Relive RLIR 2020Updated 466 days ago

Protest

Case 1 & 2 (heard together)

  Race 4 – 14th January 2015 Multihull
Claim 2 Fast 4 You and Galeforce did not sail the course.
Discussion
  1. Protest received within time limit.
  2. There is no objection about interested party.
  3. Written protest identifies incident.
  4. The protesting boat did not inform the boat being protested. The protestor made no effort to inform the protestee before the boat finished or at the first reasonable opportunity after she finished, as required by RRS 61.1 (a).
  5. Protest flag was displayed at the first reasonable opportunity.
Decision Protest invalid; hearing is closed. After the hearing was closed and the protestor had left the protest room, 2FAST4YOU and GALEFORCE were asked whether they had sailed the correct course. 2FAST4YOU agreed that she had not sailed the correct course and decided to retire from the race. GALEFORCE was certain that she had sailed the correct course.

International Jury: Say Ng Chu (IJ, MAS), Tan SH (IJ SIN), Leonard Chin (IJ MAS), G S Julka (IJ, IND), Bryan Willis (GBR-IJ), chairman.

Case 3

  Race 4 – 14th January 2015 Multihull
Claim Hulls 34 (Andaman Cabriolet Nina), 35 (2 Fast 4 You) and 37 (Galeforce) are alleged by the RC to have broken RRS 28.1/28.2
Discussion
  1. Protest not received within time limit. However, time limit extended as there is good reason to do so.
  2. There is no objection about interested party.
  3. Written protest identifies incident.
  4. No hail needed.
  5. The RC did not inform the boat after the race within the time limit of RRS 61.3. The RC did not even inform the boats of its intention to protest as soon as reasonably possible, as required by RRS 61.1 (b)
Decision Protest invalid; hearing is closed.

International Jury: Say Ng Chu (IJ, MAS), Tan SH (IJ SIN), Leonard Chin (IJ MAS), G S Julka (IJ, IND), Bryan Willis (GBR-IJ), chairman.

Case 4 & 5 (heard together)

  Race 8 – 16th January 2015 Multihull
Claim RSYC 1 alleges that MAS 7777 failed to give her room at the finish mark.
Discussion
  1. Protest not received within time limit. However, time limit extended as there is good reason to do so.
  2. There is no objection about interested party.
  3. Written protest identifies incident.
  4. Protest hailed at first reasonable opportunity by both boats.
  5. Red flag not displayed by RSYC 1, as the incident occurred at the finish line and the first reasonable opportunity was after she had finished racing. Red flag was displayed by MAS 7777.
  6. Protests valid; hearing is continued.
Facts Found
  1. RSYC 1 and MAS 7777 approached the finish line running downwind, both on port tack, with RSYC 1 windward and MAS 7777 leeward.
  2. As the boats entered the zone, they were overlapped; RSYC 1 was the inside boat and MAS 7777 was the outside boat.
  3. The boats were on a converging course.
  4. MAS 7777 continued to hold her course as she approached the finish line.
  5. Just as the boats were crossing the line, the spinnaker of RSYC 1 made contact with the spinnaker of the MAS 7777. Shortly afterwards, the boom of RSYC 1 made contact with the hull of MAS 7777 on her port quarter.
  6. At the time of contact the gap between MAS 7777 and the mark was less than one boat length. The gap between RSYC 1 and the mark was 0.5m.
  7. There was no damage or injury.
Conclusions And Rules That Apply
  1. MAS 7777, the outside boat at the zone, was required by RRS 18.2 (b) to give mark room at the finish mark to RSYC 1, the inside boat.
  2. MAS 7777 failed to give mark room to RSYC 1 and thus broke RRS 18.2 (b).
  3. RSYC 1, being the windward boat, was required by RRS 11 to keep clear of MAS 7777, which was the leeward boat.
  4. RSYC 1 failed to keep clear of MAS 7777 and broke RRS 11. However, as RSYC 1 was sailing within the mark room to which she was entitled, she is to be exonerated under RRS 21 (a) because MAS 7777 broke RRS 18.2 (b).
  5. MAS 7777 broke RRS 14 but is to be exonerated as she was the right of way boat and there was no damage or injury.
  6. RSYC 1 broke RRS 14 but is to be exonerated as she was entitled to mark room and there was no damage or injury.
Decision Boat MAS 7777 is awarded a scoring penalty, as permitted by SI 15.2, by dropping her by three positions (intermediate boats’ positions are to be moved up accordingly).

International Jury: Say Ng Chu (IJ, MAS), Tan SH (IJ SIN), Leonard Chin (IJ MAS), G S Julka (IJ, IND), Bryan Willis (GBR-IJ), chairman.

RLIR news / subscribe to receive daily updates