Prior to the start, there was an incident involving three overlapped boats: Lizzie B. (L), Windfall (M) and Syzygy (W). L, on a close-hauled course, hailed M to keep clear. M hailed W for room to keep clear but W did not respond. M curtailed her luff to avoid contact with W. L protested M for breaking rule 11 (On the Same Tack, Overlapped). Neither L nor M protested W. The protest committee decided that both M and W had broken rule 11 but that W’s position prevented M from luffing. It therefore exonerated M under rule 64.1(a). It did not penalize W because she was not a party to the hearing. L appealed, claiming that M failed to “strongly assert her right-of-way rights” over W and therefore was not entitled to exoneration.

The association appeals committee said the protest committee’s decision that W broke rule 11 was improper, because W had been unable to defend herself as a party to the hearing. Acting under rule R5.4, it directed that “the hearing be reopened and W be made a party to the hearing in accordance with rule 61.1(c).” The protest committee proceeded to protest W, then reopened the hearing and changed its original decision by disqualifying W. It did not change M’s exoneration.

L appealed again. The association appeals committee denied the appeal, and L appealed to US Sailing.

Rule R5.4 permits an appeals committee to direct a protest committee to reopen a hearing only “when [the appeals committee] decides [the facts] are inadequate” or that additional information is needed. The association appeals committee therefore erred in attempting to use rule R5.4 to direct the protest committee to reopen the hearing so as to “make W a party” to the hearing. A protest committee’s decision to protest a boat is discretionary, as provided in rule 60.3 and therefore an appeals committee has no authority in the matter.

The association appeals committee also erred when it concluded that the protest committee acted improperly in deciding that W broke rule 11. A protest committee cannot penalize a boat that has broken a rule if that boat is not a party to a hearing (see rules 63.1 [Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing] and 64.1(a) [Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration]). However, no rule precludes a protest committee from deciding, based on the facts, that any boat in the incident has broken a rule. In this case, although W was not a party to the hearing, the protest committee was able to find sufficient facts to decide that she broke rule 11.

In addition, throughout the incident M and W were required to keep clear of L by rule 11. As the right-of-way boat, L was an obstruction to the other two boats. Between M and W, M was the inside boat and W was the outside boat. As the outside boat, W was required by rule 19.2 (b) to give M room between her and L. “Room” was the space M needed to sail between L and W in a seamanlike way in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 (see the definition Room ). W failed to give room to M and therefore broke rule 19.2(b). 

In responding to the association appeals committee’s decision, the protest committee failed to comply with rule 61.1(c). When acting under that rule, a protest committee must make the decision to protest “during the hearing of a valid protest.” In this case, however, the protest committee informed W that she was being protested on the day before the hearing was reopened. The protest was therefore invalid.

The protest committee also erred in changing its original decision by disqualifying W. When acting on a request from an appeals committee under rule R5.4, a protest committee is limited to promptly providing the additional facts or information to the appeals committee; the protest committee does not have the right to change its decision.

L’s appeal is denied. The association appeals committee’s first decision is nullified, and its second decision concerning M’s exoneration is upheld. The protest committee’s original decision is upheld. W broke rule 11, but is not penalized because she was not a party to the hearing. M also broke rule 11, but is exonerated under rule 21(a) or 64.1(a).

April 2003
Revised January 2017