Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #2—31 JUL 2012
Protestor: #79144 Yeah Baby (YB)—PHRF B
Protestee: #69802 Elixir (E)—PHRF B
Protestor: #34498 Thirsty (T)—PHRF B
Protestee: Request for Redress
Protest: RRS 28.1, RRS 34
Facts Found:
--The RC placed two temporary marks to serve as leeward rounding marks with the intended designation
of “X” & “C” (see OCSA Course Chart) which are approximately 0.65 NM apart.
--The course signaled by the RC was B-2-X-2-X-B for fleet PHRF B.
--“B” was the start/finish mark; “C” was not used by this fleet.
--The marks set by the RC were placed in the usual and customary location for “X” and “C” as
indicated by the OCSA Course Chart.
--At some time after all of the boats of fleet PHRF B rounded mark “X” for the first time the mark at
location “X” began to drift in the direction of mark location “C”.
--When YB & E were on their second leeward leg of the course and approaching location “C”, the mark
formerly anchored at location “X” was in the vicinity of mark “C”.
--YB rounded the drifting mark formerly at location “X”.
--E rounded the mark deployed at location “C”.
--After YB & E began their weather leg to the finish, but before T reached the improper mark location,
the RC recovered and moved the drifting mark back to location “X”.
-- T rounded the mark at location “X” after it was replaced by the RC.
Conclusion:
--The RC made an error, a mark was nowhere near the position it was supposed to be in; it wasn't YB’s
fault that the mark was not in position, and it sailed the course per RRS 28.1 regardless of the fact that
the drifting mark was approximately 0.65 NM from where it was supposed to be.
--In the case of E, if the leeward mark for another fleet was in its proper position then it clearly wasn't
that boat's leeward mark, so E could have known that it didn't sail the course.
--The RC replaced the mark as provided by RRS 34.
--Compared to YB the finishing position of T was made significantly worse because of the RC's error,
and, therefore, some sort of redress should be granted.
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 28.1, A6.2
Decision(s):
--Boat E is disqualified from race #2 under RRS 28.1
--Redress for T is granted
--Race #2 is to be rescored as provided and the series scores are to be changed as a result.
Sail Boat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Pos
69802 Elixir 1 [4/DSQ] 1 3 3 1 9 2
79144 Yeah Baby [2] 1 2 2 1 2 8 1
34498 Thirsty [4/DNC] 1RDG 3 1 2 3 10 3
Jury: Kevin Kahl, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Craig Daniels
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION
Appeals Committee
c/o Suite 1100 – 938 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1N9
e–mail: rfh_yachting@shaw.ca Fax: (604) 601–2144
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 3, 2012
TO: Corinthian Yacht Club
c/o Oregon Corinthian Sailing Association (OCSA)
PO Box 28314
Portland, OR 97228
Attention: Eric Rimkus, Protest Committee Chair
Dear Eric:
Re: CYC SUMMER EVENING SERIES, RACE #1 July 24 and RACE #2 July 31, 2012
PIYA APPEAL No. 1205 – Appeal of the Decision in the Request for Redress by #69907 ‘Passage’
Regarding Rescoring of #79093 ‘Anam Cara’ from Div. A1 to Div. A2
We refer to the above–referenced appeal dated August 21, 2012, submitted to the US Sailing Race
Administration Director and referred to this Committee (the PIYA-AC) on September 6, 2012, of the decision
made by the Corinthian Yacht Club of Portland (CYC) protest committee (the PC) following its hearing on or
about August 15, 2012, of the request for redress (the Request) filed by sailboat #69907 ‘Passage’ (the
Appellant) regarding the decision by CYC Commodore Ryan Barnes for and on behalf of the CYC race
committee to change the racing class of sailboat #79093 ‘Anam Cara’ (AC) from PHRF Division A-1 to PHRF
Division A-2 after ‘Anam Cara’ had been entered in Division A-1 for, started and finished Races #1 and #2 of
the CYC Summer Evening Series.
In your September 11, 2012 e–mail to the PIYA-AC, you confirmed that “Ryan Barnes determined the initial
class breaks, and made the subsequent change to AC’s class”, and advised that “No other boats in either PHRFA1
or -A2 were present at the hearing. The (Request) was posted to the ‘official notice board’ as per the
Oregon Corinthian Sailing Association (OCSA) General Sailing Instruction #2 & #15.4.”
US Sailing’s prescription to rule 63.2 of the Racing Rules of Sailing requires that:
“when redress has been requested or is to be considered, the protest committee shall make a reasonable
attempt to notify all boats of the time and place of the hearing and the nature of the request or the grounds
for considering redress. Before holding the hearing, the committee shall allow reasonable time for boats to
make written requests to participate.”
Posting notice of the Request on the OCSA electronic official notice board is not a reasonable attempt to notify
all boats which could be affected. Consequently, the PC did not comply with US Sailing’s prescription to
racing rule 63.2. Therefore, acting under racing rules 71.2 and F8(a) as prescribed by US Sailing, the PIYA-AC
is returning the Request to the PC for a completely new hearing. In advance of the new hearing, the PC is
directed to specifically notify in writing, either by e-mail, facsimile transmission or regular mail, the registered
skippers of all boats in Divisions A1 and A2 which started in Races #1 and #2 of the CYC 2012 Summer
Evening Series of the date, time and place of the new hearing, and send those boats’ skippers a copy of the
Request. In accordance with US Sailing’s prescription to racing rule 60, such notification must also inform
those boats that they are entitled to participate in the new hearing as a party. Having then provided such boats
as may attend the new hearing the opportunity to be heard, after considering all testimony taken during the new
hearing the PC is to decide the Request anew. In that regard, rule A6.2 in Appendix A of the RRS states:
“If the protest committee decides to give redress by adjusting a boat’s score (in this instance
AC’s score in Races #1 and #2), the scores of other boats shall not be changed (emphasis added)
unless the protest committee decides otherwise.”
Reference is made to the subsection under the heading “Redress” on page 6–7 of the US Sailing Judges Manual for
2009 – 2012, the relevant text of which appears on the last page of this letter. Further, because a boat which enters
a race is able to know from the boats registered each of the other boats which are in its class before the start of that
race, the PIYA-AC is of the opinion such boat’s finishing position should not be changed afterwards by the finish
position of any other boat which was not at the time racing in such boat’s class at the start of the race.
This decision closes our File no. 1205. By copies of this letter being sent by e-mail, the Appellant and AC’s
representative are advised that when the new hearing is concluded the PC’s ultimate decision on the Request
may then be appealed as if it were the first decision concerning this matter.
Yours very truly,
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION APPEALS COMMITTEE
Per:
(signed) R. (Rick) Hatch, Chair
copies (sent via e–mail) to:
Jack Becker, representative of sailboat #69907 ‘Passage’, Appellant
Tom Kelly, representative of sailboat #79093 ‘Anam Cara’
Ryan Barnes, Commodore, Corinthian Yacht Club of Portland
Charlie Macaulay, PIYA Appeals Committee member
Bill Mains, PIYA Appeals Committee member
Dick Rose, PIYA Appeals Committee member
Mike Turner, PIYA Appeals Committee member
Mike Weir, PIYA Appeals Committee member
Chris Petracco, US Sailing Race Administration Director
text excerpted from page 7-6 of the
US Sailing Judges Manual
for 2009 – 2012
“Redress
“The PC should also be aware that rule A6.2 allows for duplicate scores unless the PC decides otherwise. This
prevents situations where the finish position of an ‘innocent’ boat is altered because of a redress decision. ...
“Redress given to a boat that made an error as a result of an improper action of the RC should not result in that
boat receiving a better score than boats that did not make the error.”
Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #1 & #2—24 JUL 2012
Protestor: 69907 Passage (P)
Protestee: 79093 Anam Cara (AC)/Request for Redress
Protest: OCSA GSI 3 & 5
Facts Found:
--AC & P were placed in Class A-1 and A-2, respectively, before the start of racing.
--Both Class A-1 & A-2 started and sailed the same course in Race #1 & #2 on 24 JUL 12.
--AC was moved from Class A-1 to A-2 after the posting of results from Race #1 & #2 on 24 JUL 12.
--The RC modified the results and scored AC in Class A-2 for Race #1 & #2 and all subsequent races.
--This change (for Race #1 & #2 only) was in violation of OCSA GSI 3 & 5.
3. CHANGES TO GENERAL SAILING INSTRUCTIONS: Any changes to the OCSA General Sailing
Instructions or Event Sailing Instructions shall be in writing and posted on the official notice board by 2200
local time on the day before it will take effect.
5. CLASS DIVISIONS & CLASS FLAGS: Class Divisions & Class Flags shall be provided by the Organizing
Authority for the Event and will be posted on the official notice board by 2200 local time on the day before it
will take effect.
--Competitors were appropriately informed of the change of AC from Class A-1 to A-2 for subsequent
races in the series.
Conclusion:
--The race committee has wide latitude to do things that may be against the rules. They aren't supposed
to break the rules and should try their best to follow the rules, but the rules are clearly written to allow
for mistakes that do not significantly hurt a competitor.
--When class breaks were originally made for Class A-1 & A-2 a decision to keep “sprit” boats separate
from “symmetric” boats was made. It was later decided that this was not in the best interest of fair
competition as it placed “displacement” boats with true “sport boats”. In an effort to provide a better
match of boats, AC was moved from Class A-1 to A-2 after the first two races of the series.
--The action by the RC, although in violation to the SI, was done with the intention of correcting an
error which they believed to have been made in the class divisions.
--RRS 62.1 states that "A request for redress... shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat's score
in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by..."
--The scores of several competitors were made worse by rescoring races #1 & #2 with AC in Class A-2
through no fault of there own.
--Rule A6.2 allows for duplicate scores; this prevents situations where the finish position of an
“innocent” boat is altered because of a redress decision.
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 62.1, A6.2
Decision(s):
--AC to remain in Class A-2.
--Redress given to AC for Races #1 & #2 on 24 JUL 2012.
--Race #1 & #2 on 24 JUL 2012 to be scored “as modified” by the PC
Sail Boat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Pos
69996 Lolita 1 1 1 2 2 1 [3] 3 11 1
79093
Anam
Cara 2 1 [8/RAF]
5 1 4 1 1 15 2
69907 Passage 2 6/DNS 2 1 [8/DSQ] 2 2 2 17 3
87661 Rollerball 3 3 [8/RAF] 4 3 3 4 4 24 4
36047 Wave
Dancer 4 2 4 3 5 [6] 6 5 29 5
90 5 [6/DNS] 3 6 6 5 5 6 36 6
36020 Desperado 7/DNC 7/DNC 5 [8/DNS] 4 7 7 7 44 7
Protest Committee: Kevin Kahl, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Craig Daniels
Additional Comments:
The decision of the original Protest Committee (PC) was not overturned or decided by the PIYA Appeals
Committee (PIYA-AC). The Request for Redress was returned to the PC by the PIYA-AC for failing to comply
with US Sailing’s prescription to RRS 63.2. From the PIYA-AC decision:
“Therefore, acting under racing rules 71.2 and F8(a) as prescribed by US Sailing, the PIYA-AC
is returning the Request to the PC for a completely new hearing. In advance of the new hearing,
the PC is directed to specifically notify in writing, either by e-mail, facsimile transmission or
regular mail, the registered skippers of all boats in Divisions A1 and A2 which started in Races
#1 and #2 of the CYC 2012 Summer Evening Series of the date, time and place of the new
hearing, and send those boats’ skippers a copy of the Request.”
The PC acting as instructed under Rule F5.1 and as directed by the PIYA-AC scheduled a hearing time and
location and notified all competitors in Division A1 & A2. The PC was comprised of the same three (3)
members as the original hearing which was disregarded.
As a result of the PIYA-AC action, all competitors in Divisions A1 & A2 which started in Races #1 & #2 of the
CYC 2012 Summer Evening Series were notified by email via Regatta Networks as well as from the CYC-Race
Captain and via phone by the PC Chairman of the time and location of the new hearing and were offered the
opportunity to provide a written statement with respect to the issue being decided.
All competitors in Division A1 & A2, save Mr. Becker, declined to participate or provide a statement in a new
hearing. As such, the PC discussed the evidence previously provided by Mr. Becker and provided Mr. Becker
with an opportunity to provide any new evidence. Mr. Becker challenged the participation in the hearing by the
original PC members who were present for the new hearing. None of the PC were an “Interested Party” as per
RRS 63.4.
Mr. Becker declined to participate in the hearing and the PC provided Mr. Becker with a copy of our decision.
Mr. Becker stated that he intends to appeal.
Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: Race #8 28 Aug 2012
Protestor: #69907 Passage (P)
Protestee: #69093 Anam Cara (AC)
Protest: RRS 10
In the protest of Passage v. Anam Cara in Race #8 of the CYC Summer Series, a request to reopen the hearing in compliance with RRS 66 was made by a party to the hearing with 24 hours of receiving the decision.
Facts Found:
-P and AC were on a beat approaching the weather mark, outside of the 3 boat zone
-P was on Starboard tack and fetching the weather mark
-AC was on Port tack
-AC tacked onto Starboard tack leeward of P
-There was no contact between P and AC
-P hailed "PROTEST" to AC for failing to keep clear
-P made several more hails to AC, but did not fly protest flag
-After rounding weather mark, P hails AC again and puts up protest flag
Conclusion:
-P failed to "hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each" (RRS 61.1(a)). The onus of the hail and the display are upon the protesting boat at the first reasonable opportunity after the incident occurs. Following the incident, Passage, with 9 person aboard, continued to sail to the mark for approximately 5 boat lengths, then round the mark and set her spinnaker before deciding to fly her red flag.
-The PC took guidance from Appeal 61: ""First reasonable opportunity" means as soon as practicable, not as soon as convenient. The maneuvers Performed by PW after the incident and before hailing clearly demonstrate that her hail was not made at the first reasonable opportunity."
And from Appeal 67: "635 did not display her protest flag "at the first reasonable opportunity", as required by the rule 61.1(a). During the time before the spinnaker was hoisted, two crew members had a reasonable opportunity to display the protest flag, but did not do so."
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 61.1(a),63.5, Appeal 67
Decision(s): Based upon the findings of these the two established appeals, the PC finds that the protest is invalid.
Jury: Brian Lockwood, Eric Rimkus, Mike Stainsby (chairman)
...Event: CYC Summer Series (Thursday)
Race: #4 9 AUG 2012
Protestor: #1578 For My Girls (FMG)
Protestee: Request for Redress
Protest: RRS 62.1(a), 29.1, 90.3(a), A5 & A11
Facts Found:
--A valid request was submitted by FMG to the Race Committee.
--The start line was heavily biased toward the pin (North) end.
--Statements from the RC confirm that two or more boats were identified as OCS at the time of the start.
--#389 was near the middle of the line and identified by the RC as being OCS.
--One or more additional boats approximately
½ of the way between #389 and the pin wereidentified by the RC as being OCS.
--The boats finishing in the top two positions for this race were not the boats identified by the RC as
being OCS.
--Individual Recall was properly signaled by the RC.
--The Recall flag, “X”, remained up for 4 minutes after the start signal.
--#389 returned and started correctly; no other competitor returned.
--Shortly after the start the RC could no longer identify the other OCS boats.
--No boats were scored OCS by the RC for the race.
Conclusion:
--The PC is required to “take evidence from appropriate sources” when in doubt about the facts or
probable results due to awarding redress. This may involve expanding the hearing to include other boats
or taking testimony from additional witnesses. The redress must include all boats affected, whether or
not they sought redress. RRS 64.2 (Decisions on Redress) requires that the PC make “as fair an
arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress.” Additionally, the
PC is advised to avoid abandoning a race.
--The RC made an error by not taking further action when the additional OCS boat(s) could not be
identified.
--The RC MAY signal a General Recall under RRS 29.2 or the RC MAY abandon the race under RRS
32.1(e), however, there is no requirement that the RC do either.
--The RC shall score the race according to Appendix A, and may determine scores as allowed by A5.
Specifically, the RC shall use the scoring abbreviation of “OCS” for a boat that did not start and was on
the course side at her starting signal. The RC made an error by not scoring boats as OCS.
--The PC is not satisfied that the RC’s error has made #1578’s finishing position or that of other
competitors significantly worse through no fault of her own.
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 29.1, 62.1
Decision:
--Race #4 on 9 AUG 2012 be scored “as is” by the RC.
--Request for redress is denied.
Jury: David Hickman, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Phil Campagna
...© 2003 Angelo Buscemi. All Rights Reserved. Permission to copy for free distribution is granted to US Sailing, ISAF and Certified US Sailing and ISAF
Judges and Umpires.
Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #5—8 JUL 2012
Protestor: #69907 Passage (P)
Protestee: #69996 Lolita (L)
Protest: RRS 11
Facts Found:
--Protest was submitted to Race Officials after the published time limit to submit protests
--There was no good reason found by the protest committee to extend the time limit
Conclusion:
--The protest is found to be invalid and the hearing is closed
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 63.5
Decision(s):
--None
Jury: David Hickman, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Mike Stainsby
© 2003 Angelo Buscemi. All Rights Reserved. Permission to copy for free distribution is granted to US Sailing, ISAF and Certified US Sailing and ISAF
Judges and Umpires.
Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #5—8 JUL 2012
Protestor: #69996 Lolita (L)
Protestee: #69907 Passage (P)
Protest: RRS 15, RRS 18.3(a)
Facts Found:
--P & L were on a beat to weather approaching the windward mark
--P was on PORT tack
--L was on STBD tack on her layline and fetching the weather mark
--P tacked to STBD and completed her tack inside the zone
--L sailed above close hauled to avoid P
--Contact occurred between P (~7’ forward of the STBD transom corner) & L (aft section of port bow
pulpit) shortly after P completed her tack causing damage to L
Conclusion:
--P acquired right of way, but failed to initially give L room to keep clear
--It was not reasonably possible for L to avoid P
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 15, RRS 18.3(a)
Decision(s):
--DSQ Passage
Jury: David Hickman, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Mike Stainsby
© 2003 Angelo Buscemi. All Rights Reserved. Permission to copy for free distribution is granted to US Sailing, ISAF and Certified US Sailing and ISAF
Judges and Umpires.
...Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #1—24 JUL 2012
Protestor: Protest Committee
Protestee: Request for Redress for Martin 24X fleet
Protest: Definition "Finish", 90.3(a), A3, A4.1, A4.2, A5, A9
Facts Found:
--The RC posted course “TT”
--After the course was posted the course changed to “T” due to mechanical failure of the course board
--The RC failed to record finish times or places for the fleet
Conclusion:
A RC must score a boat that meets the definition
Finish in her finishing place.Definition "Finish"—A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment in normal position,
crosses the finishing line in the direction of the course from the last mark, either for the first time or after taking
a penalty under rule 31.2 or 44.2 or, under rule 28.1, after correcting an error made at the finishing line, under
rule 28.1.
RRS 90.3 Scoring—(a) The race committee shall score a race or series as provided in Appendix A using the
Low Point System, unless the sailing instructions specify the Bonus Point System or some other system. A race
shall be scored if it is not abandoned and if one boat sails the course in compliance with rule 28.1 and finishes
within the time limit, if any, even if she retires after finishing or is disqualified.
A5 SCORES DETERMINED BY THE RACE COMMITTEE
A boat that did not start, comply with rule 30.2 or 30.3, or finish, or that takes a penalty under rule 44.3(a) or
retires after finishing, shall be scored accordingly by the race committee without a hearing. Only the protest
committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat
’s score.It is the requirement of the RC to score all races started and not abandoned that one or more boats finish as
defined above. The RC is not permitted to choose to not score a race because of a possible error; the only
recourse for the RC once a race is underway is to abandon or to score the race and seek redress.
RRS 64.2 (Decisions on Redress) requires that the PC make “as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats
affected, whether or not they asked for redress.” The PC is required to “take evidence from appropriate
sources” when in doubt about the facts or probable results due to awarding redress.
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 90.3(a), RRS A5, Definitions
finishDecision(s): The results for Race #1 for the Martin 24X fleet shall be:
1 241
2 79088
3 79
4 163
5 89
6 24
DNC 20
DNC 21
Jury: Kevin Kahl, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Craig Daniels
...
Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #4—31 JUL 2012
Protestor: #97229 Raicilla (R)—Merit 25
Protestee: Request for Redress
Protestor: Protest Committee—Martin 24X Fleet
Protestee: Request for Redress
Protest: RRS L12.3 (US Sailing Prescription), OCSA 11.7
Facts Found:
--The RC intended to start another race on the same day for fleets Merit 25 (M25) & Martin 24X (M24).
--The OCSA General Sailing Instructions state, “if the Race Committee intends to start another race on
the same day, it will display the second substitute (with no sound) while boats are finishing”.
--The RC did not display the Second Substitute while boats were finishing.
--The RC started an additional (second) race on 31 JUL 2012 (M25) & (M24).
--The 1
st & 2nd finishers in Race #3 for (M25) did not start Race #4.
--Four of more finishers in Race #3 for (M24) did not start Race #4.
Conclusion: The actions of the Race Committee, by failing to display the Second Substitute while boats were
finishing, made the scores of several boats significantly worse through no fault of their own. The RC is advised
to review the OCSA General Sailing Instructions and comply with OCSA GSI 11.7 while boats are finishing
when conducting additional races on the same day.
The RC is required by RRS 85 (Governing Rules) to conduct races in compliance with the
rules (RRS
Definitions), which include the Sailing Instructions (SI). When it fails to do so, a boat may be entitled to
redress. The OCSA General Sailing Instructions are part of the SI.
This may involve expanding the hearing to include other boats or taking testimony from additional witnesses.
The redress must include all boats affected, whether or not they sought redress. RRS 64.2 (Decisions on
Redress) requires that the PC make “as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not
they asked for redress.”
The PC is advised to avoid abandoning a race. The PC made every attempt to do so, however, no arrangement
that was as fair as possible for all boats affected could be determined.
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 60.3(b), RRS 62.1, RRS 64.2, RRS 85, Definitions
rules
Decision(s): Race #4 of the CYC Summer Series (Tuesday) shall be abandoned for M24 & M25.
Jury: Kevin Kahl, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Craig Daniels
...Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #1 26 JUL 2012
Protestor: #720 Barcode (B)
Protestee: #34 Tnaguera (T)
Protest: RRS 28.1
Arbitration Findings:
--A valid protest was submitted by B
--Statements from both parties confirm that T sailed a course different from that signaled for her class
--It is not possible that T could have complied with RRS 28.1 as a result of sailing an incorrect course
--Statements from both parties leave significant doubt that T complied with RRS 28.1
Conclusion:
--T would likely be scored “DSQ” in a hearing
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 28.1
Recommendation(s):
--T request “RAF” scoring for race #1
--B request that the protest be withdrawn in compliance with RRS 63.1
Arbitrator: Kevin Kahl
...Event: CYC Summer Series (Tuesday)
Race: #1 24 JUL 2012
Protestor: #79083 Anam Cara (AC)
Protestee: Request for Redress
Protest: RRS 62.1
Arbitration Findings:
--A valid request was submitted by AC to the Race Committee.
--Statements from AC and the Race Captain confirm that AC was disadvantaged during a mark rounding
due to a mark that was being re-set.
--The interaction between the RC mark boat and AC during the mark movement likely added 45 – 60
seconds, at most, to AC’s finish time.
--AC’s finish place (after correcting results) is 4
th; a time adjustment of 203 seconds would be requiredto move AC into 2
nd place and 243 seconds would be needed to move AC into 1st place.Conclusion:
--The PC is required to “take evidence from appropriate sources” when in doubt about the facts or
probable results due to awarding redress. This may involve expanding the hearing to include other boats
or taking testimony from additional witnesses. The redress must include all boats affected, whether or
not they sought redress. RRS 64.2 (Decisions on Redress) requires that the PC make “as fair an
arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress.” Additionally, the
PC is advised to avoid abandoning a race.
--The race committee has wide latitude to do things against the rules. They aren't supposed to break the
rules and should try their best to follow the rules, but the rules are clearly written to allow for mistakes
that don't significantly hurt a competitor.
--RRS 62.1 states that "A request for redress... shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat's score
in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by..."
--In this instance, AC's score in this race or series has not been made significantly worse as the
interaction with the RC Mark Boat likely moved them from 3
rd to 4th place in this race, and redressshould, therefore, be denied.
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 62.1
Recommendation(s):
--Race #1 on 24 JUL 2012 be scored “as is” by the RC
--AC request that the redress request be withdrawn in compliance with RRS 63.1
Arbitrator: Eric Rimkus
...
CYC Summer Series Race Notice
Class Divisions - Tuesday Nights:
Pennant 1: Fleet - PHRF A1 & A2
Pennant 2: Fleet - Martin 24X
Pennant 3: Fleet - Merit 25
Pennant 4: Fleet - PHRF B & PHRF C
Pennant 5: Fleet - PHRF D
Class Divisions - Thursday Nights:
Pennant 1: Fleet - J-24
Pennant 2: Fleet - Cal 20
Pennant 3: Fleet - Ranger 20
Pennant 4: Fleet - Cruising A
Pennant 5: Fleet - Cruising B
...Event site launched on Regatta Network ...
