Unhappily, there is no good way to solve this without tossing the race. A competitor is not responsible for matching the text and the diagram. It's a clear error by the RC.

I disagree.  The diagrams and text should be taken as a whole.  The text provides further description of the course to be sailed and the marks to be rounded.

This is a fairly common diagram where the offset is only used for the run. However, for best practice, the RC should not have placed the offset until after the fleet had rounded mark 1 for the first time. Depending on how much difference there was in the course length, or if in fact there were no place changes, a good solution may have been to grant redress, but not change any scores.

I agree with Eric.  To address your questions directly, though:

Q1: No.  There is no place in the rules that determines precedence between a written descrption or a diagram.  RRS J2.1(5) is about as close as you get.  The diagrams are very similar to the ones found in Appendix L.

Q2: There really is no "course error" - just an ambiguity created when the RC set the mark 1a well before it was required.

Q3: According to the written course description, all boats sailed the correct course.  Protest dismissed.  Redress would be unlikely.  (What was the RC's error?  Setting a mark early?)

The real problem here is that the RC created an ambiguity by setting the offset mark before it was needed.  Was it that hard to set the mark after all 15 boats had rounded mark 1 for the first time?  Someone is going to get their B.I.M.B.O. card revoked.

To my mind this particular SI is quite clear and it is the written list of marks that defines each course: "The marks and the order in which they are to be passed are listed below:".

I would therefore dismiss the protest (and refuse any subsequent request for redress from any of those that sailed round 1a unnecessarily on the basis that the race committee did not make an improper action or omission).

If you think the diagrams take precedence then what would you do about a boat that left mark 3 to starboard on the first upwind leg, or to port on the downwind leg?

John,

Assume very close racing (boats lined-up on the STB LL bow-stern like little ducklings) a 5BL min offset, and place changes.

In the races that I have judged there are often differences in completing the different laps and the marks that are not used are just ignored as they are obstructions and can be passed on either side if they are in the way.  I do not think anything needs to be done in this case.  The drawing is accurate but may not be to scale, the detail in passing the marks is correct and everyone completed all those instructions.  The fact that one boat went on a different side of a buoy that was not a mark of the course is irrelevant.  It was just an obstruction at that time.  Request for redress denied.
 

Angelo,
I'm still probably inclined to not change any scores. As others have pointed out, the diagram and text should be taken together. and this is not an uncommon way of designating the course. People are much too quick to throw out races and that is seldom the fairest way to resolve things.

This is also why we have three people on PC's, to have more than one point of view represented.

I agree with Graham,  in particular that no one would have dreamt that they had to pass mark 3 to starboard on the first beat.

There doesn't seem to be any ambugiety at all to me. Request denied. And I don't think the RC had any question about what it was doing when it wrote the SI's.

Matt and Lloyd have the right answer. Why even have 1A in the water when it's not a mark of the course on that leg? A good BIMBO might have known that and acted appropriately to "help" the competitors do it right.  

BIMBO?
 

Fogrive my ignorance - What does BIMBO stand for?  Obviously to do with the anchor tossing mafia but exact meaning?

I have no problem with this SI. The SI comes in two parts. The first part states the courses will be as shown in the diagrams. To me this means that the marks and start and finish lines will be set in a configuration like those shown in the diagrams although not to scale. The second part says that order in which marks must be passed will be listed which they are clearly.

The "tracks" shown on the courses don't really have much meaning. If they did how would you show the track on course zero ? The only alternaive to what is shown would be to show the track passing between 1 and 1A on the first lap which would be just as bad as it would still give 1A a required side, it would just be the other side.

The written list of the rounding order is clear and 28.1 states that a mark may be left on either side if it does not begin, bound or end the leg of the course which is the case here.

Robin Gray and Keith Kendall - The Brotherhood of International Mark Boat Operators

Obviously, our friends across the pond have not been duly informed of the mark boat operator's union.

Matt,
      I must add BIMBO = The Brotherhood of International Mark Boat Operators to my lexicon !!

I'm with the consensus here .. protest denied with no redress,

That said, 2 seasons in a row this confusion was an issue and IMO there is no reason at all to be unclear.  I hadn't thought of the idea that the BIMBOs (LOVE THAT BTW!!) could have delayed dropping 1A.  Instead I redrew the course drawings that included a triangle to jive with the text and sent it along to the sponsiring club, which they have used since.

Ange - if we are to treat the tracks as part of the course instructions (which I don't think we should) I am not sure that your revised digaram makes the track and the listed mark roundings agree.  Assuming 1A is in the water when the boats do the first lap the the diagram/track course you show is 1p. 1As, 2p etc. while the course list shows it as 1p, 2p etc. Your change seems to me to get rid of one disagreement between the diagram and the list and replaces it with another.

The simple fact is that if you draw a track on the diagram it must pass 1A on one side or the other. If you treat the track as representing the course (which I don't) then 1A must have a required side on the first lap which is not what the mark list says.

 

The answers are: No; No, & protest dismissed.

Rule 63.7 "Conflict between Rules" requires a PC to apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected". 

 

Matt B said: The real problem here is that the RC created an ambiguity by setting the offset mark before it was needed.  Was it that hard to set the mark after all 15 boats had rounded mark 1 for the first time?  Someone is going to get their B.I.M.B.O. card revoked.
 

I would not be that fast 'pulling' the B.I.M.B.O. card for setting the Mark 1a before the last boat rounded 1 of the first leg. Many times mark-set boats provide safety function at the event and getting the Mark(s) set in place gives them the ability to provide the assistance when needed. One would not want to have to make the choice between setting the 1a, or helping a crew in need. We all know what the correct choice should be, potentially leaving the 1a in the mark-set boat and then creating a ‘real situation’ for the RC not having a mark 1a in place.

As for Angelo’s new diagram, it is nice; I am not sure how many RC would want to set the 1a upwind of 1, unless conditions such as current, etc. call for that.

Instead of using fully drawn lines around the marks, use only partial indicators as in the Appx S. Just add the 1a where you want it. Problem solved; RC should be happy having marks in place, B.I.M.B.O. card is safe and safety patrol  is ready.

Bill, as usual you make a great point and case ... against which I have only the following arguement. 

Yes in a way, my drawing could be confusing in implying 1A is a passing mark.  That said, a passing mark in drop mark racing is highly usually and to my experience one would usually only see that in some sort of boundry restriction situation.  Otherwise, what you are suggesting would be a bizarre windward-gate that has you rounding the 1P and then through.  Also, wouldn't a passing mark be it's own number .. or maybe a letter or some special combo?  A passing mark wouldn't be labeled "1A", which implies that 1 and 1A are a continuation of the same mark in a sense and both being rounded.

I guess the proof has been in the pudding a bit, as with the new drawings, there haven't been any protests for not sailing the course, and in the years prior there were.  Maybe that has something to do with human perception or something.  One looks at the mark-list and the drawing, and it's clearer that 1A is ignored first time around (drawing says you don't "round it" as does list) .. no perceptual conflict and away we go.  The orginal drawing sets-up a perceptual dissonance and thus the racer has to decide which is correct.

Kim, the actual drawing in the new SI's doens't have the offset to windward (not that I think that matters in context).  This was just my hack-job to show the concept by cutting/pasting their drawing's components.  Also, not sure the partial lines with a "1A where you want it" is any clearer.as it's the lines around the marks relative to 1A that caused the confusion.

FWIW, following are the updated courses as they appear in the SI's.

Which raises the questions if we are to treat the track as indicating the rounding order -
Course 0 - Does 3 have to be left to port on the first beat and on the final run
Course 6 - Does 3p have to left to port on the first beat and 1 to port on the final beat
Course 5 - Does 2p have to be left to port on the first beat and 1 to port on the final beat
Course 4 - Does 2p have to be left to port on the first beat and do boats have to pass through the 2p/s gat on the final run.
Course 3 - Does 2p have to be left to port on the first beat and 1 to port on the final beat.

As I said the only sensible approach is to take the tracks as indicative and treat the mark listings as definative.

Are the tracks even necessary?  Must admit to have used the course diagram to show the relative positions of the marks but no tracks and let the text description tell the story.