Assume a scenario with 4 boats overlapped at a leeward rounding A -> D with A inside and D outside. A touches the mark. There is various bumper-boat contacts for all boats.
All 4 boats deliver protests to the Race Office. The PC, seeing that the protests are likely from the same incident, combines the protests into a single hearing. Representatives for all 4 boats are at the hearing.
- A protests B, C & D;
- B protests A & C, and
- C protests only D
Starting with A's protest, since it names all parties, the PC takes evidence that A's protest might be invalid. Next they look at B's and again they take evidence that B's might be invalid as well. When they get to C's, it seems solid and likely valid, but her protest only identifies D.
The PC excuses the parties to discuss validity and finds that only C's protest of D is valid.
Understanding that it is likely that during C's hearing the PC will receive evidence that shows A and B were involved in this incident and may have broken a rule, how do you proceed after you bring the parties back for your validity decision? Does your approach change if this hearing was scheduled days after the race and A and B drove a significant distance to be there?
Then continue.
During the validity part of A and B's .. the information gained cannot be used because those were invalid. During C's validity the only thing learned was that C hailed "protest" and flew the red flag timely.
Do you excuse A and B .. start C v D, start taking evidence and then follow 60.4(c)(2) and 63.2(d) and start over?
The protest committee may also protest if, during the hearing of a valid protest, it learns that another boat (not a party to the original protest) was involved in the incident and may have broken a rule.
In practice, this means that if a protest committee is involved in a hearing (or otherwise informed), and discovers another boat was implicated in the situation, it can close the original hearing, lodge its own protest, and then hear the cases together under Rule 63.2(d).
The boats are all parties then can hear all evidence and ask questions and of course later as a party be disqualified.
.. or ..
Might a PC, seeing this coming, gather some evidence during C's validity .. enough to justify 63.2(d) for efficiency?
Under RRS 61.2(c), a protest “shall identify the incident.” That incident may involve one or more boats. So, a single protest form can validly include multiple boats, provided they were all part of the same incident (e.g., a three-boat mark-room pile-up).
Huh .. sounds interesting .. but in which protest was that evidence gathered if that evidence is gathered prior to validity?
I think the protest committee should advise or request A and B to remain nearby.
There is no way to get around the requirements of RRS 63.4(a)(1).
The protest committee should then hear C's protest against d up until the protest committee 'learns that A and B may have broken a rule'.
The protest committee should then close the hearing of C's protest and protest A and B (including writing protests, informing A and B of the intention to protest, providing them with the protests, and informing them of the time and place of the hearing (which will be about 5 minutes after putting the protests into their hands)).
The protest committee then opens a new hearing to hear PC v A, PC v B, and C v D together.
As long as A and B don't leave (or advised not to leave) the protest hearing venue after initially having their protests declared invalid, there should be no problem
PS: Precisely the dialog i was hoping with this scenario. "Being forewarned is being forearmed" :-)
Then am I right, there is some change in the order you hear evidence due to the invalid protests as compared to if they were valid?
As witnesses, until they become parties to a valid protest they have to stay out of the protest room.
Actually, I wouldn't mind telling them 'It may be that as a result of the hearing of C's protest the protest committee will proceed to hear the allegations made in your protests'.
Check for cases to be held together
Invalid cases exposed on the papers.
Cases with insufficient parties where witnesses may beed to be parties.
We then in advance protest some extra sailors to ensure a swift resolution of hearings.