Event: SYSCO Spring Series (Tuesday)
Race: #1—24 APR 2012
Protestor: #21 Apple Pi(AP)—Fleet C1
Protestee: #20 Kermit (K)—Fleet C1
#89 Wild Women (WW)—Fleet C1
#24 Vuja de (V)—Fleet C1 (scored RAF)
Protestor: #37 Shamrock (S)—Fleet E
Protestee: #103 Pajema (P)—Fleet E
#192 French Kiss (FK)—Fleet E
#53541 Osprey (O)—Fleet E (scored OCS)
Protest: RRS 28.1
Facts Found:
--The RC placed 2 temporary marks to serve as windward rounding marks with the intended designation of “X” & “A” (see OCSA Course Chart)
--The course signaled by the RC was N-X-N-A-N for Fleet C1 and N-A-N-A-N for Fleet E
--The marks set by the RC were not placed in the usual and customary location for “N”, “X” or “A” as indicated by the OCSA Course Chart
--The RC designated mark for “A” was placed approximately 1900 feet west of the typical location indicated on the OCSA Course Chart as confirmed by GPS evidence
--A 3rd windward mark, which was not placed by the RC, was recognized as a mark of the course by some competitors
Conclusion:
A RC must score a boat that meets the definition Finish in her finishing place. In Case 80, a RC witnessed a boat failing to sail the course as required by RRS 28 and erred in scoring the boat DNF. The RC acted correctly and the competitors proceeded correctly to protest the boats that they believed violated RRS 28. Confusion existed at the time of the race as to the courses competitors were expected to sail as a result of mark placement by the RC.
Applicable Rule(s): 60.3(b)
Decision(s): Protest is closed pending outcome from Redress Hearing.
Jury: David Hickman, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Steve Erickson
Event: SYSCO Spring Series (Tuesday)
Race: #1—24 APR 2012
Protestor: Protest Committee
Protestee: Redress Hearing
Protest: RRS 62.1
Facts Found:
--The RC placed 2 temporary marks to serve as windward rounding marks with the intended designation of “X” & “A” (see OCSA Course Chart)
--The course signaled by the RC was:
N-A-N-X-N for Fleet A1 & A2
N-X-N-A-N for Fleet C1 & C2
N-A-N-A-N for Fleet E & F
--The marks set by the RC were not placed in the usual and customary location for “N”, “X” or “A” as indicated by the OCSA Course Chart
--The RC designated mark for “A” was placed approximately 1900 feet west (down river) of the typical location indicated on the OCSA Course Chart as confirmed by GPS evidence
--A 3rd windward mark, which was not placed by the RC, was recognized as a mark of the course by some competitors
--11 boats in Fleets A1, A2, C1, E & F sailed courses not intended by the RC
Conclusion: Locations chosen for the marks designated by the RC as “A” & “X”, coupled with the placement by a 3rd party of a float which appeared to competitors to be a mark of the course from the starting area, created significant differences of opinion and confusion as to the intended course set and signaled by the RC. One or more boat’s score in Race #1 of the SYSCO Spring Series were made significantly worse through no fault of her own through an improper action or omission of the RC.
Applicable Rule(s): RRS 60.3(b), RRS 62.1, RRS 64.2, RRS 85, Definitions rules
Decision(s): 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 Course Chart and corresponding mark locations are part of the SI. 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.” In a multiple class event, if there is ambiguity and boats in one class are confused and sail different courses, some of them may be entitled to redress. If, however, in other classes all of the boats sail the same course, none of them are entitled to 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.
Race #1 of the SYSCO Spring Series (Tuesday) shall be abandoned for Fleets A1, A2, C1, E & F; results for Fleet C2 shall stand.
Jury: David Hickman, Eric Rimkus (chairman), Steve Erickson
