When necessary, was ‘Protest’ hailed and, if required, a red flag displayed correctly? (rule 60.2(a)(1)). There are 22 WS Cases, RYA Cases, Sail Canada Appeals and US Appeals that interpret and explain the rule.  

Rule 60.2(a)(1) – Intention to Protest 

1.       WS Case 72 – Discussion of the word ‘flag’. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

2.       WS Case 85 –If a racing rule is not one of the rules listed in rule 86.1(c), class rules are not permitted to change it. If a class rule attempts to change such a rule, that class rule is not valid and does not apply. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

3.       RYA Case 1996/2 – When a boat sees an incident between two other boats in the racing area and wishes to protest one or both of them, she must display a protest flag, when applicable, at the first reasonable opportunity after the incident. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

4.       RYA Case 1999/1 – A protest flag must be kept close at hand. A boat that waits to see whether another boat will take a penalty before displaying a protest flag has not acted at the first reasonable opportunity. A protest committee need not investigate the promptness of the display of a protest flag when no question of delay arises in the written protest, and when the protestee, when asked, makes no objection. When a boat that is already displaying a protest flag wishes to protest again, only a hail is required. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

5.       RYA Case 2001/13 – A glove cannot be a protest flag. 

When the display of a protest flag is required but not complied with, a protestee’s objection at the start of a hearing to the validity of the protest is to be upheld even if the protestee must have been well aware of the intention to protest. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

6.       RYA Case 2002/7 – Any use of ‘Protest’ as a noun or verb will comply with a requirement to hail ‘Protest’. 

When rule 60.2(a)(1) applies, whether as printed or as altered by Appendix B, E or F, the only obligation of a boat intending to protest is to hail 'Protest' and, when required, display a red flag, in compliance with the rule. 

The protest hail procedure in radio sailing racing requires the number of the protesting boat to precede the number of the protested boat, with the word ‘protest’ or a variant thereof between the numbers. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

7.       US Appeal 46 – The failure of a boat to take a Two-Turns Penalty does not break a rule. A boat may not be disqualified for an incident not described in a valid protest. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

8.       US Appeal 61 – "First reasonable opportunity" means as soon as practicable, not as soon as convenient. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

9.       US Appeal 65 – The test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occurrence was the inevitable result of the first. A boat intending to protest another boat for two incidents during a race, no matter how close in time, must inform the protested boat that two protests will be lodged. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

10.   US Appeal 66 – A 2-inch by 8-inch protest flag on a 40-foot boat is not of sufficient size or of suitable proportions to be “conspicuously displayed.” (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

11.   US Appeal 67 – Failure to display a protest flag during a period of time when some member of the crew is not otherwise occupied is a failure to display it “at the first reasonable opportunity.” If a protest flag is not displayed at the first reasonable opportunity, the protest is invalid and the hearing must be closed. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

12.   US Appeal 82 – A boat is not obligated to give priority to displaying a protest flag at the cost of the crew failing to act to keep the boat under control or delaying a spinnaker set. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

13.   US Appeal 122 – The “first reasonable opportunity” to hail “Protest” is the first reasonable time after an incident when a boat is able to hail “Protest,” which is usually immediately. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

14.   US Appeal 124 – A protest flag flown 10–15 seconds after an incident, when a member of the crew is able to retrieve and display the flag in that time and acts to do so, is consistent with displaying the flag at the “first reasonable opportunity.” (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

15.   US Appeal 125 – An interpretation of the term “incident” in rule 60.2, and when a boat must hail “Protest” and fly a flag (if required) when the incident is not brief. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

16.   Sail Canada Appeal 15 – A boat intending to protest must hail “protest” at the first reasonable opportunity, but failure of her hail to be heard does not invalidate her protest. The fact that a protestee did not know she was being protested is not, by itself, grounds for not hearing a protest. If a party to the hearing does not attend the hearing, the protest committee may nevertheless decide the protest. If the party was unavoidably absent, the committee may reopen the hearing.(rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

17.   Sail Canada Appeal 19 – A boat greater than 6 metres in length intending to protest because of an incident in the racing area that she saw shall hail “protest” and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each.(rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

18.   Sail Canada Appeal 63 – For boats greater in length than 6 metres, a protest flag must be perceived to be a flag. The flag must be displayed at the first reasonable opportunity. For a fully-crewed boat, compelling evidence would be required to justify display within minutes, rather than seconds of an incident. Failure to meet these requirements will render a protest invalid.(rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

19.   Sail Canada Appeal 88 – A boat with multiple crew is not relieved from the requirement to display a protest flag as soon as reasonably possible if a problem aboard does not put the boat and its crew in danger.(rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

20.   Sail Canada Appeal 103 – A protest flag shall be displayed at the first reasonable opportunity. Neither the proximity of other boats nor sailing short-handed provides relief from this requirement.(rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

21.   Sail Canada Appeal 106 – A short-handed crew is not relieved of the responsibility to hail protest and display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. Parties to a hearing have the right to be present if a protest committee reconvenes to take new evidence or to provide new written facts or diagram. World Sailing Cases are binding as authoritative interpretations of the rules. MNA appeals decisions are not authoritative, but they may provide guidance. The appeals of one MNA do not have more importance than those of another. (rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

22.   Sail Canada Appeal 114 – A boat intending to protest must display a protest flag at the first reasonable opportunity. An incident that results in damage that is not obviously serious to the protesting boat at the time of the incident does not relieve the boat of this obligation.(rule 60.2(a)(1)) 

If I may, I'll start with the easier issue - rule 11.

I admit it took me time to link 'need to take avoiding action' with this scenario, until I widened my view of what 'need to take avoiding action' is.  We are so conditioned to think that 'avoiding action' is only a course change.  It's more than that.  Now, the more I look at this, I'm satisfied with rule 11 breach.

Did W break RRS11? Yes; without a doubt.

Any continuous restriction on how RoW can sail is the same as saying RoW has the need to continuously take avoiding action.

All the while W is in that close proximity, L is restricted on how she may trim her sails.

The 'avoiding action' referred to in def. of KC  is not always a course change.  It may be sail trim, crew weight positioning, hailing (Case 107) or many other 'actions'.  In this case for example, L's avoiding action is her need to keep her sails trimmed or only trim them slowly.  That's what's required to avoid contact.

L, sailing so close so as to restrict how W may trim her sails breaks rule 11.

I am happy with rule 11.

----------
Now to the tough question - rule 14 - what is 'caused and reasonable'.

How does fully releasing the sheet with the knowledge of the result in close quarters fall within the range of ***reasonable*** sailing, whether intentional or not?

This is where we are getting stuck.  Specifically,  that word 'caused'.   We've discussed this word before. (About every 12 months it seems).

That word has a broad range of use, doesn't it?

For any incident there may be a number of contributory factors, and these are referred to as causes.  Ok, but if we can find a cause to a cause, it is not a root cause.  There is usually only one/a few 'root causes'.

A root cause is the fundamental, deepest underlying reason for an issue or event.

Rule 14 must require us to drill down to the deepest level of cause we can find which also has a binding rule which goes with it.  Otherwise we are left with a bunch of 'causes' with no real endpoint to address or fix.

RCA#1.
Rigs collided.  Why?
1.  L stood upright.  Why?
2.  L's mainsheet was not taut.  Why?
3.  Mistake/Poor Sailing/Broken equipment etc... Why?
Root Cause: Bad luck/Training/Poor maintenance/etc

Dropping mainsheet is not a root cause.  Additionally, there is not a rule prohibiting bad luck/poor training/poor maintenance.  (Don't say r14 - circular reference!).  It would be ridiculous for the rules to forbid mistake or bad luck.  Imagine this...

Rule 9 ¾ - Bad Luck and Mistakes - A right of way boat shall not have bad luck or make mistakes!

No.  These issues are considered to occur within reason in sailing (not reasonably possible to avoid).  They are going to happen.  They are accounted for in the rules and the interpretations (seamanlike definition, 'reasonable' in rule 14.).

Within rule 14 reference frame then by dropping the sheet, L did not break rule 14.

RCA#2.
Rigs collided.  Why?
1.  L stood upright.  Why?
2.  L' s trim change was sudden and W did not have time to react.  Why?
Root cause:  Distance between the boats was insufficient for reaction time.

Distance between boats is a root cause.  Additionally, there is a rule which requires that the distance between the boats be sufficient to allow RoW freedom of trim, which must take into account reaction time.  It was reasonably possible for W to increase the distance.

Within the rule 14 reference frame then, W broke r14.

--------------------
That's my progression through this.  It may be wrong.  (I have been wrong many times before!)

It may be that in practice at a real event (in absence of any official directive) JohnS's reasoning would be preferred.  I'm ok with that.  I understand his reasoning.  It's not uncommon that there are different interpretations to rules.  In absence of authoritive direction (casebook/rule change), either may be applied according to the majority of the jury.  That's why we have committees, right? 

I have nothing really more to say.

Thank you Paul for the change. And thank you all for the helpful suggestions.

We have had this come up a few times at our club and have defined the winner of the trophy/prize/money as the person who entered the boat and paid the entry fee.

It is a good idea to set this out in NOR so that it is clear, especially when there is a large sum of money riding on the prize.

Set TWD (mag)
Leg#  Mrk1 Mrk2 Bearing TWA(p/s)  Dist

That could easily fit width wise on a phone. 

When setting the marks, if they are govt marks hyperlinking to details regards bells/flash height etc .. avail as a pop-up will keep the list clean.