Facts and Decision of the Protest Committee
At the windward mark,
E Scow M-9 tacked within the zone onto starboard tack below
E Scow V-751, approaching the mark on starboard tack. As a result,
V-751 had to sail above close-hauled and, in the same incident,
M-9 hit the mark with her boom.
V-751 hailed “Protest” within three to five seconds after M-9 hit the mark. The next leg was a short “offset” leg, set at approximately 110 degrees to the windward leg. Wind speed was 15-20 m.p.h. After passing the windward mark,
V-751 sailed the offset leg with all crew members hiking to windward to prevent the boat from capsizing. She then bore away around the offset mark, set her spinnaker and displayed her protest flag. The flag was displayed within 12-20 seconds after
M-9 hit the windward mark. The protest committee upheld the protest and disqualified
M-9 for breaking rule
18.3(a) (Mark-Room: Tacking in the Zone), and rule
31 (Touching a Mark).
M-9 appealed, claiming that
V-751 did not hail or display her protest flag in sufficient time.
Decision of the Appeals Committee
This appeal is concerned with whether or not
V-751 hailed “Protest” and displayed her protest flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each, as required by rule
61.1(a).
The protest committee found that V-751 hailed within three to five seconds after M-9 hit the mark. Three to five seconds was short enough to justify the conclusion that the hail was made at the first reasonable opportunity after the incident.
The protest committee also found that V-751 displayed her protest flag between 12 and 20 seconds after M-9’s boom hit the mark. The committee concluded that “reasonable opportunity” in this case was determined in part by the need for all crew members to hike to windward to keep the boat under control and to hoist and set the spinnaker. We agree with the protest committee’s view that a boat is not obligated to give priority to displaying a protest flag at the cost of the crew failing to act to keep the boat under control or delaying a spinnaker set.
For these reasons, M-9’s appeal is denied. The protest committee’s decision is upheld, and M-9 remains disqualified.
April, 2002