There are four different types of defined hearings within the rules - a protest hearing, a redress hearing, a hearing to consider whether a support person has broken a rule, and a misconduct hearing. This chapter discusses the rules and procedures for initiating, conducting and deciding these hearings as presented in RRS Part 5. Misconduct under rules 2 and 69 is covered in Chapter G, Rule 2 and Rule 69.

The protest committee’s jurisdiction is limited by the rules as defined in the current version of the RRS. A boat’s breach of a government, harbor or maritime agency regulation is outside the jurisdiction of the protest committee, unless the requirement for a boat to comply with such a law is included in the notice of race or sailing instructions for the event.

Rule 6 lists World Sailing Regulations that competitors, boat owners and support persons shall comply with. These have the status of a rule. Check each Regulation or Code before proceeding with any protest for breaches. 

Appendix M, Recommendations for Protest Committees provides standard procedures and considerations for hearings.

For windsurfing, kiteboard, super yacht and radio sailing competitions, use the appropriate RRS Appendices which modify rules for protests, redress and hearings.

There are other types of hearings that are not so specifically defined. Under rule N2, an international jury may be asked to decide a matter that directly affects the fairness of the competition. For example, the organizing authority asks the protest committee to decide a question on eligibility or measurement that is not a result of a protest or request for redress. Such a request may require obtaining evidence from competitors, officials or other participants in a hearing.

Many different room configurations for hearings work well, depending upon the available space and furniture. Most often the protest committee sits on the side of the table facing the door with the protest committee chair in the middle. Protest committee members may be identified by name tags or name plates. 

Parties should sit opposite the committee. A witness giving evidence should sit between the parties.

No alcohol, smoking or vaping should be allowed in the hearing room. All mobile telephones and recording devices must be switched off. A policy for non-alcoholic drinks or coffee is usually established at the initial protest committee meeting.

Protest committee members should dress appropriately for the event and its venue. The organizing authority may provide the members with event clothing. If so, it may be appropriate to wear it in hearings to give the impression that the protest committee operates as part of the team. However, it also may be a problem when the protest committee and the race committee are both wearing the same event clothing, for example at a redress hearing for a boat claiming an improper act or improper omission of the race committee or organizing authority.

The protest committee should review the hearing request form before the hearing to understand the issues involved and to gather relevant documents. Any member having a conflict of interest should declare it and be replaced on the hearing panel, if necessary.

Before starting the hearing, make sure that each party was given access to the protest, request for redress, or report to be considered at the hearing, they had reasonable time to prepare, and they are ready to proceed. A request for more time to prepare should be considered on its own merit. If the material has been available for 30 minutes since the end of protest time, and all the postings were timely, the chair might give the party only ten minutes. If the protest committee is asking to start the hearing before the scheduled time, the chair might give more time to prepare a defense. Also ask the parties to have their witnesses standing by outside the hearing room.

In the hearing, use a checklist throughout the process to be sure to follow proper procedure. The Hearing Checklist can be found in the Document Library of the International Judge section of the World Sailing website.

The protest committee may combine hearings which arise from the same or very closely connected incidents into one hearing. Examples are a protest and a counter-protest, or several protests that appear to relate to the same incident, or multiple requests for redress related to the same issue. If the protest committee has doubts about whether protests or redress requests are about the same incident, assume that they are, and start the hearing with all the parties. Provided that at least one is valid, the hearing may proceed with the named parties.

The parties to the protest are allowed to have a representative present during the hearing and to ask questions of any person giving evidence. A party to a hearing is a defined term. Depending on the hearing, it may be a protestor, a protestee, a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested, a race committee, a technical committee, a person against whom an allegation of a breach of rule 69 is made, a person presenting an allegation of misconduct, or a support person and any boat that person supports. The protest committee is never a party.

When the protest claims a breach of a rule of Parts 2, 3, or 4 the representatives of boats shall have been on board at the time of the incident, unless there is a good reason for the protest committee to decide otherwise.

When a party requests to postpone because the time of the hearing is inconvenient, the protest committee must decide to what extent, if any, to accommodate the competitor.

When a party is absent and the required notice of the time and place of the hearing was properly posted, the hearing should normally proceed without that party’s representative unless there are special circumstances for their absence. If that party then arrives during the hearing, investigate whether the party was unavoidably late. If so, it is advisable for the protest committee to restart the hearing. If that party arrived late for no good reason, the protest committee will allow that party to join the hearing at the current stage. The evidence they missed need not be repeated. The protest committee is not required to revisit the question of validity of the protest or request for redress unless evidence presented later causes them to do so. The party who arrived late is allowed to give evidence and call witnesses, no matter how late in the proceedings they arrive.

When neither party attends the protest hearing, the committee should first consider whether there was an error in the posting of the time or place of the hearing. If the parties were properly notified, the protest committee may act without the parties. When this occurs, the protest committee should be ready to reopen the hearing on request, if good grounds are provided for the nonattendance.

Ensure that parties who are not fluent in English are able to comprehend and communicate in English. Protest committee members should speak slowly and clearly to assist the party in understanding what is being said.

If a party speaks enough English to state their difficulty understanding English, start the hearing without an interpreter but be prepared to allow an interpreter to be present. Ideally a member of the protest committee would serve as the interpreter. If a coach or team member is the only available interpreter, the chair must ensure that the interpreter does not provide an unfair advantage to the party. Remind the interpreter of their role as an interpreter, and not to clarify a question or to give advice.

Once a hearing request has been received, the party’s request to withdraw the protest or the request for redress must be approved as a decision of the protest committee. The protest committee should determine why the party is asking for it to be withdrawn. Permission to withdraw a protest would not be given if the protestor is being coerced or may themselves be in breach of rule 2 Fair Sailing.

The protest must be delivered in writing by the method identified in the sailing instructions. It must identify the protestor and the protestee. In almost all cases, this will be by sail number or the boat's name. If the protest misidentifies the boat, for example intends sail number 51 but writes 15, then the protest against 51 is unlikely to be upheld since 51 was not involved in the incident. If the protestor then decides to protest 15 after the protest time limit, there would not be good reason to extend the time limit.

There must be adequate information for the protestee to identify the incident and understand the allegation. When the incident is not identified, the protest will be found invalid.

The protest committee must address the validity of a protest before the hearing can continue. If the evidence is that the protest is valid, then a simple nod of agreement by the judges to the chair is enough to announce that the protest is valid. If there is conflicting evidence, ask the parties and any observers to leave the room while the protest committee deliberates. The protest committee’s decision is based upon the probabilities.

When the protest is valid, the hearing proceeds. When the protest does not meet the requirements for validity, the committee shall declare it invalid and close the hearing. The facts that lead to the conclusion and decision that the protest was invalid should be written on the hearing decision form.

There is currently no World Sailing Case to interpret the word “reasonable” in the requirement to hail “Protest at the first reasonable opportunity”. Judges must use common sense to interpret the requirement. The rule does not use the term “immediate”, but it does not take long to make a hail. When the protestee states that a hail was not heard, a crew member may be asked to provide evidence as a witness. The protest committee may not decide, “the rule requires a hail – it does not require that it be heard”

It is not sufficient to simply obtain the protestor's opinion that the protest is valid. This may require that the protest committee investigate deeper if the protestor states that they hailed “protest” immediately. Give both parties the opportunity to give evidence on the validity requirements.

When required, a red flag must be conspicuously displayed at the first reasonable opportunity after the incident and until the boat is no longer racing. A protest flag must be seen primarily to be a flag (World Sailing Case 72). No protest flag is required from boats less than six metres unless specifically stated in the notice of race or sailing instructions as allowed by rule 86.

The protest committee will weigh the evidence and decide on the balance of probabilities, whether these requirements for validity were met.

There are exceptions to the requirement of the protesting boat to hail or display a flag at the time of the incident. One is if the protestee is not within hailing distance at the time of the incident. Another is if the incident was an error in sailing the course. The protestor still has the obligation to inform the other boat of their intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity. A further exception is if at the time of the incident it is obvious to the protesting boat that a member of either crew is in danger, or that injury or serious damage resulted. In this case, the boat shall attempt to inform the other boat within the protest time limit of her intention to protest.

If a protest is invalid, but the incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage, the protest committee may deliver a protest and proceed with the hearing. The protest committee may need to view damage to a boat or gather evidence about an injured competitor. If the protest committee later finds that the damage was not serious, or the competitor was not injured, then the protest committee should reopen the hearing of its protest and correct its error by deciding the protest was invalid.

When the protest involves an incident that is not in the racing area, the only requirement for the protestor is to inform the protestee of their intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity.

Rule 60.3 sets two different time limits for delivering a protest to the race office:
- for protests about an incident observed in the racing area, the time limit is two hours after the last boat in the race finishes;
- for protests about incidents not in the racing area, the time limit is two hours after the relevant information is available to the protestor.

The sailing instructions may state a different protest time limit instead.

A protest shall be delivered to the race office (or by such other method as stated in the sailing instructions). A protest is delivered when it is received by any official acting on behalf of the race committee or protest committee or when the on-line platform receives it. If the protest is delivered after the protest time limit, the protest committee must accept it. For paper protest forms record the time of receipt on the first page.

If the protest is delivered late, the protest committee takes evidence at the hearing on the reason for it being delivered after the protest time limit. When there is a good reason, the protest committee shall extend the time limit and record its action.

A protest initiated by the race committee, technical committee or protest committee must meet all validity requirements.

A committee is required to inform the boat of their intention to protest after the race within the protest time limit. It may do so orally or by posting a notice on the official notice board.

It must meet requirements for contents, being in writing and identify the protestor, the protestee and the incident. However, a committee protest based on information from a request for redress or an invalid protest or a report from a person with a conflict of interest is invalid. The protest must be delivered to the race office within the time limit set for an incident observed in the racing area, or for other incidents.

A representative of the race committee or the technical committee acts in the same way as a protesting boat would do. As a party to the hearing, the representative gives evidence, may ask questions, answer questions, and call witnesses. The representative then leaves the room while the protest committee makes its decision.

Protests concerning class rules may be initiated by a boat, the race committee, the protest committee, or the technical committee. The class association, national authority or an independent measurer do not have the right to protest. The technical committee may protest based on measurement problems during pre-event inspection or during a post-race equipment inspection.

Class rules provide details of how a boat must measure or rate, or both. They usually include administrative provisions, the owner’s responsibilities, and prohibitions while racing, in addition to the details about the measurement of the boat. Class association measurement and championship rules govern a class. However, these rules do not empower a class association to disqualify or otherwise penalize boats for any deviation during an event, since a hearing would be required.

When the protestor is the protest committee it is best for one member of the protest committee to present the evidence and not participate as a member of the panel that hears the protest.

Rule 63.4(d) requires a member of the protest committee who saw the incident, to state that fact to the parties attending the hearing. That member may give evidence as a witness. The evidence should be restricted to what was observed and not about any conclusions as to whether a rule was broken.

Protest committee members who give evidence may participate in the deliberations and the decision, since they have no conflict of interest. They are a part of an independent body, with nothing to gain or lose from the decision. They may not give any new evidence after the parties have been dismissed.

Rule N1.6 provides that the protest committee remains properly constituted as an international jury as long as 3 members remain and at least 2 members are International Judges.

A boat may request redress for itself or for another boat. The race committee and the technical committee may request redress for a boat or boats.

The protest committee may call a hearing to consider redress for a boat or boats. It may be based on a report or information received from any source, including invalid protests or requests for redress, or from any party, whether interested or not.

The definition of party includes a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee, or the technical committee or considered by the protest committee. In such cases, all boats for which redress is being considered are allowed to have a representative present throughout the hearing.

Such a large hearing requires careful management. Find a space large enough to allow all parties to be represented. This may mean gathering outside in a quiet corner of the boat park. The protest committee chair will explain that all parties who wish to give evidence will get a chance to speak. Ask the parties not to restate evidence that has already been presented. With this request, the result is often that the first few parties will explain their reasons for requesting redress, then most other parties will respond, “I have the same evidence and opinion.”

After deciding to give redress and the redress to give, the protest committee may conclude that other boats are also entitled to redress, even if they were not parties to the request for redress. If more investigation is needed and time permits, the hearing could be adjourned, and a new hearing started, after notifying all boats which could be entitled to redress. As all parties to the redress hearing must be notified of the time and place of the hearing, proper notification must be posted on the official notice board. In this situation, it may also be beneficial to phone, e-mail or SMS all the parties, particularly if the time for posting protest notices has expired. The hearing then must restart from the beginning as the new parties to the hearing are entitled to hear all the evidence.

Any request for redress submitted before racing begins should be heard at the first reasonable opportunity. Any such claim could only relate to an alleged improper action or improper omission by the organizing authority or race committee. Examples might be issues raised in the notice of race or sailing instructions, measurement procedures, eligibility or exclusion of a competitor.

A valid request for redress must be in writing and state the reason for making it. No protest flag is required, and there is no obligation for the boat requesting redress to inform the race committee.

Any protest by a boat against the organizing authority, the race committee, the protest committee or the technical committee may be accepted as a request for redress, provided it complies with the requirements of rule 61.2.

Rule 61.2(b) sets three different time limits for delivering requests for redress to the race office:

- if it is based on an incident in the racing area, within the protest time limit or two hours after the incident (whichever is later);
- if it is based on a protest committee decision on the last scheduled day of racing, no later than 30 minutes after the decision was posted;
- for all other requests as soon as possible after the relevant information is available.

The time of the incident depends on the circumstances of each request. In the case of a scoring error, or where a boat has been scored OCS or similar, the time of the incident would usually be when the results were posted, as this is when the relevant information is available.

When a request for redress is received outside the time limit, the protest committee must extend the time limit if it decides that there is a good reason to do so.

The hearing is now ready to start. Hearings should be conducted in a formal but friendly way, so that the parties feel they had their evidence seriously considered. The protest committee should be polite but always in control.

It is good practice for the chair to remind the parties that this is the deadline to take a Post-Race Penalty if Appendix T is in effect. The chair then officially declares the hearing started.

Appendix M, Recommendations for Protest Committees provides standard procedures and considerations for hearings.

Validity is considered first. If the request is invalid, rule 63.4(a) requires that the hearing shall be closed.

World Sailing policy is to open hearings to observers if possible. The protest committee should decide at their initial meeting on circumstances for opening hearings to observers. Open hearings can greatly enhance the respect for and understanding of the hearing system.

However, a hearing should not be open to observers if any protest committee member is uncomfortable with spectators. It is more important to give a good service to the parties than to educate, impress or accommodate people who are not involved. Similarly, a party might ask for a hearing to be closed to observers. The protest committee would consider the request on its merits after the reasons are stated.

Observers may include persons not connected with the hearing, such as other competitors, parents, coaches, club members and the press or media. 

Advise observers that they may not give evidence as a witness. They must remain silent and not record or photograph any part of the hearing. They must leave the room while the protest committee deliberates.

A judge who is a protest committee member shall declare any possible conflict of interest to the parties when they are introduced. Nationality, club membership, or past protest hearing results do not fit within the definition of conflict of interest.

The chair then asks all parties if they consent to the members.

If a judge has declared a conflict of interest, and, knowing the conflict, both parties consent, the member may remain on the protest committee. 

If a party objects to a judge being a member of the protest committee based upon a conflict of interest, the chair should ask the reasons.

Once the reasons are given, the parties and the judge are asked to leave the
room. The protest committee then decides:
(1) do the objections meet the definition of conflict of interest and,
(2) is the conflict of interest significant?

If the protest committee concludes:
(1) the reason for the objections does not meet the definition of conflict of interest, or
(2) the conflict of interest is not significant,
then the judge would remain on the protest committee.

If the protest committee decides
(1) the conflict of interest is significant and
(2) a party to the protest does not consent,
then the judge would not remain on the protest committee for that hearing.

When a request for redress alleges an improper action or improper omission of a committee, a member of that committee should not be a member of the protest committee for that hearing.

Furthermore, for World Sailing major events, or for other events as prescribed by the national authority of the venue rule 63.3(c) does not apply and a person whose connection meets the definition conflict of interest shall not be a member of the protest committee.

After the protest or request for redress is found to be valid, the protest committee takes the evidence of each party and witness. Appendix M gives the normal order of conducting a hearing. Since it is advisory, the recommended procedures may be changed if needed.

The chair should explain that the procedure will permit each party to give evidence when asked. Do not allow the parties to interrupt each other’s statements. Allow an interruption by a party or protest committee member only to say they did not hear or did not understand.

As the evidence is presented, each protest committee member should individually form their personal understanding of how the incident developed, the rules that apply and the facts needed to reach their conclusion. When it is time for the protest committee’s questions, members should limit their questions to facts that have not already been asked and answered. For example, if the list of rules in a protest includes 12, 11 and 15, a judge will ask questions to supplement information given by the parties about when an overlap occurred, how close the boats were and how much time went by before a boat changed course.

The protest committee is required to take the evidence from the parties present at the hearing, their witnesses, and any other evidence it considers necessary.

A party to a hearing has an obligation to prepare for the hearing, to locate witnesses, to collect evidence in advance of the hearing, and to request a postponement if it is needed. If a witness or other evidence is known to exist but cannot be available in time for the hearing, it is the responsibility of the party to ask for additional time. The scribe will record any such request.

When witnesses are called, a member of the protest committee or the protest committee secretary should escort the witness into the room. This eliminates any coaching of the witnesses after the hearing has started. If a party asks if more witnesses are needed, the chair should respond, “it is up to you to decide if the witness can provide relevant additional evidence”. Rule 63.4(b) permits the protest committee to exclude evidence which is irrelevant or unduly repetitive.

Allow witnesses to show the incident with model boats from their own angle, even if this is more difficult for protest committee members. Not all people are good at mental rotation of objects in space, and the requirement to rotate their presentation could interfere with their recall of the incident.

Ask the parties and witnesses to keep the assigned colors of models to their boats involved in the protest to help to identify the boats correctly throughout the hearing. Before each witness enters the room, scramble the boat models and place the same color boats in front of the assigned party.

Protest committee members who saw the incident shall declare this fact while the parties are present. Members who know something that is relevant but was not revealed by the evidence from the parties and witnesses, may give that evidence in the presence of the parties. Never introduce new evidence from any source without the parties present.

Sometimes in a protest hearing, after hearing the evidence, it becomes clear that a witness or another boat might have broken a rule and should be included as a party in the hearing. At that moment, the chair will stop the hearing, and the protest committee will immediately deliver a protest to the other boat.

When doing so, all safeguards and validity rules must be met. The protest committee shall inform the boat that she is being protested, the protest shall be in writing and include the required information, the time and place shall be posted, and the protested boat must be given time to prepare. The hearing is then started anew for the original and the new protests together, with all parties being given an opportunity to object to a member having a conflict of interest. For validity, the protest committee will extend the time limit for filing their protest since the information was learned from a valid protest and delivered immediately. All evidence previously heard in the absence of the third boat must be reheard.

A leading question is a question in the form of a statement inviting agreement. Judges need to recognize leading questions and weigh the answers accordingly.

Examples of leading questions include:

You saw me steering a straight course, didn't you?

Do you agree that as I was sailing toward the mark, I had a half boat length overlap?

Had the boats reached the zone when the overlap was established?

This question accepts the overlap to be true. A better question would be: “position the two boats relative to each other when the lead boat got to the zone.”

Avoid multiple choice questions. Not, how many lengths, 1, 2, or 3? but simply,  how many lengths?

The question, how far apart? will lead witnesses to respond with a greater number than the question, how close?

A better question is, Position the two boats relative to each other and estimate
the distance between them.

The chair should discourage leading questions, then advise parties how to rephrase the question.

The term “hearsay evidence” is a technical legal term meaning evidence which is given by a person who has no direct knowledge but has simply heard or received it from another party. Hearsay evidence can be in the form of a witness telling what someone told them, or written reports or statements where the author is not called as a witness, or audio or video or tracking information that is not authenticated.

Often a party will make a statement or produce a document that is hearsay, in that the maker of the statement is not going to be at the hearing to give evidence and be questioned. The difficulty with hearsay evidence is that it can be hard to challenge or to examine its validity or credibility. Where possible, attempt to have the person who provided the written statement attend, even by telephone or video conference.

Hearsay evidence is admissible. However, the protest committee must give appropriate weight, which may be little or no weight at all. Different types of hearsay may be given more or less weight. For example, mark rounding sheets, where the race committee member who recorded the information is not called should normally be given significant weight. Similarly, tracking information or photographs or video, without calling a witness to authenticate the information, can be given significant weight in the sense that the information is considered to be authentic. The reliability of the information and the weight to be given to it must be considered separately. A letter or an email from the technical committee or from a class association about facts that are generally within the author’s knowledge should be given significant weight, but not conclusive weight. On the other hand, hearsay evidence of the description of a racing incident should be given little or no weight.

Photographic and video recordings may be accepted as evidence at a hearing and can sometimes be useful. However, the protest committee should understand their limitations and problems. A limitation of video evidence is that the depth of field of any camera is poor and with a telephoto lens, it is nonexistent. When, for example, the camera's view is at right angles to the courses of two overlapped boats, it is impossible to assess the distance between them. Conversely, when the camera is directly ahead or astern, it is impossible to see when an overlap begins or even if one exists, unless it is substantial.

It is usually preferable to view the video after the parties have presented their evidence.

Use the first viewing of the recording to become familiar with the scene. Where was the camera in relation to the boat? What was the angle and distance

between them? Was the camera's platform moving? If so, in what direction and how fast? Is the angle changing as the boats approach the critical point? (Beware of a radical change caused by fast panning of the camera.) Did the camera have an unrestricted view throughout? If not, how much does that diminish the value of the evidence? Full orientation may require several viewings; take the time necessary.

Allow the recording to be viewed first without comment. Then give each party the opportunity to show the recording with their comments. Each party and the protest committee may ask questions about the recording and the parties’ opinions of the recording.

Since a typical incident is brief, view it as many times as needed to be sure that each protest committee member has extracted all the information needed.

Hold the equipment in the hearing room or obtain an electronic copy of the video file until the end of the hearing and through the deliberation for review to settle questions as to what fact or facts, if any, it helps to establish. It is sometimes useful to step through a video file frame by frame. Also, one of the members may have noticed something that the others did not.

Do not expect too much from the recording. Only occasionally, from a lucky camera angle, will it clearly establish the central fact of an incident. But, even if it does no more than settle one disputed point, that alone will help in reaching a correct decision.

If the protest committee views video evidence prior to the hearing, the video must be shown during the hearing. All parties are allowed to have a representative present throughout the hearing of the evidence and given the opportunity to comment on and question the evidence.

GPS and internet location and tracking have become common place and almost taken for granted. However, when GPS information such as histories, or internet tracking information is presented as evidence at a protest hearing, a deeper understanding is necessary to apply the appropriate weight.

Single GPS location history (Snail Trail)
All boat navigation GPS systems offer the ability to save and download the performance for later review. Whether this single-source information can be useful at a hearing depends very much on the issues. Although accurate, a boat’s positions alone usually do not offer much useful information. It does not include information about other boats’ positions, where a mark was located, or the ends of a starting line. Information on boat speed may be helpful in determining wind speed.

If the protest is about rule 19.2(c) against a boat that sailed into an inside overlap between the protesting boat and a nondescriptive shore some kilometers away, the GPS trail may offer useful information on the water depth and the distance inshore where the depth might be unsafe for sailing.

Internet Tracking & Application Display Information
To attract more visitors to event websites, commercial tracking systems are used to create publicity and promote the event. Small GPS position transmitters (trackers) are placed on boats or clipped to a crewmember as well as marks and starting lines. At local events, this information is transmitted to a shore base. In offshore races, the information is sent via satellite to the race headquarters. In both cases the raw data are entered into a display application and shown on the event's website. Races and individual teams can be followed over the internet from anywhere in the world.

The tracks shown in the graphical displays are not always based only on accurate position fixes. If position fixes from trackers are missing or if the software thinks they are out of position, the software might estimate the missing position fixes and eliminate fixes that look to be out of position. This can result in estimated tracks shown in the graphical display that may be different from the real track sailed.

When ashore, sailors and coaches will review the race using the tracking system. Boats may ask to present tracking information as evidence about an incident on the water in a protest hearing. Race officers will sometimes compare the tracking information with their finishing sheets to locate a missing boat or answer a scoring enquiry that may lead to a request for redress.

While the core technology in use by the different tracking service providers is basically the same, there are many different approaches in the final delivery of the tracking system product. Every tracking service provider uses GNSS receivers to capture the basic geolocation data at regular intervals. The minimum raw data captured by the tracker for each position fix includes latitude, longitude, timestamp and tracker ID. The geographic positions are updated repeatedly within the GNSS receiver up to 10 times per second, but the frequency of fixes available from (or published by) the tracking system may vary from one or two fixes per second to up to one per hour or (s)lower for oceanic races.

Frequently Asked Questions
How often is the boat’s position sampled? Answer: although the GPS can sample 10 times per second, the presentation is seldom that often. To save space in the memory chip, or to save money in the satellite data transfer, not all positions are transmitted or displayed. In a thirty-minute dinghy race, that might be only once per second. In a transoceanic race, that might be once every ten or thirty minutes.

How accurate are the positions? Answer: there are many different factors affecting the accuracy of the position such as cost of the GPS unit and atmospheric conditions. Typically, 95% of the time, the accuracy is 2 to 8 meters.

Are the marks of the course tracked? Answer: most of the time. Race committees will install trackers on the marks of the course, including both ends of the start and finish lines. This should be confirmed by the event’s tracking team. Race committees do not usually place trackers on permanent or government buoys.

Can the tracking system show overlaps and collisions? Answer: competitors will sometimes present tracking information in a hearing to show a collision or an overlap at the zone. In almost every case, the information from the tracking system will be inconclusive by itself. The graphical representation of the boat is almost never to scale. You can test this by comparing the length of the boat icon at various levels of zoom.

Other considerations in a hearing
Since competitors are entitled to present evidence that they consider relevant, they may bring animated video clips of an incident they saw in the tracking system. The competitor will be basing the presentation on derived information, and it is important for the judges to know what it real and what is virtual.

Because the enhanced graphics can lead competitors and judges to the wrong conclusions, there are a few things the protest committee can do to manage the presentation of tracking data in a hearing.

Before the first race, the protest committee should discuss the tracking system being used. Review the instructions, verbal or written, that the sailors receive about the installation of the trackers on the boat. Know where the trackers are intended to be installed on the boats. Find out the sampling rate.

Review the tracker application. Zoom in and zoom out, observe the scaling, start and stop the race display, and know how to declutter the screen by removing boats and tags. Determine the accuracy of the tracking units and what averaging or smoothing is applied to the information.

Ask the provider to explain the depiction of the three-length zone.

Ask the race committee if trackers will be installed on marks and race committee boats and where they will be located.

It is the responsibility of the party to provide the equipment to display tracking data.

During a hearing, get the verbal evidence from the parties first, before the presentation of the tracking clips. Let the parties question each other’s verbal evidence. Make sure the protest committee understands the facts from the verbal evidence. Tracking data is always easier to assess when it is presented in support of the description of the incident by the parties.

Normally judges would not view tracking information before the hearing. If the tracking information is seen by a judge without the parties present, it must also be included either as evidence submitted by a party, or by the protest committee.

Human perception begins with expectation based on prior knowledge. Persons with good race memory know where to look at the time of the incident and to recall incidents in detail, including nearby boats, positions and relative speeds of boats, and the sequence of events. Competitors are usually good at judging distances between boats. However, people are not good at judging time durations. With good rules knowledge also, the witness will present evidence that is likely to fit within the requirements of the rule believed to apply. Persons who do not know the rules well may miss important details on boat positioning that are needed to find facts.

Do not base judgements about the credibility of witnesses and evidence on style of presentation. Evidence from witnesses who express their opinions confidently is often given more weight than that from those who are less confident; but their confidence may not be related to the accuracy of their recall.

The protest committee establishes the facts that support the conclusion and decision, even when the parties present widely differing evidence. Varying evidence is common and reflects different perspectives on the incident. If one party says the boats were one meter apart while the other says three meters apart, the protest committee must decide on the balance of probabilities which opinion is more credible. When all the evidence is reviewed, the distance that is determined will become a “fact” that the decision is based upon, even if that distance is neither one meter nor three meters.

Settle differences of opinion by the weight of the evidence. The racing rules do not give the onus of proof to one boat or the other, except to resolve doubt in rule 18.2(e). Port is not required to prove she kept clear of starboard. A protest committee is required to consider all the evidence, consider who was in the best position to determine what happened, determine which evidence is more credible, and then decide the facts of the incident on the balance of probabilities.

Often all members have individually reached the same facts and conclusion. The chair can save considerable time by asking each member for their conclusion. If everyone has come to the same conclusion, then writing the facts and conclusions goes very quickly. Finding that the members have not all reached the same conclusion allows the committee to quickly focus on the differences.

Another method of proceeding is for the scribe to write the points considered to be the facts. After each member has expressed their conclusion, and the differences have been resolved, the scribe would read the facts. Should a member not agree on some point or believe that an essential fact is omitted, discuss that point to reach an agreement. Apply the relevant rules to these facts and identify any missing ones. Then write the rules applicable, conclusion and decision. The Preferred Standard Wording in the World Sailing’s International Judge Document Library is a useful tool. Then read out the facts found, conclusion and decision for a final review.

All decisions are based on the balance of probabilities, unless the rule provides a different standard of proof.

Decisions of the protest committee are made by a majority vote of all members. Try to obtain agreement among the protest committee members. Establish the most likely scenario by weighing the evidence. If necessary, recall the parties to obtain any missing information or further clarification. Once any differences of opinions among the protest committee members have been resolved, use the procedure in the previous paragraph. A vote can be useful, especially if different views persist after a reasonable time for discussion. When there is an equal division of votes cast, the chair of the hearing may cast an additional vote (rule 63.5(b)).

When not all members agree, ask the dissenting judge to state their point of view and to try to persuade the other members. If a member maintains a strong minority opinion, it could be classified and resolved as level 1 or level 2:

level 1: Usually, after thorough discussion, a member of the protest committee who does not agree with the majority accepts the decision of the majority;

level 2: A member in the minority who feels strongly that they do not wish to be associated with the decision has the right to be named as a dissenting judge when the decision is announced and to have their name recorded on the form as dissenting.

Regardless of any personal disagreement with the protest committee’s final decision, all members of the protest committee are duty-bound to uphold it. Judges must refrain from criticizing the decision of a protest committee in public, whether or not they were a member of the panel that took the decision.

Members may discuss and criticize a decision with other judges in private for the purpose of persuading a protest committee to reconsider the decision and reopen a hearing or for the purpose of education. However, any discussion with competitors, coaches or the public of a difference of opinions within the protest committee will never be appropriate conduct. It could only serve to inflame a situation and damage relationships with other officials. If a judge does not wish to associate with a decision, then the proper course of action is to exercise the right to be named as a dissenting member in the decision and then refer any queries to the published decision only.

The chair must include details of the case in the event report if any member requests to be named as dissenting.

The standard of proof for decisions is the balance of probabilities, unless a rule specifies a different standard. The standard for sportsmanship and fair play in rule 2 is that a breach be “clearly established”. The standard for an act of misconduct in rule 69  is the protest committee’s “comfortable satisfaction” that it occurred, “bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct”.

Rule 18.2 (e) permits the boats and the protest committee, when there is a reasonable doubt, to presume facts about whether a boat obtained or broke an overlap in time. However, the protest committee must not merely rely on this rule. It must actively try to resolve the doubt through questions to the parties and witnesses to elicit all available evidence to find facts. Then, if still in doubt, it may use rule 18.2 (e) to resolve the protest.

The protest committee will recall the parties and any observers to inform them of the outcome of the hearing. The chair or scribe will read the facts found, the conclusions and decision, the rules that apply and any penalty imposed or exoneration. When needed, an interpreter will translate.

The chair may give the facts, conclusion and decision orally and tell the parties how they may receive a written copy of the decision later. The written decision must accurately record the information presented orally to the parties. Record the date and time that the parties were informed of the decision.

The protest committee may publish the decision, including the facts found and the conclusions, which will permit all the competitors to understand the decision and to decide if there are grounds for them to request redress based on it. However, if the issue is sensitive or involves minors, the protest committee may decide that only the decision will be published, and the facts and conclusion will only be made available to the parties.

The decision of a protest will be to dismiss the protest, or to uphold it when a boat broke a rule. The boat is disqualified unless some other penalty applies. The penalty is given unless a boat is exonerated for her breach, or the boat has taken an appropriate penalty, or rule 36 Races Restarted or Resailed applies.

There are three rules for which the penalty for a breach is a disqualification that is not excludable (DNE):

Promptly notify the scorer of all protest committee decisions that affect scoring and keep a running record of the scoring changes.

When a party to the protest requests clarification of the decision or expresses dissatisfaction, keep the discussion brief. Offer to set a time for further discussion with the protest committee or two members to discuss the party’s concern. Refusing any future discussion can increase the party’s bad feelings.

If a dissatisfied party asks what recourse they have, advise them of their right to request a reopening of the hearing. They also have the right to appeal the decision of a protest committee if rule 70.3 has not denied the right of appeal.

A protest about class rules or rating does not imply that the owner or person in charge has knowledge or should have had knowledge of the breach. The alleged infringement could be a simple error or misunderstanding about the interpretation or application of a rule. Sometimes there is uncertainty between what is clearly permissible and what is clearly prohibited, exposing the rule to variation in interpretation.

Rule 78 is fundamental. It makes the owner and any other person in charge responsible to ensure that the boat is maintained to comply with her class rules and that her measurement certificate, if any, remains valid. It is helpful to have a protest committee member who is familiar with the class rules and procedures.

In some cases, the protest committee will not be able to resolve a protest concerning class rules without calling one or more expert witnesses. The protest committee should have the names and contact information of class expert witnesses including the class’s technical committee. Boat designers can be expert witnesses when there is no conflict of interest. Remember that witnesses, no matter how expert, are just witnesses. The protest committee makes the final decision.

When the technical committee is available and the protest alleges complex breaches, the protest committee may order measurement checks or even remeasurement within its obligation to “take such other evidence” as it needs to make a decision.

The rules do not give a boat the right to demand that another boat be remeasured. The decision to order or request re-measurement is a matter for the protest committee or, if the notice of race or sailing instructions so state, for the organizing authority. The losing party pays for any resulting measurement costs, unless the protest committee decides otherwise.

A member of the technical committee may be called as a witness to give evidence on the technical details in the incident. Evidence concerning the accuracy of the measurement and the interpretation of the rule is presented by the competitor and the event technical committee. The World Sailing Equipment Rules of Sailing should be used to resolve questions about measurement procedures.

If the protest committee is in doubt about the interpretation of a class rule, then rule 63.5(d) requires that the protest committee refer the questions and relevant facts to an authority responsible for interpreting the rule. This authority will usually be the class association’s technical committee, World Sailing, or a national authority. For a question concerning the rules of a handicap or rating system, it may be the technical chair of the organization who issues the handicap or the rating certificate in the waters the boat is lying in. This authority is not the event’s technical committee, even if the technical committee member is also the chair of the class technical committee. Once the protest committee refers the question, it is bound by the authority’s reply.

Rule 60.5(d) provides considerations before penalizing a boat for a breach of a class rule. She is not penalized for deviations in excess of tolerances in the class rules that were caused by damage or normal wear and did not improve the performance of the boat. However, the boat shall not race again until the deviations have been corrected, if there is reasonable opportunity to do so.

If the boat is to be penalized, then any breach of the same rule in earlier races in the same event may have the same penalty imposed for all such races without further protest.

If the protest committee penalizes a boat under a class rule, it shall send the hearing decision to the relevant class rule authorities (rule 63.6(e)).

Provided that an appeal has not been denied by rule 70.3, a boat found to be in breach of a measurement rule may continue to compete in subsequent races without making changes to the boat. To do so, the boat shall state in writing that she intends to appeal. If she fails to appeal or the appeal is decided against her, she will be disqualified from all races by rule 60.5(d)(4).

When the actions of a boat resulted in a penalty under rule 2 or a penalty or warning under rule 69, and they made another boat’s score significantly worse, the other boat is entitled to redress. Once a penalty has been imposed the protest committee may consider calling a hearing to consider redress.

The protest committee is required to conduct a hearing as required by rule 63.2 to decide whether to grant redress. When the request for redress is accepted as valid, the protest committee must now decide whether the request complies with the requirements of rule 61.4 to give redress.

A boat is entitled to redress if her score or place in a race or series has been made, or may be made, significantly worse through no fault of her own by one of five conditions:

A boat claims that something happened that affected their score, usually in the race concerned. That happening may have affected the series score as a result.

A boat’s score is not made significantly worse if the race committee corrects their scoring error to the score the boat should have been given by the rules. This would not be an improper action by the race committee, as it is required to score all boats in accordance with their finishing place.

The possibility that a boat’s score may be made significantly worse applies when a boat’s score has not yet been affected, but the facts found determine that it will be affected eventually if the circumstances do not change. That possibility does not apply when the boat already has a finishing position or score, even if DNF, in the race concerned.

A boat’s score or place in a race or series must be made significantly worse. The term “significantly” is subjective and is determined by the protest committee based on the circumstances of each case.

The worsening of a score or place by one point would obviously be significant if it decides the outcome of a series. It might also be significant if one point determines the difference between sixteenth and seventh place in the event.

It is the responsibility of the party requesting the redress to establish that the boat’s score had been made ”significantly” worse. A broad interpretation of “significant”, especially if other boats are not affected, is often the best.

A boat is entitled to redress if there is no fault of her own in her significantly worse score. A boat that is either fully or partially responsible, for the worsening of her score, no matter how small her part, is not entitled to redress.

In one example, the race committee starts a race at its scheduled time, but a boat leaves the marina late and misses the start. This is the fault of the boat and not of the race committee.

World Sailing Case 31 offers the example where the race committee, after they identified a boat as OCS and displayed the required flag, failed to make the required sound signal. The boat argued that, although she knew she was OCS at the start, she was not required to return because of the improper omission of the race committee. The case acknowledges the race committee’s error but finds that the boat was fully or partially responsible for not starting according to the definition. The boat knew she was OCS, and nothing prevented her from complying with the definition of start or with rule 28.1. She is not entitled to redress.

A boat is entitled to redress when an improper action or improper omission of a committee or the organizing authority has made her score significantly worse through no fault of her own. The exception is the effect of a protest committee’s decision on a boat when she was a party to the hearing.

Race management policies, jury policies and advice to competitors are not rules that govern the competition under the definition rule. Actions by the race committee or protest committee that do not comply with those policies or that advice are not grounds for redress. World Sailing Case 129 provides an example of a race committee action that was not good race management practice but was not an improper action of the race committee.

In one example, if a race committee signals course 3 when only courses 1 and 2 are described in the sailing instructions, this would be an improper action because the course that was signaled was not in the sailing instructions.

In another example, If the race committee signals course 2 and subsequently the first boat could not finish the race within the time limit, and the course is not shortened, this would not be an improper action or improper omission. This course is permitted by the sailing instructions and shortening the course is discretionary. Therefore, choosing not to shorten is not an improper action or improper omission.

Boats sometimes challenge the race committee’s decision to score them OCS, ZFP, UFD, BFD, SCP, NSC or DNF by requesting redress. In these cases, the boat must provide evidence that the race committee has made an error. Video evidence or the relative positions of two boats scored differently rarely proves that the race committee has made an error. In finding the facts, the protest committee will be governed by the weight of evidence using a balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. See World Sailing Case 136.

There are three components to this rule:

Physical damage is where the value of part or the whole of the boat is diminished, or it is rendered less functional. Refer to World Sailing Case 19. Physical damage does not include capsize, rigs or lifelines entangled, crew overboard or loss of places.

Injury would be any issue that required medical treatment or rendered the crew less functional. Minor cuts or abrasions would not be considered injuries for the purposes of this rule.

World Sailing Case 135 advises that Rule 61.4(b)(2) does not require physical damage or injury to have been caused directly by the boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2. It is sufficient that any physical damage or injury was the probable consequence of the action of the boat breaking a rule.

The protest committee must also determine that the boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 took an appropriate penalty or was penalized. Check for a record that the boat retired or reported an appropriate penalty. If the boat requesting redress also protested the boat, hear the protest together with the request for redress.

A boat that gives help when it is possible that another boat is in danger may be entitled to redress, even if her help was not asked for or it was later found that there was no danger. See World Sailing Case 20

There are two components to this rule:

In World Sailing Case 34, Boat A crossed the starting line early, then turned back toward the starting line until she met boat B. Without restarting, A turned and began to hinder B by covering her closely. The protest committee found that A who had been scored OCS broke rule 2 and changed her score to DNE. In this case, B could have requested redress and was entitled to receive it under this rule, since A’s hindrance had made the boats last but one and last at the windward mark, and B ultimately finished in 22nd place.

When the protest committee finds the requirements for redress are met, it must make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected. Ask the parties what they believe would be the fairest arrangement for all boats affected, although the protest committee is under no obligation to give the requested redress.

When in doubt about the fact or probable results of any arrangement for the race or series, especially before abandoning the race, the protest committee shall take evidence from appropriate sources. This might include evidence from other boats not involved in the request and race committee records. Rule 61.4(c) offers examples of redress that may be given.

Average points may be awarded when a boat has been unable to finish the race. Ensure that fewer than half of a boat’s race scores included in her series scores, after any exclusion(s), are based on average points. See World Sailing Case 116.

If a majority of races in a series have already been completed the average points could be based on her points for all races completed before the race in question.

In major events, consider excluding the last race or the last day of the series from the average points calculation. This informs competitors of the exact scores of all boats going into the final race or final day so they can devise their tactics and strategies.

Points may be given based on the position of the boat in that race at the time of the incident. This method is appropriate if the positions of the boats in the race have become well established, especially close to the finishing line.

If facts can reasonably establish the time lost by a boat in an incident, the boat’s score could be adjusted by giving points equal to the finishing position the boat would have had if that time was deducted from its elapsed time for the race. World Sailing Case 110 advises that a boat is not entitled to redress for time or places lost during contact or an incident. Boats are eligible for redress only when the physical damage itself or the injury to a member of her crew is the reason a boat’s score or place is made significantly worse.

If a boat’s score cannot be fairly adjusted using the above arrangements, some other method of redressing its score could be appropriate. For example, in a two of- a-kind mixed fleet race it could be considered fair to give that boat points equal to the other boat of its same kind.

Where a series consists of a qualifying and final series, any redress given should relate to, and be based on, results relevant to that part of the series in which the incident occurred.

A race should be abandoned only when no fair arrangement can be determined for all boats affected. Abandoning a race may be unfair to those boats that won or finished the race on their own merits.

There could be situations where a boat is entitled to redress, but the fairest arrangement for all boats is to let the results stand. An example is a boat that retires from the race when dismasted by a boat required to keep clear. In a single race event, she is entitled to redress, but none can be given. See Case 116.

The protest committee may also give redress as part of its decision in a protest hearing if it decides a boat is entitled to redress, whether or not they asked for redress (rule 61.4(c)).

Any party to the hearing may request a reopening of the hearing. In cases where the race committee or the technical committee requested redress or the protest committee called a hearing to consider redress, parties are the boats for which redress is requested. All other boats are “affected” boats, but they are not parties to the hearing.

If a party requests a reopening, the protest committee must decide if the request to reopen is valid. The request must be delivered writing and identify the reason for making it. It must be delivered within the relevant time limit:

But on the last schedule day of racing, the request shall be delivered

If the request is timely, the protest committee must decide from the reasons given by the requesting party, whether the party has met one of the conditions for reopening the hearing.

The initial presentation by the requesting party should be limited to the reasons for reopening. Any new evidence would be heard only to determine if it was “new”.

The protest committee is not obligated to reopen a hearing. It is not in the best interests of the event to allow an unsuccessful party a reopening only for the purpose of re-stating an argument or evidence that had already been considered. In those circumstances, a reopening would be unreasonably burdensome to the protest committee and to the other parties involved.

A protest committee may reopen a hearing when one of the requirements of rule 63.7 is met.

(1) when a party was unavoidably absent.
All parties to a hearing have a right to have a representative present. Absence of the boat’s preferred representative without good reason for another eligible representative to be present is not good reason to reopen.

(2) if the protest committee decides it may have made a significant error. Errors by the protest committee include improper procedures or misapplication of a rule. The protest committee might decide that a key conclusion was not supported by the facts, or that it may have made a mistake in interpreting the applicable rules.

If the protest committee decides on its own that it may have made a significant error, it may, without taking any new evidence, revise its decision without the parties present. There is no time limit for the protest committee to reconsider its decision.

(3) if significant new evidence has become available within a reasonable time. For a hearing to be reopened to consider new evidence, the evidence must be both new and significant. Rule M4.2 and World Sailing Case 115 provide an interpretation of the word “new” as used in rule 63.7:

Evidence is “new”

Significant evidence relates directly and substantially to the specific matter under consideration. The evidence is not cumulative, meaning repetitive, in that it proves what has already been established through similar evidence on the same issue which does not need further support. The evidence is not redundant, meaning unnecessary to the matter. Significant evidence must be relevant to the decision and lead to a reasonable possibility that, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, the outcome of the case will change.

A new witness presented after the hearing is closed is rarely considered “new evidence” unless the party made the protest committee aware of the witness before or during the original hearing, or the witness and their evidence were unknown to the party by the time of the original hearing. When a party does not search for witnesses or does not ask the protest committee for a postponement, any later request to reopen to hear a “new” witness will rarely be granted. However, if the party attended the hearing and requested a postponement or extension of time to locate a witness, a subsequent request to reopen may meet the test of rule 63.7 and the protest committee will likely decide to reopen the hearing.

Photographic and video evidence that is claimed to be new should be previewed by some or all members to establish that the evidence is new, material and not cumulative. The chair will assign one or more members to view the evidence and report back to the protest committee. If the evidence is new and significant, or if there is any doubt, the members will refer the evidence to the full protest committee.

The protest committee could also learn itself of significant new evidence and decide to reopen the hearing. If any new evidence is to be considered, the parties have a right to be present and to question any new witnesses.

(4) If required by the national authority.
The national authority’s decision in an appeal may be to reopen the hearing to provide additional facts or to order a new hearing using rule 71.3or R5.

If the protest committee decides there is sufficient reason to reopen, it must notify the parties of its decision and of the time and place of the reopened hearing.

When a party was unavoidably absent, the hearing would begin anew, rehearing all evidence previously presented.

When the reopening is based only on new evidence, a majority of the members of the protest committee shall, if possible, be members of the original protest committee.

When the reopening is based on a significant error, the protest committee shall, if practicable, have at least one new member. However, to avoid the perceptions that the old protest committee is reviewing itself, consider replacing more members, but not all.

When the reopening is ordered by the national authority, it may order that the new hearing be held by the same protest committee or by a new protest committee which they may appoint. It may limit the scope of the reopened hearing to such issues as it considers appropriate. The reopening proceeds with the evidence and witnesses that the parties bring, and with any other evidence the protest committee considers necessary.

At a reopened hearing, the procedural rules of Part 5 apply with all parties allowed to have a representative present. The protest committee shall take the evidence of the parties present at the hearing and of their witnesses and other evidence it considers necessary. Parties may also ask questions. The protest committee proceeds as it would in any other hearing.

When the protest committee changes its decision, it shall inform the parties in accordance with rule 63.6(a). This can be done by posting the revised decision or by delivering copies of the decision to the parties to the hearing.

A Support Person is defined as: Any person who

Support persons, by rule 4.1(b), are bound by the rules of the event.

The protest committee may call a hearing to consider whether a support person has broken a rule. Most commonly, the allegation is of a breach of a rule in the sailing instructions, the notice of race or Support Team Regulations that are in effect at the event. The protest committee may call this hearing based on its own observation or on information received from any source. This could include evidence taken during a hearing. The allegation could also be an act of misconduct under rule 69, as discussed later in this section.

To initiate the hearing, the allegation of the breach must be in writing, typically describing the incident, including when and where it occurred, and the rule that is believed to have been broken. The support person must be notified of the details of the alleged beach. This information is typically provided on the hearing request form.

For the hearing, follow the procedures in rule 63. Check for a conflict of interest of any member of the protest committee. Take evidence from the parties, hear their witnesses and allow for questions to the parties and their witnesses. The exception to the usual protest procedure is that validity requirements do not apply.

The support person is a party to the hearing. In addition, by definition, any boat that person supports is also a party to the hearing. The hearing request form should identify all boats associated with the support person as parties to the hearing. Present the support person with a copy of the hearing request form with the details of the alleged breach. Make copies available for the associated boats. The protest committee must notify the support person and all boats associated with the support person of the time and place of the hearing. The notification must be timely once the protest committee is aware of the alleged breach. Notification may be on the official notice board. The hearing for the support person may be included in the schedule of hearings for protest and redress.

The support person and all boats that person supports are entitled to attend the hearing as parties. If some or all boats do not attend, the hearing may proceed in their absence if they have been duly notified. Give all parties reasonable time to prepare for the hearing.

The protest committee may present the allegation against the support person at the hearing, when based on their own observations. In this case, it is better for one member to serve as the presenter at the hearing and not participate in the protest committee’s decision. Alternatively, the protest committee may appoint another person to present the allegation at the hearing. This approach ensures that the protest committee is independent of the person who presents the allegations at the hearing.

The protest committee concludes, based upon the balance of probabilities, whether the support person broke a rule. If so, there is a range of penalties that may be applied. The protest committee may issue a warning, or for more serious breaches, exclude the person from the event or venue or remove any privileges or benefits of the event or venue. This exclusion may be for a limited time, such as for one race or one day, or for an extended period up to the end of the event. Consider also whether to exclude the support person from social events organized by the event. Decide further whether the support person would be permitted to return to the venue after the event to pack up gear. Before recommending that the organizing authority remove accreditation from a support person, be sure whether it is needed to access meals that have already been paid, or to enter the athlete’s village to sleep. The protest committee may also take other action within its jurisdiction provided by the rules.

The World Sailing document Discretionary Penalties for Support Persons & Boats provide protest committees with guidance on penalties related to the rule that applies. By using this logic model protest committees may be consistent in penalizing for similar breaches across events. Not all rules will apply at every event. It is important for the protest committee to stay within its jurisdiction in applying rules and giving the penalty.

If a support person is penalized in a hearing, the protest committee will also decide whether to issue a warning to the boats associated with the support person. This decision is normally considered during the hearing by inviting the boats to give their opinion as to whether a warning should be issued or not. The advantage of a warning to the boat is that the boat is put on notice that they are exposed to a penalty related to the conduct of their support person.

However, a warning is not mandatory, and the circumstances of the support person’s actions must be considered. If a warning is issued, it should be included in the written decision for the hearing.

An example of such wording would be:

Post the decision along with the warning to the boats that person supports on the official notice board. This provides sufficient warning to the boats, even if they did not attend the hearing.

A protest committee may also penalize a boat that is a party to a hearing about a breach by a support person under certain conditions in the rules. However, it will not automatically do so.

One condition for penalizing boats is that the boats may have gained a competitive advantage as a result of the breach by the support person. In these cases, there is usually a good reason to protest the boat as well. If possible, the rule alleged to have been broken in the protest will be the same rule the support person is alleged to have broken. Otherwise, the protest committee can use an associated rule. Examples include protesting a boat for outside assistance, or for a breach of a class rule when the boat has been modified, or when the support person has interfered with other boats that are racing.

Since the protest and the action against the support person arise out of the same incident, they can be heard together in the same hearing.

A second condition for penalizing boats for a breach of a support person is that the support person has committed a further breach after the protest committee has warned the boats in writing that a penalty may be imposed. The further breach could involve the same rule or a different rule.

If either of these conditions is met, then the protest committee may penalize boats that are party to the hearing. Rule 62.4(b) allows for other penalties than a DSQ. The boats may be penalized, even if they did not attend the hearings.

All boats that the person supports are parties to the hearing and have the right to appeal the decision of the protest committee unless the right of appeal has been denied. The protest committee would provide a copy of its decision in writing to any parties who request it.

The protest committee may also call a hearing for a support person who is alleged to have committed misconduct in breach of rule 69.1. In this case, the protest committee would follow the procedures in rule 69.2. The World Sailing document Misconduct Guidance is also a good resource for protest committees who investigate and conduct hearings about misconduct. The section on rule 2 and rule 69of this Manual (Chapter G) provides further details of protest committees’ procedures and responsibilities.

If the allegation against the support person is misconduct, any boat that person supports is also a party to the hearing. While these boats are not alleged to have committed misconduct themselves, they are subject to penalties if conditions are met.