Aldo, by “listening to testimonies it means an audience, and RC do not make audience”

Do you mean a “hearing” by using the word “audience”? … or just that the RC refused to meet with the boat and her witnesses?

There is no rule that requires the second "finish" to be the one used for scoring; however, it is a common practice.  The RYA Race Management Guide states, "If a boat does [finish] more than once – this boat may have taken a penalty for hitting a finishing mark and then crossed the finish line again. Both positions should be recorded and the decision as to which one is the boat’s final position made later." (Emphasis mine.) Absent a sailing instruction restriction (closed finish line), a boat breaks no rule by crossing the finishing line twice.

An incident where a boat that "finishes" twice should initiate a conversation between the boat and the RC to determine which "finish" is the correct one.  In this case, the RC scored the boat incorrectly by using the second "finish" and should have corrected their error in accordance with RRS 90.3(c) before this issue ever got to a PC.

As for the redress hearing, it was the boat's fault for crossing the line twice, but that is not forbidden by the RRS or, presumably, the SIs.  It was not their fault that the RC unilaterally decided to use the second "finish" as her score.  Redress granted. 

In our club, this second finish is called "voluntarily finish". 
Because this case is very similar to US Appeal QUESTION 86.

See the following;
US QUESTION 86.
Interpretation Requested by the Balboa Yacht Club
Definitions, Finish
Rule 43.1(b), Exoneration
Rule 62.1, Redress
A boat that touches a finishing mark and then takes a penalty does not finish until she
crosses the finishing line after taking her penalty. Exoneration does not provide for cancelling
a penalty a boat has taken voluntarily or for compensating her for distance, time or places
lost in taking the penalty. A boat that voluntarily takes a penalty and thereby worsens her
score is not entitled to redress.
---
Assumed Facts
Two 24-foot boats overlapped on starboard tack, WI to windward and LO to leeward, approach
a finishing mark to be left to starboard. WI was overlapped inside LO when the first of them
reached the zone. WI crosses the finishing line, but in doing so she touches the finishing mark
because LO has not given her sufficient mark-room. WI hails “Protest,” then takes a penalty
under rule 44.2 (Penalties at the Time of an Incident: One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties),
and re-crosses the finishing line. The race committee scores WI based on her second crossing
of the finishing line. The protest committee disqualifies LO for failing to give WI mark-room
as required by rule 18.2(b) (Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room).
Question 1
May the protest committee decide that WI was exonerated by rule 43.1(b) and instruct the
race committee to score her based on her first crossing of the finishing line?
Answer 1
WI was exonerated by rule 43.1(b), but her score cannot be based on her first crossing of the
finishing line. WI crossed the finishing line, and then touched the finishing mark before clearing
the line. She then took a One-Turn Penalty for her breach of rule 31, as permitted by rule 44.2.
Once WI took her penalty, she had not “finished” yet (see the definition Finish). She “finished”
and complied with rule 44.2 when, after completing her penalty and sailing completely to the
course side of the line, she crossed the finishing line again (see the second sentence in rule 44.2
and the definition Finish). The protest committee cannot ignore or undo the penalty.
Question 2
In this situation, would WI be entitled to redress, possibly in the form of basing her score on
her first crossing of the finishing line?
Answer 2
No. For a boat to be entitled to redress, rule 62.1 requires that her score must have been made
significantly worse “through no fault of her own.” When a boat voluntarily takes a penalty and
thereby loses distance, time or places, her own actions prevent her from meeting that requirement.
Furthermore, none of the conditions for redress in rules 62.1(a), (b), (c) or (d) are met.
August 2005
Revised January 2021, to conform to new exoneration rules

Hi,
I will divide this topic into applicable rules and how to interpret/find facts.

RRS 62.1 A request for redress (...) shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boats score (...), through no fault of her own, made significantly worse by (a.) an improper action or omission of the race committee, (…)
RRS 35 If one boat starts (...) , all boats that finish shall be scored according to their finishing places. (...)
Finish (…), any part of her hull crosses the finishing line from the course side. However, she has not finished if after crossing the line she 

In the Judges Manual (F.22.8-2021 edition) it is stated that an omission is: when the RC "fail to do something, whether or not required by the rules". In this scenario scoring the boat not according to RRS 35 would be an omission of the RC. RRS 35 demands a boat to be scored when/if they finish. The definition of finish has 3 points where, as in the scenario above, a boat crosses the line but does not finish.

What is -No fault of her own- in this scenario? The WSJM speaks of responsibility and if the boat is even partially responsible for the worsening of the score, she shall not be entitled to redress. So we have to answer the question why was the score made worse?
Was it because

While finding the facts for this we should, like in Case 136, balance the weight of the evidence. The boat must provide conclusive evidence that her crossing could not have given the impression of crossing in accordance to finish. Note that in a hectic multi dinghy finish situation I would nearly always side with the RC observer. Meanwhile if it is established that someone was leisurely, isolated and with a backed foresail is crossing again then I probably would consider giving advice to the RC team to read the definition again and grant redress.

Some race officials might interpret -No fault of her own- differently. You could argue that crossing again is, after all, a decision made by the competitor and this decision is always contributing a small responsibility.
In any case the difficulty, relevance and outside conditions like visibility should be factored in when making a decision.

By the way is there a document that shows the changes in the Judges Manual from revision to revision? My 2017 printed copy, the 2019 version in the menu and the 2021 pdf from WS differ alot in some places, while nearly being copied in many others.

According to the definition of finish, the boat finished the first time it crossed the line because it did not perform a), b) or c) of the definition.

A prudent RC would record both,  because it could be hard for the RC to know if they might be doing a), b) or c).   I think redress could/should be granted if the PC finds the boat finished according to the definitioin the first time, and the RC would have in fact made an error in applying the definition of finish the first time.

Sen's drawing of Question 86.  Yes, I think the mark-touching boat has taken a valid penalty. But if either the tack or gybe had been off the course side (i.e. after crossing the finishing line - e.g. his tack between W12 and W13 had been below the extension of the Finishing Line) would his penalty turn have cleared the mark touching? (i.e. must the tack and gype be completed on course side)

The RC should have corrected to the first finish, the PC, should not have invoked "no Fault" as she finished correctly the later finish recording was a RC error.

Appeal to have this changed.

The one-turn penalty does not need to be done on the course side of the finish line, however, it must be completed prior to finishing.

I’m with Michael B. and others who echoed this comment.

Reading the responses, it’s seems that this question ties directly into our previous thread regarding “continuing to sail the course”.

To the extent that there is an open question in some minds which crossing to score and how to go about determining it, it’s seems to me that it falls back to those same questions:

I think the answer to Q2 above is “no”, as def: Racing uses the word “until”. 

See Case 127. 

If our boat in OP’s scenario could hit the pin without penalty because she is no longer racing, then IMO she can cross the finish line a second time without negating her first crossing, likewise because she is no longer racing.

yes, Angelo, i ment "hearing"
Well, thanks for all the comments.
Though, still doubtfull about it; don't know if I explained well myself. Or if i'm too thick.
Boats do not finish necessarly at first crossing, as they may hv to take a penalty. So, for RC, scoring the boat on second passage is not an error.  Of course, with finishing line still active, blue flag on, and other boats arriving. Logically.
RC have their eyes on the line, recording numbers. What boats do after, not their care.
Now: boat goes to RC asking for first passage scoring. How the boat can prove she was not taking a penalty after first crossing? on trust? what if she was really taken a penalty but then, learning from the coach that the penalty was not due, she's trying to be smart with the RC? To hear the boat and testimonies? That's a hearing. Not supposed to be RC matter.
And crossing second time by mistake, well, it's a boat's mistake. And boats (usually) pay for their mistakes. 
No fault of RC, fault of her own....  mmmmmmmm 

I would say the the RC would have made an error if they chose the second time the boat crossed the line as the finish if in fact the boat satisfied the definition of finish the first time they crossed.   

Also, if the boat didn't break any rules when it crossed the line the second time, how could they be found at "fault" for the sake of 62.1? 

Sure, a PC might need to verify that the boat did finish properly the first time. 

I think is reasonable to the RC to choose the second finish as the official one and then let it be sorted out at a redress hearing.   One of the two choices for the finish is an error, and the RC might not be able to know which because they may have been busy watching other finishers.  

Chris

Aldo .. you did fine with your original post and you generated a great discussion. You did much better than I would have if I tried to post a question in the Italian forum!!! (the only Italian I know is what my Nonna would mutter at me when I was getting into trouble!).

:-)