There was a series of collisions between a group of six small keelboats running on the same tack to a leeward mark in strong wind and tide and a choppy sea. The protest committee found that the protests arising, which alleged serious damage, were invalid under the rules applicable at the time (rule 61.1(a)(4) not then being available), and decided to act under rule 60.3(a)(1). It had learned from the invalid protests that there had been contact between the most windward of the group (W) and the boat to leeward of her (L), not resulting in damage. L had then borne away and there followed a chain of collisions between windward and leeward boats, resulting in serious damage to two of them.

It concluded that the collision between W and L was an incident separate from the subsequent collisions, and decided that it was not able to protest W under rule 60.3(a)(1), as she was not involved in an incident that may have resulted in serious damage. It protested the other boats.

L and the boat to leeward of her (X) were both disqualified under rule 11. The protest committee, with clear evidence of contact between W and L, had found as a fact that W (not represented at the hearing) had broken rule 11, but she was not penalized as she was not a party to the protest. L and X appealed.

Both appeals were upheld, the RYA deciding (based on the facts found by the protest committee, but contrary to the conclusions of the protest committee) that all the subsequent collisions had resulted from the original collision between W and L, entitling L and X to exoneration.

In its decision, the RYA gave the following guidance on rule 60.3(a)(1).

When there was an incident that may have resulted in injury or serious damage, rule 60.3(a)(1) states that a protest committee may protest any boat involved. At the time when it is deciding what action to take, it will not have firm facts as to the details of the incident or the precise involvement of each boat. The protest committee is allowed to protest any boat that may have been involved and, when it decides to protest, the RYA recommends it should protest all boats that may have been involved. Stating a belief that rule 14 has been broken would be appropriate for this purpose.

Once the hearing begins, the protest committee must then identify the incident more precisely, and establish that injury or serious damage resulted from it.

When only two boats are involved, it is not difficult to identify an incident. When more than two boats are involved and there are sequential failures to comply with the rules, the protest committee has to decide whether there is only one, or more than one, incident. The test is that there must be some causal link between the events. If it decides that there was more than one incident, it should proceed only with the protest against boats involved in the incident that resulted in injury or serious damage, and close its hearing against any other boat, as required by rule 63.5.

The protest committee in this case correctly addressed the question as to whether there was only one, or more than one, incident, and decided, before any hearing had been opened, that there was no causal link between any infringement by W and subsequent infringements. It therefore felt itself precluded from protesting her, whether under rule 60.3(a)(1) or rule 61.1(c). The RYA’s decision is that, given several boats in close proximity, L changing course as a result of contact with W, and then a series of contacts all within a ten-second period, there was a causal link and therefore only one incident.

Once it is established that there was an incident resulting in injury or serious damage, and involving the protestee, a protest under rule 60.3(a)(1) is no different from any other protest. The protest committee must decide the facts and apply the rules to the incident. Any boat involved in the incident and protested may be penalized under the appropriate rule, regardless of whether it was she that caused the injury or serious damage, and the fact that she did not cause serious damage or serious injury is not of itself a reason for exonerating her.

During the hearing of a protest brought under rule 60.3(a)(1), a protest committee might also realise that it had not initially cast its net widely enough, and that a further boat was involved that might have broken a rule. It is then entitled under rule 60.3(a)(2) to protest that boat. As that requires a fresh hearing (see rule 61.1(c)), it is obviously preferable if such a boat can be identified earlier and included within the protest under rule 60.3(a)(1) from the outset, if only later to eliminate her.

In this case, W cannot be penalized by the RYA under rule 71.3 as she was not a party to the protest. The protest committee may not now protest her, as any possible time limit for a protest has long since expired. There is no rule giving the RYA power to return the case to the protest committee and require it to protest W.