid S by bearing away. PW was properly disquali*ed for breaking rule !".%, but she did not break rule %" because at no time was she failing to keep clear of S.

January !""#


B-!$

Since PL was compelled to break a rule as a consequence of PW’s breaking rule !".%, PL is exonerated under rule 65.%(c). PL’s appeal is upheld, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is changed. PW remains disquali*ed, but PL is reinstated in her *nishing place.

October 1967

APPEAL 20

International %%# ))( vs. International0%%#0)(

Rule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule !*.#(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomDe/nitions, Mark-Room

Mark-Room is not de*ned to allow an inside boat without right of way to sail to a mark in a tactically desirable manner.

COURSE TONEXT MARK

MARK

OL1

IW1

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee International %%" 665 (OL) and International %%" 65 (IW) approached the leeward mark a+er a series of maneuvers for favorable position. When IW reached the zone, OL was overlapping her on the outside.

January !""#B-22


Both boats bore away from a direct course to the mark, and a collision (with no damage or injury) occurred when IW was about one length from the mark and sailing a course that would result in her passing about one length abeam of the mark. Both boats protested.$e protest commi(ee held that IW, as an inside boat, was entitled to su)cient room to sail so as “to *nish as quickly as possible” and that OL did not give su)cient room for IW to do so. Accordingly, it dismissed OL’s protest and disquali*ed her for breaking rule %&.!(b).OL appealed on the grounds that she gave IW more than enough room to sail to the mark, stating that she did not force IW to go close to or be in danger of touching the mark.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeAs the boats sailed to the mark in the zone, OL continued to be the right-of-way boat and IW was required to keep clear by rule %%. Rule %&.!(b) required OL to give IW mark-room, which is the space IW needed to sail to the mark in a seamanlike way, and not the space she would take to sail to the mark in a tactically desirable manner. In this case, IW was sailing a course that would bring her approximately one length abeam of the mark. $at was space enough for another boat of the same class, even with her mainsail fully out, to sail inside IW without contacting either her or the mark. $is space was clearly more than needed by IW to sail to the mark in a seamanlike way.It was reasonably possible for both boats to avoid contact; therefore they both broke rule %5. However, neither boat is penalized under rule %5 because OL was the right-of-way boat and IW was entitled to mark-room, and the contact did not cause damage or injury [see rule %5(b)].OL’s appeal is upheld, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is changed. IW is disquali*ed for breaking rule %%, and OL is reinstated in her *nishing place.

May 1968

APPEAL 21

Inferno Request for Redress

Rule (#.!, RedressRule J#.#(!(), Sailing Instruction Contents

A race commi&ee may use a course length for handicapping purposes that is di-erent 2om the actual length, provided that the sailing instructions state that this will be done.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $e sailing instructions stated that the length of the course would be 45.' statute miles, but in fact it was approximately 45." statute miles. $e race commi(ee was aware of the di7erence and intentionally used a length of 45.' miles for handicapping purposes. Inferno requested redress because of the discrepancy. $e protest commi(ee denied the request on the grounds that the race commi(ee had the right to adjust the course length for handicapping purposes, and because Inferno, having received the sailing instructions when she entered the race, was

January !""#


B-!%

aware of the course length to be used. It therefore decided that her score was not a7ected “through no fault of her own.” Inferno appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeA race commi(ee may use a course length chosen for handicapping purposes but the sailing instructions must state that it will do so. Wording such as “$e approximate length of the course is 45." statute miles but 45.' miles will be used for handicapping” would have complied with rule J!.!(%6). $e phrase “through no fault of her own” in rule 6!.% did not make Inferno’s request for redress invalid; she bore no responsibility for the race commi(ee’s failure to include its intentions in the sailing instructions. Inferno’s appeal is upheld and the decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed. $e race is to be scored using 45." miles for handicapping purposes

May 1969

APPEAL 22

Wayfarer %%%/ vs. Wayfarer %#,# and others

Rule ($.%, Hearings: Interested PartyRule )&.', Appeals and Requests to a National AuthorityDe/nitions, Interested Party

A competitor in a race or series is an interested party. His participation in any part of a protest hearing, except as a witness or a party to the hearing, makes the hearing invalid. Unless rule +#./ applies, the right of appeal cannot be denied.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-eeFollowing the *nal race of the Wayfarer class national championship, Wayfarer %%%/, sailed by the class commodore, protested the *rst *ve boats in the *nal standings for measurement discrepancies. Wayfarer %%%/ herself was one of these, as was %#,#, sailed by the chief measurer.$e sailing instructions and the notice of race contained the following statements:

Boats must be measured before the rega(a, and owners must present valid measure-ment certi*cates upon registration. All boats are subject to protest for measurement discrepancies. Measurement will be under the direct supervision of the measurer of the United States Wayfarer Association.$e decision of the rega(a commi(ee or any of its subcommi(ees with regard to, but not limited to9.9.9.9the disquali*cation of boats, will be *nal.

Wayfarer %+/" objected to the composition of the commi(ee, claiming that several of its members were interested parties because they were competitors.Seven boats, one of which, Wayfarer %+/", lacked a valid certi*cate, were measured a+er the series. Wayfarer %+/", which *nished *rst, was disquali*ed for having %5 pounds of corrective weight ! feet forward of where it was required to be. $e boats that *nished 'th and 6th were disquali*ed for having black bands in incorrect positions on their spars. A small discrepancy

January !""#B-24


was found in the location of the bilge keel of %#,#, but since it had previously been accepted by the national commi(ee of the class, the boat was not disquali*ed.Most of the members of the rega(a commi(ee were competitors. $ose in contention for a prize did not participate in the decision, but did participate in the discussion and measuring that preceded it. Other members of the rega(a commi(ee not in contention for prizes participated in the decision. Wayfarer %+/" appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e provision in the sailing instructions quoted above, that decisions of the rega(a commi(ee would be *nal, was invalid because none of the conditions in rule ,".' were met. $e rega(a commi(ee was acting as a protest commi(ee. Competitors on this commi(ee took part in the discussions relative to disquali*cation a+er the series, and some of them, although not those in contention for a prize, participated in the decision.$is decision does not concern itself with the facts found and the decisions thereon. It concerns the right of a protest commi(ee to render a decision when it has not conformed to the requirements of rule 64.5. $at rule states: “A member of a protest commi(ee who is an interested party shall not take any further part in the hearing99.9.9.” $e de*nition Interested Party includes a person who may gain or lose as a result of a protest commi(ee’s decision. A competitor is an interested party. $e hearing, in which interested parties may not participate, includes discussions of the protest commi(ee as well as its decision. $ose members of the rega(a commi(ee who were also competitors should not have taken any part in the hearing other than as witnesses or parties.Wayfarer %+/"’s appeal is upheld. $e decisions of the rega(a commi(ee are reversed, and the disquali*ed boats are reinstated in their *nishing places.

May 1969

APPEAL 23

Santana %"/ vs. Santana /%

Rule '&.$, Se-ing and Sheeting Sails: Use of OutriggersNo part of a crew’s body is an outrigger or *&ing.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Santana %"/ protested Santana /% for breaking rule '".4, in that a crew member held the jib sheet outboard of the hull with her foot. $e protest commi(ee, a+er *nding that the crew was pressing the jib sheet down and outboard of the hull of the boat with her foot while the boat was on a reach, disquali*ed B, who appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeBy the use of the term “*(ing or other device” in de*ning an outrigger, rule '".4 excludes any part of a person’s body. Santana /%’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and Santana /% is reinstated in her *nishing place.

May 1969

January !""#


B-!'

APPEAL 24

Sun*sh %(1), vs. Sun*sh $)#/

Rule !%, Avoiding ContactRule !', Acquiring Right of WayRule !+.#(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an ObstructionRule #&, Room to Tack at an Obstruction

When PL and PW are approaching an obstruction, and when rule "# applies, the decision as to whether PL will pass astern of the obstruction or tack is PL’s to make. If PL decides to tack she must hail and give PW time to respond.

PL1

PL2

PL3

PL4

PW3

PW2

PW4

S1

PW1S2

S3

S4WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Sun*sh %(1), (PW), a+er crossing ahead of Sun*sh $)#/ (PL), tacked to port and established an overlap on PL to windward. Neither PW nor PL was able to cross Sun*sh 1%%1 (S), rapidly converging on starboard tack. PW hailed for room to go below S and began to bear away. PL, not hearing the hail and only just aware of PW on her windward side, hailed loudly for room to tack and put her helm down immediately. Shortly therea+er, PL and PW collided, barely avoiding contact with S. $ere was no damage or injury.PL testi*ed that by the time she became aware of PW bearing away on port tack, PL was too close to S to bear away and take her stern. Her only option was to tack. PL protested PW under rule %' for tacking too close to permit her to keep clear.PW protested PL under rule !".%(a) for not giving her time to respond before tacking. In addition, PW felt that, having properly established her overlap, she was entitled to room under rule %#.!(b) in order to pass astern of S. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed PL for breaking rule !".%(a) and dismissed the protest against PW.

January !""#B-26


$e protest commi(ee requested con*rmation or correction of its decision from the appeals commi(ee under rule ,".! (Appeals and Requests to a National Authority).

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule %' applies only when a boat tacking acquires right of way over another boat. Since PW tacked to windward of PL, she did not acquire right of way; therefore rule %' did not apply.PL and PW collided. However, since there was no damage or injury, PL, as the right-of-way boat, cannot be penalized under rule %5. Also, since PL gave PW no time to respond when she changed course toward her, it was not reasonably possible for PW to avoid the collision. $erefore PW did not break rule %5.PW established an inside overlap on PL when the two boats were several lengths from the obstruction. However, this fact alone did not give PW right to room under rule %#.!(b). $e preamble to Section C states that when rule !" applies, rule %# does not. $erefore, PL was under no obligation to give PW room to pass astern of the obstruction if in fact PL desired to tack. Although PL was entitled under rule !".% to call for room to tack to clear the obstruction, that rule speci*cally provides that a boat hailing for room shall give the hailed boat time to respond. $e fact that PL was not aware of PW bearing away until it was too late does not absolve PL of her duty to hail before tacking and then tack. Accordingly, the decision of the protest commi(ee disqualifying PL is con*rmed.

October 1969

QUESTION 25

Interpretation Requested by the New0York0Yacht0Club

Rule %#.!, Propulsion: Basic RuleUsing double rudders in opposition to decrease speed does not break rule (".

QuestionIt is not unusual to construct boats with two rudders. One common con*guration is one rudder on the keel (o+en called a trim tab) and the principal rudder farther a+. Anothercommon con*guration is two rudders side-by-side (such as on multi-hulls and scows). When turned in opposite directions, the two rudders have a braking e7ect. Does this use of the rudders break rule 5!?

AnswerNo. Rule 5!.% requires a boat to compete “by using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed.” $us, the question is whether the use of opposed rudders to decrease speed contravenes that requirement.Sails are intended to transmit power from the wind to give a vessel forward speed. From the earliest days of square riggers, they have also been backed to stop forward motion. Rudders

January !""#


B-!)

are intended to transmit power from the 8ow of water to change the direction of the boat. In the process, drag is increased, and the boat is slowed.Using opposed rudders to slow a boat departs from regular use only in degree and purpose. It is comparable to backing sails. Such use to slow a boat is not a breach of rule 5!.

May 1970

APPEAL 26

Race Commi&ee vs. Y-Flyer %$,%

Rule $!, Touching a MarkDe/nitions, Racing

A boat cannot be penalized for touching a *nishing mark when she is no longer racing.

CURRENT

RC

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Y- Flyer %$,%, with a moderate breeze behind her and a strong current against her, crossed and cleared the middle of the *nishing line. As she started to leave the *nishing area by sailing around the *nishing mark, the current caused her to touch the mark. She did not take any penalty for touching the mark.$e race commi(ee protested her for breaking rule 4% by touching a *nishing mark a+er *nishing. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed her. She appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeY-Flyer %$,% was incorrectly disquali*ed under rule 4%for touching a *nishing mark. $e rule applies only while she is racing. $e de*nition Racing is: “A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she *nishes and clears the *nishing line and marks or.9.9.9.”Clearing the *nishing mark is one of the criteria for determining when a boat is no longer racing because it prevents a boat from escaping penalization when she *nishes so close to a mark that she is unable to avoid touching it.

January !""#B-28


$e o)cial diagram shows that the boat in this case *nished six hull lengths away from the mark that she subsequently touched. When she cleared the line, she was well clear of the mark. $us, her contact with the mark occurred a+er she had *nished and cleared the *nishing line and *nishing marks. Since she was no longer racing, rule 4% no longer applied. Y-Flyer %$,%’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and Y-Flyer %$,% is reinstated in her *nishing place.

August 1970

APPEAL 27

Siren Song vs. Malba

Rule !&, On Opposite TacksA hail to hold course is not binding on a right-of-way boat.

FINISHING LINE P2

RCP1

S2

S1

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Siren Song (S) and Malba (P) were approaching the *nishing line, close-hauled on opposite tacks. $e *nishing line was approximately parallel to S’s course. P’s course, at right angles to the line, would cross it at two to three hull lengths from its starboard and much-favored end. S hailed “Starboard tack,” and P, believing that she could cross S, hailed “Hold your course.” S, however, tacked and protested under rule %". P crossed the line *rst; S crossed second and overlapped.

January !""#


B-!#

$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed P under rule %", its belief being that, since it was one helmsman’s judgment against the other’s, the obligated port-tack boat needed adequate evidence to support her claim that she would have cleared S. P appealed, since continuous sightings indicated that she would pass clear ahead but close to S, and she had therefore hailed

“Hold your course,” which S had failed to do.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e facts found by the protest commi(ee are not conclusive as to whether or not a collision would have resulted, had S not tacked. Yet it is clear that the boats were sailing courses that might have resulted in a collision. Even the testimony of P did not satisfy the commi(ee that she would have crossed clear ahead, had S held her course. P’s appeal is denied, the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and P remains disquali*ed.In response to the questions regarding a boat that has been hailed to hold course, it is permissible to hail, but the rules do not recognize such a hail as binding on the other boat. S can tack or bear away at any time she is satis*ed that a change of course will be necessary to avoid a collision.

October 1970

APPEAL 30

E Scow S-, vs. E Scow S-+

Rule !*.#(c), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomEstablishing a late overlap breaks no rule, so long as the boat doing so gives mark-room.

O3

O2

O1

B1

M1

M2M3

B2 B3

CURRENTLIGHT, ERRATIC

WIND

January !""#B-30


Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Boats S-, (M) and O approached the leeward mark, to be le+ to port, both on starboard tack and overlapped. S-+ (B) was overtaking from clear astern. Both M and O hailed B that she had no overlap, with which B agreed. $e wind was light and erratic, and there was a strong current opposed to the wind. M maintained course until about one-half hull length beyond the mark and gybed to round it. O did the same. Before M gybed, B, with clear air, overtook and overlapped M on the inside. B intended to round in the room le+ by M, if it remained open.When M bore away and gybed and found B overlapped inside, she hailed B that she had no right to mark-room. B promptly bore away and gybed, going to the wrong side of the mark. She made no contact with either the mark or M. She then tacked, gybed once more, and rounded the mark behind O. M, a+er bearing away and gybing, hit the mark while rounding.M protested B, claiming that B had improperly established an inside overlap that interfered with her rounding of the mark. At the hearing, M said that she was forced to change her course a+er gybing to avoid a collision with B. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed B for breaking rule %&.!(c). B appealed the decision, on the grounds that the rule had not been interpreted properly.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule %&.!(c) says that the boat clear astern must give mark-room a+er a boat clear ahead reaches the zone. A boat may establish an overlap beyond that point, however, and it is not uncommon for that to happen. If such a boat continues to give mark-room, she does not break the rule.In this case, B lu7ed and passed the mark on the wrong side. M was able to bear o7 and round the mark. $ese facts, coupled with the absence of contact between the boats, warrant the conclusion that B ful*lled her obligation under rule %&.!(c) to give M mark-room.B’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and B is reinstated in her *nishing place.

February 1971

APPEAL 31

!istle ")$# vs. !istle ),/

Rule '&.$, Se-ing and Sheeting Sails: Use of OutriggersA paddle used to support the midsection of a spinnaker is not an outrigger.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee In very light air on a broad-reaching leg of the course, a crew member of !istle ),/, from his station a+ of the mast, supported the midsection of the spinnaker with a paddle. $e paddle did not extend beyond the hull. !istle ")$# protested under rules '".! (Se(ing and Sheeting

January !""#


B-%$

Sails: Spinnaker Poles, Whisker Poles) and '".4, claiming that the paddle constituted an outrigger or a spinnaker pole una(ached to the mast.$e protest commi(ee dismissed the protest, stating that the practice did not fall within the prohibitions of either rule or those of any other rule. !istle ")$# appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule '".! deals with spinnaker poles; the paddle in this case was not a spinnaker pole.Rule '".4 deals with sheeting sails at points outside of a vertical line from the hull (or deck planking) of a boat when upright. Since the paddle neither extended beyond the vertical nor exerted outward pressure on a sheet, the manner in which it was used did not break rule '".4. !istle ")$#’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld.

October 1971

QUESTION 33

Interpretation Requested by the Noroton0Yacht0Club

Rule !(.!, Changing CourseRule !(.#, Changing Course

To change course means to change the direction in which the boat is heading or moving.

Questions What is the meaning of “change course” in rules %6.% and %6.!? Is it a change of course for a boat to sail an arc of a circle? If she does not move her helm in doing so, is she nonetheless changing course?

Answers Yes, a boat changes course when she sails the arc of a circle or any other course where she changes direction, whether or not she moves her helm. $is includes a change from moving forward to moving backward, or vice-versa. To change course means to change the direction in which the boat is heading or moving.

November 1974

January !""#B-32


APPEAL 34

My Way and Moxie vs. Crescent %/ and others

Rule +&.#, Race Commi-ee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing InstructionsMisinterpretation of sailing instructions when their intent is clear does not mean they are ambiguous.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Member clubs of the association run races under common sailing instructions issued by the association. Some of the races are for a large number of classes sailing in the same course area, in which some classes sail only once around the course while others sail twice around. $e race commi(ee of the sponsoring club sets up the starting and *nishing line in the middle of a windward leg. It then establishes a quadrilateral restricted and starting area, the four corners of which are marked by the commi(ee boat, starting and *nishing line mark C, and two green 8ags on the leeward side of the line.Regarding this area and the line, the sailing instructions read:

Restricted Area: All boats must keep clear of the indicated restricted area and of the *rst leg of the course until a+er the preparatory signal for their class. Any boat violating the restricted area shall be subject to disquali*cation.C Start: All classes start between RC 8ag on the commi(ee boat and starting line mark C.All classes in starts %, through !5, for the second time around, shall not enter the restricted or starting area.

In a rega(a, *ve Crescent class boats which were in starts %, through !5, sailed through the restricted or starting area on the second time around and were protested. $e protest commi(ee denied the protests, on the grounds that “the blue 8ag was up for the *nish line; therefore it no longer was a starting line, and there was no restricted area.” My Way and Moxie appealed.

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee upheld the decision. It recognized that it was the race commi(ee’s intention to prevent the twice-around boats from entering the restricted area on their second time around. Its opinion, however, was that the sailing instructions did not make this clear beyond reasonable doubt. $is decision was appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e question is a simple one. Were the sailing instructions su)ciently clear as to when the restricted area was to be avoided? Was it always “restricted” on the second time around, or only sometimes? It is di)cult to see what purpose the race commi(ee would have other than that the prohibition was to apply to all second times around.Appeals have supported contestants when sailing instructions were unclear or con8icting. In this case, however, any interpretation regarding the restricted area, other than that boats must keep out of the area on their second time around, stretches language beyond common usage and is clearly contrary to the intent of the sailing instructions.

January !""#


B-%%

$e appeal is upheld, and the decisions of the association appeals commi(ee and the protest commi(ee are reversed. $ose boats that sailed through the restricted area on their second lap are disquali*ed.

October 1975

APPEAL 35

Reliant vs. Taveuni

Rule !$, While TackingRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule !(.!, Changing CourseRule !(.#, Changing CourseRule (%.!(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A boat that completes a tack onto starboard need not therea3er remain close-hauled, but is subject to rules %).% and %)." as she changes course.

A1

A2

A3

B1

B2

B3

35 KNOTS

MARK

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Taveuni (A), a 5!-foot cu(er carrying only a headsail, and Reliant (B), a Cal-!# carrying a small jib and reefed mainsail, were on a close reach toward a mark to be le+ to port. $e wind was 4' knots, gusting to 5'. Boat A was ahead by 4 to 6 hull lengths and on a course slightly to leeward of B’s. She sailed on until the mark was o7 her port quarter, tacked to starboard and bore o7 continuously until reaching position !, then hardened up to the course shown in position 4.

January !""#B-34


When A reached position !, the boats were on a collision course:nearly head on:so B tacked immediately to avoid the impending collision. Before B reached a close-hauled course, A struck B on her starboard side three times between the forward end of the cockpit and the transom. $e two boats were then nearly at right angles to each other. B sustained major hull damage and was forced to withdraw. A protested under rule %4. B protested under rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped).$e protest commi(ee found that A had completed her tack and was on a new course, causing a port-starboard crossing situation under rule %" (On Opposite Tacks), requiring B to keep clear. B chose to tack but could not avoid a collision. Accordingly, the commi(ee disquali*ed B for breaking rules %" and %4. It held that rule %% was not applicable and dismissed B’s protest against A. B appealed.

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee upheld the protest commi(ee’s decision, but observed that A did not hold her course during B’s tack. A had claimed in her protest that B tacked inside of A and was in irons on starboard tack dead ahead when A lu7ed to fetch the mark, whereupon the collision occurred. However, the association appeals commi(ee, relying on the fact that neither B nor the protest commi(ee had protested A for breaking rule %6.%, took no further action. B appealed again.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e protest commi(ee, having found that A had met her obligations under rule %4 (she kept clear until she had borne away to a close-hauled course), acted correctly in not disqualifying her for breaking rule %4. B had argued in her appeal that A broke rule %4 in that, while tacking, she bore away to a reach and had not yet lu7ed to close-hauled when the collision occurred.Rule %4 requires a boat that is tacking to keep clear until she has borne away to a close-hauled course. In this case, A reached, passed, and fell o7 below close-hauled to a point where she was heading %4" or more degrees o7 the wind, thus well beyond a close-hauled course. A had the right to sail below close-hauled a+er tacking.However, when A became the right-of-way starboard-tack boat and bore away to a collision course with B, she thereby forced B, a port-tack boat that was keeping clear, to immediately change course to continue keeping clear. A therefore broke rule %6.!, which applied because when A became the right-of-way boat under rule %", B was sailing to pass astern of her. Almost immediately a+erward, A also broke rule %6.% by lu)ng to a new collision course with B, making it impossible for B to keep clear. $e association appeals commi(ee erred in failing to consider whether A broke rule %6.%, %6.! or both during her course changes. $at B did not protest under rule %6.% or %6.! was immaterial, and A should have been disquali*ed, in compliance with rule 65.%(a), which provides that a “penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest.” Concerning rule %5, B complied with it by tacking to avoid A. However, A broke rule %5 by failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so.B’s appeal is upheld. $e decisions of the association appeals commi(ee and the protest commi(ee are changed. B is reinstated in her *nishing place, and A is disquali*ed for breaking rules %5, %6.% and %6.!.

January 1976

January !""#


B-%'

APPEAL 36

!istle %%// vs. !istle ,""%

Rule !%, Avoiding Contact Rule !', Acquiring Right of WayRule !+.#(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an ObstructionRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationDe/nitions, Obstruction

A boat clear ahead is an obstruction to boats clear astern.

RCSTARTING LINE

W2

W1

M1

M2

L2

L1

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee !istle %%// (W) was sailing slowly up to the starting line, slightly above close-hauled. !istle ,""% (M) and !istle ,""$ (L) were coming up to the line from clear astern of W, sailing about three times as fast, and they were overlapped for several hull lengths before reaching W. L held a steady course throughout, while M, reaching on a collision course with L, lu7ed to keep clear of her as they closed with each other. Very shortly a+er M and L established an overlap to leeward of W, there were collisions with no damage or injury, M *rst hi(ing W and, one second later, L. M and W both protested. $e protest commi(ee found that M broke rule %' with respect to W, and rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped) with respect to L. It assigned her a percentage penalty under the provisions of the sailing instructions. M appealed.

January !""#B-36


Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeWhile M and L were approaching W from clear astern, they were required to keep clear of her under rule %! (On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped); therefore W was an obstruction to them (see the de*nition Obstruction). When M became overlapped to leeward of W, she failed to give W room to keep clear and therefore broke rule %'. However, because L was clearly sailing a course to pass to leeward of W, she, as an outside boat, was required by rule %#.!(b) to give M, an inside boat, “room between her and the9obstruction.” She failed to do this. $us, L broke rule %#.!(b) and was responsible for both collisions. L also broke rule %5 (Avoiding Contact) but is not penalized under that rule because there was no damage or injury.M’s appeal is upheld, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed. Although M broke rule %', she is exonerated under rule 65.%(c). L is assigned a percentage penalty as provided for in the sailing instructions.

October 1976, revised February 2010

APPEAL 37

Raggedy Annie and Encore Requests for Redress

Rule $', Time Limit and ScoresWhen a boat is competing in more than one race at the same time, for example, both in her class and for an overall trophy with boats in other classes, a time limit applies separately to each race.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $e Lahaina-Honolulu Race consisted of several races, with a common time limit, for the following trophies:

%. $e overall Abrams Trophy for all entries for fastest elapsed time, including IOR classes A, B, C, and D, the MORC class, and PHRF classes I and II.!. An overall trophy for all IOR entries scored on corrected times.4. Class trophies for each of the above classes.

No boat in IOR class D, the MORC class, or PHRF class II *nished within the time limit, but they were all scored as having *nished. Raggedy Annie and Encore requested redress. Under the rationale that, if one boat competing for an overall trophy *nishes within the time limit, there is a race not only for the overall trophy but also for each class competing overall, the protest commi(ee ruled that IOR class D met the time limit. $e boats in that class were competing for the overall IOR corrected time trophy with classes A, B, and C, each of which had a boat *nishing within the time limit.In a subsequent amendment to the decision, the protest commi(ee declared that the *nishes for the MORC class and the PHRF class II boats also were valid, since they were competing for the overall Abrams Trophy, and it dismissed the requests for redress. Raggedy Annie and Encore appealed.

January !""#


B-%)

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e basic issue is whether the rationale applied by the protest commi(ee correctly interprets rule 4'; i.e., if one boat competing for an overall trophy *nishes within the time limit, does it thereby become a race for each of the separate classes within the overall group, even though, in certain of those classes, no boat *nished within the time limit?O+en in distance races involving more than one class, each boat is sailing in more than one race at the same time. Here, each was racing for the Abrams Trophy, each of the IOR class boats was in another race for best corrected time among all IOR boats, and each boat was in a separate race within its own class.Each race in such an event ranks as a separate race, even when the races are sailed on the same course at the same time, and the racing rules apply separately to each individual race. $e time limit for this event must be applied separately to each of the races involved. $us, some of the races were *nished within the time limit while others were not, as follows:

%. One of the boats competing for the Abrams Trophy for best elapsed time *nished within the time limit, so there was a validly completed race for all boats competing for that trophy.!. One of the IOR class boats *nished within the time limit, so there was a valid race for all boats in the four IOR classes for best corrected time honors.4. In each of IOR classes A, B, and C, and PHRF class I, a boat *nished within the time limit, so there was a valid race in each of those classes.5. In IOR class D, PHRF class II, and MORC, no boat *nished within the time limit. $us, in none of those classes was there a valid race.

Raggedy Annie’s and Encore’s appeals are upheld. $e decisions of the protest commi(ee are reversed, insofar as they hold that there were valid races for IOR class D, PHRF class II and MORC.

April 1977

January !""#B-38


APPEAL 39

Sun*sh "%)1% Request for Redress

Rule %, Decision to RaceRule (#, RedressRule ($.%, Hearings: Interested PartyDe/nitions, Interested Party

!e responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone. If she does not start and is scored accordingly, she cannot receive redress by claiming that the race commi&ee acted improperly in deciding to conduct the race in condi-tions it considered to be suitable. Protest commi&ee members who believe they have a close personal interest in a decision concerning their actions as race commi&ee members act properly when they decline to take part in the hearing.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee In a race of a Sun*sh rega(a, %, out of !% starters *nished. Winds were %' to !" knots with seas at one to two feet. Before the start, Sun*sh "%)1% hailed the race commi(ee that she was protesting the commi(ee for allowing the race to begin, and she then le+ the racing area.She requested redress, claiming that the race commi(ee signi*cantly worsened the scores of boats by starting the race under the existing conditions and thus jeopardizing their safety. $e members of the protest commi(ee, who were also members of the race commi(ee, believed that they were interested parties and thus precluded by rule 64.5 from deciding the request for redress, and so postponed a hearing until a new protest commi(ee could be convened.$e new protest commi(ee dismissed the request for redress on the grounds that rule 5 makes the responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate or continue in a race “hers alone.” It also said that a decision by a boat not to participate does not put the race commi(ee in the position of having acted improperly. Sun*sh "%)1% appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e decision to start, postpone, or abandon a race is a ma(er solely within the jurisdiction of the race commi(ee (see rule #".%). $e new protest commi(ee was correct in stating that rule 5 makes each boat solely responsible for deciding whether or not to race or continue racing. $e appellant was free to decide not to participate, so there is no basis for her claim that her score (“Did not start”) had been caused by an “improper action” of the race commi(ee. A member of the race commi(ee may be a member of the protest commi(ee; however no member of the protest commi(ee can be an “interested party” under rule 64.5. In this case, the original protest commi(ee’s judgment that its members were interested parties was sound. $e de*nition Interested Party includes persons who have “a close personal interest” in the protest commi(ee’s decision. Here, it was alleged that the race commi(ee members acted so as to expose competitors to unsafe conditions. $ey inevitably would have had a close personal interest in whether or not that allegation would be determined to be valid. As protest commi(ee members, they therefore were correct in acting under rule 64.5 to decline to take part in the hearing.

January !""#


B-%#

Sun*sh "%)1%’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee denying her request for redress is upheld. Sun*sh "%)1% remains scored DNS (“Did not start”).

January 1978

APPEAL 40

Blue Jay )#,1 Request for Redress

Rule +&.#, Race Commi-ee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing InstructionsChanges to sailing instructions, when made ashore, must be in writing and posted on time on the o'cial notice board.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $e sailing instructions for the high school championship included provisions for courses, for a common starting and *nishing line, and for superseding wri(en instructions by oral instructions upon display of 8ag L. $ere was a time provided for a skippers’ meeting and also this provision: “Marks: Temporary marks will be used. Placement of marks will be discussed at skippers’ meeting.”At the skippers’ meeting, the race commi(ee changed the course and line instructions, stating that there would be two lines, a starting line to port of the commi(ee boat and a *nishing line to starboard, each with a di7erent colored mark at the outer end. On the fourth leg (second windward leg), all boats were to sail through the *nishing line. By so doing, if it became necessary to shorten course, the boats would already be heading for the *nishing line.On the fourth leg of the *rst race, Blue Jay )#,1, the appellant, who was leading her class, sailed through the starting line instead of the *nishing line. She was disquali*ed.She requested redress under rule 6! (Redress), on the grounds that “there was nothing in the sailing instructions requiring boats to pass through the *nishing gate” and that she had been penalized without a hearing. When the protest commi(ee upheld the race commi(ee’s decision, she appealed, citing improper procedure under rule #".!(c).

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee reversed the protest commi(ee’s decision and reinstated Blue Jay )#,1, observing that there was nothing in the sailing instructions about a *nishing line, separate and distinct from the starting line, through which boats were to pass on the fourth leg of the race. Moreover, whatever “incidental discussion” there may have been at the skippers’ meeting was inadequate, “according to any of the facts found,” to comply with rule #".!(c). $e confusion caused by the wri(en sailing instructions, the inde*nite oral instructions on passing through a *nish “gate,” and the commi(ee’s action in se(ing two

“gates” created such ambiguity that Blue Jay )#,1 should have been given the bene*t of the doubt and reinstated as a *nisher. $e appeal was upheld, and the race commi(ee appealed.

January !""#B-40


Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e basic question raised by this appeal arises from oral changes to the sailing instructions. Rule #".!(c) reads: “Changes to the sailing instructions shall be in writing and posted on the o)cial notice board…or, on the water, communicated to each boat99.9.9.9Oral changes may be given only on the water99.9.9.”$e sailing instructions provided only for a single line that was to serve as both a starting and *nishing line. $ey were devoid of any requirement that the line be passed through on any leg of the course.$is was all changed orally at the skippers’ meeting. Two lines were substituted for one line, and a requirement that the boats pass through the *nishing line on the second windward leg was added. $e changes to the sailing instructions should have been in writing and posted on the o)cial notice board as required by rule #".! (c).While skippers’ meetings are desirable and provide a forum for answering questions, such meetings are not a substitute for the sailing instructions, even when all skippers are present. $e purpose of requiring that a change in the sailing instructions be made in writing is to prevent the kind of confusion that occurred in this case.A notice of a meeting or a notice that oral instructions will be given does not comply with the requirement of rule #".!(c). Oral instructions are valid only when given on the water in the manner provided for in that rule and the sailing instructions. $e race commi(ee’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the association appeals commi(ee is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and Blue Jay )#,1 is reinstated in her *nishing place.

April 1979

APPEAL 41

Nirie V Request for Redress

Rule (!.$, Protest Requirements: Protest Time LimitCompetitors are entitled to reasonable means to ful*ll whatever time requirements there are for delivering a protest. !e protest commi&ee must extend the time if there is good reason to do so.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee A+er *nishing her race, Nirie V reached the dock in about an hour. Her skipper promptly *lled out a protest form and then spent the next two hours searching for someone to whom he could deliver it. Finally, one member of the race commi(ee appeared and was given the protest.$e protest commi(ee closed the hearing under rule 64.' (Validity of the Protest), because the protest was delivered a+er the two-hour time limit prescribed by rule 6%.4. Nirie V appealed on the grounds that she had made a timely and extended e7ort to deliver her protest, and the absence of any member of the race commi(ee entitled her to an extension of the time limit.

January !""#


B-&$

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeCompetitors are entitled to reasonable means to comply with the time limit for delivering protests. When, as in this case, such means are not available and when the protestor has delivered her protest as soon as the means was provided, there is good reason to extend the time limit and the protest commi(ee is required by rule 6%.4 to do so.Nirie V ’s appeal is upheld, and the decision of the protest commi(ee to close the hearing is reversed. $e protest is returned to the protest commi(ee to continue the hearing.

December 1978

APPEAL 42

Super Sun*sh ",1 and others vs. Super0Sun*sh0)(1

Rule #, Fair SailingRule (&.!(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionRule (%.$, Decisions: Decisions on Measurement ProtestsRule +!, Protest Commi-eeDe/nitions, Interested Party

It is not contrary to recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair sailing for several boats to consult about a protest and then deliver multiple protests or a joint protest. !e rules do not prohibit protest commi&ees of one person. A protest commi&ee member is not an interested party because of being the measurer.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Super Sun*sh )(1 was protested by three others for sailing the *rst two races with an illegal daggerboard.$e protest hearing was conducted by a single member of the race commi(ee, who was also acting class measurer.A protest commi(ee member who is also the class measurer is not an interested party prohibited by rule 64.5 from taking part in a measurement protest for that reason alone.$e judge upheld the protest and penalized Super Sun*sh )(1 twenty percent under the provisions of the sailing instructions.Super Sun*sh )(1 appealed on three grounds: *rst, that the three protestors were in collusion and thus had broken rule !; second, that one person does not constitute a commi(ee as provided by rules #".% (Race Commi(ee) and #%; and third, that the judge was not entitled by rule 64.5 (Hearings: Interested Party) to conduct the hearing because he was also the acting class measurer.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeAny boat is entitled to protest any other boat, subject to the provisions of rule 6". If any one boat may do so, three may also do so, and they do not break rule ! simply because they consult before delivering their protests or because they deliver a joint protest.

January !""#B-42


Rule #% does not prohibit a protest commi(ee consisting of one person.A protest commi(ee member who is also the class measurer is not, for that reason alone, an interested party prohibited by rule 65.4 from taking part in a measurement protest.Super Sun*sh )(1’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld. Super Sun*sh )(1 remains scored with a !"% penalty.

November 1980

APPEAL 43

Floating Prime vs. Hurry0Hurry

Rule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule !', Acquiring Right of Way

Once a leeward boat, a3er establishing an overlap 2om clear astern, has initially given the windward boat room to keep clear, the windward boat breaks rule %% if by lu'ng she causes contact.

W1

L1

L2

W2

STARTING LINE

WIND

RC

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Floating Prime (L) and Hurry Hurry (W) were approaching the starting line shortly before the start. Both were on starboard tack with W close-reaching and sailing slowly. L established an

January !""#


B-&%

overlap not far to leeward of W from clear astern. $e two boats sailed for a few hull lengths on parallel courses, with L moving somewhat faster.When the boats were overlapped eight to ten feet, L hailed her intention to lu7. W responded by lu)ng and tacking. $e port corner of her transom made contact with L amidships, without damage or injury, while W was well above close-hauled but not yet head to wind. From the beginning of the overlap until a+er contact, L held a steady course and did not lu7. A+er contact, W continued her turn and ended on port tack.L protested W under rule %4 (While Tacking) for not keeping clear while tacking. W protested L under rule %' for failing to give W room to keep clear and rule %, (On the Same Tack; Proper Course) for sailing above her proper course.$e protest commi(ee found that, a+er the overlap began, W could have kept clear by holding her course, as she did until L hailed, or by lu)ng slowly. It concluded that although L established her overlap close aboard, it was not so close as to initially deprive W of room to

“keep clear” (rule %'). It interpreted “room” to mean enough room to keep clear by some means easily accomplished, not room to execute any maneuver the windward boat might desire.$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed W for breaking rule %% and dismissed W’s protest. W appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule %, did not apply because a boat has no proper course before her starting signal. When L established her overlap to leeward from clear astern, she was obligated by rule %' to initially give W room to keep clear. She did this, since the boats sailed parallel courses for a few hull lengths without contact. A windward boat’s right to “room to keep clear” under rule %' exists only brie8y, at the time the overlap begins. Since contact occurred with no lu7 by L, and only a+er W had lu7ed well above a close-hauled course, L ful*lled her obligation under rule %' to initially give W room to keep clear, and W was properly disquali*ed under rule %%. Concerning the contact, it was reasonably possible for W to avoid it but she failed to do so, and therefore broke rule %5. L was unable to avoid the contact, so she did not break rule %5. W’s appeal is denied. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is corrected, and W remains disquali*ed, but for breaking both rules %% and %5.

October 1981

January !""#B-44


QUESTION 44

Interpretation Requested by the Southern0California0Yachting0Association

Rule (#.!(a), RedressRule (%.#, Decisions: Decisions on Redress

A race commi&ee that corrects a boat’s score does not act improperly. !e boat therefore has no valid claim for redress.

Assumed FactsIn the second race of a series, a boat that was on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal failed to return and start correctly. However, the race commi(ee scored her as having *nished in second place. It later discovered its error but the corrected results were not posted until two days later. $ose results showed her OCS (“Did not start: on the course side of the starting line at her starting signal and failed to start, or broke rule 4".%”). $e boat requested redress under rule 6!.%(a), and the protest commi(ee, acting under rule 65.!, decided to reinstate her in second place.

Question ! If a race commi(ee errs by scoring a boat incorrectly, is that boat’s score made signi*cantly worse within the meaning of rule 6!.%(a) when the commi(ee subsequently corrects the score?

Answer ! No. A race commi(ee does not take an improper action when it corrects an error it has made. $erefore rule 6!.%(a) cannot apply.

Question # Did the protest commi(ee make the correct decision under rule 65.! when it gave the boat redress by scoring her in the place she was originally scored for?

Answer # No. Rule 65.! could not apply because the boat was not eligible for redress.

October 1981

January !""#


B-&'

APPEAL 45

Gadzooks vs. Bubba

Rule !$, While TackingRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule #&.!, Room to Tack at an Obstruction

A leeward boat that hails and tacks simultaneously breaks rule "#.%. A windward boat is not required to anticipate a leeward boat’s actions with respect to a converging right-of-way boat.

S1

S2

PL1

PL2

PW1

PW2

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Gadzooks (PL) and Bubba (PW) were both sailing close-hauled on port tack, PL approximately one hull length ahead and one and a half hull lengths to leeward of PW. S was on starboard tack on a collision course with PL.PL did not expect a boat coming from where S was sailing and did not become aware of her presence until there was no opportunity to bear away and go astern of S. As soon as she saw S, PL hailed that she was tacking and simultaneously tacked onto starboard. PL hit PW amidships, resulting in substantial damage to both boats. PW protested.$e protest commi(ee found that PW was not able to keep clear of PL without having to begin to change course before PL had borne away to a close-hauled course. Its decision was that PL had no rights under rule %" (On Opposite Tacks), because she had not satis*ed the protest commi(ee that she had complied with rule %4. Also, she broke rule !".% by hailing and tacking simultaneously. PL was disquali*ed.

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-eeOn appeal by PL, the association appeals commi(ee upheld the protest commi(ee’s decision. It further found that, even though it was not clear that PW was aware of the presence of S, she should have been prepared to respond as required. Accordingly, it also disquali*ed PW for breaking rule !".%. PW appealed.

January !""#B-46


Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e protest commi(ee was correct in *nding that PL had no rights with respect to PW, because she had not kept clear as required by rule %4. Since PL did not give PW time to respond before tacking, she also broke rule !".%.$e association appeals commi(ee’s statement that PW should have been prepared to respond is unwarranted. PW was not required to anticipate PL’s breach of rules %4 and !".%. By the time it became clear that PL was not keeping clear, it was not reasonably possible for PW to avoid contact; therefore PW did not break rule %5. PL was at fault both in failing to observe S in time to pass under her stern and in hailing and tacking simultaneously, contrary to rule !".%. She also broke rule %4 by failing to keep clear of PW, and rule %5 by failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible for her to have done so. PW’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the association appeals commi(ee disqualifying PW is reversed, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is changed. PW is reinstated in her *nishing place, and PL is disquali*ed for breaking rules %4, %5 and !".%.

March 1982

APPEAL 46

,(+# vs. ,#,/

Rule %%.!, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a PenaltyRule (!.!(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the ProtesteeRule (!.#(b), Protest Requirements: Protest Contents

!e failure of a boat to take a Two-Turns Penalty does not break a rule. A boat may not be disquali*ed for an incident not described in a valid protest.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee At the start of the *nal beat, two !'-foot boats were on starboard tack with the protestee, ,#,/ (A), clear ahead by one to one-and-a-half hull lengths. A tacked and ,(+# (B) changed course thinking that she needed to do so in order to avoid contact. B displayed her protest 8ag *ve minutes a+er the incident. Just before *nishing and %' minutes a+er the incident, A took a Two-Turns Penalty. B protested not the right-of-way incident itself but A’s failure to take her penalty as soon as possible.$e protest commi(ee was not satis*ed that A had complied with rule %4 (While Tacking). It also decided that A had not sailed well clear as soon as possible and taken her Two-Turns Penalty, as required by rule 55.! (One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties). It disquali*ed her for breaking rule %4.A appealed, principally on the grounds that the protest commi(ee had failed to establish the relative positions of the two boats. She also noted that B did not display a protest 8ag until *ve minutes a+er the incident, and therefore that A was under no obligation to do a Two-Turns Penalty.

January !""#


B-&)

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee agreed that the relative positions of the boats had not been established, and therefore there was considerable doubt that rule %4 had been broken. $e commi(ee upheld A’s appeal, reversed the decision of the protest commi(ee, and reinstated A in her *nishing place.B appealed this decision, mainly on the grounds that the association appeals commi(ee had failed to accept the protest commi(ee’s *nding of facts.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e protest commi(ee was obligated to decide whether B’s protest was valid before considering its content [see rule 64.' (Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress)]. If the protested incident had been the right-of-way incident, the protest would have been invalid because B did not display her protest 8ag until *ve minutes a+er the incident. $is was not the “*rst reasonable opportunity” as required by rule 6%.%(a).However, B’s protest of A’s failure to take a proper and timely Two-Turns Penalty met the requirements of rule 6%.%(a), since the incident referred to under rule 6%.!(b) was A’s failure to take a Two-Turns Penalty when required and B complied with rule 6%.%(a) at that time. B’s protest was therefore valid.However, A’s failure to take a proper and timely Two-Turns Penalty broke no rule. It meant only that she failed to take a penalty, but her failure to take a penalty had no bearing on the protested incident. Since the right-of-way incident was not the incident described in B’s protest, A could not be penalized for that incident.B’s appeal is denied. $e decisions of the association appeals commi(ee and the protest commi(ee are changed, and A is reinstated in her *nishing place.

October 1982

QUESTION 50

Interpretation Requested by the South0Atlantic0Yacht0Racing0Association

Rule +&.#(c), Race Commi-ee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing InstructionsRequiring a&endance at a competitors’ meeting does not break a rule. Intended changes in the sailing instructions announced at the competitors’ meeting have no e-ect unless they are posted within the required time on the o'cial notice board.

Question ! Does requiring a(endance at a competitors’ meeting break any rule?

Answer !No.

Question #What is the e7ect of changes to the sailing instructions announced at a competitor’s meeting if the sailing instructions do not change rule #".!(c)?

January !""#B-48


Answer #Rule #".!(c) requires that changes in the sailing instructions be posted “within the required time” on the o)cial notice board. $at means any intended changes in the sailing instructions (including additions) announced at a skippers’ meeting must be posted within the time required by the sailing instructions. Otherwise, they have no e7ect.

October 1984

APPEAL 51

Scimitar vs. Audacious

Rule !&, On Opposite Tacks Rule !(.!, Changing CourseRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

When she cannot see behind an obstruction, an obligated boat must anticipate what might appear 2om the other side of the obstruction.

STARTING LINE

S1S2

P1

P2

A

WIND

RC

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee In %& to !! knots of wind and prior to the start, Audacious (S) was on starboard tack near the commi(ee boat and behind other starboard-tack boats. Scimitar (P) was on port tack and reaching below the 8eet from the opposite end of the line at more than seven knots. Neither saw the other at this stage.S bore away sharply about 4" degrees to pass to leeward of Brigand (A), which she was overtaking. S had no one stationed on her bow, whereas P did. At approximately four hull lengths separation, P’s lookout saw S and yelled to his helmsman to “fall o7,” which he did slowly. P was %'–!' feet to leeward of the nearest starboard-tack boat. S reacted by lu)ng

January !""#


B-&#

hard, with the result that her port quarter struck P’s hull amidships without causing damage or injury.$e protest commi(ee held that P had no reason to anticipate the action of an unseen starboard-tack boat, and S had ample time to adjust her speed to avoid the dilemma of overtaking A. It then disquali*ed S for breaking rule %6.% at position %. S appealed.

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee held that, as P and S approached each other with several boats between them that prevented them from seeing each other, P had adequate time and space to meet her newly discovered obligation under rule %". Her action in slowly bearing away was insu)cient to avoid collision, thereby requiring S to lu7 sharply to avoid possible serious damage. It found that the protest commi(ee’s decision was not supported by the facts or the diagram, reinstated S in the race, and disquali*ed P under rules %" and %5 (Avoiding Contact). P appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeWhen S bore away sharply at position %, prior to which neither boat could see the other, there were more than six hull lengths of open water between her and P. Under those circumstances, the maneuver by S was proper and appropriate and P had the room to keep clear that she was entitled to under rule %6.%. $ere is no indication in the facts or diagram that, a+er her initial and abrupt maneuver, S made any other change of course that might have le+ insu)cient room for P to keep clear under rule %" prior to P breaking rule %" just before position !. When it became clear to S that P was not keeping clear, it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with P; therefore S did not break rule %5. Although S’s last-minute course change at position ! to avoid a collision as required by rule %5 resulted in S breaking rule %6.%, she was compelled to do so by P’s breach of rule %". $e fact that P was unable to see S until they were on a collision course cannot be used to relieve her of her obligation to the right-of-way boat. $e situation is not unlike one in which a port-tack boat barely clears a starboard-tack boat only to *nd another starboard-tack boat to windward of the one she has just cleared.When she cannot see behind an obstruction, the obligated boat must anticipate what might appear from the other side of an obstruction. S’s maneuver was not a dangerous one but, in fact, normal under the circumstances. A keep-clear boat, when keeping clear of a group of boats holding right of way, is responsible for anticipating what obligations she is incurring, even though she cannot see all the boats. P’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the association appeals commi(ee is upheld. P remains disquali*ed and S is exonerated from her breach of rule %6.% under rule 65.%(c).

October 1984

January !""#B-50


APPEAL 52

Dynamo Hum vs. Holiday V

Rule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule !', Acquiring Right of Way

A starboard-tack boat that gybes and becomes a leeward boat does not thereby acquire right of way. A right-of-way boat failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so breaks rule %(.

RC

W1

W2

L1

L2

STARTING LINE

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee In !' knots of wind during a downwind start, Holiday V (L), on starboard tack, crossed ahead of Dynamo Hum (W), on port tack, by two and one-half hull lengths. Within two hull lengths L gybed to port tack, clear ahead of W, but assuming a higher course so that the boats were converging. W, in the process of hoisting her spinnaker, did not see L’s maneuver, and did not appreciably change her course during the incident. Approximately ten seconds a+er the crossing of the boats there was contact. W’s spinnaker struck the shrouds of L and her boom hit L’s stanchions, causing considerable damage to W’s mast. W protested.$e protest commi(ee found that L made no a(empt to avoid contact with W and that in the wind conditions L gybed too close, thereby breaking rule %'. It disquali*ed her and she appealed.

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee concluded that when L completed her gybe she was su)ciently clear of W and therefore she did not break rule %'. It disquali*ed W for failing to keep clear as required by rule %%. W appealed.

January !""#


B-'$

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule %' did not apply because L held right of way under rule %" (On Opposite Tacks) before she gybed and a+er that she continued to hold right of way, *rst under rule %! (On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped) and then under rule %%. Rule %6.% (Changing Course) applied because L was a right-of-way boat changing course, and L gave W room to keep clear. W failed to keep clear as required. However, since both L and W had the opportunity but failed to make any a(empt to avoid contact and damage resulted, both are disquali*ed under rule %5. W’s appeal is denied. $e decisions of the association appeals commi(ee and the protest commi(ee are changed. W remains disquali*ed, but for breaking rule %5 in addition to rule %%, and L is also disquali*ed for breaking rule %5.

March 1986

APPEAL 53

Hevn Request for Redress

Rule )(.!, Exclusion of Boats or Competitors!e organizing authority or the race commi&ee may reject or cancel the entry of a boat so long as it states its reason for doing so and complies with the US SAILINGprescription to rule +).%.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee The “Race Instructions for Auxiliary Boats” did not contain any specific eligibility requirements for the Twilight Series, an event for o7shore boats, but did require that each boat have a valid PHRF rating certi*cate and that all boats meet the safety standards of the ISAF O7shore Special Regulations for a Category 5 race. $e race commi(ee rejected the entry of Hevn, a modi*ed Etchells !!, stating: “Since our course designations include areas in the Atlantic Ocean and the Race Commi(ee doesn’t feel your cra+ is an o7shore vessel, the Race Commi(ee is rejecting your entry into this series.” Hevn requested a hearing, claiming that the action was discriminatory and that she held a valid PHRF rating and met the requirements of the ISAF O7shore Special Regulations for a Category 5 race. Neither of these claims was disputed, but the protest commi(ee upheld the decision of the race commi(ee.Hevn appealed, stating that the action was unjust and discriminatory, that she met the requirements of the sailing instructions, and that similar boats had been accepted in other o7shore events. She also contended that rule ,6.% requires a “legitimate” reason for rejecting an entry.9

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeThis event was for o7shore boats. $e race commi(ee concluded that Hevn was not an o7shore boat in the generally accepted meaning of the term, and therefore was not suitable for the event. In the absence of speci*c eligibility requirements in the sailing instructions, the commi(ee used rule ,6.% to reject Hevn’s entry. In doing so it stated the reason, thereby complying with the rule.

January !""#B-52


$e appellant’s belief that the rule requires a “legitimate” reason is incorrect. Rule ,6.% does not state or imply any qualitative tests for the acceptability of the reason other than that the reason cannot be arbitrary or capricious or based on race, color, religion, gender, age or national origin (see the US SAILING prescription to rule ,6.%). A race commi(ee has broad authority to make such judgments as it considers necessary to ensure that a race or rega(a is conducted so as to follow the intentions of the organizing authority, as well as the rules governing the event. Hevn’s appeal is denied. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and Hevn’s entry remains rejected.

September 1986

APPEAL 54

Shields "1 Request for Redress

Rule (#.!(a), RedressRule *', Governing RulesDe/nitions, Rule

A race commi&ee is bound by the sailing instructions because they are rules. When a boat’s score in a series is made signi*cantly worse by a race commi&ee action which is contrary to a sailing instruction, the boat is entitled to redress.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $e sailing instructions provided for wri(en changes, and the race commi(ee correctly posted an earlier starting time for the *rst race on the last day of the rega(a, expecting to be able to hold two races. Although the sailing instructions provided that “No race will be started a+er %":"" a.m.,” the commi(ee started the *nal (*+h) race at %":%' a.m. As a result of the *+h race, the *nal rega(a *nishing place of Shields "1 went from %st to !nd. She requested redress under rule 6!.%(a). $e protest commi(ee dismissed the request, having concluded that the race commi(ee’s error did not prejudice the *nish of Shields "1 in that race. Shields "1 appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeA race commi(ee’s breach or ignoring of a sailing instruction is an improper action or omission, since the sailing instructions are a part of the rules governing a race, rega(a or other series. $e de*nition Rule includes the sailing instructions, and rule &' required the race commi(ee to conform to them in its conduct of the races. By starting the *nal race of the rega(a %' minutes later than the latest permissible time, and including in the rega(a results a race that should not have been held, the score of Shields "1 was made signi*cantly worse. $e words

“score in a race or series” in rule 6!.% cannot be ignored.Shields "1’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and the rega(a is to be rescored omi(ing the *+h race.

April 1986

January !""#


B-'%

APPEAL 56

Boat % (Interlake Class) Request for Redress

Rule (%.!(b), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationRule )&, Appeals and Requests to a National AuthorityRule *(.!(b), Changes to the Racing Rules

!e sailing instructions may change a rule only if permi&ed to do so in rule 1).%(b). Denying any of the results of a successful appeal is equivalent to denying the right of appeal. A boat that retires in acknowledgment of breaking a rule in an incident thereby takes a penalty. Although she may be protested for that incident she may not be penalized further.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $e sailing instructions stated that “all legal protests will be heard regardless of whether either contestant *nished;” that “a boat which does not *nish or retires scores points equal to one more than the number of *nishers” but a boat “disquali*ed scores points equal to the number of boats registered”; that a disquali*cation may not be excluded from a boat’s series score; and that a

“decision of the protest commi(ee can be appealed; however, there shall be no appeal9.9.9.9as to the awarding of points for the championship.”Boat % made contact with Boat %# and retired in acknowledgment of breaking a rule without *nishing the race. Boat %# protested Boat %, and the protest commi(ee disquali*ed Boat %. Boat % requested redress, arguing, among other things, that she had retired and should be scored accordingly. $e protest commi(ee denied the request. Boat % appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule &6.%(b) does not permit sailing instructions to change rule ," or Appendix F, which govern appeals. $e sailing instruction that stated that an appeal decision would not a7ect a boat’s score did not comply with rule &6.%(b), because it had the same e7ect as denying the right of appeal. If a boat retires in acknowledgment of breaking a rule, she thereby takes a penalty and the protest commi(ee is prohibited by rule 65.%(b) from penalizing her further. However, the rules do not prohibit protesting a boat for an incident a+er which she retires in acknowledgment of breaking a rule. If valid, the protest must be decided, even though the protest commi(ee is prohibited from imposing any additional penalty on the boat that retired, unless the penalty for a rule that she broke is a disquali*cation that is not excludable from her series score.Boat %’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and Boat % is to be scored DNF (“Did not *nish”). $e series results and, if a7ected, the awarding of prizes are to be changed accordingly.

August 1987

January !""#B-54


QUESTION 58

Interpretation Requested by the Corinthian0Yacht0Club

Rule *(.$, Changes to the Racing Rules De*nes “local races.”

Question What is the meaning of “local races” in the prescription to rule &6.4?

Answer Local races are those in which normally the same group of people from a limited geographic area regularly race together.

April 1989

QUESTION 59

Interpretation Requested by North Sails

ISAF Regulation #&, Advertising CodeSailbags and turtles are “equipment,” and are subject to the rules of the ISAF Advertising Code.

Question ! Are sailbags and sail turtles “equipment” for the purposes of ISAF Regulation !".#.%(b)(ii)?

Answer ! Yes.

Question # Is advertising on sailbags and sail turtles limited to one maker’s mark that *ts within a square no larger than 4""mm in length on each side of the equipment?

Answer # Yes. However, class rules, notices of race and sailing instructions may, under circumstances stated in ISAF Regulation !" (ISAF Advertising Code), permit additional advertising.

April 1990

January !""#


B-''

APPEAL 60

Flying Scot ,) vs. Flying Scot $"

Rule %%.!, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a PenaltyRule %%.#, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties

Rule ((.% does not provide time for a boat to deliberate whether she has broken a rule. If a boat decides too late that she has broken a rule, the penalty provided by rule (( is not available to her.

L1

W1

W2

W3 APPROXIMATELY10 BOAT LENGTHS

MARK

WIND

January !""#B-56


Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Flying Scot ,) (W) and Flying Scot $" (L), both on starboard tack, made contact three to four hull lengths before rounding the leeward mark. A+er the contact, each boat hailed protest and displayed a protest 8ag.Each felt that the other boat had broken a rule. Both boats rounded the mark and proceeded on port tack up the windward leg of the course. W, a+er sailing about three hull lengths, tacked onto starboard and sailed about ten more hull lengths through the balance of the 8eet (three or four boats) still on the downwind leg. W then took a Two-Turns Penalty. L protested W, claiming that W had broken rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped).$e protest commi(ee found that W had broken rules %% and %5 (Avoiding Contact), and disquali*ed her because she had not exonerated herself by following rule 55.!, since she sailed for several minutes before starting her penalty. W appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule 55.% permits a boat to take a penalty at the time of the incident. Rule 55.! requires the boat to sail well clear of other boats as soon as possible a+er the incident and promptly make two turns as described in the rule. Together, these rules require a boat that decides to take a penalty to do so as soon as possible a+er the incident. $e rule does not provide for time for a boat to deliberate whether she has broken a rule. If she delays in doing her penalty turns, she is still liable to be disquali*ed.$e facts found by the protest commi(ee, including in particular the o)cial diagram, lead to the conclusion that W did not sail well clear of all other boats “as soon as possible a+er the incident. .9.9.” No facts were found to suggest that any other boat’s presence prevented W from sailing well clear and completing her penalty turns before rounding the mark. In fact, she chose to round the mark, tack and proceed several hull lengths upwind before beginning her penalty turns. W’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld. W remains disquali*ed.

September 1990

January !""#


B-')

APPEAL 61

Lido %( (1,# vs. Lido %( (/#$

Rule (!.!, Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee “First reasonable opportunity” means as soon as practicable, not as soon as convenient.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Shortly before *nishing a race Lido %( (1,# (PW) and Lido %( (/#$ (PL) were close-reaching on port tack. As they approached the *nishing line, PW hailed PL for room to pass astern of a starboard-tack boat (S). PL passed astern of S and *nished. PW, believing she was not given su)cient room, tacked onto starboard to leeward of S, gybed onto port, lu7ed to a close-hauled course, tacked onto starboard, crossed the *nishing line, and then hailed “Protest.”$e protest commi(ee found the protest invalid and closed the hearing because the hail was not made “at the *rst reasonable opportunity” as required by rule 6%.%. PW appealed.

“PROTEST”

S2

S1

PW1

PW2

PW3

PL1

PL2

WIND

FINISHING LINE

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee“First reasonable opportunity” means as soon as practicable, not as soon as convenient. $e maneuvers performed by PW a+er the incident and before hailing clearly demonstrate that her hail was not made at the *rst reasonable opportunity. PW’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld.

April 1992

January !""#B-58


APPEAL 62

International One Design %/ vs. International0One Design0%

Rule ($.$(a), Hearings: Right to Be PresentIf witnesses can overhear or observe any portion of the hearing except when present to give testimony, they are not “excluded.”

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee International One Design %/ and International One Design % were involved in an incident at a mark. IOD %/ protested, and IOD % was disquali*ed by the protest commi(ee a+er a hearing. $e hearing was held in a room approximately !" feet by !" feet, in which the witnesses were present throughout the hearing. $e protest commi(ee stated in its conclusions that, because of the size of the room and the noise level, it was unlikely that any of the witnesses could have heard any portion of the hearing except while giving their own testimony.IOD % appealed on several procedural grounds, including the claim that during the hearing at least one witness for IOD %/ was allowed to remain in the room where the hearing was held other than while giving testimony.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e room in which the protest hearing was held was small enough that witnesses could have observed the positioning of model boats and overheard portions of the hearing other than while giving their own testimony. $erefore, witnesses were not “excluded except when giving evidence,” as required by rule 64.4(a). Because of this error, which was not correctable, the hearing was invalid.IOD %’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and IOD % is reinstated in her *nishing place.

November 1992

APPEAL 63

Boomorang vs. Premature Acceleration

Rule ($.$(a), Hearings: Right to Be PresentRule ($.(, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding Facts

If the protest commi&ee accepts wri&en testimony 2om witnesses who are not available to be questioned, or fails to exclude witnesses except when they are giving their own testi-mony, the hearing is invalid.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Boomorang believed that she saw Premature Acceleration touch a mark while racing and protested. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed Premature Acceleration for breaking rule 4% (Touching a Mark). She appealed, claiming that the protest commi(ee had made several procedural errors,

January !""#


B-'#

including accepting wri(en testimony from witnesses not present and failing to exclude witnesses except when giving evidence, and that the hearing was therefore invalid.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeReplies from the protest commi(ee to the appeals commi(ee’s questions under rule F' (Inadequate Facts; Reopening) show that the protest commi(ee erred in its conduct of the hearing. First, it accepted wri(en testimony from two witnesses who were not present, and therefore not available to be questioned. Rule 64.6 gives the parties to the hearing the right to question any person who gives evidence. Second, the commi(ee allowed witnesses to remain in the hearing room throughout the hearing, including the times when the parties and other witnesses were giving their evidence and being questioned. Rule 64.4(a) requires that witnesses be excluded from the hearing except while giving their own evidence. Because of these errors, which were not correctable, the hearing was invalid.Premature Acceleration’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and Premature Acceleration is reinstated in her *nishing place.

April 1993

APPEAL 64

Star USA +)#" Request for Redress

Rule )&.!, Appeals and Requests to a National AuthorityDe/nitions, Party

A boat may appeal a protest decision only if she is a party to the hearing in which the decision was made. A boat is not a party to a hearing merely because her *nishing place is a-ected by a decision on another boat’s request for redress. A boat does not become a party to a hearing by requesting that the hearing be reopened.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Star USA +%+$ requested redress a+er Race 4 of the Bacardi Cup series, claiming that the race commi(ee had improperly displayed a signal governing the start of the race. $e protest commi(ee decided the redress request by directing the race commi(ee to re-sail the race. Star USA +/$", under rule 66 (Reopening a Hearing), requested that the hearing be reopened, claiming that the protest commi(ee had erred in its decision, that she was a party to the hearing of Star USA +%+$ ’s request for redress, and that she was entitled to redress. $e protest commi(ee decided not to reopen the hearing and refused to consider Star USA +/$"’s request for redress.A+er the last race of the series, the protest commi(ee reconvened with di7erent members, reopened Star USA +%+$’s request for redress at the request of the race commi(ee, reversed its original decision, and directed that Race 4 be included in the series results. Star USA +)#" then requested redress, claiming that her series score had been materially prejudiced by the protest commi(ee’s latest decision. $e protest commi(ee refused to hear Star USA +)#"’s request for redress and she appealed.

January !""#B-60


Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee upheld Star USA +)#"’s appeal because the protest commi(ee had refused to hear her request for redress. It also directed that Race 4 be excluded from the series a+er concluding that the protest commi(ee had erred by including it. Star USA +/$" appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeOnly a party to a hearing may appeal. A boat is a party to a hearing when she is a protestor, a protestee, a boat requesting redress or a boat that may be penalized under rule 6#.% (Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Commi(ee). Star USA +/$" was not a party to a hearing in any decision appealed to the association appeals commi(ee or to the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee. She was a party to a hearing in her request for redress concerning the protest commi(ee’s decision on Star USA +%+$’s request for redress, but she did not appeal the decision not to hear her request for redress. She did not become a party to the hearing in which Star USA +%+$’s request for redress was heard, nor was she a party to that hearing merely because her series results were a7ected by the decision on that request for redress. For the same reasons, Star USA +/$" was not a party to Star USA +)#"’s request for redress.

Since Star USA +/$" was not a party to the protest commi(ee’s decision that was appealed to the association appeals commi(ee by Star USA +)#", her appeal to US SAILING is invalid and cannot be considered.

Because there was no valid appeal to US SAILING the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee cannot consider the correctness of the association appeals commi(ee’s decision. $erefore, that decision remains unchanged and Race 4 is excluded from the series.

September 1993

APPEAL 65

Flying Scot 1# vs. Flying Scot %%"

Rule (!.!(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee!e test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occur-rence was the inevitable result of the *rst. A boat intending to protest another boat for two incidents during a race, no ma&er how close in time, must inform the protested boat that two protests will be lodged.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Flying Scot 1#, on starboard tack, and Flying Scot %%", on port tack, were beating to windward. As they converged, Flying Scot 1# bore away below Flying Scot %%" to avoid a collision. While Flying Scot 1# was still bearing away, Flying Scot %%" tacked. A collision occurred while Flying Scot %%" was tacking. $ere was no damage or injury. At the time Flying Scot %%" tacked, Flying Scot 1# was to leeward of Flying Scot %%".Flying Scot 1# hailed “Protest” immediately a+er the collision. Flying Scot %%" then took a Two-Turns Penalty. $e protest commi(ee concluded that Flying Scot %%" had broken rule %" (On Opposite Tacks) in one incident, and rules %4 (While Tacking) and %5 (Avoiding Contact) in another. $e

January !""#


B-($

protest commi(ee disquali*ed Flying Scot %%" because she had taken only one Two-Turns Penalty. Flying Scot %%" appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occurrence was the inevitable result of the *rst. Times, distances, the actions of each boat and the prevailing conditions are all relevant to this test; the number of rules that may have been broken is not.Flying Scot %%"’s tack to starboard and the resulting contact were not the inevitable result of her breaking rule %", because she could have continued on port tack. $erefore, the appeals commi(ee concludes that the boats were involved in two separate incidents.Rule 6%.%(a) refers to “an incident.” A boat intending to protest another boat for two incidents during a race, no ma(er how close in time, must inform the protested boat that she intends to protest twice. Because Flying Scot %%" hailed “Protest” without indicating that two protests would be made, there was only one valid protest. A+er the incidents, Flying Scot %%" took one Two-Turns Penalty. Since there is nothing in the facts found to suggest otherwise, the appeals commi(ee assumes that Flying Scot %%" exonerated herself from the breach in the incident that was the subject of the valid protest.Flying Scot %%"’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, and Flying Scot %%" is reinstated in her *nishing place.

December 1994

APPEAL 66

Leading Lady vs. Aliens Ate My Buick

Rule (!.!(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the ProtesteeRule ($.', Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress

A "" by 1" protest .ag on a (#-foot boat is not of su'cient size or of suitable proportions to be “conspicuously displayed.”

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Near the windward mark, Leading Lady and Aliens Ate My Buick, two 5"-foot boats, were involved in an incident. Leading Lady immediately hailed “Protest” and displayed a !" by &" strip of red cloth from her backstay. $e protest commi(ee concluded that the strip of red cloth was inadequate to qualify as a 8ag on a 5"-foot boat, and therefore found the protest to be invalid and closed the hearing. Leading Lady appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e strip of red cloth quali*ed as a protest 8ag in the context of rule 6%.%(a) because it was a red 8ag. However, rule 6%.%(a) also requires a boat to “conspicuously display” the protest 8ag. $is requirement is necessary to inform other boats in the race, as well as the boat to be protested, that a boat intends to protest.

January !""#B-62


$e phrase “conspicuously display” must be interpreted in the context of the size of the boat displaying the 8ag. An object that is conspicuous is not merely visible; it “catches one’s eye or a(ention” or is “obvious to the eye or mind” (dictionary references). Whether the 8ag is displayed conspicuously depends on a number of considerations, such as the place on the boat from which the 8ag is displayed, its proximity to other objects of the same or a similar color and, the size of the 8ag in relation to the size of the boat. On a 5"-foot boat a !" by &" 8ag is too small to be conspicuous. In this case, the 8ag’s proportions also detracted from the conspicuousness of its display.Since the requirement of rule 6%.%(a) that the 8ag be conspicuously displayed was not met, the protest commi(ee, acting under rule 64.', should have found that the protest was invalid for that reason, and closed the hearing. $e protest commi(ee’s reason for *nding the protest invalid is incorrect.Leading Lady’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is corrected as described above.

December 1994

APPEAL 67

),/ vs. ")(%

Rule (!.!(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the ProtesteeFailure to display a protest .ag during a period of time when some member of the crew is not otherwise occupied is a failure to display it “at the *rst reasonable opportunity.” If a protest .ag is not displayed at the *rst reasonable opportunity, the protest is invalid and the hearing must be closed.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Two !"-foot boats were approaching the windward mark. Just before rounding, ),/ was clear ahead of ")(%. ")(%, moving faster than ),/, hit the transom of ),/. At the time of the incident, each crew member of ),/ was prepared to hoist the spinnaker. However, immediately a+er the incident the helmsman inspected the transom for damage. While he did so, for approximately !" seconds, the two other crew members were unoccupied. $e spinnaker was then set, and a+er that the protest 8ag was displayed. $e protest commi(ee concluded that the 8ag was not displayed at the *rst reasonable opportunity, declared the protest invalid, and closed the hearing. ),/ appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee),/ did not display her protest 8ag “at the *rst reasonable opportunity,” as required by rule 6%.%(a). During the time before the spinnaker was hoisted, two crew members had a reasonable opportunity to display the protest 8ag, but did not do so. ),/’s appeal is denied and the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld.

December 1994

January !""#


B-(%

APPEAL 68

White Fire and Zoro Requests for Redress

Rule (#.!(a), RedressRule (%.#, Decisions: Decisions on Redress

When a race commi&ee’s failure to comply with a sailing instruction prevents a boat 2om learning of her starting error, the redress given the boat does not change the fact that she has broken a rule. It 2ees her 2om blame and penalty for the breach, as well as compen-sates her for her score being made signi*cantly worse.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee $e sailing instructions stated that:

An e7ort will be made to broadcast [announce by radio] the sail numbers of boats on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal, general recalls, aban-donments, and the *nish time of the *rst boat in each race. Failure or inability to broadcast any individual or general recall or make any other announcements will not relieve a boat of its obligations under the Racing Rules of Sailing.

At the starting signal the race commi(ee observed White Fire and Zoro on the course side at the starting signal. It displayed 8ag X; however, it decided not to broadcast their sail numbers. $ese boats *nished the race, but were scored OCS; they requested redress.$e protest commi(ee found as facts that White Fire and Zoro were certain they had started properly and were listening to the radio, and it decided that the boats were entitled to redress because the race commi(ee did not try to broadcast their numbers. It granted them redress by reinstating them in their *nishing places. $e race commi(ee appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e sailing instructions required the race commi(ee to make “an e7ort” to announce the sail numbers of boats on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal. $e race commi(ee argued that although it did not announce the sail numbers, the *rst sentence of the relevant sailing instruction was made inapplicable by the second, because it provided that the boats were not relieved of their obligations under the rules. We agree that a boat is required to comply with rules that impose obligations on her. A race commi(ee is also required to comply with rules that impose obligations on it. A boat’s breach of a rule does not relieve a race commi(ee of its obligations, or eliminate the consequences of a race commi(ee’s failure to comply with a rule.In this case, the sailing instruction’s statement that a boat not informed by radio that she was on the course side of the starting line at her starting signal must nonetheless comply with the rules is correct. However, that statement does not preclude a boat from requesting redress under rule 6!.%(a). $e sailing instructions might have changed or deleted rule 6!.%(a) as permi(ed by rule &6.%(b) (Changes to the Racing Rules), but they did not.Although the granting of redress does not eliminate the obligation that a rule places on a boat, it does free her from blame for breaking the rule. It also gives her compensation or relief from the worsening of her score that was improperly caused. $e functions of rules 6!.%(a) and 65.!

January !""#B-64


are much like those of rule 65.%(c) (Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration). Under that rule, if boat A breaks a rule against boat B and thereby compels boat B to break a rule against boat C, boat B is not freed from her obligations under the rule. She is, however, freed from blame for her breach, because it occurred only as a result of boat A’s breach.Rule 6!.%(a) has three requirements for giving redress. $e *rst is that “an improper action or omission” has occurred. Here, the race commi(ee decided not to try to announce the sail numbers of the boats, an omission that was clearly improper. $e second requirement is that a boat’s *nishing place has been “made signi*cantly worse.” Here, this is not in question since the boats were scored OCS. $e boats were denied the opportunity to learn that they were on the course side at the starting signal, making their OCS scores inevitable. $e third requirement is that a boat su7ers the consequences of the prejudicial error “through no fault of her own.” Here, the boats had no part in causing the race commi(ee to decide not to a(empt to radio them. Also, the protest commi(ee found as a fact that they “were certain they had started properly” and “were listening to the radio.” $ey therefore were not to blame for the loss of their *nishing places.When it is decided that a boat is entitled to redress, rule 65.! requires the protest commi(ee to “make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats a7ected.” $is might be to adjust her *nishing time, to add some number of places to her actual or average *nishing place, to reinstate her in her *nishing place, or to make some other adjustment that conforms to rule 65.!. When the situation involves a boat scored OCS, if the redress given is to adjust the boat’s race score, it should re8ect the fact that when a recalled boat returns to the pre-start side of the line a+er her starting signal, she usually starts some time a+er boats that were not recalled. $erefore the advantage she may have received by not starting should be consid ered and an allowance for this time should be made. In this case, the protest commi(ee decided to reinstate the boats in their *nishing places, which was within their authority under rule 65.!. $e race commi(ee’s appeal is denied. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and White Fire and Zoro remain reinstated in their *nishing places.

November 1995

January !""#


B-('

APPEAL 69

Zoom vs. Golden Greek

Rule ($.#, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing: Time for Parties to PrepareRule ($.$(a), Hearings: Right to Be PresentRule ($.', Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for RedressRule ($.(, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding Facts

A protest commi&ee must *nd facts to decide whether or not a protest is valid, basing that decision on evidence taken in a protest hearing in compliance with the rules.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Zoom protested Golden Greek. $e protest commi(ee believed the protest was delivered too late and, without holding a hearing, decided that it was invalid. Zoom appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule 64.' requires a protest commi(ee to decide at “the beginning of the hearing 9. . . whether all requirements for the protest . . . have been met.” $is requires the protest commi(ee to open a hearing, then take evidence and *nd su)cient facts to determine whether or not the protest is valid. $e hearing must be conducted in compliance with the rules.$e rules impose several requirements for conducting a hearing. Among them are that the parties must be noti*ed of the time and place of the hearing (rule 64.!); that the parties be permi(ed to be present when evidence is taken (rule 64.4); and that the protestor be allowed to bring evidence that the protest is valid (64.6). None of these procedures were followed in reaching the decision that the protest was invalid.Zoom’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is nulli*ed. As rule ,%.! (National Authority Decisions) permits, the protest is returned for a new hearing, which must begin with *nding facts about the validity of the protest.

May 1996

January !""#B-66


APPEAL 70

Montana vs. Dauntless

Rule !!, On the Same Tack, OverlappedRule !), On the Same Tack; Proper CourseRule !*.#(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room

When about to pass a windward mark, a boat’s proper course may be to sail above close-hauled.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Dauntless (W), on port tack, crossed ahead of Montana (L), on starboard tack, and tacked to windward of L without breaking rule %4 (While Tacking). W was clear ahead of L when she reached a close-hauled course. Soon a+er, they became overlapped with very li(le separation between them. $e boats remained overlapped at the zone. $e protest commi(ee concluded that W failed to stay clear and forced L to bear o7 below the mark. In her defense, W claimed that L sailed above close-hauled before bearing away.$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed W for breaking rules %% and %&.!(b). W appealed.

L1

L2

L3

W1

W2

W3

WIND

January !""#


B-()

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeAs the windward boat, W was required by rule %% to keep clear of L, and by rule %&.!(b) to give her mark-room. Concerning rule %,, there are no facts as to whether L sailed above close-hauled, but her proper course when approaching the windward mark would have been to sail above close-hauled if that action was required to pass the mark. We see no evidence in the wri(en facts or diagram that she broke rule %,.W’s appeal is denied. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld, and W remains disquali*ed.

May 1996

APPEAL 71

Risky Business vs. Blonde A&ack

Rule !(.!, Changing CoursePart #, Section C PreambleRule !*.!(d), Mark-Room: When Rule !* AppliesRule !+.!, Room to Pass an Obstruction: When Rule !+ AppliesRule (%.!(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

Section C rules apply at starting marks not surrounded by navigable water. Rule %$, not rule %1, applies when the mark is a continuing obstruction. Rule %$ does not apply until boats are at an obstruction. A penalty can be given even when the protesting boat does not mention the applicable rule.

B1B2

A3

A1

B3

A2

SEAWALLSTARTING LINE

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Before the start, Blonde A&ack (A), a J/%"', and Risky Business (B), a J/!,, were beam-reaching on starboard tack parallel to the starting line. B was about one hull length below the starting line, and A was less than a hull length below B. A was clear ahead by about one hull length.

January !""#B-68


$ey were both approaching a seawall, an obstruction which was perpendicular to the starting line. $e port end of the starting line was on the seawall.When A’s bow was two hull lengths from the obstruction, she lu7ed to a close-hauled course. B bore away and tried to go astern of A, but B’s bow made contact with A’s starboard stern quarter, causing damage to A. A protested B under rule %&.!(b) (Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room), and B protested A under rule %6.%. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed A under rule %6.% and she appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e starting mark was a continuing obstruction not surrounded by navigable water. $erefore, rule %& does not apply, and rule %# applies when the boats are at the obstruction [see Section C preamble and rule %&.%(d)].A was clear ahead when the incident began, and therefore held right of way under rule %! (On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped). When A lu7ed, two lengths from the obstruction, rule %6.% required her to give B room to keep clear and she did so. $e diagram shows that B had more than enough room to keep clear, by lu)ng in response to A’s lu7. She bore away instead. $e boats made contact because B changed course toward A, not because of any failure by A to comply with rule %6.%. During the lu7 the boats became overlapped and rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped) began to apply. $erefore B broke rule %%. She also broke rule %5 by not avoiding contact with A. However, A did not break rule %5 (Avoiding Contact) because it was not reasonably possible for her, the right-of-way boat, to avoid contact with B.When A was two lengths from the obstruction, she was not yet “at” it, and therefore rule %# did not apply (see rule %#.%). However, when A was “at” the obstruction, B would also be required to give her room to pass the obstruction under rule %#.!(b) (Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction).A’s appeal is upheld. $e fact that A did not mention the applicable rule is irrelevant [rule 65.%(a)]. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed, A is reinstated in her *nishing place, and B is disquali*ed for breaking rules %% and %5.

March 1996

January !""#


B-(#

APPEAL 72

Family Hour vs. Zephyros

Rule %+.#, Crew PositionA crew member brie.y leaning out over a boat’s lifelines to hold a spinnaker guy a3er the pole has been removed in preparation for rounding a mark does not break rule ($.".

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee When approximately 4" seconds from the leeward mark, Zephyros released the spinnaker guy from the spinnaker pole and a crew member held the guy by hand, leaning out over the lifelines so as to maximize the distance between the hull and the guy until the spinnaker had to be lowered. Lifelines were required by the class rules. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed Zephyros under rule 5#.! and she appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule 5#.! allows the torso of a crew member to be outside the lifelines brie8y if the crew is performing “a necessary task.” Without a spinnaker pole, a spinnaker is less e)cient and more unstable. As a boat prepares to round a leeward mark, removing the pole is one of the *rst necessary steps. From that time until the spinnaker is lowered, holding the guy by hand is a less e7ective but nonetheless useful means of controlling the spinnaker, which remains a “necessary task” even without the pole. $is interval of time is normally a brief one, since generally there is no advantage in 8ying a spinnaker without a pole. In this case, where there were approximately 4" seconds remaining before rounding the mark, the time between releasing the guy and lowering the spinnaker was necessarily shorter than that, and met the requirement of “brie8y.” Zephyros’ appeal is upheld. $e protest commi(ee’s decision is reversed, and Zephyros is reinstated in her *nishing place.

December 1996

January !""#B-70


APPEAL 78

S" +.$ %1/ vs. S" +.$ /"/

Rule !', Acquiring Right of WayRule (&.$(a)(#), Right to Protest, Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationDe/nitions, Room

A boat that acquires right of way over a second boat and causes her to collide with a third boat has compelled the second boat to maneuver in an unseamanlike way. In doing so the *rst boat breaks rule %/ by not initially giving the second boat room to keep clear.

STARTING LINE

M1 LW1

11-14 KNOTS

M2

L2

W2

M3 L3W3

1

WIND

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee A+er determining that the protest was valid, the protest commi(ee realized that L might have broken a rule, and protested her under rule 6".4(a)(!). It followed the procedures of rule 6%.%(c), and then heard the protests together.$ree S" +.$s, /"# (L), /"/ (M) and %1/ (W), were sailing close-hauled on port tack approaching the starting line to start. $e wind was %%–%5 knots. M was just overlapped with and approximately one and one-half lengths to windward of L. W, sailing slightly faster than M, became overlapped approximately one length to windward of M just prior to the starting signal. A+er the starting signal but prior to crossing the starting line, L tacked to starboard and acquired right of way over M. M responded by immediately tacking to starboard to keep clear of L, but a+er completing her tack M was less than ten feet from W. M and W immediately lu7ed head to wind, but unavoidably collided beam to beam. L avoided contact with M by tacking back to port.

January !""#


B-)$

$e protest commi(ee found that M had completed her tack and kept clear of L, but completed her tack so close to W that the collision was inevitable. $e commi(ee disquali*ed M for breaking rule %6.% (Changing Course), and she appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeWhile tacking and subject to rule %4, L was required to keep clear of other boats. Once on a close-hauled course, she acquired right-of-way as a starboard-tack boat over M on port tack. Rule %' required L to initially give M room to keep clear, which M did by promptly tacking to starboard, the only option available to her. When M completed her tack, she immediately broke rule %' in relation to W, shown by the fact that she and W collided despite both boats taking immediate avoiding action. If a boat maneuvers in a way that causes her to collide with another boat, her maneuver is not seamanlike. L, by depriving M of the space necessary to maneuver in a seamanlike way, failed to give M room to keep clear (see the de*nition Room).L broke rule %' against M. M broke rule %' against W, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c). W broke rule %" against M, but is also exonerated. Both M and W were compelled to break rules %' and %" respectively.M’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is changed. L is disquali*ed, and M is reinstated in her *nishing place.

September 1999

APPEAL 82

E Scow V-+/% vs. E Scow M-$

Rule (!.!(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee A boat is not obligated to give priority to displaying a protest .ag at the cost of the crew failing to act to keep the boat under control or delaying a spinnaker set.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee At the windward mark, E Scow M-$ tacked within the zone onto starboard tack below E Scow V-+/%, approaching the mark on starboard tack. As a result, V-+/% had to sail above close-hauled and, in the same incident, M-$ hit the mark with her boom. V-+/% hailed “Protest” within three to *ve seconds a+er M-$ hit the mark. $e next leg was a short “o7set” leg, set at approximately %%" degrees to the windward leg. Wind speed was %'-!" m.p.h. A+er passing the windward mark, V-+/% sailed the o7set leg with all crew members hiking to windward to prevent the boat from capsizing. She then bore away around the o7set mark, set her spinnaker and displayed her protest 8ag. $e 8ag was displayed within %!-!" seconds a+er M-$ hit the windward mark. $e protest commi(ee upheld the protest and disquali*ed M-$ for breaking rule %&.4(a) (Tacking When Approaching a Mark), and rule 4% (Touching a Mark). M-$ appealed, claiming that V-+/% did not hail or display her protest 8ag in su)cient time.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$is appeal is concerned with whether or not V-+/% hailed “Protest” and displayed her protest 8ag at the *rst reasonable opportunity for each, as required by rule 6%.%(a).

January !""#B-72


$e protest commi(ee found that V-+/% hailed within three to *ve seconds a+er M-$ hit the mark. $ree to *ve seconds was short enough to justify the conclusion that the hail was made at the *rst reasonable opportunity a+er the incident.$e protest commi(ee also found that V-+/% displayed her protest 8ag between %! and !" seconds a+er M-$’s boom hit the mark. $e commi(ee concluded that “reasonable opportunity” in this case was determined in part by the need for all crew members to hike to windward to keep the boat under control and to hoist and set the spinnaker. We agree with the protest commi(ee’s view that a boat is not obligated to give priority to displaying a protest 8ag at the cost of the crew failing to act to keep the boat under control or delaying a spinnaker set.For these reasons, M-$’s appeal is denied. $e protest commi(ee’s decision is upheld, and M-$ remains disquali*ed.

April, 2002

QUESTION 83

Interpretation Requested by the Lake Michigan Sail Racing Federation

De/nitions, MarkDe/nitions, ObstructionDe/nitions, Rule

Government buoys marking a security zone are not obstructions unless they *t the terms of the de*nition Obstruction. Boats may pass such obstructions on either side unless the sailing instructions prohibit sailing inside the security zone. A boat cannot be penalized under the racing rules for violating government regulations unless the sailing instructions make the regulations a rule governing the event.

Assumed FactsChicago has several water intake cribs o7 its shoreline. $e cribs are approximately %'" feet in diameter, rise !' feet above the water, and are surrounded by navigable water. A+er September %%, !""%, the U.S. government issued security regulations that established “security zones” around these cribs. A ring of buoys marks the perimeter of each security zone, with the buoys approximately %"" yards from the crib. $e security regulations state that “No vessel is to penetrate this zone.” $e sailing instructions state that one of these cribs is a mark of the course. $e notice of race and sailing instructions contain no statement that makes the U.S. government security regulations applicable. $e sailing instructions do not de*ne the buoys as marks, or the areas identi*ed by the buoys as obstructions.

Question ! Are the perimeter buoys part of the mark?9

Answer ! No. Only the water intake crib is the mark.9

January !""#


B-)%

Question # Are the perimeter buoys obstructions?9

Answer # No. $e perimeter buoys are not obstructions, unless they (a) are so large as to qualify under the *rst part of the de*nition Obstruction, (b) cannot be safely passed on either side, or (c) form an area designated as an obstruction by the sailing instructions, as provided in the second sentence of the de*nition Obstruction.9

Question $ If the buoys are obstructions, can boats pass on either side without penalty?

Answer $ Yes. No rule prohibits passing an obstruction on a particular side. However, if the buoys form an area designated by the sailing instructions as an obstruction, and if the sailing instructions also prohibit sailing inside the area, a boat passing the side of a buoy that is inside the area could be protested and penalized. $e prohibition is necessary because designating the area as an obstruction only brings rules %# (Room to Pass an Obstruction) and !" (Room to Tack at an Obstruction) into play, and nothing in those rules prohibits sailing “inside” an obstruction.

Question % If a boat violates the U.S. government security regulations by sailing inside the security zone, can she be penalized under the racing rules?

Answer % No. A boat cannot be penalized under the racing rules unless the sailing instructions make the applicable U.S. government security regulation a rule governing the event.

May 2003

January !""#B-74


APPEAL 84

Lizzie B. vs. Windfall

Rule (&.$, Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionRule (!.!(c), Protest Requirements: Informing the ProtesteeRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationRule F(, Inadequate Facts; Reopening

An appeals commi&ee cannot require a protest commi&ee to protest a boat. A protest commi&ee can *nd as a fact that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her. A protest commi&ee complying with rule F) by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee Prior to the start, there was an incident involving three overlapped boats: Lizzie B. (L), Windfall (M) and Syzygy (W). L, on a close-hauled course, hailed M to keep clear. M hailed W for room to keep clear but W did not respond. M curtailed her lu7 to avoid contact with W. L protested M for breaking rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped). Neither L nor M protested W. $e protest commi(ee decided that both M and W had broken rule %% but that W’s position prevented M from lu)ng. It therefore exonerated M under rule 65.%(c). It did not penalize W because she was not a party to the hearing. L appealed, claiming that M failed to

“strongly assert her right-of-way rights” over W and therefore was not entitled to exoneration.

January !""#


B-)'

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee said the protest commi(ee’s decision that W broke rule %% was improper, because W had been unable to defend herself as a party to the hearing. Acting under rule F6, it directed that “the hearing be reopened and W be made a party to the hearing in accordance with rule 6%.%(c).” $e protest commi(ee proceeded to protest W, then reopened the hearing and changed its original decision by disqualifying W. It did not change M’s exoneration.L appealed again. $e association appeals commi(ee denied the appeal, and L appealed to US SAILING.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeRule F' permits an appeals commi(ee to direct a protest commi(ee to reopen a hearing only “when [the appeals commi(ee] decides [the facts] are inadequate” or that additional information is needed. $e association appeals commi(ee therefore erred in a(empting to use rule F6 to direct the protest commi(ee to reopen the hearing so as to “make W a party” to the hearing. A protest commi(ee’s decision to protest a boat is discretionary, as provided in rule 6".4 and therefore an appeals commi(ee has no authority in the ma(er.$e association appeals commi(ee also erred when it concluded that the protest commi(ee acted improperly in deciding that W broke rule %%. A protest commi(ee cannot penalize a boat that has broken a rule if that boat is not a party to a hearing [see rules 64.% (Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing) and 65.%(a) (Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration)]. However, no rule precludes a protest commi(ee from deciding, based on the facts, that any boat in the incident has broken a rule. In this case, although W was not a party to the hearing, the protest commi(ee was able to *nd su)cient facts to decide that she broke rule %%.In responding to the association appeals commi(ee’s decision, the protest commi(ee failed to comply with rule 6%.%(c). When acting under that rule, a protest commi(ee must make the decision to protest “during the hearing of a valid protest.” In this case, however, the protest commi(ee informed W that she was being protested on the day before the hearing was reopened. $e protest was therefore invalid. $e protest commi(ee also erred in changing its original decision by disqualifying W. A rehearing under rule F6 is limited to providing or *nding additional facts.L’s appeal is denied. $e association appeals commi(ee’s *rst decision is nulli*ed, and its second decision concerning M’s exoneration is upheld. $e protest commi(ee’s original decision is upheld. W broke rule %%, but is not penalized because she was not a party to the hearing. M also broke rule %%, but is exonerated under rule 65.%(c).

April 2003

January !""#B-76


QUESTION 86

Interpretation Requested by the Balboa Yacht Club

Rule (#.!, RedressRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and ExonerationDe/nitions, Finish

A boat that touches a *nishing mark, takes a penalty, and then crosses the *nishing line a second time "*nishes" when she crosses the *nishing line a3er taking her penalty. Exoneration does not provide for cancelling a penalty a boat has taken voluntarily or for compensating her for distance, time or places lost in taking the penalty. A boat that volun-tarily takes a penalty and thereby worsens her score is not entitled to redress.

OS 2

OS 3

OS 1IP 1

IP 2

IP 3

IP 4

IP 5

IP 6

Finishing Line

WIND

Assumed FactsTwo !5-foot boats, OS on starboard tack and IP on port tack, approach a *nishing mark to be le+ to starboard. IP crosses the *nishing line, but in doing so she touches the *nishing mark because OS has not given her su)cient mark-room. IP informs OS of her intent to protest, takes a penalty under rule 55 (Penalties at the Time of an Incident), and re-crosses the *nishing line. $e race commi(ee scores IP based on her second crossing of the *nishing line. $e protest commi(ee disquali*es OS for failing to give IP mark-room as required by rule %&.!(b) (Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room).

Question ! May the protest commi(ee exonerate IP under rule 65.%(c) and instruct the race commi(ee to score her based on her *rst crossing of the *nishing line?

January !""#


B-))

Answer ! $e protest commi(ee is required to exonerate IP under rule 65.%(c) but her score cannot be based on her *rst crossing of the *nishing line. IP crossed the *nishing line, and then touched the *nishing mark before clearing the line. She then took a One-Turn Penalty to exonerate herself from her breach of rule 4%, as permi(ed by rule 55.! (One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties). A+er completing her penalty, she was completely on the course side of the line and then crossed the *nishing line again. She "*nished" and complied with rule 55.! when she crossed the *nishing line a+er completing her penalty (see the second sentence in rule 55.! and the de*nition Finish). $e protest commi(ee cannot ignore or undo the penalty.

Question # In this situation, would IP be entitled to redress, possibly in the form of basing her score on her *rst crossing of the *nishing line?

Answer # No. For a boat to be entitled to redress, rule 6!.% requires that her score must have been made signi*cantly worse “through no fault of her own.” When a boat voluntarily takes a penalty and thereby loses distance, time or places, her own actions prevent her from meeting that requirement.

August 2005, revised February 2010

QUESTION 87

Interpretation Requested by the Bayview Yacht Club

Rule *(.!(c), Changes to the Racing Rules“Class rules” as used in rule 1).%(c) and elsewhere in the racing rules refers to rules of a class association. A class association is an association of people who, among other things, control the rules that state the physical speci*cations for boats of that class. Only class associations have the authority to change racing rules under rule 1).%(c).

Assumed FactsAn association of clubs publishes rules to govern the racing between the clubs, including rules on competitor eligibility, courses, scoring and personal equipment that may be used while racing. One rule changes rule 5! (Propulsion), and the association cites rule &6.%(c) as its authority to make the changes.

Question ! Is the association a “class” within the meaning of !e Racing Rules of Sailing?

Answer ! No. “Class” as used in !e Racing Rules of Sailing refers to either

a) a class of boat; i.e., a grouping of boats of a speci*c kind that conform to prescribed physical speci*cations, or

January !""#B-78


b) a class association; i.e., an association of people who, among other things, control the rules that state the physical speci*cations for boats of that class, which are used to determine whether or not a particular boat is, in fact, a boat of that class. $ese rules are the class rules for that boat. $e association does not *t this description and therefore is not a class association.

Question # Do the rules of the association validly change rule 5!?

Answer # No. In rule &6.%(c), class rules are the rules of a speci*c class association (see Answer %). Since the association is not a class association, its rules are not class rules and therefore cannot change rule 5!.

October 2005

APPEAL 89

!e Dumpster vs. Flood Tip

Rule !$, While TackingRule !*.!, When Rule !* AppliesRule !*.#, Giving Mark-RoomDe/nitions, Mark-Room

A boat that enters the zone clear astern does not necessarily have to give the boat clear ahead mark-room under rule %1."(b) until the boat clear ahead completes her round ing maneuver. During the maneuver, all of rule %1 may cease to apply, or rule %1."(b) alone may cease to apply. In either case, if the boat clear ahead tacks she becomes subject to rule %, when she passes head to wind.

Facts and Decision of the Protest Commi-ee Approaching a windward mark to be le+ to port on port tack on a close reach, Flood Tip (Bow !!) was clear astern of three overlapped port-tack boats, Bad Moon (Bow "6) on the inside, $e Dumpster (Bow 6#) in the middle, and mr. happy (Bow "%) on the outside. At the mark, Bow "6 tacked to starboard on a course to the o7set mark. $e other two overlapped boats, Bow 6# and Bow "%, continued past the mark on close-hauled courses and then began to tack, changing course to port. In the meantime, Bow !!, sailing faster, rounded the mark and overlapped Bow 6# to windward. A+er passing the mark, Bow !! was changing course to port away from Bow 6#. Bow 6# stopped her change of course to port when she reached head to wind. Had she continued her tacking maneuver, Bow 6# would have been hit approximately amidships on her port side by Bow !!. Bow 6# protested Bow !!.

January !""#


B-)#

$e protest commi(ee disquali*ed Bow "", concluding that she was obligated to give mark-room to Bow )$ until Bow )$ had completed her tack, which was part of her rounding maneuver. Bow "" appealed.

WIND

22

06

69

01

course to next mark

ILLUSTRATION 1 ILLUSTRATION 2

WIND

22

6901

06

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeWhile Bow "" was clear astern of Bow )$, Bow "" was required by rule %! (On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped) to keep clear and by rule %&.!(b) to give mark-room. When they became overlapped, Bow "" was required by rule %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped) to keep clear and by rule %&.!(b) to continue to give mark-room, which she did by changing course away from Bow )$.$e protest commi(ee erred in thinking that Bow "" was required by rule %&.!(b) to give mark-room to Bow )$ until Bow )$ completed her rounding maneuver. Mark-room did not include room to tack because Bow )$ was not overlapped to windward and on the inside of Bow "" (see the de*nition Mark-Room). If Bow )$ had passed head to wind, rule %&.!(c)’s last sentence would have made rule %&.!(b) inapplicable at that time, and rule %4 would have begun to apply. Because Bow )$ did not pass head to wind, rule %4 did not apply. Neither Bow "" nor Bow )$ broke a rule. Accordingly, Bow ""’s appeal is upheld. $e decision of the protest commi(ee is reversed and Bow "" is reinstated in her *nishing place.

June 2006

January !""#B-80


APPEAL 90

Brain Cramp Request for Redress

Rule (#.#, Redress“Relevant incident” in rule )"." refers to an occurrence that *ts within one of the four cate-gories listed in rule )".%. When a boat is scored OCS and requests redress, the incident is the alleged race commi&ee error made soon a3er the start of the race. When there is good reason to do so, the protest commi&ee is required to extend the time limit for delivering a request for redress.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee At the start of a race at approximately %5"" on Friday, the race commi(ee properly identi*ed Brain Cramp as being OCS, but did not hail her number as required by the sailing instructions. $e race commi(ee came ashore at %,"", and by %,4" had posted the scores listing Brain Cramp as OCS. Brain Cramp believed that she had started correctly. She *nished *rst in the race, returned to shore and le+ the venue before the scores were posted. $e protest time limit was %&"". Brain Cramp returned to the venue around !%"" and saw the posted scores. $e sailing instructions required protests to be “*led with the protest commi(ee at the Protest Desk….” It was reasonable to expect that requests for redress should be *led in the same way. At the time that Brain Cramp saw that she was scored OCS, there was no one at the protest desk. Brain Cramp delivered her request to the protest commi(ee on Saturday as soon as it was possible to do so.$e protest commi(ee decided that the request for redress was invalid because it was not delivered within the time limit. $e protest commi(ee considered the “incident” referred to in rule 6!.! to be the posting of the scores, and on that basis determined that the time limit for the request was two hours a+er the posting, or %#4" on Friday. Brain Cramp appealed, alleging that her discovery of the posted scores, not their posting, was the relevant incident.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee“Relevant incident” in rule 6!.! refers to an occurrence that *ts within one of the four categories listed in rule 6!.%. In this case, the incident was the alleged omission by the race commi(ee of Brain Cramp’s number from the list of hailed OCS boats, which occurred soon a+er the start of the race, not the posting of the scores. Because the protest time limit was later than two hours a+er the incident, the time limit for the request for redress was the protest time limit (see rule 6!.!).$ere is no rule that requires the race commi(ee to post the scores at a particular time, nor is there any rule that requires competitors to look for posted scores at any particular time. Although it may be advisable to look for the scores the same day they are posted, it is not required, nor is it always practical or possible to do so. It is, however, reasonable to expect a boat to look at the scores before racing the next day.Rule 6!.! requires the protest commi(ee to extend the time limit “if there is good reason to do so.” In this case, at the end of the time limit Brain Cramp had not seen the scores, so it would have been unreasonable to expect her to deliver a request for redress within that time limit. $erefore the protest commi(ee was obligated to extend it.

January !""#


B-*$

$e appeal is upheld. $e protest commi(ee is directed to extend the time limit for delivering Brain Cramp’s request for redress to a reasonable time; for example, a time a+er the protest desk was sta7ed on Saturday.

June 2006

APPEAL 91

Protest Commi&ee vs. Competitor X

Rule (+.!(a), Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Commi-ee An allegation of misconduct must be su'ciently speci*c to permit the competitor to prepare a defense.

Facts and Decision of the Protest1Commi-ee A+er the fourth race of a rega(a, the protest commi(ee received a report alleging that in that race Competitor X deliberately collided with another boat and used intimidating and abusive language. $e protest commi(ee noti*ed Competitor X in writing that a rule 6# hearing would be held the following morning. $e notice stated that “a hearing will be convened to inquire into your alleged unsportsmanlike conduct during racing yesterday.”In the hearing, the protest commi(ee found that Competitor X deliberately broke several rules and used aggressive behavior and intimidation to gain an unfair advantage. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed Competitor X’s boat and instructed the race commi(ee to score the boat DGM for the fourth race. Competitor X appealed, claiming that the protest commi(ee did not inform him of the alleged misconduct.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeHearings conducted under rule 6# require the protest commi(ee to *rst inform the competitor in writing of the alleged misconduct; see rule 6#.%(a). $e allegation must be su)ciently speci*c to permit the competitor to prepare a defense. In this case, the protest commi(ee’s reference to “unsportsmanlike conduct” in its hearing notice failed to inform the competitor of the speci*c misconduct that was alleged to be unsportsmanlike. $erefore the appeal is upheld. $e protest commi(ee’s decision is nulli*ed, and Competitor X’s boat is reinstated in her *nishing place.

June 2006

January !""#B-82


APPEAL 92

Vuja De vs. Tu&o Bene

Rule !%(a), Avoiding ContactRule !*.#(b), Mark Room: Giving Mark-RoomRule !*.#(d), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomRule !*.', Mark-Room: ExonerationRule $!, Touching a MarkRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

“Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi&ee. Even when rounding a mark, a right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact when it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.

WIND

10–12 KNOTS

Mark

Facts and Decision of the Protest Commi-ee In winds of %"-%! knots, two cruising class boats on port tack, Vuja De and Tu&o Bene (Boat A and Boat B), were broad-reaching on converging courses toward a leeward mark to be le+ to port. Boat B, larger and faster, was overtaking A on a course that would take her inside A

January !""#


B-*%

at the mark. Just before A reached the zone, she hailed “No overlap” and B hailed “Overlap” and “Mark-room.” Boat B, now overlapped inside, continued to overtake A. At position 4 in the diagram, A lu7ed sharply into B’s path. Boat B’s bow struck A’s windward side near her stern, and the force of the impact spun A’s hull counter-clockwise so that her bow hit the mark. Both boats were damaged.Both boats protested, A citing rules %% (On the Same Tack, Overlapped), %5 and %&.!(b), and B rules %5 and %&.!(b). Boat A also argued that because she was rounding the mark on her proper course and therefore exonerated from any breach of rule %6.% (Changing Course) under rule %&.'(b), rule %5 did not apply in her case. $e protest commi(ee disquali*ed B for breaking rules %%, %5 and %&.!(b). A+er considering whether A had broken rule %5 it decided that “at the time the imminent collision became apparent to A, it was impossible for her to make any maneuver that would help avoid the collision.” Boat B appealed.

Decision of the Association Appeals Commi-ee$e association appeals commi(ee upheld the protest commi(ee’s decision that B broke rules %%, %5 and %&.!(b), but also disquali*ed A for breaking rule %5. Boat A appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeConcerning rule %&.!(b), whether or not the boats were overlapped when A reached the zone determines its applicability. Rule %&.!(d) applies when there is doubt about that. “Doubt” refers both to doubt by boats involved in or observing an incident and to doubt by the protest commi(ee during a hearing. In this case, the exchange of hails between the boats was evidence that there was doubt as to whether B had obtained the overlap in time, and therefore it should have been presumed that she had not. Boat B failed to keep clear as required by rule %% and to give mark-room as required by rule %&.!(b).Since there was a collision rule %5 also applied. As the boats neared the mark, B should have anticipated that A was about to change course to round the mark, and she should have been aware that when A was rounding the mark on her proper course, she would be exonerated under rule %&.'(b) if she broke rule %6.%. Boat B could have avoided contact with A by taking avoiding action before A changed course, and it was “reasonably possible” (see rule %5) for her to do so. She also could have avoided sailing into a position that made it impossible for her to avoid contact a+er A changed course. $erefore B broke rule %5 as well as rule %% and %&.!(b). Boat A also was subject to rule %5. Her argument that rule %5 did not apply to her because she is exonerated from any breach of rule %6.% is incorrect. Rule %&.' does not provide for exoneration from breaking rule %5 even when the right-of-way boat is entitled to mark-room. Somewhere between position ! and posi tion 4 in the diagram it became clear that B was not keeping clear of A nor giving her mark-room. However, A made no a(empt to avoid contact, but instead lu7ed toward the mark. Her lu7 made contact inevitable. $e protest commi(ee concluded that A did not break rule %5, because at the moment she realized that a collision was

“imminent” it was too late for her to avoid it. However, rule %5(a) refers to a di7erent moment: it requires a right-of-way boat to act to avoid contact when “it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room.” Before A lu7ed, well before she realized the collision was imminent, she could see that B was not keeping clear nor giving mark-room. $at

January !""#B-84


was when rule %5 required her to act to avoid contact. Although she can be exonerated from breaking rule %6 when she was changing course to round the mark, she cannot be exonerated from breaking rule %5 by failing to avoid the collision.Boat A also broke rule 4% when she touched the mark. However, rule 65.%(c) provides for exoneration of a boat “compelled” to break a rule. Although A was partially responsible for the collision with B, her contact with the mark was not a necessary consequence of that collision. Boat A had no means of anticipating that a boat about to be overlapped between her and the mark might cause her to hit the mark, nor did she have any means of avoiding the mark a+er the collision. She therefore was compelled by B to break rule 4%, so was entitled to exoneration under rule 65.%(c).Boat A’s appeal is denied. She remains disquali*ed for breaking rule %5 but is exonerated from her breach of rule 4%.

June 2006

QUESTION 93

Interpretation Requested by the San Diego Yacht Club

Rule %!(c), Outside HelpRule %!(d), Outside HelpRule *(.!(b), Changes to the Racing RulesRule *+.#(a), Notice of Race; Appointment of Race O0cialsRule +&.#(a), Sailing InstructionsRule J!.#(!), Notice of Race Contents

!e term “information 2eely available” in rule (%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available 2om public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with li&le e-ort. !e term “information 2eely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so3ware needed to receive or read the information.

Question ! In rule 5%(c), what does “information freely available” mean?

Answer ! $e term “information freely available” in rule 5%(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with li(le e7ort. An example is information on the National Weather Service (NOAA) website and its radio stations. Information for which a fee has been paid or that is not easily obtained by all boats in a race is not “freely available.” Examples are information supplied only to those boats that have paid a subscription or other fee, and information whose source is obscure.

January !""#


B-*'

$e term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or so+ware needed to receive or read the information. A fee paid to connect to a network that is free and publicly available, such as the Internet, is not a fee paid for the information available there. Similarly, the cost of a computer or so+ware used to connect to or search the Internet is not a cost of the information obtained by those means.However, if the access to the information, including any equipment or so+ware, is provided for a fee by the same person or entity that provides the information, then the information has a monetary cost and is not “freely available.” Examples are satellite radio companies and ocean routing services when they have charged the recipient of the information a subscription fee for accessing their channels or *les.

Question #In rule 5%(d), can the term “disinterested source” be interpreted using the de*nition Interested Party?

Answer # No. A disinterested source is one that is completely impartial concerning the outcome of the race.

Question $ In rule 5%(d), does the term “unsolicited” refer to the act of requesting information or of marketing the information?

Answer $ $e term “unsolicited” means not requested by the recipient.

Question % Can an organizing authority restrict the information that can be received by a boat without modifying rule 5%?

Answer % No. An organizing authority cannot change any rule, including rule 5%. $e sailing instructions, which are published by the race commi(ee under rule #".!(a), can change rules in compliance with rule &6.%(b). If the sailing instructions will change rule 5%, the notice of race, which is published by the organizing authority under rule &#.!(a), must identify the rule as required by rule J%.!(%). Changes to rule 5% that permit the receipt of otherwise prohibited information or restrict the information that can be received by a boat while racing would certainly help competitors decide whether to a(end the event or convey information competitors will need before the sailing instructions become available (see rule J%.!).

February 2007

January !""#B-86


QUESTION 94

Interpretation requested by the Columbia Model Yacht Racing Association

Rule (&.#(b), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionRule (&.$(b), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule (+ ActionRule (#.#, RedressRule ($.!, Hearings: Requirement for a HearingRule (%.#, Decisions: Decisions on RedressRule ('.#, Informing the Parties and OthersRule *+.#(b), Notice of Race; Appointment of Race O0cialsRule +!, Protest Commi-eeRule E'.', Redress

At a radio-controlled boat rega&a, the race director may be both the chairman of the race commi&ee and the protest commi&ee, and may be a commi&ee of one. Properly submi&ed protests and requests for redress must be heard by the protest commi&ee. Redress can be given for more than one race. !e protest commi&ee must provide its decision in writing if properly requested by a party.

Assumed FactsA rega(a was held for radio-controlled boats and was sailed under !e Racing Rules of Sailing as changed by Appendix E. A race director was appointed by the organizing authority, which was the host club, to be the chairman of both the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee. $e race director was the only member of each commi(ee.

Question ! May the race director be the chairman of both the race commi(ee and the protest commi(ee at the same event?

Answer ! Yes. Under rules &#.!(b) and #%, the organizing authority appoints the race commi(ee and can appoint the protest commi(ee, or under rule #% the race commi(ee can appoint the protest commi(ee. In either case, the same person can serve on both commi(ees.

Question # May a protest commi(ee have only one member?

Answer # Yes. Although it is generally preferable to have more than one, no rule speci*es the number of members of a protest commi(ee.

Question $ May the race director refuse to accept a wri(en request for redress that is properly submi(ed?

Answer $ No. All protests and requests for redress that are delivered to the race o)ce must be heard by the protest commi(ee unless the protest commi(ee allows the protest or request to be withdrawn by the boat (see rule 64.%).

January !""#


B-*)

Question % May the race director give redress to a boat without a hearing being conducted?

Answer % No. A decision on redress may not be made without a hearing by the protest commi(ee that complies with the rules in Part ', Section B (see rule 64.%).

Question ' May the race director give redress to any boat?

Answer ' Yes, provided the boat has requested request in writing (see rule 6!.!) and the request meets the requirements of rule 6!.% as amended by rule E'.', or the race or protest commi(ee has requested redress or called a redress hearing on behalf of the boat under rule 6".!(b) or 6".4(b), and the protest commi(ee has conducted a hearing.

Question ( May a boat be given redress for more races than the one in which the redress incident took place, and can the scores of other boats that did not request redress be adjusted?

Answer ( Yes. Rule 65.! requires the protest commi(ee to “make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats a7ected.” $e arrangement might be, for example, to adjust the scores of one or more boats for one race, for several races, or for the series as a whole.

Question ) A+er a protest or redress hearing, may the race director withhold a wri(en decision from a person requesting it?

Answer ) No, provided the person requesting the wri(en decision was a party to the hearing and requested the wri(en decision in writing from the protest commi(ee within seven days of being informed of the decision (see rule 6'.!).

March 2007

January !""#B-88


APPEAL 96

Pocito Request for Redress

Rule $&.#, Starting Penalties: Z Flag RuleWhen the Z Flag Rule is in e-ect, a boat in the triangle de*ned in that rule during the minute before the starting signal can avoid being penalized only if the race is postponed or abandoned before the starting signal that would end that one-minute period.

Facts and Decision of the Protest Commi-eeIn a regional championship of the J/!5 class, the race commi(ee made four starting signals in *ve a(empts to start Race 5. A+er each of the *rst two starting signals there was a general recall. For the third a(empt the preparatory signal was 8ag Z, to signal that rule 4".! was in e7ect. During the minute before the starting signal, Pocito was in the triangle de*ned in rule 4".!. She therefore broke the rule and became subject to the !"% scoring penalty, provided that the race was “not . . . postponed or abandoned before the starting signal” (see rule 4".!’s penultimate sentence).At the end of the one-minute period the third starting signal was made, followed by a general recall. $e race was not postponed or abandoned before that starting signal. During the fourth a(empt the race was postponed before the starting signal. $en the *+h a(empt was made and was successful. Pocito was scored with a !"% scoring penalty. She requested redress, which the protest commi(ee denied. She appealed, arguing that she should not have been penalized because the race “was postponed prior to its successful start,” which was during the *+h a(empt.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e appellant’s argument substituted the starting signal in the fourth a(empt for the starting signal in the third a(empt. Rule 4".! referred to the third starting signal, the one that ended the one-minute period in which Pocito broke rule 4".!. When the Z Flag Rule is in e7ect, a boat in the triangle de*ned in that rule during the minute before the starting signal can avoid being penalized only if the race is postponed or abandoned before the starting signal that would end that one-minute period.Accordingly, the appeal is denied and the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld. Pocito’s score for Race 5 remains unchanged.

April 2007

January !""#


B-*#

APPEAL 97

Silhoue&e vs. Air Boss

Rule !&, On Opposite TacksRule !%, Avoiding ContactRule !*, Mark-RoomRule !*.!, Mark-Room: When Rule !* AppliesRule !*.#, Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomDe/nitions, Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap

When rule %1 applies, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat in order for rule %1." to create rights and obligations. When boats are approaching a mark 2om di-erent directions, there may be no “inside” or “outside” boat, in which case the rules of Section A and B apply.

WINDDirection to next mark for Air Boss

Direction to next mark for Silhouette and CC Rider

Air Boss

Silhouette

CC Rider

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

6

1

2

3

4

5

1

1

Facts and Decision of the Protest Commi-eeTwo PHRF 8eets in the same event were racing on di7erent courses that used the same government buoy as a rounding mark. For one 8eet it was a windward mark, to be le+ to port. For the other 8eet it was a leeward mark, also to be le+ to port. Two boats in the *rst 8eet approached the mark close-hauled on starboard tack, with Silhoue&e, a Beneteau 5".,,

January !""#B-90


overlapped to leeward and about one half of a hull length behind CC Rider. Air Boss, a J/%"' sailing in the other 8eet, approached the mark on a broad reach, also on starboard tack. When Air Boss was about one hull length from the mark, she gybed onto port and lu7ed to round the mark. As she lu7ed, her bow made contact with the port side of Silhoue&e, causing damage. At the time of contact, Silhoue&e was going about '.' knots, and Air Boss about 4.'. Silhoue&e and Air Boss protested each other.$e protest commi(ee decided that rule %& applied, and that when Air Boss reached the zone, Silhoue&e and Air Boss were overlapped, since neither was clear astern of the other. It decided that at that time Silhoue&e was the leeward boat, and that rule %% applied, requiring Air Boss to keep clear. It also decided that Silhoue&e was the inside boat with respect to the mark, and therefore Air Boss was required by rule %&.!(b) to give mark-room.$e protest commi(ee also decided that since rule %& applied, the gybe by Air Boss did not break the overlap, rule %&.!(b) continued to apply, rule %% no longer applied, and rule %" began to apply. $e commi(ee further decided that as Air Boss began to lu7, she failed to give mark-room and to keep clear of Silhoue&e, breaking rules %" and %&.!(b). Since it was reasonably possible for Air Boss to avoid the contact and she failed to do so, she also broke rule %5. When it became clear that Air Boss was not going to keep clear, Silhoue&e was unable to change course to avoid the contact, because of the presence of CC Rider to windward. $erefore Silhoue&e did not break rule %5. Air Boss was disquali *ed, and appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeAt position %, Air Boss reached the zone and rule %& began to apply (see rule %&.%). At that time, Silhoue&e and Air Boss were overlapped.Rule %&.!(b) concerns situations in which boats are overlapped when approaching a mark. However, in order for rule %&.! to create rights and obligations between two boats, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat. An “inside” boat refers to the one rounding or passing “between” the other boat and the mark. At position % on the diagram, neither Air Boss nor Silhoue&e can be identi*ed as the inside or the outside boat in the sense that one of them is (or is about to be) “between” the other boat and the mark. If the courses of the boats were projected straight ahead, neither boat would pass between the mark and the other boat. Alternatively, if the courses were projected to show the boats sailing around the mark, each boat’s course would pass between the mark and the other boat’s course. Neither of these methods identi*es an “inside” or “outside” boat.In these circumstances, no part of rule %& creates any obligations, and therefore rule %" applies. Beginning at position 5 in the protest diagram, Air Boss was on port tack, and was required to keep clear of Silhoue&e, on starboard tack. In colliding with Silhoue&e, Air Boss broke both rules %" and %5, and is disquali*ed. As determined by the protest commi(ee, Silhoue&e did not break rule %5, since it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact.$e appeal by Air Boss is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is corrected as explained above.

April 2007

January !""#


B-#$

QUESTION 99

Interpretation Requested by the South Atlantic Yacht Racing Association

IntroductionRule )!.%, National Authority DecisionsDe/nitions, Rule

!e ISAF Cases do not have the status of rules but are “authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules.” !erefore, when the relevant facts 2om a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a Case, the interpretations in the Case should be accepted by the protest commi&ee as correct interpretations of the racing rules for that protest.

Like the ISAF Cases, the published US SAILING Appeals are not rules. However, deci-sions of the US SAILING Appeals Commi&ee are *nal; therefore, when the relevant facts 2om a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a US SAILING appeal, and no ISAF Case con.icts with the interpretations in the appeal, a protest commi&ee in the United States is well advised to follow the appeal in making its decision.

Question !Do the ISAF Cases have the status of rules?

Answer !No. $e ISAF Cases are not rules (see the de*nition Rule), and therefore do not have the status of rules.

Question #What is the status of the ISAF Cases?

Answer #$e Introduction to !e Racing Rules of Sailing, which ranks as a “rule” (see the de*nition Rule), states that the ISAF recognizes the interpretations in its Case Book as “authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules.” $erefore, when the facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a Case, the interpretations in the Case should be accepted by the protest commi(ee as correct interpretations of the racing rules for that protest.9

Question $What is the status of the published US SAILING Appeals?

Answer $Like the ISAF Cases, the published US SAILING Appeals are not rules. However, as stated in rule ,%.5, decisions of the US SAILING Appeals Commi(ee are “*nal.” $erefore, when the facts from a protest are essentially similar to the facts of a US SAILING Appeal, and no ISAF Case con8icts with the interpretations in the appeal, a protest commi(ee in the United States is well advised to follow the appeal in making its decision.

March 2007

January !""#B-92


QUESTION 100

Interpretation requested by the Noroton Yacht Club

Rule $#.!, Shortening or Abandoning A,er the StartRace Signals

A race commi&ee may abandon a race a3er all the boats have *nished or retired. If it is on shore, the commi&ee need not announce the abandonment with race signals.

Assumed Facts$e race commi(ee starts a two-lap windward-leeward race in good sailing conditions. A+er the leading boats round the *rst windward mark it appears that fog may se(le in. When the *rst boat is !"" yards from the leeward mark, the race commi(ee decides that the fog may create problems, and properly signals and executes a shortened course. All boats *nish and their places are recorded. No more races are held that day. A+er the race commi(ee is on shore, it decides that the fog had a7ected the fairness of the race and it abandons the race, posting a notice to that e7ect on the o)cial notice board. No abandonment signals are made at any time.

Question ! Is it a proper action for a race commi(ee to abandon a race for one of the reasons listed in rule 4!.%(a)-(e) a+er all boats have *nished or retired?

Answer ! Yes. Rule 4!.% allows a race commi(ee to abandon such a race, provided it *rst considers “the consequences for all boats in the race or series.” $e phrase “a+er one boat has sailed the course and *nished” speci*es the beginning of a time period that has no speci*ed ending. $erefore, the time period does not end when two boats have *nished, or when all boats have *nished, or at any other speci*c later time.

Question # If abandoning such a race is a proper action of the race commi(ee, does it make any di7erence whether the race commi(ee does so while it is still on station, has le+ the racing area, or is on shore?

Answer # No.

Question $ If abandoning such a race is a proper action of a race commi(ee when it is on shore, must the race commi(ee signal abandonment with “N,” “N over H,” or “N over A” with three sounds?

Answer $No. When the race commi(ee is on shore, it normally will post its decision on the o)cial notice board.

January !""#


B-#%

Question % If a race commi(ee abandons a race when it is on shore, is there a time limit before which it must do so?

Answer % No.

February, 2008

QUESTION 101

Interpretation Requested by the Corinthian Sailing Club

Rule #*.!, Sailing the CourseRule (%.!(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A right-of-way boat compelled by a keep-clear boat to cross the starting line early is not relieved of her obliga tion to start as described in the de*nition Start.

Assumed FactsFive seconds before the start of the race, S and P converged close to the starting line. P lu7ed and passed head to wind in front of S. Before P came to a close-hauled course, S lu7ed in order to avoid a collision and, by doing so, crossed the starting line to the course side of the line.At the starting signal, both boats were clearly on the course side of the starting line. S hailed

“Protest” and displayed a red 8ag. P bore o7 around the starting mark, returned completely to the pre-start side of the starting line, and then crossed it. S sailed the course without returning to the pre-start side of the starting line.$e race commi(ee scored S OCS. A+er the race P retired in acknowledgement of her breach of rule %4. S protested P, claiming she had been forced over the starting line because of P’s breach of rule %4. $e protest commi(ee found that P broke rule %4, but did not penalize her because she had already taken a penalty. It then exonerated S under rule 65.%(c), deciding she had been compelled to break rule !&.% because of P’s breach, and reinstated her in her *nishing place.

Question Was S compelled to break rule !&.% and therefore correctly exonerated under rule 65.%(c)?

Answer No. Rule !&.% required S to ‘start’ as stated in the de*nition Start and permi(ed her to correct an error in starting before she *nished. Nothing prevented her from returning to the pre-start side of the starting line and starting correctly. $erefore she was not ‘compelled’ to break rule !&.%, as the term is used in rule 65.%(c). Since S did not start correctly, she is to be scored OCS.

January 2009

January !""#B-94


APPEAL 102

Xtra Xtra vs. Pony Express

Rule ($.(, Taking Evidence and Finding FactsA protest commi&ee may *nd it di'cult to reconcile con.icting testimony, but must not penalize a boat without *rst *nding facts about the incident that led to the protest and basing its decision on them.

Facts and Decision of the Protest Commi-eeIn light winds, Pony Express and Xtra Xtra, both 4"-foot boats, approached a windward mark. As Pony Express rounded the mark, a crew member on Xtra Xtra, approximately %"" yards astern, believed he saw Pony Express’s spinnaker touch the mark as it was being hoisted. Xtra Xtra hailed “Protest” and displayed a red 8ag. A+er the race Xtra Xtra delivered a protest that met the requirements for validity and alleged that Pony Express had touched the windward mark with her spinnaker.$e protest commi(ee found as fact that two other boats had heard Xtra Xtra’s hail, but found no facts relating to whether Pony Express had touched the mark. It decided to disqualify her for breaking rule 4% (Touching a Mark). Pony Express appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-eeIn her appeal, Pony Express argued that the protest commi(ee’s procedures were improper in that it failed to comply with rule 64.6 when it disquali*ed her without *nding facts to justify that decision.In reply to questions from the appeals commi(ee, the protest commi(ee did not directly supply a *nding of fact that Pony Express had touched the mark, but said it had based its decision on other considerations, discussed below.Rule 64.6, one of the rules that govern a protest commi(ee’s procedures, requires it to “take the evidence,” then “*nd the facts and base its decision on them.” In some cases a protest commi(ee will hear con8icting testimony and therefore must a(empt to resolve the con8ict by evaluating the testimony to determine which of it is more trustworthy. In this case, however, the protest commi(ee did not follow that procedure. It stated that because it had been unable to reconcile the con8icting testimony of the parties and no witnesses were presented to support the testimony of Pony Express, it based its decision on two considerations other than facts about the incident. One basis was that Pony Express failed to produce a witness to testify that she did not touch the mark, and the other was the assumed integrity of the protestor. $e commi(ee's use of these considerations clearly did not constitute basing its decision on facts found as required by rule 64.6. $at error was su)cient to make the decision invalid. $e considerations themselves were also invalid. No rule requires a party to provide supporting witnesses, and although in some cases a protest commi(ee may need to consider its impressions of a competitor's veracity when evaluating testimony, it cannot substitute those impressions for *ndings of fact about an incident.Accordingly, the appeal is upheld, the protest commi(ee’s decision is reversed, and Pony Express is reinstated in her *nishing place.

January 2009

January !""#


B-#'

APPEAL 103

Alpha Puppy vs. Fleet S% boats excepting Deception,and Jeanne&e vs. Fleet S" boats excepting Jarlen

Rule #*.!, Sailing the CourseRule J#.!('), Sailing Instruction Contents

When the sailing instructions do not identify which marks are rounding marks as required by the rules, boats are not required to treat any marks as rounding marks. When this omis-sion results in some boats sailing farther than others, those boats may be entitled to redress.

Mark 4

Mark 8

Course sailed by protestors

Course sailed by most boats

Race Deck Starting/Finishing Line

Mark 18

Facts and Decision of the Protest Commi-eeFor PHRF Fleets S% and S!, the course for Race ! was course !%, described in the sailing instructions as “RC Boat – %& – & – 5 – Knox Finish” with “All Marks Le+ to Port.” $e course diagram was not incorporated into the sailing instructions. A change to the sailing instructions moving the starting and *nishing areas to the “race deck” was posted during a postponement ashore.$e incidents described in the protests all involved how boats passed or rounded mark 5. If mark 5 was a rounding mark (see rule !&.%(b)), then boats would have been required to round mark 5 in such a way that a taut string representing their tracks would touch the mark in order to comply with rule !&.% (solid-line course in the diagram). If mark 5 was not a rounding mark, then boats could have complied with rule !&.% by merely passing mark 5 on their port sides (dashed-line course in the diagram).

January !""#B-96


A+er rounding mark &, most boats sailed directly to the *nishing area, leaving mark 5 to port without rounding it. Other boats, including the protestors, rounded mark 5, leaving it to port, and then sailed to the *nish. Alpha Puppy and Jeanne&e protested all of the boats in their respective 8eets that le+ mark 5 to port without rounding it.$e protest commi(ee concluded that “the course was amended [by relocating the *nishing line] in such a way that allowed, as a practical ma(er, a boat to travel from mark & to the *nishing line while leaving mark 5 to port.” $e protest commi(ee reasoned that because the new *nishing line location meant that the “taut string” would not touch mark 5, “RRS !&.% was satis*ed merely by passing it and leaving it to port.” It dismissed the protests, and both protestors appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e protest commi(ee’s conclusion that the relocation of the *nishing line resulted in changing mark 5 from a rounding mark to a passing mark was incorrect. Whether a mark is a rounding mark or a passing mark (see rule !&.%) is not changed solely because the con*guration of the course has changed.Rule J!.%(') requires that the sailing instructions “identify all rounding marks.” $e sailing instructions failed to do so and therefore were ambiguous about whether any of the marks were rounding marks. When sailing instructions fail to identify any rounding marks, boats are not required to treat any marks as rounding marks. $erefore the boats that rounded mark 5 to port and the boats that only passed it on their port sides all complied with rule !&.%. $e appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest commi(ee is con*rmed to the extent that none of the protested boats that le+ mark 5 to port are to be disquali*ed.However, the ambiguity in the sailing instructions regarding identifying rounding marks caused some boats to sail farther than other boats. $erefore, as permi(ed by rule F&(c) (Procedures for Appeals and Requests; Other Provisions), the protest commi(ee is directed to conduct a hearing to consider redress for the appellants and any other boats that may have lost time as a result of the ambiguous sailing instructions. If the commi(ee decides that redress is appropriate, rule 65.! (Decisions on Redress) requires it to make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats a7ected, which could be to adjust the *nishing times for some boats, abandon the race, or make some other arrangement.

December 2010

January !""#


B-#)

APPEAL 104

Chance Request for Redress

Rule (#.!(a), RedressRule A$, Starting Times and Finishing Places

A race commi&ee does not have the authority to re-score a race by using a new rating issued a3er the race has been completed. An appeals commi&ee may consider an allegation that a boat has broken a rule only when it is deciding an appeal of a protest commi&ee decision concerning that allegation.

Facts and Decisions of the Protest Commi-eeRocinante raced in the Queen’s Cup Race and was scored by the race commi(ee using the rating on her PHRF certi*cate that was in e7ect at the time of the race. No protest against her was made. Several weeks a+er the completion of the race, the regional PHRF commi(ee changed Rocinante’s rating. $e race commi(ee then re-scored the race using the new rating, which made her score signi*cantly worse. Rocinante requested redress, claiming that it was improper for the race commi(ee to re-score the race without a hearing on that issue by a protest commi(ee. $e protest commi(ee agreed and granted her redress by reinstating her original score. Chance requested redress from the protest commi(ee’s decision, claiming it was an improper action because the rating on Rocinante’s certi*cate was incorrect at the time of the race and therefore her certi*cate was invalid. She further claimed that, because of the new rating, the race commi(ee should have treated Rocinante’s original score as a scoring error and recalculated it accordingly, and that this action would not have made her score “sig ni*cantly worse” within the meaning of rule 6!.%.$e protest commi(ee denied Chance’s request for redress, and she appealed.

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e race commi(ee acted correctly in using the rating on Rocinante’s certi*cate that was in e7ect during the race to determine her corrected time and *nishing place (see rule A4). $erefore the race was scored correctly and there was no scoring error to be corrected. Although that rating was changed a+er the race by a rating authority acting on its own volition, the race commi(ee did not have the authority to re-score the race using the new rating. $erefore the race commi(ee acted improperly when it re-scored the race, and the protest commi(ee acted correctly when it granted Rocinante redress. Concerning Chance’s claim that Rocinante’s rating on her certi*cate was incorrect at the time of the race, the only way for a question of the validity of a boat’s certi*cate to become the subject of an appeal would be for a protest commi(ee to *rst decide a protest based on the allegation that the certi*cate was invalid. In this case, no such protest was made. An appeals commi(ee has no authority to consider an allegation of a rule breach that was not the subject of a protest commi(ee’s decision that was properly appealed.Chance’s appeal is denied, and the protest commi(ee’s decision is upheld.

December 2010

January !""#B-98


APPEAL 105

UM1 vs. UM%#

Rule !*.#(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-RoomDe/nitions, Mark-Room

In the de*nition Mark-Room, the phrase “room to sail to the mark” means space to sail in a seaman like way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark. When the mark is abeam of the boat’s bow and she is close to it, she has arrived “at” it. While “at” the mark, the boat is entitled to room to sail her proper course.

Facts and Decision of the Protest Commi-eeUM& and UM%", overlapped on port tack with UM& inside, approached a leeward mark to be le+ to port and subsequently rounded it as shown in the diagram. UM& protested UM%" under rule %&.!(b) for not giving her enough room to sail to the mark and round it. $e protest commi(ee decided that UM%" did give UM& the room she was entitled to, both while she was sailing to the mark and while she was at the mark, and denied the protest. UM& appealed.

5

UM 10UM 8

WIND

4

5

3

1

3

1

2

46

6

2

January !""#


B-##

Decision of the Appeals Commi-ee$e de*nition Mark-Room creates an important distinction between the room, as de*ned by the de*nition Room, to which a boat is entitled while she is sailing “to” a mark and the room to which she is entitled while “at” the mark. $e phrase “room to sail to the mark” in the de*nition Mark-Room means space to sail in a seamanlike way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark. While “at” the mark, however, she is entitled to room to sail her proper course. $e transition between the two types of room occurs at the moment the boat arrives “at” the mark. In this case, UM& is “at” the mark in position 4 in the diagram because the mark is abeam of her bow and she is close to the mark. We agree with the protest commi(ee’s application of rule %&.!(b) and the two components of the de*nition Mark-Room. $erefore, the appeal is denied and the decision of the protest commi(ee is upheld.

December 2010

Documents

US Sailing - THE APPEALS BOOK for2009–2012. United States Sailing Association January 2009