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.

A red flag must be conspicuously displayed at the first reasonable opportunity after the incident and the flag must be displayed 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 Sailing Instructions or in the Class rules as allowed by rule 87. 

Decide the validity of the protest. If it seems clear from the testimony that the protest is valid, the chairman may glance at the rest of the protest committee to see if anyone would like to discuss any issue. If there seems to be no issue, the chairman can simply state that the protest committee is satisfied that the protest is valid. If someone on the panel would like to discuss the question, ask the parties to leave the room during the deliberation. 

If the protest committee decides that the requirements for the protest have not been met, the protest is invalid and the hearing is closed. The protest committee has no discretion under the rules to hear an invalid protest. 

Human perception begins with expectation based on prior knowledge, and not on sensations of what was there to see or hear. Persons with good race memory know where to look at the time of the incident and are able to recall incidents with good detail, including nearby boats, positions and relative speeds of boats, and the sequence of events. 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. 

Protest committees can make judgements about the credibility of evidence based on style and presentation of evidence. Witnesses who express their opinions confidently are often given more weight than someone who is less forceful and less believable. The PC should support the parties in making as specific and informative statements as possible. 

You should be aware of speech patterns that could lead juries to erroneous conclusions: 

Do not confuse confident witnesses with accurate ones because their confidence is based on more information than simply the information that determines its accuracy. Their confidence may not be at all related to the accuracy of their recall. 

Written evidence from a witness or a party who cannot attend a hearing violates the principle that a witness’ testimony can be cross examined or questioned by the other parties and protest committee members. Written evidence in the form of scores, mark roundings, or class interpretations does not carry that limitation. 

2D: The graphical display of objects drawn in two dimensions. For sailboat race tracking, this is generally a simple overhead view of the race course. 

 

3D: The graphical display of objects drawn in three dimensions, showing the length, width and depth of objects. For sailboat tracking, 3D graphics allows the viewer to follow the race from different perspectives. For example, the spectator can follow behind a boat or view the race from the perspective of a crew on deck.

GNSS: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), which uses orbiting satellites to broadcast signals to receivers on earth. The receivers then calculate their locations as geographic positions at specific times. Galileo (EU), GLONASS (Russia) and GPS (USA) all provide worldwide coverage. 

 

Raw data: The position data from trackers without any data manipulation by tracking software other than to change the file format. 

Commercial tracking systems are often used in sail boat racing to create publicity and promote the event. Regatta organizers contract with a tracking service provider to place individual trackers on the racing boats and marks of the course to allow spectators to view the race. The positional information obtained is graphically enhanced to make the display of the tracking information interesting and understandable to a broad range of users.  

Coming ashore, sailors and coaches will review the race using the tracking system. If there was an incident on the water, the tracking information may be presented as evidence in a hearing of a protest or request for redress. Race officers will sometimes compare the tracking information with their finishing sheets to locate a missing boat. For these reasons, judges need to understand the limitations of the tracking system to know what information can be reliably used.  

While the core technology in use by the different tracking service provider 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.

There are many different factors effecting the accuracy of the position. Typically, the absolute accuracy of the position fix for trackers is 2 to 8 meters, 95% of the time, but it could be better or much worse. The predicted accuracy is not readily available to the race officials. The relative accuracy between two receivers of the same manufacturer (between trackers of the same model and year on two boats) is usually better than the absolute accuracy. 

Most of the time, the race committee will install trackers on the marks of the course. However, if the mark tracker is lost or stops working, or the race course is defined by government navigational buoys, the mark location(s) will be manually entered in the tracking program. In each of these cases, the tracking information at a rounding mark is useless for the protest committee. In fact, the tracking system administrator will often ‘adjust’ the position of the mark to a location where the boats look like they are rounding a mark of the course. If this is done the information displayed is unreliable. 

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. In the 2016 Olympic Games, Lasers appeared to be over 20 meters long.  

The locations of the trackers on boats can be misleading. For big boat regattas, the trackers are often attached to the stern rail. In that location, when the helm is turned hard to port, the tracker moves to starboard. At dinghy events, the tracker is sometimes kept in the jacket pocket of the crew. If the crew is on a trapeze and the boat tacks, the tracker suddenly moves athwart ships, whereas the boat did not. 

The tracks showed 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 eliminating 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 sailed track. 

Competitors are entitled to present evidence that they consider relevant, and may bring animated video clips of an incident they saw in the tracking system. The competitor will be basing his presentation on derived information and it is important for the judges to know what it real and what is virtual. There are no sensors on the boat that detect when a sail is set or dropped even though that is shown in the 3D viewer. There is no wind information transmitted from the tracker. While you can clearly see a boat cross head to wind in the viewer, all that ‘information’ is computer generated images. 

A competitor might present evidence in the form of raw data obtained from a GNSS system (such as a boat’s own GPS), or obtained raw data from the event tracking service provider.  Such information does not have the same disadvantages as the derived information in the 2D and 3D displays, but the inherent accuracy of the system should still be considered. 

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. 

Once all the evidence is taken, it is the protest committee’s responsibility to find the facts and make a decision. Often the entire panel has privately reached the same facts and conclusion. The chairman can save considerable time if he or she asks the members for their decision. If everyone has come to the same conclusion, then writing the facts and conclusions goes very quickly.  Finding that the protest committee does not see the situation the same way allows the committee to quickly refocus on the differences. This decision-making process must be conducted in private. 

Another method of proceeding is for the chairman or preferably his appointee, commonly known as the scribe, to write during the hearing the points he considers are the facts of what has happened and if clear, also the conclusions and applicable rules. This can speed up the decision-making process. The scribe is normally an experienced International Judge. Should a member not agree on some point, or believe there is an omission of an essential fact, there is a discussion on that point to reach an agreement. Apply the relevant rules to these facts and identify any missing ones, if not included in the scribe’s original draft. Before reaching a final agreement, read out the facts found and decision, giving the protest committee members one last chance to propose a change. 

When the case is complex with a wide range of opinions among the protest committee members, it is preferable for the chairman to start by asking each protest committee member for an overview, and then address the points of difference.  

In almost all cases the differences of opinion are settled by the quality of the evidence. The racing rules do not give the onus of proof to one boat or the other. 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, then decide the facts of the incident. 

It is an unalterable responsibility of the protest committee to establish the “facts” that the decision will be based upon, even when the parties present widely differing testimony. If one party says the boats were one meter apart while the other says three meters apart, the protest committee must decide which opinion is more credible. Varying testimony is common and does not necessarily mean that someone is lying. It may reflect different perspectives or feelings at the time of or after the incident. When all the evidence is reviewed and a distance is determined, that distance will become a “fact” the decision is based upon, even if that distance is neither one meter nor three meters. 

Allow witnesses to show the incident with model boats from their own angle. Do not set the wind direction for them, because this requires them to mentally rotate the incident to a new angle if they saw it at a different angle. Not all people are good at mental rotation of objects in space, and this could interfere with their recall of the incident. 

Assign colors of boat models to the boats involved in the protest and keep the colors consistent through all presentations in the hearing. This will assist the parties and judges in understanding the demonstrations of the incident. This will be especially helpful to any judge who might have difficulty in seeing the incident from different angles if one presentation has the wind blowing at the presenter, and another has the wind blowing away from the presenter. The ability to mentally rotate the event in space is not related to the person’s ability to perform as a judge. 

One way to determine whether something is a fact or not is to use the “home video rule—if the action can be seen in a video, it is fact.”  “Boat A altered her course when she was one boat length away” is a fact. “Boat B intended to luff,” is not a fact. “Boat D was half a meter to windward of Boat C”,” or, “the boats were more than eight meters apart,” are facts. 

Listen carefully to the evidence, be aware of the parties’ body language, take notes and, most important, establish facts. A recommended way of doing this is to establish: 

When all but one member is in general agreement, the dissenter should be given an opportunity to state his point of view, and try to persuade the other members. Only after having been given an opportunity to persuade the others, should his opinion be overruled. 

Try to obtain agreement among the protest committee. Establish the most likely scenario by returning to the last point of certainty, assess the weight of the conflicting evidence, and, 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 after a reasonable time has been allowed for discussion and a variety of views persist.  

The chairman has a casting vote (that is, when there is an even number of votes either way including the chairman's vote, then the chairman has an extra vote). When a casting vote is required to decide a case, it is usually worth spending some more time discussing the case. 

There are various levels of disagreement with the decision of a protest committee, which can be handled differently:

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.  This should be simply recorded as a majority decision on the protest form without stating who the judge(s) in the minority are.

Level 2:  If the judges in the minority feel strongly that they do not wish to be associated with the decision, they have the right to be named as dissenting judges when the decision is announced and to have their names recorded on the form. 

Regardless of any personal disagreement with the jury’s final decision, a judge is duty-bound to uphold it. A judge must refrain from criticizing the decision of a protest committee in public, whether or not he or she was a member of the jury.  Criticism of a jury decision may not always be misconduct (or "inadequate conduct" in terms of Regulation 32), but the manner, time and place in which the criticism is expressed will determine whether it is misconduct. 

There is nothing wrong with discussing (and criticizing) a decision with other judges in private for the purpose of education, or for the purpose of persuading a protest committee to reconsider the decision under RRS 66. However, any discussion with competitors, coaches or the public of a difference of opinions within the protest committee will almost never be appropriate conduct and can only serve to inflame a situation and damage relationships with other officials.  If a judge does not wish to associate himself or herself 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 chairman must include details of the case in his regatta report if the dissenting member(s) request it to be done. 

For protest hearings, the standard of proof is the “balance of probability”, unless a rule specifies a different burden of proof.  

There is one rule,18.2(e), that permits 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 take an active part in trying to resolve the doubt by other means. It should question the parties and witnesses to elicit all available evidence to find facts and to learn what actually happened. Then, if still in doubt, it may use rule 18.2(e) to resolve the protest. 

When making its decision, rule 18.2(e) is relevant only when the protest committee is in doubt. In this case, the decision might use such words as: ‘The protest committee is not satisfied that A, astern established an inside overlap before B ahead reached the zone,’ and cite rule 18.2(e). When the protest committee is satisfied by the evidence that A astern failed to obtain an overlap, then the words used might be: ‘A astern failed to establish an inside overlap [etc.],’ and rule 18.2(e) would not be cited in the decision. 

When there is contact between two boats, a rule has been broken. Therefore, the protest committee must, under rules 63.6 and 64.1, find the relevant facts, make a decision and penalize one or more boats. 

In cases where the contact caused damage, it is essential for the protest committee to decide whether the boats fulfilled their responsibilities under rule 14. In every case involving contact, a rule other than rule 14 was broken. However, rule 14 specifically addresses the obligation to avoid contact between boats. Take care to record the necessary facts to indicate whether either the right-of-way or give-way boat broke rule 14, and whether any penalty applies. 

The protest committee will recall the parties to the protest to announce the decision. Observers and members of the press may be included. The chairman or scribe will read the facts found, the decision, the rules that apply and any penalties imposed.  When appropriate, an interpreter will translate the decision for a party.  

The decision will be to dismiss the protest, to conclude that no rule was broken or that a boat broke a rule and is to be disqualified, unless some other penalty applies. The penalty will apply except when: 

Disqualification under these rules may not be excludable (DNE): 

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

When a party to the protest requires clarification of the decision, this can be given immediately, but no further discussion should be permitted at this time. Any further discussion with a dissatisfied party at a future time, and its content will depend on the experience and confidence of the chairman and members of the protest committee. 

Permitting an informal discussion with the protest committee and setting a time for this discussion in response to dissatisfaction when the protest decision is announced can often defuse a stressful atmosphere. Conversely, refusing any future discussion can often exacerbate the bad feeling.  

Alternatively, two protest committee members may be appointed to informally explain a decision.  

A protest initiated by the race committee under rule 60.2 or the technical committee under rule 60.4 has certain validity requirements which the protest committee must ensure are met before proceeding with the hearing. The protest committee must satisfy itself that neither of the exceptions in 60.2(a) nor 60.4(a) applies. If either does, the protest is invalid. Rule 61.1(b) requires the protestee to be informed. Rule 61.2, Protest Contents, also applies to protests by the race committee or technical committee. 
When the race committee or the technical committee protests a boat and no protest committee has been appointed, the organizing authority or the race committee shall appoint a protest committee to hear the protest.  

A representative of the race committee or the technical committee acts in the same way as a protesting boat would do in a normal boat-to-boat protest.  The race officer or the representative from technical committee gives evidence, is given the opportunity to ask questions, answers questions, calls witnesses, and leaves the room while the protest committee makes its decision. 

Protests concerning class rules can be initiated by a boat under rule 60.1, by the race committee under rule 60.2, by the protest committee under rule 60.3, or by the technical committee under rule 60.4. The rules do not give the Class Association, National Authority or an independent measurer the right to protest.  

Most measurement problems are found during pre-regatta inspection and are worked out between the technical committee and the person responsible for the boat. However, the protest committee is sometimes asked to settle a dispute over an interpretation of a class rule before the start of racing. Otherwise, class rule protests usually arise from a protest by the technical committee based on a postrace equipment inspection.  

In almost all cases the protest committee is able to decide the protest using the process outlined in rule 64.3. 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 resolve questions about measurement procedures. 

After listening to all of the available evidence, if the protest committee decides there is no reasonable doubt about the interpretation of the measurement rule, then it must decide the case. If the protest committee is still in doubt about the interpretation of a class rule, then rule 64.3(b) 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. This authority is not the event’s technical committee, even if a technical committee member is also the chairman of the class technical committee. Once the protest committee refers the question, it is bound by the authority’s reply.

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. The entire process of a measurement protest is supported by only a few basic rules. Competitors and all race officials are required to abide by these rules. 

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.  

Rule 64.3 deals with the procedures for deciding a protest brought under rule 78.  

Class rules provide details of how a boat must measure and/or rate. They usually include administrative provisions, the owner’s responsibilities, and prohibitions while racing, in addition to the details about the measurement of the boat. 

Although the rule and measurement procedures appear complex, a protest committee can usually understand them with a little effort and some informed assistance from an expert witness, usually the technical committee or class rule administrator. 

Class association measurement and championship rules govern a class.  However, these rules do not empower a class association to disqualify or otherwise penalize boats during an event, except when channeled through the protest committee. 

Sailing instructions may include provisions for the handling of measurement questions. They often include everything from pre-race procedures to measurement checks to penalties.  

If the race organizers intend to take an active role in checking measurement and enforcing compliance it is important that any special rules and procedures be written in the sailing instructions. Such advance planning will help eliminate problems that might develop later and save the protest committee endless time in clearly identifying its authority and role in measurement questions. 

A technical committee appointed under rule 89.2(c) for an event to conduct inspections and measurement checks is not part of the race committee. A person not so appointed has no official status at an event, but may be called as an expert witness.

Before a race or regatta, when the technical committee concludes that a boat does not comply with the rules, he may suggest to the owner or any other person in charge that the defect be corrected. If it is not corrected, the technical committee may protest the boat under rule 60.4. The same principle applies when, after a race, the technical committee concludes that a boat does not comply with the class rules.

When a boat protests another boat for infringing a class rule, she must produce sufficient evidence to convince the protest committee that there may have been a breach. If she fails to do so, the protest would not be valid, since it would not satisfy the requirements of rule 61.2(b) by describing the incident. For example, a protest alleging that a boat must have an illegal hull, with no evidence of the way in which the hull has broken the class rules, must be ruled as invalid, since the protest does not 'describe the incident' (i.e. describe the manner in which the boat has broken the rule). It is not uncommon for sailing instructions to require that any costs incurred for haul out and measurement are paid for by the 'losing' party.

The protest committee must first determine whether the protest is valid; the requirements of rule 61 must be met. Rule 61.2(d). A protest stating only that, “the boat doesn't measure”, or that, “she is too fast for her rating”, should normally be rejected unless the protestor provides this information before or during the hearing. Unless the allegation is reasonably specific in describing the rules broken or the nature of the alleged breach, the protest committee should find the protest invalid.

A class rule or measurement rating protest is processed like any other protest by the protest committee. The notification requirements, contents and time limit of rule 61 applies and the hearing procedures under rule 63 applies. Rule 63.6 requires that the protest committee take evidence from the parties and such other evidence as it thinks necessary. The rules expect the protest committee to obtain the evidence it needs to decide the protest. Unless it is unable to interpret or apply the rules, it must decide the protest without referring the question to a qualified authority.

In some cases, the protest committee will not be able to resolve a protest concerning class rules without calling one or more expert witnesses. It is helpful to have a judge on the protest committee who is familiar with the class rules and procedures. The protest committee chairman should have the names and contact information of class expert witnesses. The technical committee for the class is also helpful. 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 wish to order measurement checks or even re-measurement. This is within its power and its obligation to 'take such other evidence' as it needs to make a decision.

Nothing in the rules gives the owner of one boat an absolute right to demand that another boat be re-measured. 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, the organizing authority. The losing party pays for re-measurement and any measurement costs unless the protest committee decides otherwise.

Provided an appeal has not been denied (rule 70.5), a boat disqualified under 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.

If after hearing the available opinions of the expert witnesses described in paragraph [K.26.7] WSJM

, the protest committee is in doubt about the meaning of a class rule, rule 64.3 requires the protest committee to refer the questions to the authority responsible for interpreting the rule. This may be the class association whose rules name the class technical chairman or measurement chairman.

For a question concerning the rules of a handicap or rating system, it may be the technical chairman of the organization who issues the handicap or the rating certificate in the waters the boat is lying in. In making its decision the protest committee is bound by the reply of the authority.

In all cases the protest committee should ensure that there is no conflict of interest of the person or committee answering the question.

A protest initiated by the protest committee under rule 60.3 has the same validity requirements as those initiated by the race committee. The protest committee must ensure that the validity requirements are met before proceeding with the hearing.

The chairman should ensure that the boat’s representative is aware that although one or more members of the protest committee will present the evidence, it is the protest committee as a body that has initiated the hearing under rule 60.3. We recommend that members of the protest committee present their evidence from their normal positions seated around or behind the protest room table.

A witness who is a member of the protest committee participates in the deliberations and decision of the protest committee. The members giving evidence are not interested parties. They are a part of an independent body, with nothing to gain or lose from the decision. Such witnesses, who stay for the decision, must not give any new evidence after the parties have been dismissed.

In cases where the chairman or the protest committee member or members who is the witnesses feels uncomfortable, the witness would leave the room when the protest committee begins its deliberations. Be aware that dismissing protest committee witnesses while the remaining members make the decision tends to portray protest committee members as individuals who are intent on protesting individual boats, and having a personal interest in the success of their protests. The practice of dismissing protest committee witnesses becomes embarrassing when all members of the protest committee witness an incident.

However, should the protest committee be convinced that the protestee feels genuinely and strongly that it would be unjust for the one or two protest committee witnesses to remain, then the protest committee witness should be dismissed for the decision. Rule N3.2 provides that the protest committee remains properly constituted as long as 3 members remain and at least 2 members are International Judges.

Drug testing can be initiated only with written permission from the national authority or the World Sailing.

Competitors cannot protest alleged infringements of rule 5; hearings in relation to drug abuse can be initiated only after a competitor has refused to be tested or failed a drug test.

Since the testing of samples takes several weeks, the process of imposing penalties, when World Sailing Regulation 21 applies, will fall outside the protest committee’s jurisdiction. Rule 63.1 does not apply.

The hearing of requests for redress falls into four parts;
I. Validity
II. Compliance
III. The incident
IV. Redress given

Validity is considered first and if the request is invalid the parties hearing should be informed of this and the hearing closed.

If valid, the hearing should proceed to consider whether the request complies with the requirements of rule 62.1. If the request does not comply the parties should be informed at this time and the hearing closed.

If the request complies the protest committee then considers the incident and whether the boat is entitled to redress or not. If not the parties are informed of the facts found and that redress is not given and the hearing is closed.

If the Protest Committee decides that redress is to be given it now decides what redress would be appropriate. Once decided the parties should be informed of the decision and the hearing closed.

When the request for redress is accepted as valid, the protest committee must now decide whether the request complies with the requirements of rule 62, namely whether the boat's score (either in a race or series) has through no fault of her own been made significantly worse by

a. An improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee organizing authority or technical committee for the event, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;

b. Injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

c. Giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance to rule 1.1; or

d. An action of a boat, or a member of her crew, that resulted in a penalty under rule 2 or a penalty or warning under rule 69.2(c).

The protest committee should take evidence from the representative of the party requesting redress, his witnesses if any, the other parties and their witnesses, and any witnesses the protest committee may decide to call.

At the end of this part of the hearing a decision should then be made and advised to the party requesting redress whether his request has been granted and then move on to taking evidence on what redress, if any, will be granted.

Rule 62.1 states that a request for redress “shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse”.

If the race committee made a scoring error, and as a result of correcting that error, a boat’s score is worse from that previously posted, the corrected score has not been made worse than the score the boat should have been scored in accordance with the rules. This would not be an improper action by the race committee, as they are required by the rules to score all boats in accordance with their finishing place.

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. It would be the responsibility of the party requesting the redress to establish that the boat’s score had been made “significantly” worse.

Example:

To be entitled to redress, a boat’s score or place in a race or series must have been made significantly worse through no fault of her own. This means that if a boat is responsible either fully or partially, for the worsening of its score, no matter how small a part it was responsible for, it shall not be entitled to redress.

Example:

An improper action is doing something that is not permitted by the rules of the event (racing rules, notice of race or sailing instructions and any others). An omission is not doing something that the rules specify will be done. If a race committee or protest committee or the technical committee does or does not do something over which it has discretion or is not mandatory, it is neither an improper action, nor an omission for which redress can be given.

Race management policies, jury policies, and “Advice to Competitors” are not rules. If the race committee or protest committee did not act on those policies or advice, it would not be 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.

Examples:

Rule 62.1 (b) 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. World Sailing Case 135 provides questions for the protest committee to consider to conclude whether a boat sustaining damage or injury is entitled to redress.

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.

The following are not physical damage:

Injury in the racing rules refers only to bodily injury to a person according to Case 110. Injury would be any 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 142 indicates that when a boat requests redress because of injury or physical damage caused by the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2, she need not protest the boat that caused the damage or injury. She need only request redress. The other boat might have taken an appropriate penalty or have acknowledged their infringement in the incident.

If the boat requesting redress did not protest the other boat, the protest committee may protest her if it discovers that the incident caused injury or serious damage as per RRS 60.3(a).1.

To determine if the damage is serious damage under the rules, refer to World Sailing Case 141. Redress would be awarded if the serious damage adversely impacted the boat’s sailing performance in a significant way.

A boat giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with rule 1.1 may be entitled to redress. Also, when it is possible that a boat is in danger, another boat that gives help is entitled to redress, even if her help was not asked for or it was later found that there was no danger. Rule 62.1(c) and World Sailing Case 20

A boat whose score has been made significantly worse by the actions of a boat against which a penalty has been imposed under rule 2 or disciplinary action has been taken under rule 69.1(b) may be granted redress. Rule 62.1(d)

When the protest committee is satisfied that the request meets these requirements, it must make as fair an arrangement as possible; it has no power to decide not to make an arrangement when the requirements have been met. As the dictionary definition of “redress” is “to put right again” and the redress under this rule is based on a boat’s score having been made worse the only redress that can be given is to put the boat or boats scores right again. Rule 64.2 states this may be to adjust the scoring (see rule A10 for some examples) or the finishing times of boats, to abandon the race, to let the results stand or to make some other arrangement. In this instance, the reference to some other arrangement solely refers to some other arrangement under which the boat’s score or scores are adjusted.

When it appears during the hearing that the requirements of rule 62 will be met it is often helpful to ask the parties what redress they believe would be appropriate.

Although the protest committee is under no obligation to take these opinions into consideration, it is often enlightening.

When only one boat, or very few, have requested redress and their requests are found to have fulfilled the requirements of rule 62, the most equitable decision is rarely to abandon a race. Abandonment should be an option of last resort. If the fairest arrangement would be to abandon the race the protest committee must first take evidence from appropriate sources which could include all boats that have entered the race.

It is useful and enlightening, and often a requirement in order to fulfill its obligation under rule 64.2, for the protest committee to obtain evidence from other boats not involved in the request for redress.

When deciding what redress best fulfils the protest committee’s obligation to make, “as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected”, refer to the scoring adjustments in Appendix A10.

Mark rounding positions and boat timings may prove helpful. Sometimes the fairest arrangement is to do nothing.

Average points: This is often used when a boat entitled to redress has been unable to finish the race in question. It is suitable only for boats competing in a series of races in which there are at least five races and in the interests of fairness the number of races for which average points are granted would rarely exceed twenty per cent and never exceed 50% of the number of races sailed in the series. Usually all races other than those or which redress is being granted are used for calculating the average points, however, in longer series consideration could be given to excluding a boat worse score from the average calculation. In major events, consideration may also be given to excluding the last race, or the last day of the series, from the average points calculation. In his way, competitors know the exact progress scores of all boats going into the final race or final day so they can devise their tactics and strategies.

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

Position of boat at time of incident: Points can be awarded based on the position of the boat in that race at the time of the incident. This method would rarely be used if the incident was early in the race and should never be used unless the positions of the boats in the race have become well established.

Finishing times: If the time lost by a boat in an incident can be reasonably determined the boat’s score could be adjusted by awarding points equal to the finishing position the boat would have had if that time was deducted from its elapsed time for the race. Protest committees must be careful to follow Case 110 and not grant redress for time or places lost during contact or an incident, but rather ONLY grant redress for time or places lost because of the boat’s slower progress caused by the injury or damage.

Other arrangements: If a boat’s score can’t 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.

Abandonment: Abandoning a race should only be used as an option of last resort where no fair arrangement can be determined for all boats affected. This is important because to abandon a race may be unfair to those boats that won or finished the race on their own merits.

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

Remember rule 64.2 states that the protest committee SHALL make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected.

Boats sometimes challenge the race committee’s decision to score them OCS, ZFP, UFD or BFD by requesting redress under RRS 62.1(a).

For a boat to be given redress, she 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. It is the responsibility of the boat requesting the use of video evidence to supply the video and the equipment on which to view it. Replaying the video on a small video camera screen would usually be unacceptable. In finding the facts, the protest committee will be governed by the weight of evidence using balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. See World Sailing Case 136.

In races conducted using Addendum Q a boat’s entitlement to obtain redress is changed. Race officials and the protest committee should download the latest version of Addendum Q from the World Sailing website.

Protest committees need to use Appendix B7 which modifies the protest and redress rules applicable to windsurfing competitions.

Protest committees need to use Appendix F5 which modifies the protest and redress rules applicable to kiteboarding competitions.

Introduction
Support Persons include a range of people who provide support to competitors and their boats at regattas:

Any person who

Support persons are bound by the rules. This is agreed by each competitor and boat owner on their behalf. In addition, the support person agrees to accept the RRS, by providing support, or as the parent or guardian who permits their child to enter a race.

The protest committee may call a hearing to consider whether a support person has broken a rule that applies to them. Most commonly, the allegation is of a breach of a rule in the SIs or NoR, 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 RRS 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 Request for Hearing form.

The support person is a party to the hearing. In addition, by definition, all boats associated with the support person are also parties to the hearing. The Request for Hearing form should identify all boats associated with the support person as parties to the hearing. Present the support person with a copy of the Request for Hearing form to provide them with the details of the alleged breach. Make copies available at the jury desk 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, if the Sailing Instructions so permit. The hearing for the support person may be scheduled with the protest and redress hearings.

At times, the protest committee will bring the allegation against the support person, especially when based on their own observations. In this case, it is prudent for one member to step off of the protest committee 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 support person and all associated boats 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.

At the hearing, follow the procedures for protest hearings. 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 usual protest procedure is that validity requirements do not apply.

The protest committee will decide if the support person broke a rule that applies to him or her. If the allegation is found to be true on balance of probabilities, and is found as a fact, the protest committee has a range of penalties that may be given to the support person. It 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 within the venue or outside of the venue. 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. It may also take other action within its jurisdiction provided by the Rules.

The World Sailing Discretionary Penalties for Support Persons and Boats Policy (DPI) provides protests committees with guidance on penalties related to the rule that applies. By using the logic model in this Policy, protest committees may be consistent in penalizing for similar breaches across events. Not all rules in the Policy will apply at every regatta. It is important for the protest committee to stay within its jurisdiction in 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 make representation 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 the protest committee decides to issue the warning, as is normally done, they will include the warning in the written decision for the hearing.

Standard wording where the boats supported are sail numbers 1572, 1539, 1600 and 1602 and the support person is Chris Black:

It is prudent for the protest committee to post the decision along with the warning to the boats that are supported 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 support person under certain conditions in the rules. However, they 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 boat 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 are met, then the protest committee may penalize boats that are party to the hearing by changing their scores in a single race, up to and including DSQ. The boats may be penalized, even if they did not attend the hearings.

All boats associated with the support person are parties to the hearing. Therefore, they all have the right to appeal the decision of the protest committee the right of appeal has been denied. The protest committee would provide a copy of their decision in writing to any parties who request. This would include the support person and boats he or she supports.

The protest committee may also call a hearing for a support person who is alleged to have committed misconduct in breach of RRS 69.1. In this case, the protest committee would follow the procedures in RRS 69.2. The World Sailing Misconduct Guidance 2017 is also a good resource for protest committees who investigate and conduct hearings about misconduct. Chapter N [WSJM - N] of this manual addressing Rule 69 provides further details of protest committees’ procedures and responsibilities.

If the allegation against the support person is misconduct, the boats that he or she supports are also parties to the hearing. While they are not alleged to have committee misconduct themselves, they are subject to penalties if conditions are met.

Any party to the hearing may request a re-opening of the hearing. In cases where the request for redress was from the Race Committee or the Technical Committee, or considered by the Protest Committee under rule 60.3(b), according to the definition of Party, this is a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested. All other boats are “affected” boats but they are not Parties.

The word “may” in the first sentence of rule 66 means that there is no absolute obligation on the protest committee to reopen. A protest committee should re-open a hearing when either one of the two requirements of rule 66 is met. One is when the protest committee decides that it may have made a significant error. The other is when significant new evidence which was not available at the time of the original hearing becomes available within a reasonable time.

That said, 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 testimony that had already been considered. In those circumstances, a reopening would be unreasonably burdensome to the protest committee and to the other parties involved.

Errors by the protest committee that should lead to a reopening include improper procedures or misapplication of a rule. The protest committee might decide that a key conclusion was not supported by the facts. More often, a hearing is reopened when a mistake was made in the interpretation of a rule.

For a hearing to be reopened to consider new evidence, the evidence must be both new and significant. Rule M4 and World Sailing Case 115 provide an Interpretation of the word ‘new’ as used in rule 66. The criteria provided by this Case states:

Significant evidence means evidence that bears directly and substantially upon the specific matter under consideration and which is neither cumulative nor redundant. Cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same character as existing evidence and that supports a fact established in the previous hearing, especially a fact that does not need further support. Significant evidence must be relevant to the decision and which leads to a reasonable possibility that, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, the outcome of the case will change.

A party to a hearing has an obligation under the rules 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, as described in rule 63.2. If a witness or other evidence is known to exist but cannot be obtained in time for the hearing, it is the responsibility of the party to ask for additional time. The scribe will record any such request. For example, 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 unless the witness and his testimony were unknown to the party. 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.

If, however, 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 66 and the protest committee will likely want to reopen the hearing.

Photographic and video graphic evidence that is claimed to be new can and should undergo a preview by some or all of the members to establish that the evidence is new, material and not cumulative. The chairman will usually assign two or three members to view the evidence and report back to the protest committee. If the evidence is appropriate and pertinent, 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 under rule 63.3. In addition, the parties have the right under rule 63.6 to question any new witnesses.

If a party requests a reopening, the protest committee must decide if the request to reopen is valid. There is a time limit for requests to reopen a hearing. Under rule 66, a party has up to 24 hours after being informed of the protest hearing decision to ask for a reopening. On the last scheduled day of racing, the time limit is shorter.

If the request is timely, the protest committee must decide, from the reasons given by the requesting party, if it has or may have made a significant error or if there is significant new evidence. The initial presentation by the requesting party should be limited to the reasons for reopening, not to any new evidence. The rules are silent on the subject, but if the other parties are available it is a good idea to have them present during this initial fact-finding.

If the protest committee decides there is sufficient reason to reopen, it must notify the parties of its decision. When the hearing will be reopened, the protest committee must provide the same notification that is required for a protest hearing. In addition, a majority of the members of the original protest committee should, if possible, be members of the original protest committee.

At a reopened hearing, the procedural rules of Part 5 apply, particularly, rule 63.6. 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.

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. When the protest committee changes its decision, it shall inform the parties in accordance with rule 65.1. This can be done by posting the revised decision or by delivering copies of the decision to the parties to the hearing.

It is always up to the protest committee to decide whether a request to open is granted. The examples above of situations where a protest committee may grant a reopening, are only a guide, and should only be used as such.

The protest committee may also reopen a hearing under rule 63.3(b) when it had decided a protest without a party present, but later found that the party was unavoidably absent. That hearing would begin anew, rehearing all evidence previously presented.

If the national authority’s decision in an appeal is to reopen the hearing using rule 71.2 or R5, the reopening proceeds with the evidence and witnesses that the parties bring, and with any other evidence the protest committee considers necessary.

When a hearing is reopened, rule 66 advises that a majority of the members of the protest committee shall, if possible, be members of the original protest committee.