Question:
In light of the facts described below, where boat Y was pushed over the starting line before the starting signal by boat X, which failed to keep clear from astern, how should the Protest Committee act in response to a request for redress submitted by Y?
Which Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS) and Cases or Interpretations from the World Sailing Case Book could be cited to support a possible decision by the Protest Committee to cancel the UFD penalty and reinstate Y in the race results?
Facts Found:
10 seconds before the starting signal (Uniform flag displayed), boat Y, on starboard tack, was stationary, positioned near to leeward of the starting line and about few meters to port of the race committee boat.
Boat X, also on starboard tack and clear astern of Y, was approaching from behind. X failed to keep clear and made contact with Y’s stern, causing Y to be pushed over the starting line before the starting signal.
The Race Committee identified Y as being over the line during the period before the start and scored her UFD under Rule 30.3.
Immediately after the contact, Y maneuvered back to the pre-start side of the line and successfully started from the correct side.
The PC should start the Redress hearing, and then protest X and hold that hearing, and then if they DSQ X, there are grounds to exonerate Y and require the RC to change the scoring.
Here are the applicable rules.
43.1 (a) When as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat is
exonerated for her breach.
43.2 A boat exonerated for breaking a rule need not take a penalty and shall not be penalized for breaking that rule.
61.4(b)
(5) an action of another boat, or a crew member or support person of that boat, that resulted in a penalty under rule 2
or a penalty or warning under rule 69.
90.3
(d) The race committee shall implement scoring changes directed by the protest committee or national authority as a result of decisions made in accordance with the rules.
John
A successful protest of boat X, or their acceptance of a penalty for the incident, would help her case, for sure.
World Sailing Case 140, particularly Question 1, provides some good insight into this situation.
Now .. we have a request for redress .. however .. the claim of the boat against the RC isn't going anywhere as the RC did not make an error or omission.
In the redress hearing the PC might find grounds to make a report under RRS 69, but based on an R4R hearing, the PC can't protest X for breaking RRS 2 or any other rule. The PC is specifically barred from protesting another boat from information learned in an R4R under 60.4(b)(1). Such a protest is invalid.
Information for RRS 69 can come from anywhere at any time.
Boat Y needs a valid protest against Boat X for a PC to find Y is exonerated in a protest hearing .. or an RRS 69 finding for the change to happen in redress.
Without a valid protest against X by Boat Y or by the RC that saw the incident, or a warning/penalty against Y under RRS 69, I think Y is out of luck.
Interesting, I believe the Rule, 43.1(a), (b) or (c) exonerates the boat, not the PC. For example, I break Rule 10 against you and as a result you break Rule 11 against a boat to your windward. The windward boat may protest you, or not. You are not required to protest me for breaking Rule 10 to be exonerated by 43.1(a). You are immediately exonerated on the water for breaking Rule 11 with the windward boat by Rule 43.1(a).
Back to the original post:
I agree the request for redress against the RC will not hold as the RC made no error or omission scoring Y UFD.
If Y protests X, instead of asking for redress alone, for breaking Rule 12 and the PC finds that indeed X broke Rule 12 pushing Y over the line, I don't believe redress can be given unless there was damage or injury, 61.4(b)(2) and Case 110.
Seems like Y is in a tight spot.
Who is going to change the score?
Based on what rule?
Answer: Boat X reports to the PC that they took a penalty for breaking RRS 12. The PC can now protest Boat X, because it's a report from Boat X representative. RRS 60.4(b)(3).
Further question is whether there is a rule that allows the PC to take the penalty report from X and turn that into a direction to the RC to change Y's score without a hearing?
How or why is Boat X going to make that report to the protest committee?
I agree that IF X does make that report the protest committee can protest her and get the Case 140 show back on the rails.
Well .. one reason could be that they were required by the SI's to report penalty turns. I just did an Opti Regional Champs that had that SI.
Another is Boat Y asks Boat X to tell the PC that they took a penalty.
Is there a rule that that forbids the PC from just simply asking, "Did you take a penalty turn at the start and why?"
There is a recall on that start. Y is, on the facts found, over and is, correctly from the point of view of the RC, BFD. Y's number is displayed, and Y leaves the race area as required.
X starts the restart, while Y, prejudiced by the fault of X, is disqualified from the race without recourse against the RC. That's clearly an entirely unjust outcome, that Y is prejudiced by another boat breaking the rules, but is there a route to a result that cures that outcome?
No rule requires Y to leave the racing area (unless it is in the SI). RRS 30.4 only requires that she not start in the restarted race.
The bar for redress is high. There are many incidents where a boat is 'prejudiced' by another boat breaking the rules, typically, any Part 2 incident, where no redress is available.
Case 96 addresses the BFD restart scenario.
Once it is established that Y was compelled to break RRS 30.4 in the first start she is exonerated for breaking RRS 30.4, but because the first start is General Recalled, Y was never able to return to the pre-start side and overcome her OCS and sail the course and obtain a finishing place as described in Case 140, so she can't be reinstated into that place by way of redress.
Case 96 Answer 1 gives us an answer: she should be given redress based on her results in other races.
However, if you get protested you have to prove your exoneration to the extent that a PC can find you were in fact exonerated ... otherwise you are now not exonerated (and never were exonerated actually).
The RC has properly scored Y. If she wants her exoneration to be recognized she needs the PC find she is exonerated and instruct the RC to change the score ... or find X broke RRS 69 and warn/penalize her.
While I always encourage sailors who feel that have been exonerated by rule 43.1 to protest the boat breaking a rule, this is the instance that I have been made aware that a valid protest is required for exoneration. I wonder if there are more?
You can't morph a request for redress into a protest. That's exactly what RRS 60.4(b)(1) is there to prevent.
Consider also the insertion of ' took an appropriate penalty or was penalized' into what is now the RRS 61.4((b)(2) injury or physical damage grounds for redress in the 2021 RRS and the removal of Case 142.
If X broke RRS 12 and 14 and compelled Y to break RRS 30.3, then Y is exonerated for breaking RRS 30.3 by RRS 43.1(a)
BUT
Neither the race committee nor the protest committee 'knows' this until the protest committee properly states, at least the breach of RRS 12 and 14 as a conclusion in a proper [protest] hearing.
OK, maybe if the event is using a Penalty Acceptance Form that identifies the incident, the race committee can take a short cut to reinstating Y.
If the race committee, somehow or other had in it's own records or observations that Y had broken a rule and compelled Y to break RRS 30.3, then RRS 90.3 would require the race committee to correct Y's score, but how could the race committee come by such [reliable] information?
As Ang has indicated, the RRS can overcome the impasse by calling a RRS 69 hearing against Y.
No, the only way a protest committee can direct a race committee to implement scoring changes is 'as a result of [a] decision ... made in accordance with the rules., (RRS 90.3(d)), so that would have to be a decision made in a protest committee hearing.
As I said previously, if there was a written report from X saying she took a penalty and sufficiently identifying the incident, the protest committee could pass that on with some advice to the race committee.
What rule allows the RC to override the "shall" in 30.3? It's not a "correction" from their own records, right? (as we've stated when talking about the R4R, the RC did not make an error applying the UDF score).