Facts and Decision of the Protest Committee
Super Sunfish 648 was protested by three others for sailing the first two races with an illegal daggerboard.
The protest hearing was conducted by a single member of the race committee, who was also acting class measurer.
The judge upheld the protest and penalized Super Sunfish 648 twenty percent under the provisions of the sailing instructions.
Super Sunfish 648 appealed on three grounds: first, that the three protestors were in collusion and thus had broken rule
2; second, that one person does not constitute a committee as provided by rules
90.1 (Race Committee) and
91; and third, that the judge was not entitled by rule
63.3 to conduct the hearing because he was also the acting class measurer.
Decision of the Appeals Committee
Any boat is entitled to protest any other boat, subject to the provisions of rule
60. If any one boat may do so, three may also do so, and they do not break rule
2 simply because they consult before delivering their protests or because they deliver a joint protest.
Rule
91 does not prohibit a protest committee consisting of one person.
A protest committee member who is also the class measurer does not, for that reason alone, have a conflict of interest, and therefore is not prohibited by rule
63.3 from taking part in a measurement protest.
Super Sunfish 648’s appeal is denied, and the decision of the protest committee is upheld. Super Sunfish 648 remains scored with a 20% penalty.
November 1980