|
|
| Date Event |
|
Event Name |
|
Comments |
|
Dates |
|
|
|
| 2008-10-12 |
|
Barcolana 2008 |
|
Two yachts using engines before the warning signal, whilst in the vicinity of the start line and intending to race collided.
They were not using their sails for propulsion. Whilst manoevring the bowsprit of one yacht hit the stern of another. At the time of the collision the yacht causing the incident had its engine in neutral. A crewmewmber was injured, the injuries were not life threatening but were serious. The incident was drawn to the attention of the jury. There was concern as to whether there was breach of fundamental rule 1.1 or a breach of any rule within part 2. A protest form had been submitted and a hearing was held.
It was felt that even if the rules could not be applied the race committee and competitors involved might find it helpful for the jury to find facts.
One issue was whether the jury can consider a breach of fundamental rule 1.1 when both yachts are using engines and the incident was prior to the warning signal. They were both in the vicinity of the start line and intending to race. But even so could the RRS and fundamental rule 1.1 apply??
In examining the wording of first sentence in the preamble to part 2 of the rules the jury examined the use of the word sailing. Is the word "sailing"
1. specific to the use of sails for propulsion or
2. generic in that any ships whether under way and under power or sail are considered to be carrying out the function of sailing as in "sailing on a voyage".
If the interpretation set out in No.1 above is applied there can be no breach of any rule in part 2
If the interpretation set out in No.2 above is applied it is conceivable that there could have been a breach of a rule (e.g. if the sails had been hoisted and the fact of no overlap and same tack established rule 12 might have applied). So there could have been a breach of a part 2 rule under those circumstances.
No penalty could have applied. There was no protest by the race committee or protest committee. The sailing instructions did not include the use of IRPCAS.
In fact both parties acted commendably, rescue services extracted the injured crew promptly and the party causing the injury retired from the race.
However the extent of the applicability of the RRS did raise interesting debate.
With the traditional "Barcolana" start using one start time and start line for nearly two thousand competitors the control of the start area was interesting. There were only two requests for redress for OCS and both were denied. |
|
Published
2008-10-13
|
|
|
|
| 2008-9-14 |
|
2008 Platu 25 World Championship |
|
10 seconds before the start there was a contact between two boats sailing on the same tack overlapped. The Judges displayed a red flag and made a sound signal informing them that they can witness or lodge a protest, according to the Sailing Instructions. There was no reaction from the two boats. Then the Jury followed the windward boat displaying the red flag for about 200 meters. No penalty was taken.
After returning to the port both boats lodged a protest against each other. This stopped the jury from lodging a protest too. During the discussion concerning the validity of the two protests, both were found invalid. The Jury extended the protest time limit and based on its own observations lodged a protest against the windward boat for infringing RRS 11 and gave to the boat the opportunity to retire after finish (RAF).
The boat did not retire and a hearing went on. The boat was found guilty for infringing RRS 11 and 2 and was scored DNE. A request for reopening was denied as no significant new evidence was presented to the Jury.
Following a clarification of the Platu 25 class that life-lines does not exist in the Platu 25, RRS 49.2 concerning crew position did not apply.
|
|
Published
2008-9-26
|
|
|
|
| 2008-9-9 |
|
Cap Istanbul |
|
The Figaro – Bènéteau class measurer reported during the measurement check, in Istanbul, after the finish of the fifth leg that in one of the competing boats the wire of the propeller shaft seal was found to be broken and sealed again.
The boat was protested for infringing the class rules H.8.2 and H.8.3 and RRS 2 and was scored DNE in the fifth leg of the race.
The International Jury also called a hearing under RRS 69 and penalized the competitor with 20 hours penalty on the total time of the five legs of the race.The penalty was reported to the MNA of the venue and the competitor.
|
|
Published
2008-10-27
|
|
|
|
| 2008-8-17 |
|
2008 Aegean Regatta |
|
One Judge had to withdraw from the Jury after the third day of the event due to a serious health problem.
No protests were lodged during the event.
|
|
Published
2008-9-7
|
|
|
|
| 2008-8-7 |
|
International 420 & International 470 Open Junior European Championships |
|
There was concern about the extent to which sailors; particularly in the 420 class were knowingly infringing rule 31.2, and part 2 rules without taking penalties.
There were to two jury protests of rule31.2 incidents in the 420 fleet leading to DSQ in each case. In two other cases, witnessed in both cases by jury members, one 420 class and one 470class the jury considered rule 2 should be applied and two boats were DNE.
Consideration was given to rule 69 hearings on four issues
1. team action in trying to have a competitor disqualified,
2. internet – tampering with computer systems in the event internet network
3. not retiring after a third rule 42 penalty
4. unacceptable behaviour when a competitor abused and banged the hull of another with his fist immediately after finishing a race
.
As regards item 1, the jury was satisfied with the results of a protest hearing which subsequently DSQed one competitor and decided that a rule 69 hearing would be inappropriate. Items 2 and 3 related to behaviour of junior sailors where the investigations produced apologies and further action would have been excessive. Item 4 led to a DSQ and report to a national authority.
Two judges observed an incident involving a protest between two boats and gave evidence at the hearing. The two judges did not raise a jury protest about the incident as a protest had already submitted by a competitor.
During the hearing the evidence of jury members and others made it apparent that a third boat, not referred to in the protest form and not present at the hearing was involved in the incident. Accordingly the jury initiated a protest under rule 60.3(a)(2).
At the second hearing a party to the hearing argued that the jury should not be permitted to initiate the jury protest. Jury members had observed the incident and thus the jury was obliged under rule 61.1(b) to inform the boat after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3 and had not done so.
In the view of the international jury
a) the jury could extend the protest time if there was good reason to do so.
b) In any event rule 60.3(a)(2) was appropriate
However it could be argued that there is conflict between the provisions of 60.3(a)(2) and rule 61.1(b). It is intended that this issue be drawn to the attention of racing rules committee.
The regatta was sailed at a good venue and race management good.
There were some initial communications issues on the water between race committee and jury but these were resolved after day 1.
Shoreside amenities and equipment were good. The main jury office had its own networked computer and a laser printer. The jury secretary provided was extremely competent.
Local mobile phone chips were available for purchase by jury members at a modest cost. The ease of use, breadth of coverage and confidential nature of mobile phone discussions were much better than open VHF. However, using international roaming is prohibitively expensive and not normally reimbursed by organisers. It is recommended that mobile phone chips should supplied to all jury members at major events.
There was serious concern about the safety and quality of the RIBs supplied. Of the five supplied RIBs four were adequate. One failed totally and was replaced one day by a boat from one of the overseas coaches. Equipment failure extended to a race committee RIBS leaving insufficient cover for mark shifting/display of course flags on the 470 course on one day.
Serious concern was expressed by the 420 class representative as regards safety cover. The organisers were counting coach boats as being available for rescue purposes. After 420 class complaints one good quality safety boat with a skilled crew was visible on each race course.
Tampering with the internet by junior 420 sailors caused major concern to the organisers and to the jury. In certain countries and cases it could be a matter of criminal prosecution. The jury was strongly of the view that internet and computer management policies should be introduced as guidance for any clubs intending to provide internet access to competitors.
Two jury members withdrew from the regatta immediately prior to commencement. An Italian NJ was recruited to fill the gap. Appendix N requirements were unaffected. |
|
Published
2008-8-30
|
|
|
|
| 2008-8-2 |
|
Hobie Cat Multi Europeans |
|
This eight day regatta saw very difficult conditions with two days lost due to light winds.
It would have been better to have an event director on the venue and daily meetings between the OA, RC and Jury.
To many mistakes during the starting procedure at one of the courses caused eight requests for redress to be granted. |
|
Published
2008-8-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-7-26 |
|
2008 North Aegean Int´l Sailing Week /X Yachts Cup 2008 / X35 National Championship |
|
1. One measurement protest was lodged. The I.J. after checking the measurement certificate and certain measurements of the boat, three discrepancies was discovered. Spinnaker size, LOA and LWP.
The spinnaker measurement increase was less than 2% of SPA as described in IRC Rule 19.8 and therefore the original certificate was not invalidated.
The hull measurements were an error of the Rating Office and the boats" owner could not, according to the measures" report, reasonably been aware of the error.
Boats 0.759% increase in spinnaker size was within the tolerances of IRC 19.8 and did not change the TCC. There was no penalty.
For the hull measurement, the certificate was invalidated as a result of an error of the IRC rating authority. The penalty decided by the I.J. was: No Penalty
The decision was :The boat to be scored in all races of the event using her corrected TCC according to IRC rule 20.3
2. According to the SI, Jury could act without a hearing for infringements of RRS 42 under RRS 67. Jury"s opinion was that competitors should have the benefit of a hearing and the SI was amended. One boat (X-40)was DSQ under 42.2(a)
|
|
Published
2008-8-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-7-11 |
|
45th Aegean Rally |
|
The PRO approved the withdrawal of three lodged protests without informing the PC. When questioned about it replied that she believed that this was enough and there was no need to be approved by the PC. Protestors were invited by the PC to explain the reasons of withdrawal.
Two protests lodged by the RC were dismissed. One under 62.1.a due to information given only to part of the competitors and one due to sails inspection that took place 24 hours after the end of the race and not after finish as written in the S.I.
|
|
Published
2008-7-22
|
|
|
|
| 2008-7-5 |
|
SETH, IFDS Multihull World Championship |
|
There was a collision causing injury and damage before the preparatory signal period. The infringing boat was scored DSQ under Rules 44.1 and 64.1.c |
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-30 |
|
Istanbul Optimist Sailing Week |
|
Six judges were used. Three IJ and three NJ for appendix P. A rotation system was used for NJs during the hearings so that every time three IJ and two NJ were in the panel.
The relations with the PRO were excellent
|
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-25 |
|
X-35 European Championship |
|
|
|
Published
2008-7-15
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-21 |
|
Kieler Woche - International Classes |
|
The jury had problems applying rule 42 to the International Moth Class (http://www.int-moth.org.uk/). Although the definition of planing - predominantly supported by hydrodynamic lift, rather than hydrostatic lift (buoyancy) - seems to apply to a boat sailing with the foils supporting the hull above the water, the competitors felt they needed to pump to get the boat onto the foils and remain on the foils both upwind and downwind. A three judge working party was formed to work with the International President and Secretary to propose changing the class rules to modify rule 42. (Rainer Heinrich - chairman)
On the first race of the last day a 29er coach was warned he was infringing a sailing instruction by being inside the sailing area during the race. Three boats were identified coming up to him after the race to receive food, water and other support. During the last race, he was again seen infringing the sailing instruction. This time he was asked to come to the jury office after day´s racing. When he did not, a protest was lodged within the protest time by one of the judges against the three boats he was supporting.
When the three boats did not respond to the announcement, the boat park was searched. It was learned that the three boats and the coach had packed their boats and left the event. It was also discouvered that the coach had not registered or paid the regatta coach registration fee.
In a 63.3(b) hearing the three boats were disqualified from the last race. A letter was sent to the coach´s federation president outlining the reasons for the disqualifications. (Pat Healy, Jury Member) |
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-21 |
|
Kieler Woche - Olympic Classes |
|
There was a request from the organizers to form the jury to determine the requirements for using Addendum Q for all of the fleet races for one or more of the Olympic Classes in 2009. (Pat Healy-Jury Member) |
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-21 |
|
Offshore-ORC and International German Championship |
|
|
|
Published
2008-7-15
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-20 |
|
ISAF ORCi World Championship |
|
Very quiet event, good cooperation with the Race Committee |
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-13 |
|
Bol d" or 2008 |
|
No jury working room or appropriate working space was provided for jury meetings.
The Jury was obliged to share the provided "jury hearing room" with the press and the photographers at all times except during the hearings.
|
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-6-13 |
|
2008 Tornado European Championship – Mats Nyberg Trophy |
|
Very quiet event, no protests, excellent cooperation with Race Committee |
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-5-28 |
|
Posidonia Cup 2008 |
|
Very quiet event. All boats were sponsored mainly by shipping companies. The protest committee had no work at all. No protest was logged |
|
Published
2008-7-15
|
|
|
|
| 2008-5-14 |
|
2008 Port Bourgas Regatta |
|
A short presentation of appendix P by the Jury took place, after coaches complains on penalties given for rule 42 infringements, which resulted to reduce them by 90% during the rest of the event.
Three competitors were penalized under RRS 2 for team racing, use of false language and aggressive behaviour against another competitor.
Warning was given to two coaches under rule 69 for being too close to their sailors, and instructing them to infringe the rules while racing.
Although it was not required by rule 69 to report the warning, the chairman of their national authority, requested the chairman of the jury to send him a report of the incident.
|
|
Published
2008-6-3
|
|
|
|
| 2008-5-11 |
|
Finn Masters World Championsip |
|
Three young Dutch sailors were allocated to the International Jury each day so that 4 jury boats could be used. They were all from classes where RRS 42 judging was a regular feature and all were very proficient in spotting the actions of others. They also observed during hearings with the permission of all parties. A very useful exercise. |
|
Published
2008-6-3
|
|
|
|
| 2008-5-2 |
|
2008 Finn European Championship |
|
The Finn class rule changes rule 42 on downwind legs in winds over 12 kts. To indicate winds over 12 kts the class uses flag "Oscar" at a mark. To indicate the wind has dropped below 12 kts the race committee would use flag "Romeo".
The PRO delegated the decision when to fly "Oscar" and "Romeo" (and notify the on-water judges) to the weather mark boat. This worked very well. It eased the duties of the PRO and allowed the weather boat to monitor the wind that was approaching the sailors. |
|
Published
2008-6-3
|
|
|
|
| 2008-5-1 |
|
2008 RS:X European Championship |
|
Due to lack of wind, medal race was cancelled. |
|
Published
2008-6-3
|
|
|
|
| 2008-4-19 |
|
Semaine Olympique Francaise de Voile - 2008 |
|
A coach was given a warning under rule 69 for inappropriate and aggressive behavior towards a competitor after the competitor, in the coaches opinion, did not act on his request to help unblock the launching ramp.
Although it was not required by rule 69 to report the warning, the panel decided it was appropriate to write a letter describing the facts and conclusions of the hearing to the national authority employing the coach. (Submitted - Pat Healy, Jury Member) |
|
Published
2008-5-9
|
|
|
|
| 2008-4-9 |
|
Expert Olympic Garda 2008 |
|
Nothing special to report |
|
Published
2008-6-3
|
|
|
|
| 2008-3-22 |
|
49er European Championship |
|
1. Redress - There was a general feeling from the 49er sailors that the current redress rules did not result in just or fair results.
(a) In both the Princess Sofia and the championship regattas, there were several successful requests for redress for broken tiller extensions which happened during incidents where a boat was disqualified for a part 2 infringement. Although we found no evidence that anyone had purposely broken something to qualify for redress, it was felt that the rule, at best, allowed for a plausible accusation that someone had done so, and at worst, tempted a competitor to purposely create damage to improve their race result.
(b) A boat in contention to win the series was taken out of the race by a boat breaking rule 10. The port gybe boat was disqualified in the hearing, but as there was no damage, the right of way boat did not qualify for redress. This probably cost the boat the gold medal.
Some of the jury considered a possible solution would be to have no redress at all.
2. Medal Race - Most of the competitors who did not qualify for the medal race left the venue soon after the last fleet race. It was extremely embarrassing and disappointing to the host club, sponsors, local officials and class officers when only four crews were present for the prize giving ceremony. Something needs to be done in single class events to involve more of the fleet in the medal race day. Amongst the suggestions was: scrap the medal race, or, since the race committee is setting up the entire course for a twenty minute race, have race-offs for positions 11 through 20, 21 through 30, etc. |
|
Published
2008-6-5
|
|
|
|
| 2008-3-19 |
|
420 South American Championship |
|
Jury used a third member on-board with a video camera. It was usefull for protests and rule 42.
IR changed Apendix P so the third infringment is DNE on that race. |
|
Published
2008-6-3
|
|
|
|
| 2008-3-9 |
|
5.5 Metre Class World Championship |
|
|
|
Published
2008-3-28
|
|
|
|
| 2008-3-5 |
|
5.5 Metre Duke of Edinburgh Cup, Bahamian National Championship |
|
|
|
Published
2008-3-28
|
|
|
|
| 2008-3-2 |
|
International 5.5 Metre Class Scandinavian Gold Cup |
|
|
|
Published
2008-3-28
|
|
|
|
| 2008-2-21 |
|
2008 Emirates Maktoum Sailing Trophy |
|
Addendum Q applied to all Races.
Out of 11 protests and requests for redress, 6 were heard at the dock after the end of the race according to Addendum Q.
|
|
Published
2008-3-4
|
|
|
|
| 2008-2-17 |
|
Athens Eurolymp Week 2008 |
|
|
|
Published
2008-3-4
|
|
|
|
| 2008-2-10 |
|
Yngling Women´s World Championship |
|
Most Ynglings have a "Gybing Line", a three meter line tied to the middle of the boom in front of the mid boom-mainsheet block. A question was submitted as to whether this line could be used for pumping allowed by rule 42. After consulting with the class technical director (attending the regatta as the measurer) and the class president, it was determined that: (1) the class had recently changed the rule to allow a fitting on the boom for a "gybing line" (a line to assist gybing in strong winds and smooth water), and (2) the class rules were "closed" (if something was not allowed in the class rules, it was not allowed).
The jury´s answered was that a gybing line is not a sheet used to control a sail and its use is not allowed by the rule 42.3(c) exception. |
|
Published
2008-5-9
|
|
|
|
| 2008-1-28 |
|
Miami Olympic Classes Regatta |
|
|
|
Published
2008-7-21
|
|
|
|
| 2008-1-4 |
|
15th Trofeo Marcello Campobasso 2007 |
|
|
|
Published
2008-3-4
|
|
|
|
| 2008-1-3 |
|
2008 Laser Central & South American Championship |
|
Sailing Instructions deleted P2.3., P2.2 was used for the whole event.
Seven sailors requested redress for BFD, none was granted.
One Rule 69 hearing, a competitor lied to three members of the International Jury, the competitor alleged that the boat that infriged a rule was another competitor with a similar sail number and with the same boat color. The International Jury imposed a penalty to the competitor and send a report to the MNA of the event.
The Race Management was up to world class standars.
Wind shifts up to 40 degrees were usual, trapezoidal courses were reset inmediately.
Black flag was used in 70 % of the races due to general recalls caused by strong currents. |
|
Published
2008-5-3
|
|
|
|
| 2007-12-27 |
|
2007 Laser 4.7 World Championship |
|
One rule 69 hearing which was dismissed as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the protestee made the statements reported to the jury.
Arbitration offered to some Part 2 protests but competitors preferred to go for a Jury Hearing.
The OA supplied 3 Jury boats of which 2 were not suitable to undertake OTW judging. The OA stated they could not supply any further boats and a jury member was able to obtain 2 replacement boats from sources in Cape Town.
A very good working relationship, ashore and afloat with the Race Committee.
|
|
Published
2008-1-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-12-18 |
|
Soling World Championship |
|
There was a rule 69 hearing based upon a report from a competitor who had been confronted at a regatta dinner by a crew member of a boat that had been disqualified in a protest in which the competitor had been a witness. The report said that the individual interrupted the dinner and accused the witness of lying while standing over him at his table in a very aggressive and threatening manner.
The International Jury informed the crew member of the alleged misconduct in writing and set the hearing for that evening after racing. The boat of the crew member withdrew from the remaining three races of the regatta thirty minutes after receiving the letter.
At the hearing the crew member admitted his wrong doing and offered no excuses for his behavior. He presented a copy of the written apology he had attempted to give the competitor after racing and which the skipper had refused to accept. (The letter of apology was accepted by the competitor during the hearing.) He also stated that at the dinner he had enlisted the help of two other skippers who spoke the same language as the competitor and attempted to apologize. That apology had also been refused. His testimony was supported by the two skippers who were witnesses.
The jury concluded that the actions at the dinner were a gross breach of good manners. It decided that the reluctance of the skipper to listen to the attempted apology at the dinner and to initially not accept the written apology offered before the hearing may have contributed to the incident becoming a gross breach of good manners. This was considered as a mitigating reason when determining whether to penalize the competitor.
Finally the jury decided the crew member showed extreme remorse for his actions both in the written apology, in his conduct at the hearing and in his boat immediately withdrawing from the regatta.
The jury concluded that voluntary withdrawal from the final three races by the crew was sufficient and warned the competitor about is actions. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-12-5 |
|
HKG Open Windsurfing Championship |
|
Due to a race management mistake concerning a change in the divisions starting order, the Jury had to give redress to six boards in three races. The decision did not effect the final score.
|
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-10-19 |
|
China Cup International Regatta |
|
Race Management was good. However the onshore side which was organised by Longcheer Yacht Club was very disorganised. The China Cities Windsurfing event was taking place at another venue about 15 minutes away and International Jury members from there were also forming the Jury at the China Cup. They had not been advised by the organisers about this.
Due to hearings there and lack of accurate information from the China Cup liaison person regarding when the other jury members would arrive hearings had to be delayed by nearly an hour which resulted in major annoyance with the competitors.
|
|
Published
2007-12-11
|
|
|
|
| 2007-9-13 |
|
2007 AUDI FORMULA WINDSURFING FESTIVAL - TALLINN |
|
The Jury did spend 6 hours sitting time to amend the sailing instructions the day before to be published. A good job was done to conform the SI of such class to ISAF template and wordings, preserving in the mean time the competitor´s ability to recognize them.
The Jury decided a special redress policy for this event. Because of the wind conditions influence in the results, redress results were determined using rule A10(a) amended to consider all the races in the series on the day of the incident.
Eight requests for redress was given to eight protesting boards, conforming the appendix B 7.2. A competitor was scored DNE because he not retiring after an incident in which caused a serious damage. Another competitor was scored conforming 64.1(c) for breaking rule 22.1 when not racing, he interfered with a boat that was racing.
The Jury, as requested by the race committee, did provide a jury member who was an experienced windsurfer sailor, as observer onboard the pin end RC boat. This to act as witness in case of requests for redress or protests about OCS or incidents on the starting line.
An innovation was the use of GPS mobile phone tracking system. A small GPS phone in a waterproof case was taped to the base of the masts. The signal adopted to display in real time the marks and the top competitors position on a screen and on internet.
The formula windsurfing class representative did act very well as PRO and the experience windsurfing class representative did act very well as scorer. The scores were less than one hour after the race - even in internet.
It was an enjoyable event with a good atmosphere and sailors that were keen to learn and communicate. The relationship between sailors, class representatives, jury and race committee was excellent. |
|
Published
2007-8-24
|
|
|
|
| 2007-9-3 |
|
XL Open Balkan Sailing Championship |
|
According to the NoR, each competing country had to appoint two members at the International Jury one of them to be IJ. Three IJs and nine NJs were appointed. It was agreed to use a rotation system during the hearings in order to have only two NJs in the panel each time. All judges were used during on water judging, and all NJs participated in at least one hearing. One NJ had to go before the start of the event due to a serious health problem in her family.
We had a request for redress from a competitor concerning his finishing position. Redress was given, but later the Jury decided that it might have made a significant error and reopened the hearing under RRS 66 in order to get more evidences. Finally the redress was not given.
The RO at the Optimist finishing line was inadequate which created problems including the one concerning the request for redress mentioned before. We had a very good co-operation with the PRO. The Jury boats provided were inadequate and the Jury refused to go on the water. After discussing the problem with the organizers one good and one satisfactory boat were provided
|
|
Published
2007-9-17
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-20 |
|
2007 Sunfish World Championship |
|
Because all boats and equipment were supplied by the manufacturer rule 62.1 was amended by adding 62.1(e), failure of chartered equipment. Two redress requests were heard and granted for failure of defective equipment through no fault of the competitor.
In order to encourage boats to stay behind the line during a start with an I Flag during the final minute before the start the race officer would hail sail numbers as boats as they crossed starting line. This worked well keeping boats behind the line but was a clear advantage to those who had broken the one-minute rule. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-19 |
|
Lightning North American Championship |
|
Some reformatting of the signal flag layout on the signal boat would be beneficial. The International Jury consisted of both certified IJ´s and National Judges. The NJ´s were given the opportunity to Chair hearings and performed well. Arbitration was in place but only two submissions were sent to arbitration.
A difficult regatta due to the consistently light winds and relatively strong currents. Prompt responses by the RC kept the courses both square and fair. There were a number of general recalls and these seemed to be a factor of current pushing up the course. Overall the hail responses to OCS boats were within an acceptable time frame.
The onshore support offered by the two sailing clubs involved was excellently and efficiently organised (the whole fleet was being dry sailed) and I personally heard no comments of dissatisfaction from any of the participants. The regatta was run at a very high standard and I submitted a report to this effect to US Sailing for the St.Petersburg Trophy |
|
Published
2007-10-22
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-18 |
|
Audi Hamilton Island Race Week 2007 |
|
A separate Q&A has been submitted regarding a boat which retired after finishing but subsequently found she had not broken a rule and requested re-instatement.
The forms contained within the IJ manual do not reflect current best practice in tracking all documents submitted, and their use caused some confusion within the Jury administration until updated. It is suggested that these forms be revised and published with a recommended operating procedure for the benefit of future events. |
|
Published
2007-8-26
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-18 |
|
2007 Finn Junior World Championship - Silver Cup |
|
A competitor was protested under Appendix P2.2 (Second Protest) during a start in which a general recall was then signaled. According to P3 the penalty was canceled, but not the number of times the boat had been protested, and the competitor then sailed in the restart of the race. Several competitors argued that this rule was unfair towards other competitors who were penalized during the restart of the same race and were required to withdraw if they received P2.2 protest. They felt that the same principle used in rule 30.3 (Black Flag Starting Penalties) would be better.
At the request of the race committee, the jury offered advice on changes in the schedule of races. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-17 |
|
2007 Laser Master European Championship |
|
Arbitration was offered through the SIs but not accepted by the parties. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-17 |
|
470 and 420 Junior European Championship 2007 |
|
The jury penalised three competitors with DNE under rule 2. Two were after they admitted they knew they broke a rule that caused damage and did not take a penalty. The third was for hitting a competitor with the tiller extension. The jury discussed the possibility of further action under rule 69 but decided not to pursue the matter further.
There was discussion about how to interpret the Appendix P word ´series´ in applying to the regatta´s qualification and final series. (Editor´s Note: ISAF´s Q&A 06-001 speaks to this issue. It was the Q&A Panel´s opinion that in this case the series meant all the races a boat sails in a regatta which included the qualification and final series. http://www.sailing.org/1545.php)
The jury reached the conclusion that it was a better practice for the organizing authority to provide a daily amount of money for meals rather than attempt to feed the jury at the same time as the competitors. This gives the jury more flexibility in planning hearing, meets the different diet requirements of individual members and may avoid long waits in restaurants or food lines. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-12 |
|
Canadian Youth National Championship |
|
Because this was a youth regatta the jury spent extra time explaining the decisions to the competitors. In some cases this dialogue turned into a teaching experience to ensure they understood the rules.
Because the regatta was also used for training and certification of race officials, there was a tendency to be a little too exact in setting the courses and reacting to windshifts. This caused the loss of two races over the four day regatta. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-10 |
|
Canadian Open National Championships |
|
This 204 boat regatta was immediately followed by the 145 boat youth championships. Although it was a very large undertaking the regatta ran quit smoothly with very few surprises. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-9 |
|
Sail East |
|
A competitor alleged an RC timing error and brought a witness supporting the allegation. The course PRO reported timing problems in other starts, but thought this one was OK. He offered to replay his digital recording of the start. The recording revealed a ten second delay in the starting signal which supported the allegation and the testimony and redress was granted.
This was the first of two practice events for the 2009 Canada Games. Although most of the race committee officials had experience laying courses or race management, the race committee did remarkably well. Management at the finish and scoring were the main areas where problems occurred.
This was not an international jury but because of the number of classes, competitors, hearings and on water Appendix P time, was considered by us to meet the requirements of a principle event. |
|
Published
2007-12-15
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-9 |
|
2.4mR World Championship |
|
The possibliity of arbitration instead of full panel hearings was offered to competitors.
The Whistle System was used and the jury was afloat in two boats during all 24 races. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-8 |
|
Western Canada Summer Games |
|
Entry to these summer games is restricted to only one country. The national authority approved a non-appeal protest committee under rule 70.4(b) consisting of 3 IJs and 2 NJs without national restrictions. The original chair was unable to attend due to a family medical emergency and a revised jury consisting of 2 IJs (one national and one non-national) and two national NJs. There were no problems or issues because of the make up of the jury.
The event technical package, the NOR and the SIs stated only the measurement of rules or a class were applicable. This is contrary to ISAF Case 98 Q3. We had an protest concerning a non-measurement class rule that was ruled invalid. Had the protest been valid, the rule´s interpretation in ISAF Case 98 would have advised us to rule contrary to the technical package, NOR and SIs. The OA was advised of that possibility.
(Editor´s note - At the 2007 Semaine Olympique Francaise de Voile the jury was asked a question whether incorporating the class rules in the NOR and SIs meant that the Appendix of the Tornado Class Rules governing international regattas was part of the rules of the regatta. The SOF International Jury came to the conclusion that only the class measurement rules are reviewed and approved by ISAF. Therefore the ´Class rules´ mentioned in rule 86 only pertains only to the ISAF class measurement rules.)
The race committee was very prepared and practiced both afloat and ashore. In one case exhausted 29er crews were removed from their capsized boats and taken ashore. Their abandoned boats were anchored with ground tackle that was in the rescue boats for that purpose, marked by their GPS location and tagged with surveyor´s tape to denote the crew had been removed. |
|
Published
2007-12-14
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-4 |
|
2007 Laser Radial Youth European and World Championships |
|
There was a collision with injuries between a judge boat and a race committee patrol boat. The two judges were unhurt, but the driver of the patrol boat suffered bumps and bruises. The second patrol boat crew had a cut requiring several stitches to the face. She is expected to recover completely.
From the information the chairman received after the incident I concluded the judges involved were not at fault and both handled the rescue efforts admirably.
Some lessons learned (or relearned):
- Be ever alert when handling a power boat in a crowd. This incident occurred in light to moderate conditions as sailboats, coaches, patrol and jury boats were all starting to head for the harbour.
- Use the motor kill cord. Although this incident did not result in an out-of-control boat, a small change in the nature of the collision could have thrown someone into the water and made matters much worse.
- Juries should insure that the organizing authority has an emergency plan including first aid supplies on the water (better in all the motor boats) and where to meet ambulances and first aid personnel when coming ashore.
- I transported the person with the cut to the harbour and had nothing appropriate to cover the wound. In addition, my memory of basic signs of shock or concussion was poor. We should keep out basic first aid training up to date and I plan to start carrying a small emergency first aid kit.
The race committee did a very good job in strong current and occasionally large seas. A good indication was that there were no requests for redress from OCS calls. |
|
Published
2007-12-13
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-4 |
|
ZOOM 8 World Championship |
|
The sailing instructions offered arbitration but no party agreed to it. All wanted normal hearing before the jury. |
|
Published
2007-10-24
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-3 |
|
Western Canada Summer Games |
|
The Western canada Summer Games are a multi-sport youth development event. The Games require no-appeals officiating and so CYA appointed a non-appeals protest committee (3 IJs, 2 NJs, without national restrictions) under RRS 70.4(b). The original chair was unavailable due to a family medical emergency and the CYA approved continued non-appeal staus with a PC of 4 (2 IJs: 1 Canadian, 1 American).
The event technical package, NOR and SIs made only the measurement rules of classes applicable, contrary to ISAF Case 98, Q3. We had an invalid protest under class rules and recognised that we would have had to have ruled contrary to the technical package, NOR and SIs had the protest been valid. The OA was advised of that possibility.
A well prepared and practiced race committee, both afloat and ashore. Particular note is made of effective safety practices. During one race weather conditions required removal of 29er crews from their (capsized) boats due to exhaustion, with crews being taken ashore, and boats being recovered later. Club practice has safety boats carrying ground tackle to anchor abandonned boats for later recovery (the sailing venue has the benefit of relatively shallow water depths, of about 7 metres - abandonned boats are marked by GPS and tagged with surveyor´ tape to advise that the crew has been recovered). |
|
Published
2007-8-9
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-1 |
|
International FJ World Championship Regatta |
|
Discussion about whether a protest can be filed in a language other than English. This discussion came out of an invalid protest where the protestor claimed he spent time translating the protest into English. The jury would accept a protest filed in any language as long as it met the requirements or rule 61.2. This specific protest was much more detailed than the rule required.
Relationship with Race Management was excellent. However the regatta was organized in a rather casual manner for a World Championship. More race committee assets in terms of boats, gear and staff would have improved the quality of the regatta. Sailing instructions were late in being published. The jury assisted in many functions that would have been more properly dealt with by the OA/RC. This assistance was welcomed by the RC/OA and was provided willingly by the jury. |
|
Published
2007-8-9
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-1 |
|
2007 Hau Hin Regatta & Vega Rudder Race |
|
There were considerable delays that caused some frustration to the competitors. As the race management team gains experience this should improve. |
|
Published
2007-12-14
|
|
|
|
| 2007-8-1 |
|
2007 International FJ World Championship |
|
There was discussion over whether a protest can be filed in a language other than English. The discussion came about when a protestor said the reason his protest was late was because he had spent time translating the protest into English. The jury decided that it was common practice to accept a protest in any language as long as it met the requirements of rule 61.2. In this case the protest was late, it contained much more detailed than the rule required and the conclusion was that there as no good reason to extend the protest time.
The relationship with race management was excellent. However, the regatta was organized in a rather casual manner for a world championship. More race committee assets in terms of boats, gear and staff would have improved the quality of the regatta. The sailing instructions were late in being published. |
|
Published
2007-12-14
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-31 |
|
Star North American Championship |
|
The Star Class rules dealing with daily weighing of randomly selected skippers and crews are in need of revision by the class. For example, is there a limit to the number of times that a skipper and crew can be reweighed if they are found to be over the limit? Who is responsible for the weighing, the class measurer or someone else?
At this event the jury supervised the weighing on days 2, 3 and 4. If there had been a request for redress involving the weighting, this would have been awkward. The measurers should conduct the weighing of selected skippers and crews each day.
Also, the standard Star Class sailing instructions call for the jury to notify the boats selected for skipper and crew weighing while they are on the water, just after finishing the last race of the day. However,notifying individual boats that they have been selected takes away from the on-the-water judging of rule 42 at a critical time. The duty to inform boats selected for weighing should be the race committee´s and not the jury. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-27 |
|
North Aegean Sailing Week & X Yachts Hellenic Cup 2007 & X35 National Championship |
|
Nothing important to report. Very good co-operation with the Organizing and the Race Committee.
|
|
Published
2007-8-6
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-22 |
|
2007 Lightning World Championship |
|
We had a rule 69 hearing. One boat had been observed by a number of competitors to be helmed by a member of the crew that was not the officially registered skipper, during the start and part of the first leg of race number 6, infringing class rule V5 ( eligibility).
After a report received by one of the competitors the jury invited the skipper of the boat in question to reply on the allegations. He denied the allegations, but three competitors witnessed the change of the helmsman. The boat was scored DNE in race no 6. A report was sent to his National Authority.
The relations of the Jury with the organizers, the race committee and the class representatives were excellent.
A GRE NJ replaced one GRE IJ after the first day of the championship, due to health problem.
Due to a new class rule, the competitors used portable VHF radios in order to listen from the RC the OCS boats. OCS boats not being called back by radio, requested a redress, which was not given according to the SI. A number of competitors questioned the benefit of this new class rule. |
|
Published
2007-8-6
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-19 |
|
2007 Nordic Youth Sailing Chamouinships |
|
P2.3 was deleted -- popular. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-17 |
|
2007 Lightning European & Master Int’l Championships |
|
A Lightning class championship rule forbids any kind of assistance to competitors from the moment they leave the harbour until they return, unless this assistance is available to every one.
Due to extremely heat(40-43C), some competitors asked for, and received, water from nearby spectator, race committee and support boats in between and after races. The class made a reported about competitors who received water to the race committee and the jury.
After a long discussion everyone agreed that, due to the heat, it was unsafe not to give out water and, no one who had asked for water had been denied it. The class representatives agreed that extra water was needed and that it would be provided to competitors by race committee boats at the end of each race.
|
|
Published
2007-7-24
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-13 |
|
Int Contender World Championships. Medemblik NED |
|
The work from the organising club Royal Hollandia was of the highest calibre. Everything was well prepared and and the race management was excellent.There were very varied conditions across the week but they were all dealt with effectively and with the best competition in mind.
The relationship between the jury, the race committee and the competitors was excellent. The class showed a high standard of sailing and rule observance. I believe that the event was a great success |
|
Published
2007-7-26
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-13 |
|
44th Aegean Sailing Rally 2007 |
|
IRC Greece, three days before the end of the Regatta, informed in writing the owner of a boat, that due to their own mistake the LL dimension was inserted wrong in the measurement certificate and a new TCC certificate had been issued. The boat requested a redress to be re-scored in all the races of the regatta, according to his new TCC as required be the IRC rule 20.3. Redress was given |
|
Published
2007-7-24
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-12 |
|
Volvo Dun Loaghaire Regatta |
|
The Sailing Instructions required that if flag V with sound signals was used at a mark or gate, boats were required to sail directly to the finish. Following a strong wind warning, a race committee made the signal for one of the fleets at the first rounding of the downwind gate. The fleet was very compressed. In the opinion of the jury members observing the race, many of the fleet missed the signal despite it being done correctly. All but 10% went through the finish line, but many probably did so more by luck than knowing flag V was in effect.
With 522 entries and it being only the second time the regatta had been run, the organizing committee had a big challenge. They succeeded in both preparation and execution of the event. There were two panels and two arbitrators. No panel decisions were appealed to the full jury and all of the arbitration decisions were accepted by the parties. |
|
Published
2007-12-17
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-12 |
|
VOLVO ISAF YOUTH SAILING WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP |
|
It would be easier and allow more flexibility if the jury members received a $40 US per day eating stipend.
One request for redress for a race committee member who hailed the country letters and JPN was confused with FIN. |
|
Published
2007-12-16
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-11 |
|
9th All Africa Games |
|
The jury received a protest from a competitor against another boat for team racing. After hearing the evidence the jury disqualified the protester and his witness for team racing under rule 2.
It would be most advisable to introduce team racing into the next All Africa Games. This would increase this sailing specialty and be a practical way to encourage different countries to compete together increasing friendship and cooperation. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-8 |
|
Quicksiffer IFCA Slalom |
|
In this board sailing slalom event, the jury posted the following interpretation for rule 18. |
|
Published
2007-12-11
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-7 |
|
EC J-22 Hoorn Holland |
|
no special problems, good races of high quality and good relation between Race Management and Jury |
|
Published
2007-7-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-3 |
|
Swan 45 World and Swan European Championships |
|
There was concern in the class about rule observance and the jury was asked to pay special attention to the start and mark roundings -- unusual in boats of this size. It proved useful;we saw and gave evidence on a number of incidents at the windward mark, most of which resulted in damage. I think that we were acting as ´highway policemen´ and because the competitors saw the policemen on the race course, they followed the rules a little better than they would have done otherwise. |
|
Published
2007-8-16
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-2 |
|
X99 World Championship |
|
Chairing of the hearing was rotated between the panel members.
Race management was good. The only criticism was that the PRO chose to sail a third race (which had been abandoned) on the lay day when most of the fleet would have rather gone back to the harbor. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-7-1 |
|
Europe Dinghy European Championship |
|
There was one rule 69 action. Both A and C agreed to the following facts. After a three race day sailor A (girl) arrived at the ramp and dropped her sail. Competitor B (girl)then arrived at the ramp. She had problems dropping her sail and her boom touched A´s boat. A asked B many times to drop her sail. At this time sailor C (boy) seeing the problem, came to help B. In doing so he pushed A´s boat a little bit backwards. A then gestured to C with her middle finger. In reacting to this C pushed A´s head into the water and then fell into the water himself.
C apologized to A in writing before the hearing. A did not accept. A apologized to C during the hearing. C Accepted.
The decision of the jury was to issue a warning under rule 69.1(b)(1) to both A and C.
The race committee had a problem with boats not signing in and out. Unless there were exceptional circumstances, the jury penalized the competitors 5 points to the first race of the day for not signing out and five points to the last race of the day for not signing in. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-30 |
|
NatWest Island Games XII |
|
14 Islands from 6 different countries participated at the Sailing competition of the event (14 sports)
We had a hearing under RRS 69. A competitor failed to sign going IN the water according to the SI, but his signature was found in both columns of the list after signing going OUT of the water. The competitor declared that he had sign before going IN the water but finally admitted that he was lying. He never apologized for thin action. The competitor was penalized under 69.1(b)(2).
There was an excellent relationship between the Nautical Club of Rhodes, the race management and the jury throughout this event.
The PRO denied starting the races because the Organizers of the Games had failed to provide a sufficient number of safety vessels although the Competition Manager had applied for them well in advance. Finally, thanks to the efforts of the Nautical Club of Rhodes the problem was solved.
There has been a strong reaction from a lot of the RS:X competitors against the SI saying, “Lifejackets shall be worn by competitors at all times while afloat” insisting that they NEVER wear life jackets in their islands !!!. The wind speed during the series was between 12 and 25 knots.
|
|
Published
2007-7-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-23 |
|
Moth World and European Championship |
|
The jury did not work in a protest hearing, however, it had extensive discussions over the Notice of Race, the Sailing Instructions and directly supervised and assisted the organizing authority.
The Moth is a development class and ninety percent of the boats use hydrofoils. There is dramatic speed increases and times when skippers do not have complete control of their boats. It was the jury´s opinion that such a class should amend their class rules concerning rule 42 and consider increasing the size of the 2-Length Zone.
The class requested a special scoring system to allow DNF boats to receive less points than DNS or DNC. An incomplete copy and paste SI ammendment caused some unfair DNS scoring.
The organizing authority did not wish to have on-water rule 42 judging using Appendix P or rule 67.
The cause the race committee did not have enough people, two jury members went on the race committee boat and assisted identifying boats crossing the finish line. The remainder of the jury members were on the race course in a separate jury boat. |
|
Published
2007-8-15
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-20 |
|
International Etchells 22 World Championship |
|
Prior to the start of the racing one of the judges brought a guest to the first jury dinner. It was later learned that the guest was a competitor. This could have been seen as compromising the appearance of impartiality of the jury and should be avoided. |
|
Published
2007-10-22
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-18 |
|
Block Island Race Week |
|
Two panels worked as the same time. Most IJs rotated as chairman of a panel. Judges not assigned to a panel acted as arbitrators. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-18 |
|
Velocitek Musto Performance Skiff World Championships |
|
This was the first World Championships of the class. Some sailors had come from classes (non ISAF) which have a relaxed attitude to the rules (eg touching marks) and so initially had a steep learning curve. We undertook one Rule 69 hearing for attitude in the Jury room for which a warning was given. The party involved genuinely thanked the jury for treating him to a valuable lesson and the class were very pleased with the raised standards all round.
It was an enjoyable event with a good atmosphere and sailors that were keen to learn and communicate. The relationship between sailors, jury and race committee was excellent and bodes well for the future of this impressive class.
The race management was very good in sometimes difficult conditions. The only unusual practice appeared to be that of using AP for a general recall in stead of 1st Substitute. Although this did not cause any problems, we believe that some sailors were a little confused. |
|
Published
2007-7-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-16 |
|
IMS European Championship & Croatian Grand Prix |
|
The SIs had changed rule 35 and all boats were required to finish within a time limit of two hours. Race 5 was sailed in light winds that became lighter as the race progressed. Only four of the thirty-five boat fleet finished within the time limit. However, the race committee stayed at the finish line displaying a blue flag and recorded the times of the remainder of the fleet. Boats that crossed the finish line after the time limit were scored DNF. The rounding times of the previous mark had not been taken.
The race committee lodged a request for redress for the boats scored DNF on the grounds that the race committee had made an error by not shortening the course at the previous mark.
Having taken evidence from the race committee and the four boats that had finished within the time limit, the jury determined that the race committee had omitted to shorten the course and granted redress. The four boats that finished were scored first through fourth. The remainder were scored places fifth through thirty-five using their corrected times.
Several subsequent requests for redress from boats seeking a greater amount of redress were denied. One boat who established to the satisfaction of the jury that, although she had crossed the finish line, she had stopped racing when the time limit expired, was give redress based upon her average points [A10(a)].
The light and variable conditions that prevailed throughout most of the regatta made laying courses, starting lines and finish lines difficult. |
|
Published
2007-8-15
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-4 |
|
FF15 British CHampionships |
|
Course was starting line between the leeward and windward marks. It would be much better if the line was to leeward of the leeward mark. |
|
Published
2007-12-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-6-1 |
|
Finn European and Junior Open European Championships |
|
MINIMUM NUMBER OF RACES FOR A REGATTA, DISCARD & MEDAL RACE
1. There was discussion about the number of races that should be completed to sail the Medal Race.
At the moment the picture is confusing at best. Four races make a regatta, five races allow a discard. It is difficult for journalists or the non-sailing public to understand how someone who is mid fleet after four races because of a DSQ can suddenly jump into the regatta lead after a top ten finish in race five.
In the worst case, if a medal race was sailed after only four races even the smartest sailors would not be able to determine what the scores should be.
A simple format was suggested:
Minimum number of races completed for a discard – two.
Minimum number of races completed for a regatta – three
Minimum number of races completed to sail the medal race on the final day – four.
Use the first race to break ties during all fleet racing.
Use the medal race to break in top ten positions.
RELOCATE ADDENDUM Q CHANGING SI FOR BREAKING TIES
2. It would be better to move the sailing instruction for breaking ties for the top ten boats in the medal race to Addendum Q and have the addendum change the Sailing Instructions than, as it is now, the method for breaking ties be in the medal race in the sailing instructions.
The R/C sailed a windward/leeward-gate course. At the end of the last downwind leg the fleet sailed through the gate and then a short reach the finish line between the R/C boat and a mark twenty meters directly upwind of the R/C boat. As the boats were finishing the PRO was repositioning the leeward end of the starting line and the weather mark. He was able to start the next sequence ten minutes after the last boat finished.
This extremely short turn around time was appreciated by all.
|
|
Published
2007-7-10
|
|
|
|
| 2007-5-30 |
|
2007 ABN AMRO North Sea Regatta |
|
Redress requested for a port/starboard collision, neither boat was racing at the time of the incident. Redress was not granted. Sign out and in was done with a computerized bar code system.
Comments from the IJSC: ´The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race ...´ (Preamble Part 2). If the right of way boat intended to race and was damaged by an ´action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear´, most International Juries would award redress under rule 61.1.
|
|
Published
2007-12-11
|
|
|
|
| 2007-5-26 |
|
Goldener Pfingstbusch 2007 |
|
16 Judges. Nothing special, just nice racing and very good relationships between judges and between judges and race committee. |
|
Published
2007-7-5
|
|
|
|
| 2007-5-10 |
|
Open Dutch Campionship for Olympic & Paralympic classes 2007 |
|
Finn 66 scored as DNE following sailing instruction 14.6 was given redress by the jury after it was determined that, unseen by the race committee, she had returned and started correctly.
(SI 30.1 - if a boat fails to start or breaks rule 30.1, the race committee at mark 1 will point flag X at her, make a sound signal and hail her sail number. The boat shall immediately retire from the race. If she fails to do so she will be disqualified without a hearing and her scoring will be not excluded. This changes rule A6.)
The jury thought it was not a good practice. In such a situation it is more fair to allow the boat to finish and then be scored OCS. If the jury later finds the race committee made a mistake, it has a finish position to use to determine redress. If the boat is required to retire, the only redress available is the less satisfactory, average points.
|
|