In a keelboat race, Boat A made contact with Boat B, resulting in no physical damage or injuries. A valid protest was lodged, and A was disqualified for breaking a rule of Part 2. B was found not to have breached any rule.
Due to the incident, a crew member from B fell overboard and was subsequently recovered by B, with assistance from A, who stopped to help.
The incident significantly worsened the score of B.
Can Boat B be awarded redress?
------------------------------------------------
Food for thought and analytical questions
------------------------------------------------
Under the 2025–2028 Racing Rules of Sailing, redress is covered by RRS
61.
Question 1
According to RRS
61.4(b), redress may only be granted when the score is made worse “through no fault of her own.”
To me, this condition appears to be met in this case.
Is it correct?
Question 2
The parenthetical phrase “except to herself or her crew” in RRS 61.4(b)(4) is clear, concise, and unequivocal, and it appears to rule out redress for B in this case.
However, that clause likely aims to prevent redress in situations where a boat’s own mishandling causes a crew member to fall overboard and requires recovery. In this case, by contrast, the crew member went overboard as a result of another boat’s breach of a Part 2 rule.
Should that parenthetical really bar B from redress?
Question 3
(If question 2 is yes...)
It seems unjust that a boat forced to recover one of her own crew members due to another competitor’s breach should be denied redress.
This leads us to consider RRS 61.4(b)(2), which allows redress in cases involving "injury" or "physical damage."
However, as clarified in Case
110,
“‘Injury’ in the racing rules refers only to bodily injury to a person, and ‘damage’ is limited to physical damage to a boat or her equipment." In my view, it would be a stretch to consider a crew member as part of a boat’s equipment.
Conversely, the fact that a crew member went overboard exposes them "only" to the risk of injury (such as injuries from hypothermia), but unless an actual injury occurred, this remains speculative, arguably so.
So, can a crew-overboard incident like this be considered “injury” or “physical damage” under the rules?
Question 4
Suppose Boat B hadn’t lost a crew member but instead lost a piece of equipment, like the spinnaker pole, thus significantly worsening its score. Would that qualify her for redress?
I look forward to hearing your insights.
Daniele
Q1 ("No fault of her own"): From the conditions stated, I would say that B passes that condition for redress. That is necessary, but not sufficient.
Q2 ("except to herself or her crew”): Here I think that B, under the rules as written, is ineligible for redress, regardless of the cause of the crew falling overboard.
Q3 ( can a crew-overboard incident like this be considered “injury” or “physical damage” ): Sorry, no. I agree that it seems unjust.
Q4 (can the loss of equipment be considered "damage"): Assuming that the equipment was not inadequately secured (and therefore fails the "through no fault of her own" test, I would say that causing the loss of equipment would constitute "physical damage" under 61.4(b)(2).
Regarding Q1-Q3, I agree completely with Clark's answers.
Considering Q4, we might remember RRS Introduction, page 1 (which itself is a rule):
Since "physical damage" is no nautical phrase, you might ask any dictionary or AI resource for it's meaning in the sense "ordinarily understood". Searching the web, I got explanations like this:
To me, it seems we might have here a case the rules cannot solve in a completely just way. It might be a case of "things happen in life".
Maybe we also have to consider the other way around: If the rules would allow redress for a boat helping her own crew, might that possibly in other cases lead to other, maybe even worse, new injustices?
Kind regards,
Frank
Stoppage time in football is referred to in layman's terms as injury time. Most of those guys have no injury to show. They just roll around on the ground for a couple of minutes until the physio rubs their leg.
In UK Law, the offence of Assault might often be assumed to lead to an injury. In reality, that is a different offence of "Assault causing actual bodily harm"...
I've never gone overboard on a keelboat - but can you really not have ANY injury (bruise, bump, graze, scratch etc?)
I think it is hard to go overboard, from a keel boat, without sustaining an injury, even minor like a rope burn, would be sufficient to grant redress in this situation. The PC would need to find the fact that the crew member was injured as a result of the breaking of a rule of part 2.
Also, in the event of contact, was rule 2 considered? Did boat A purposely and knowingly put boat b in a position they could not avoid contact?
Please read WS Cases 110 and 135, I think those clarify this case a lot:
Thus, "just" falling overboard without bodily injuries that at least require any form of medical help or treatment is no injury.
Loss of equipment is no damage. A damage to e.g. a line securing equipment (e.g. a spinnaker pole) would be damage. (See reasons in my post above.)
Furthermore, case 110 states that
For an injury, it would be the same, but is seems nobody was injured here.
As Case 135 explains, the protest committee would also have to consider if the crew of B fell overboard only because of A's actions, or also due to "poor seamanship" even if the root cause would have been A's actions or omissions. If, e.g., it would be found that many crews in the race were secured by lifelines, or a rule would request or suggest lifeline usage, and B's crew was not secured, that could indicate that B's style of seamanship might also (not alone) be part of the reason for having lost her crew. This alone would lead to a rejection of redress.
There are many reasons why redress decisions seem unfair, compare to a "normal" part 2 incident causing a boat to lose 20 places at a mark. Redress is strictly limited, and we should not try to stretch the meaning of the rule.
Kind regards,
Frank
I would condider redress for the equiment.
I could not be used as intended, and rhus the operatuon of the boat was "damaged" i think it is a lack of function test.
I once gave redress to a laser when the boom was knocked if the gooseneck, but not otherwise damaged, af the function was destroyed. On the water it could (with the then design) not be easily fixed.