The course was signalled as a triangle, windward, leeward, windward with marks to starboard. When this course had been set on other occasions the race committee finish boat had been positioned on the port side of mark 1, but on this occasion it was positioned to starboard. A passed the finishing mark to starboard, as shown in the diagram, and sailed across the finishing line from the wrong direction. The race committee called her finish and recorded her time of crossing the finishing line. Another boat, Y, protested that the race committee had erred in awarding a finishing position to A.

The protest committee held an open hearing with spectators, determined that A had not finished in accordance with the definition of finishing, and A was therefore scored as DNF. They further decided that A’s score in the race was made significantly worse by the action of the race committee, and decided to cancel and re-sail the race. The race was re-sailed that same afternoon. After this decision was reached, a third boat, C, who was present as a spectator during the proceedings, filed a protest against the protest committee alleging that the hearing was invalid under rule 63.4 because two members of the committee were competitors who had retired from the series. C’s protest was refused by the protest committee. C appealed.

A competitor may not protest a race committee but may request redress (rule 62.1(a)). The protest committee treated B’s action as such a request and held a hearing on it. C was a spectator at the hearing but not a party to it as defined in the rules and, accordingly, had no right of appeal (rule 70.1).

C’s protest of the protest committee should also have been treated as a request for redress, in this case from the action of the protest committee, and should have been heard, not refused. C was a party (per the definition) to her request for redress, and could and did appeal the protest committee’s refusal to hear it. Although rule 70.2 allows the appeals committee to return the matter to the same or a different protest committee for a hearing, all the facts necessary to decide this appeal are available and are quite clear.

A did not finish in accordance with the definition of finishing and was correctly scored DNF by the race committee. If A’s score was made worse, it was by her own actions, not by the actions of the race committee, and therefore rule 62.1(a) did not apply. The protest committee was therefore wrong to cancel the race. Competitors (in this instance, the two members of the protest committee) who have retired from a series, do not have a conflict of interest because they have nothing to gain or lose by a protest committee’s decision. Rule 63.4 would not exclude them from participating as members of the committee for the hearing.

C’s appeal is upheld. The race committee is directed to reinstate the results of the original race with A scored as DNF, and to expunge the results of the re-sailed race from the series.