SYSCO 2013 Spring Evening Series - Tuesday
April 23 - May 28, 2013
| Class: | |
| No. |
Race |
Protestor |
Protestee |
Witness(es) |
Rule(s) |
Time of Hearing |
Notes/Results |
| 0 |
1 |
Sail#: 844
Boat: DragonFly
Class: Merit
|
|
|
|
Completed
Request for redress |
Event: Race: Protestor: Protestee: Protest:
SYSCO Spring Series (Tuesday) #3—14 MAY 2013
#844 “Dragon Fly” (DF)
Request for Redress for Merit 25 fleet 27.2, 29.1, 32.1(a), 32.1(e), 62
Conclusion:
The Request for Redress by DF is Denied.
The PC notes the following from evidence gathered from available sources:
--The RC erred during the start sequence for the Merit 25 fleet
--The RC violated RRS 27.2 by retrieving a drifting start mark after the preparatory signal
--The RC violated RRS 29.1 by failing to provide “one sound” while promptly displaying flag X --The RC violated RRS 34 by failing to display flag M and make repetitive sound signals while replacing the start mark
--The RC maintained a clear sight line for the start, and the RC maintained an adequate start line to ensure fair racing with the mark boat holding station with the mark
--DF was OCS and was aware of that fact through her own admission
--DF returned to the starting area and started correctly, complying with RRS 28.1
--DF was partially responsible for, or partially at fault, for her situation and loss of finishing place
We applied guidance from the US Sailing Judges Manual and ISAF Case #31 to reach our conclusion.
From the Judges Manual (BOLDED UNDERLINE added for emphasis):
7.3 Requirements for Redress
Rule 62.1 describes three requirements for a boat to be granted redress. In order to qualify for redress, a boat’s request must be based on a claim that:
-a boat’s score in a race or series has been made significantly worse, -through no fault of her own, and
-by one of the four conditions listed in rule 62.1.
The word “shall” in rule 62.1 mandates that all three of these requirements be met. A request that does not meet all three requirements must be denied. The PC has no latitude to ignore any of the three requirements. Conversely, if the request meets the three requirements, the PC must grant redress.
7.3.2 Through no fault of her own
When a PC concludes that the RC committed an error in scoring a boat OCS, the boat is
not automatically entitled to redress. If the PC determines in the hearing that the boat knew or should have known that she was over the starting line, the request for redress has not met the “through no fault of her own” requirement. If she was several boat lengths over the starting line, she has no valid claim that she had to rely on the RC signals.
It should be noted that the rule stipulates “no” fault on the part of the boat requesting redress. A partial contribution in the loss of finishing place will not meet the test for “no” fault, and the request for redress must be denied.
From Case #31:
A boat that realizes that she was over the line is not entitled to redress, and she must comply with rules 28.1 and, if it applies, rule 30.1. If she fails to do so, she breaks rule 2 and fails to comply with the Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules.
Applicable Rule(s): 62.1, 63.1, 63.5
Jury: Eric Rimkus (chairman), Craig Daniels, Mike Stainsby

Discussion:
While the PC notes that the RC erred during this event, the PC also recognizes the difficulty that the RC
was experiencing in setting and maintaining the start mark, and further recognizes the positive steps that the RC took to maintain the start line and to provide competitors with racing started under such conditions. The RC is, however, reminded that RRS 29.1 REQUIRES a sound signal when flag X is displayed; this is not a “disregarded” sound signal as per RRS 26, and the RC is advised to display flag M with repetitive sounds when substituting a mark with an RC boat under such conditions to comply with RRS 34.
RRS 63.1 requires that “A decision on redress shall not be made without a hearing”. However, RRS 63.5 requires the PC to “take any evidence it considers necessary to decide whether all requirements for the request for redress have been met.” And “If not, the committee shall declare the request invalid and close the hearing.” The PC conducted a thorough gathering of information before making a determination that the request was invalid. Should the PC had determined otherwise, however, and conducted a full hearing, the race results likely would not have been changed as a boat that is OCS in such adverse conditions would be assumed unable to make a significant improvement in their score.
POSTED: May 14, 19:00 |
| Class: | |
| No. |
Race |
Protestor |
Protestee |
Witness(es) |
Rule(s) |
Time of Hearing |
Notes/Results |
| 0 |
1 |
Sail#: 97229
Boat: Raicilla
Class: Merit
|
|
|
|
Completed
Request for redress |
Event: Race: Protestor: Protestee: Protest:
SYSCO Spring Series (Tuesday) #3—14 MAY 2013
#97229 “Raicilla” (R)
Request for Redress for Merit 25 fleet 27.2, 29.1, 32.1(a), 32.1(e), 62
Conclusion:
The Request for Redress by R is Denied.
The PC notes the following from evidence gathered from available sources:
--The RC erred during the start sequence for the Merit 25 fleet
--The RC violated RRS 27.2 by retrieving a drifting start mark after the preparatory signal
--The RC violated RRS 29.1 by failing to provide “one sound” while promptly displaying flag X --The RC violated RRS 34 by failing to display flag M and make repetitive sound signals while replacing the start mark
--The RC maintained a clear sight line for the start, and the RC maintained an adequate start line to ensure fair racing with the mark boat holding station with the mark
--R was OCS, but was unaware of that fact until notified by competitors and hailed
--R returned to the starting area and started correctly, complying with RRS 28.1
--R was partially responsible for, or partially at fault, for her situation and loss of finishing place
We applied guidance from the US Sailing Judges Manual and ISAF Case #31 to reach our conclusion.
From the Judges Manual (BOLDED UNDERLINE added for emphasis):
7.3 Requirements for Redress
Rule 62.1 describes three requirements for a boat to be granted redress. In order to qualify for redress, a boat’s request must be based on a claim that:
-a boat’s score in a race or series has been made significantly worse, -through no fault of her own, and
-by one of the four conditions listed in rule 62.1.
The word “shall” in rule 62.1 mandates that all three of these requirements be met. A request that does not meet all three requirements must be denied. The PC has no latitude to ignore any of the three requirements. Conversely, if the request meets the three requirements, the PC must grant redress.
7.3.2 Through no fault of her own
When a PC concludes that the RC committed an error in scoring a boat OCS, the boat is
not automatically entitled to redress. If the PC determines in the hearing that the boat knew or should have known that she was over the starting line, the request for redress has not met the “through no fault of her own” requirement. If she was several boat lengths over the starting line, she has no valid claim that she had to rely on the RC signals.
It should be noted that the rule stipulates “no” fault on the part of the boat requesting redress. A partial contribution in the loss of finishing place will not meet the test for “no” fault, and the request for redress must be denied.
From Case #31:
A boat that realizes that she was over the line is not entitled to redress, and she must comply with rules 28.1 and, if it applies, rule 30.1. If she fails to do so, she breaks rule 2 and fails to comply with the Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules.
Applicable Rule(s): 62.1, 63.1, 63.5
Jury: Eric Rimkus (chairman), Craig Daniels, Mike Stainsby

Discussion:
While the PC notes that the RC erred during this event, the PC also recognizes the difficulty that the RC
was experiencing in setting and maintaining the start mark, and further recognizes the positive steps that the RC took to maintain the start line and to provide competitors with racing started under such conditions. The RC is, however, reminded that RRS 29.1 REQUIRES a sound signal when flag X is displayed; this is not a “disregarded” sound signal as per RRS 26, and the RC is advised to display flag M with repetitive sounds when substituting a mark with an RC boat under such conditions to comply with RRS 34.
RRS 63.1 requires that “A decision on redress shall not be made without a hearing”. However, RRS 63.5 requires the PC to “take any evidence it considers necessary to decide whether all requirements for the request for redress have been met.” And “If not, the committee shall declare the request invalid and close the hearing.” The PC conducted a thorough gathering of information before making a determination that the request was invalid. Should the PC had determined otherwise, however, and conducted a full hearing, the race results likely would not have been changed as a boat that is OCS in such adverse conditions would be assumed unable to make a significant improvement in their score.
POSTED: May 15, 19:00 |
|
|
