Facts and Decision of the Protest Committee
At the start of the final beat, two 25-foot boats were on starboard tack with the protestee, 3035 (A), clear ahead by one to one-and-a-half hull lengths. A tacked and 3470 (B) changed course thinking that she needed to do so in order to avoid contact. B displayed her protest flag five minutes after the incident. Just before finishing and 15 minutes after the incident, A took a Two-Turns Penalty. B protested not the right-of-way incident itself but A’s failure to take her penalty as soon as possible.
The protest committee was not satisfied that A had complied with rule 13 (While Tacking). It also decided that A had not sailed well clear as soon as possible and taken her Two-Turns Penalty, as required by rule
44.2 (One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties). It disqualified her for breaking rule
13.
A appealed, principally on the grounds that the protest committee had failed to establish the relative positions of the two boats. She also noted that B did not display a protest flag until five minutes after the incident, and therefore that A was under no obligation to do a Two-Turns Penalty.
Decision of the Association Appeals Committee
The association appeals committee agreed that the relative positions of the boats had not been established, and therefore there was considerable doubt that rule
13 had been broken. The committee upheld A’s appeal, reversed the decision of the protest committee, and reinstated A in her finishing place.
B appealed this decision, mainly on the grounds that the association appeals committee had failed to accept the protest committee’s finding of facts.
Decision of the Appeals Committee
The protest committee was obligated to decide whether B’s protest was valid before considering its content (see rule
63.5 [Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress]). If the protested incident had been the right-of-way incident, the protest would have been invalid because B did not display her protest flag until five minutes after the incident. This was not the “first reasonable opportunity” as required by rule
61.1(a).
However, B’s protest of A’s failure to take a proper and timely Two-Turns Penalty met the requirements of rule
61.1(a), since the incident referred to under rule
61.2(b) was A’s failure to take a Two-Turns Penalty when required and B complied with rule
61.1(a) at that time. B’s protest was therefore valid.
However, A’s failure to take a proper and timely Two-Turns Penalty broke no rule. It meant only that she failed to take a penalty, but her failure to take a penalty had no bearing on the protested incident. Since the right-of-way incident was not the incident described in B’s protest, A could not be penalized for that incident.
B’s appeal is denied. The decisions of the association appeals committee and the protest committee are changed, and A is reinstated in her finishing place.
October 1982