Rule 2 requires boats and their owners to compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. The rule is one of six fundamental rules of sailing. A boat, a protest committee, technical committee or race committee may protest under this rule.

The Case Book gives guidance as to what actions may be considered a breach of the principles of sportsmanship and fair play. World Sailing Case 138 advises that an action that is considered to be an act of misconduct and that does not directly affect the competition should be subject to action under rule 69.

A boat may be penalized only when it is clearly established that rule 2has been broken. This standard of proof is higher than the balance of probabilities. The penalty is a disqualification that is not excludable from a boat’s series score (DNE).

A protest committee may disqualify a boat for a breach of rule 2even though it is not mentioned in the protest. Rule 2 does not have the procedural and formal safeguards of rule 69. When the protest committee is considering that the competitor’s action may also be a breach of rule 2, it should explain the potential breach of sportsmanship and give the boat an opportunity to address the issue before it makes a decision.

Breach of good manners: whether conduct is a breach of good manners will depend much upon whether other people, such as competitors, officials or the public, are offended by the behavior. What might be acceptable behavior in one situation may be unacceptable in another. The common use of foul language in daily life makes it difficult for some young people to realize how offensive such language may be to others. Persons who do not speak the language spoken at the event as their first language might also have less understanding that their words are offensive to others. This is a difficult area to be judged consistently. Swearing directed at an individual could be considered differently from expressions of frustration that are not directed to any individual.

Breach of good sportsmanship: this includes cheating by acting to gain an advantage by breaking rule 2, lying at a hearing, etc. Unlike protests where it is assumed that a breach of a rule was not done on purpose, the person’s intentions or attitude, if it was reckless, can be important in deciding whether conduct is a breach of good sportsmanship.

World Sailing Case 138 provides examples of actions that should be considered as acts of misconduct. Some include:

Only when the protest committee has evidence that indicates a realistic prospect that misconduct has occurred should a rule 69hearing be initiated. It should also be in the interest of the sport to initiate a hearing. For example, misconduct by a youth sailor might not justify a hearing if a lesser and more appropriate form of intervention can be made. However, in most cases this test will clearly be met.

The World Sailing Misconduct Guidance document is a complete reference work for all race officials – in particular, judges and protest committees – based on the World Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing. It is published on the World Sailing website. (Search “misconduct”, click submit, and select “Documents”.)

Rule 69 hearings are separate and different from other hearings in four main ways:

The protest committee initiates a rule 69 hearing either on its own, or after receiving an oral or written report from anyone, including a person who is not involved in the event.

Standards of ethical behavior among sailors throughout the world vary greatly, and it is not the responsibility of judges to educate individuals about moral behavior. Under rule 69.1(a) a competitor, boat owner and support person shall not commit misconduct, being conduct that is a breach of good manners, sportsmanship or unethical behavior, or conduct bringing the sport into disrepute.

Such actions are addressed through rules 2 and 69. Rule 2 requires that a boat, her owner and crew shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. Rule 69 prohibits individuals to commit acts of misconduct and describes the procedure for the protest committee to adopt, should a competitor, boat owner or support person commit such an act of misconduct.

It is essential to the healthy development of the sport that severe penalties be imposed on competitors, boat owners or support persons who knowingly break a racing rule. Protest committees should take action under rule 69 if a competitor deliberately breaks a rule for their own advancement or if a deliberate breach results in injury, or if a competitor cheats, lies at a hearing, or behaves in any way that brings the sport into disrepute. Protest committees should also take action under rule 69 if the actions of support persons might affect t

Rule 69 applies to any competitor, crew member, boat owner and support person. Support persons are bound by the rules because the competitor agrees on behalf of the support person to be bound by the rules (rule 4.2). In addition, a parent or guardian who enters their child in a race thereby agrees to be bound by the rules (rule 4.1(b)).

Parents or other support persons might object to a rule 69 hearing on the grounds that the competitor did not have authority to bind the support person to comply with the rules, and that they did not know that providing support would bind them. If this objection is raised, advise the support person that, if that were so, the competitor would break rule 4.2 and be subject to disqualification. This advice could cause support persons to accept that they are bound to comply with the rules.

Consider this point as a preliminary issue and whether, on the facts, the support person is bound by the rules. If the protest committee is convinced that the support person was indeed bound (such as the case of a coach who would be expected to know the rules, including the provisions of rules 4.1 and 4.2), it should proceed with the rule 69 hearing. If the protest committee determines the support person is not bound by the rules, then it cannot proceed against that person and must turn its consideration to the competitor’s compliance with rule 4.2.

The act of misconduct must be associated with the event. It would therefore normally occur within the period immediately prior to the event, commencing with the person’s arrival at the venue for the purpose of the event, and may extend beyond their departure from the venue. Thus, a protest committee is not at liberty to hold a rule 69 hearing to address alleged misconduct by a person which happened before the beginning of the event, unless the misconduct relates to the event. For example, before an event, a competitor may threaten to do something at the event or do something to prevent another competitor to partake in an event, such as deliberately damaging another competitor’s boat. Such an act, even though it happened before the event, will be sufficiently closely connected to the event to say that the person is a competitor.

The place where the act of misconduct occurred is not necessarily relevant. An example is a competitor who was involved in an assault during a fight in a public place unrelated to the venue of the event. This may still bring the sport into disrepute because the public associates the competitor with the event, so the competitor could be the subject of a rule 69 hearing. If that fight took place between the competitor and someone unrelated to the event, in private or in public, without the public knowing the competitor was competing in the event, it would probably not be appropriate for a protest committee to initiate a rule 69 hearing.

Before a protest committee convenes a rule 69 hearing, it should first prepare itself. The protest committee will try to get a clear view about the meaning of rule 69 and the procedure to follow.  

Start reading rule 69 carefully. Discuss the implications of the rule and discuss the potential infringement. 

Read Rule M6 again, and the World Sailing Misconduct Guidance and ensure you are knowledgeable of the procedure to follow. Think about what might happen during the hearing and what your answers will be. Plan the procedure within the protest committee, delegating tasks among the members; one chairs the hearing, another person is the scribe.  

If the hearing involves juniors or youths, make arrangements, if possible, that a parent, guardian or coach is present as a witness to the proceedings. Also refer to the chapter in this Manual on Judges and Youth Sailors.

The protest committee may appoint an investigator when it does not have sufficient information to decide whether to call a hearing or not. The purpose of the investigator is to ensure that the protest committee is independent, and that its judgment is not influenced by information obtained during the investigation.

If possible, the investigator should be familiar with the procedures of rule 69. The investigator may be a member of the protest committee, or another race official or member of the organizing authority. However, the investigator, whether one of the protest committee or not, is prohibited from participating in any further decisions made by the protest committee in the case.

The investigator is expected to interview separately the parties, the person or persons who reported the incident, witnesses and any other person who might help with the case. The investigator must keep a record of all the evidence obtained from all sources. The record may be in writing or as audio recordings of the interviews.

Fairness and rule 69.2(d) dictate that all evidence, favorable and unfavorable, gathered by the investigator must be disclosed to the protest committee who will use it to decide whether or not to call a hearing. If a hearing is called, the findings of the investigator will also be given to the parties so they may prepare for the hearing.

The investigator may be appointed by the protest committee under rule 69.2(c) to present the allegation in the hearing. If appointed under this rule, the investigator will gain the status of a party.

Note: Major international events have different procedures set by the World Sailing Code of Ethics. The Code addresses the appointment and role of the investigator (known as the Event Disciplinary Investigation Officer). It also addresses reports from the protest committee to World Sailing. Since this Manual does not cover these procedures, it is important to refer to the Code of Ethics if managing allegations of misconduct at one of these events.

Should the protest committee learn of the evidence of misconduct during a protest hearing, rule 69 may not be addressed in that hearing. The protest committee must prepare the written allegation after that hearing is closed and promptly deliver the statement to the person. Even if the person gives approval to proceed with the hearing immediately, wait. The person must be given a reasonable time to prepare a defense. Schedule the rule 69 hearing leaving enough time for the person to review the allegations, gather witnesses and find an advisor and representative to provide support during the hearing. This is often not until the following day.

Prepare the written statement of allegations that you will give to the person against whom the allegation of the rule 69 violation is made. The written notice should be as detailed as possible, stating the alleged specific act or acts of misconduct under rule 69.2. It is not sufficient to state that the person committed an act of misconduct by committing a breach of good manners, without saying what the misconduct is. The description of the misconduct should be specific. Include the time and place of the hearing.

For example, write, “immediately after the decision was announced, the competitor stated in a loud voice that the decision was wrong and called the members of the protest committee ‘idiots’ and said that they have ‘no clue what they are doing’.’’. It is not sufficient to write, “the competitor said that the decision of a protest committee is wrong”.

Where foul language is used, the notice should either quote the language or describe it clearly. For example, “using vulgar language indicating sexual intercourse.” Do not merely say that the competitor used “insulting language” without quoting or paraphrasing the language.

A good test is whether a dispassionate outsider will understand the notice and would agree that the alleged conduct is misconduct.

The notice should also allege the time, place and identity of other persons involved, if known.

It is preferable to be specific regarding the act of misconduct so that there is no possible misunderstanding by the competitor. Remember that a finding at the end of the hearing cannot be of any misconduct other than that alleged in the notice. If the evidence at the hearing differs materially from what is alleged in the notice, the hearing should be adjourned to give a further written statement of allegations and time to prepare. An alternative is to inform the competitor or other person that a finding might be made in respect of this additional misconduct, then ask whether they require additional time to prepare and gather evidence. Make a record that this was done, which should form part of the report required by rule 69.2(j).

A model of the notification letter can be found on the World Sailing document Misconduct Guidance Appendix K.

During the hearing, follow the procedures meticulously. Any doubt as to the correct procedure should be resolved in favor of the course of action which presents the greatest fairness to the competitor or support person.

It is especially important at a rule 69 hearing to maintain an atmosphere of formality. Ensure that the person is given ample opportunity to answer the allegations. Keep a written account of the proceedings. The hearing must be held in accordance with rule 63, as modified by rule 69.2(e).

The protest committee should consider making an audio or video recording of the hearing. Such a recording is often useful if there is a dispute later as to what happened at the hearing or what evidence was given. This is particularly so where there might be further proceedings by World Sailing or an MNA under the Code of Ethics, or proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

If a recording is to be made, consent to the recording must be obtained from the competitor, boat owner or support person and any witnesses prior to commencement of the hearing. It is also necessary to inform about the duration of the recording and the institutions to which it is to be distributed, in advance. If one of these persons does not agree, a recording of their statement shall not be made. If only the consent of the parties has been given, but not that of a witness, the hearing but not the testimony of the witness can be recorded. In some nations a recording made without a person's consent is a criminal offence and the power to do so is generally reserved exclusively for law enforcement agencies (prosecutors and police). Note that a protest committee is not a law enforcement agency. The protest committee has only the possibility of verbal or analogous written record of the statement, if the personal consent to the electronic record is not given.

A party is entitled to a copy of the recording if required for an appeal or further proceedings. In that case, the party must first agree that the recording will only be used for that purpose, and that its confidentiality will be respected. After expiration of the duration of the recording, and if no appeal or further proceedings have taken place, all persons recorded are entitled to a cancellation of the recording. Upon written request, the entitled person must be informed about the institutions to which the record was distributed. An alternative to providing the recording is to order a transcript of the recording via a commercial provider.

An act of misconduct may be a breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or conduct that brings the sport into disrepute. Rule 69.2(g) requires that the protest committee find to its “comfortable satisfaction” bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged conduct, whether or not the person has broken rule 69.1(a). The following explanation of this standard of proof is based on World Sailing Case 122.

The standard of proof, comfortable satisfaction, is greater than the balance of probabilities. In a rule 69 hearing, the protest committee must answer “yes” to both of the following questions before it penalizes a competitor or boat owner or support person under rule 69.2(h) or 69.2(i):

The requirement that the protest committee must be comfortably satisfied does not mean that all members need to be so satisfied. It is sufficient if a majority of them are so satisfied.

The standard of proof may have been varied by a National Prescription with the consent of World Sailing.

Comfortable satisfaction is a standard used by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in doping cases.

Once the protest committee decides that the person has committed an act of misconduct, it will consider whether to give a penalty. In doing so, the protest committee should also consider whether there are any mitigating circumstances that may lead to reducing the penalty, and aggravating circumstances that may lead to a more severe penalty than is typical for similar misconduct.

Consider whether any remorse is for the misconduct itself. This is different from remorse for being called to a rule 69 hearing or for the penalty that might be given. Take into consideration any sincere and unprompted apology in relation to an incident that admits that the conduct was impulsive or spontaneous.

Rule 69.2(f) states that, if the person provides good reasons for being unable to attend the hearing, the protest committee shall reschedule it. However, if the person does not provide a good reason for being unable to attend the hearing and does not come to it, the protest committee may conduct it without the person present. If the committee proceeds without the person present, and penalizes the person, it shall include in its report under rule 69.2(j), the facts and the reasons for it.

Under rule 69.2(k), if the protest committee chooses not to conduct the hearing without the person present, or if the hearing cannot be scheduled for a time and place when it would be reasonable for the person to attend, the protest committee shall collect all available information and, if the allegation seems justified, make a report to the national authority of the person, or for major international events in the World Sailing Code of Ethics, to World Sailing.

Rule 69.2(k) applies also when the protest committee has left the event and a report alleging a breach of rule 69.1(a) is received. The race committee or organizing authority may appoint a new protest committee to proceed under this rule.

When the protest committee finds that the allegation of misconduct is not found to be true, it should communicate this decision clearly. The news of a rule 69 hearing will have spread throughout the event, and it is important that the person’s name is cleared publicly.

A finding of misconduct does not have to result in a penalty. A warning may suffice after, for example, a minor act of misconduct followed by an apology for the misconduct. A penalty equal to or less than one DNE shall not normally be reported to any national authority (see discussion of rule 69.2(j)(3) below). If a person is excluded from an event or venue the protest committee must report the penalty to the national authority.

The protest committee may exclude a competitor and their boat, when suitable, from further participation in an event or series. The maximum penalty would be to disqualify the competitor from the entire event, since the protest committee has no power to penalize outside the event over which it has jurisdiction.

The protest committee may also take any other action within its jurisdiction as provided by the rules. The protest committee must stay within its jurisdiction, using only the rules that govern the event, within the definition rule, and specified in the notice of race or sailing instructions.

No publication of the outcome should normally be made, other than the usual hearing result on the official notice board (see the World Sailing document Misconduct Guidance for suggested wording).

A person against whom a finding was made is entitled to a copy of the proceedings to prepare an appeal or defense before another body that might impose a further penalty, such as their national authority or World Sailing.

The person may appeal a decision only if the protest committee was not a properly constituted international jury or a protest committee from which the right of appeal was denied under rule 70.3.

When a penalty less than or equal to one DNE is imposed, no report to any national authority is required.

When a penalty greater than one DNE is imposed, the case must be reported to the national authority of the person involved, or for major international events listed in the World Sailing Code of Ethics, to World Sailing. The report should be detailed, since the national authority will rely on it to decide whether to investigate the matter further. It is useful for the protest committee to recommend whether a further penalty is appropriate. Make this report as soon as possible. Undue delay in reporting such matters brings the administration of discipline in the sport into disrepute. A copy of the report should be given to the person.

Rule 69.2(j)(3) allows the protest committee to report its decision to a national authority in any other case it considers appropriate. This could include a case where the protest committee has imposed a penalty of one DNE or less. However, the protest committee should exercise this power very carefully and explain its reasons in the report which is also sent to the person. It would be unusual for a protest committee to make a discretionary report where it has not imposed a penalty that is within its powers. An example would be where one member of a large crew on a keel boat is the person committing misconduct and it would be inappropriate to penalize the boat and the whole crew for the misconduct of one person. There must be a reason for involving the national authority or World Sailing which cannot be addressed by the protest committee at the event. In particular, the protest committee should not make a report without conducting a rule 69 hearing merely because it does not wish to deal with a difficult misconduct issue.

When the protest committee is required to make a report to the national authority, provide as much information and evidence as is practically possible while events are fresh in the minds of witnesses. This might include recording the evidence as it is given to the protest committee. This will assist the disciplinary body to come to the best decision later.

In the past, competitors have made threats against protest committees, such as threatening to sue the committee members for libel or defamation. The dictionary definition of libel is, 'the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or permanent statement, picture, etc.' 

It is the personal responsibility of a race official to ensure that appropriate insurance policies are in place to cover their work (whether this is through the organizing authority, MNA, etc.).  World Sailing does not provide insurance for World Sailing Race Officials. 

It might be appropriate in some countries for protest committee members to be insured against costs arising out of civil court proceedings. Although action brought by a competitor might fail, the costs of defense might be considerable. 

Under rule 4, each competitor, boat owner and support person agrees to be governed by the racing rules and to accept the penalties imposed or other action taken, subject to appeal and review procedures. Nonetheless, courts in some countries state that they have a greater authority than the racing rules to decide on decisions from a protest committee under rule 69.