CASE 44
Rule 5, Rules Governing Organizing Authorities and Officials
Rule 62, Redress
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Standard of Proof, Majority Decisions and
Reclassifying Requests
A boat is not permitted to protest a race committee for
breaking a rule. However, if she tries to do so, her ‘protest’
may meet the requirements of a request for redress, in which
case the protest committee shall treat it accordingly.
Facts
In the sailing instructions for a multi-class event, instruction 18 provided for
the starting line and first mark to be laid so that the first leg would be sailed
to windward. After the race committee did so and had started one class, the
wind backed some 55 degrees. The Finn class was next to start, but the first
mark could not be moved, since the prior class was still sailing towards it
and was well short of it. When the Finns started, none could fetch the first
mark on a single tack, but subsequent further backing of the wind permitted
some to do so. Boat A ‘protested the race committee’, asserting that, under
rule 5 and the definition Rule, sailing instruction 18 was a rule and the race
committee had broken it.
The protest committee was satisfied that the first leg of the course was not
a ‘windward’ leg within the meaning of the sailing instructions. On the other
hand, it found no evidence to suggest that, within the terms of rule 62.1(a),
A’s score or place in the race or series had, through no fault of her own,
been made worse because the first leg was not a ‘windward’ leg. The protest
committee ruled that the results of the race were to stand.
A appealed, asserting that her protest had not been based on a claim for
redress under rule 62.1(a). It was based simply on the fact that the race
committee had failed to comply with sailing instruction 18, a rule, and with
rule 5, which bound race committees to be governed by the rules. The
protest committee had based its decision on rule 62.1(a), which was, in her
opinion, incorrect. To allow a race to stand when it had not been sailed as
required by the rules contravened rule 5 and could not come within the scope
of rule 62.1(a).
Decision
The racing rules do not permit a race committee to be protested or penalized.
However, the protest committee recognized A’s invalid ‘protest’ as having
met the requirements of a valid request for redress under rules 62.1(a) and
62.2, and correctly acted under rule 64.1(c) to treat it accordingly. It found
that there was no evidence that A’s score or place had been made worse by
an improper action or omission of the race committee. Accordingly, A’s
appeal is dismissed.
GBR 1978/8