During the day, the class sailed two races. After the first race, which the boats finished leaving Mark 1 to starboard, the wind became light. Accordingly, the race officer set a shorter second course and issued a change to the sailing instructions stating that, although Mark B was the last rounding mark, Mark 1 was to be left to starboard. The same mark was being used for the finishing line of another race, and the race officer had been advised not to set courses that might lead to different boats passing a finishing mark or crossing the finishing line in opposite directions.
X and two other boats finished leaving Mark 1 to port and were scored DNF. Y, followed by the rest of the fleet, sailed the course prescribed by the change to the sailing instructions, leaving Mark 1 to starboard. They thus sailed a "hook round" finish as shown in the diagram. X requested redress on the grounds that the race committee had not applied the definition Finish correctly when it awarded first place to Y, whereas X had been the first boat to finish as required by the definition.
The protest committee gave redress, agreeing that X and the other two boats had finished correctly, and reinstated them in the race. For boats not so finishing, the committee exercised its discretion under rule 64.2
to "make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected." It adjusted the race scores according to the order in which all the boats crossed the finishing line, without regard to the direction in which they crossed it. X appealed against the new finishing order, claiming that the wording of the definition Finish was unequivocal and stating that such an arrangement would negate the definition and defeat its purpose, which, she believed, was to prevent "hook round" finishes.
X's appeal is dismissed. Because the sailing instruction that conflicted with the definition Finish
was invalid, issuing it was an improper action of the race committee that qualified the three boats for consideration for redress under rule 62.1
(a). None of the boats gained or lost as a result of the race committee error, so the redress awarded was appropriate. It was also as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, as required by rule 64.2