Blue has not been compelled to break a rule as she chose to cross the line.

What of the spinnaker remaining up!

• Would Blue's protest be valid? Blue didn't know of Red's protest until after all boats had returned to the dock
• Is it necessary for Blue to protest Green, Yellow or both?

• Red said she hailed ‘protest’.  B heard R hail ‘protest’  therefore R hailed ‘protest’
• There is no dispute that R displayed a red flag promptly after she saw B cross the line.
• The written protest was delivered in time, otherwise the protest committee wold have asked questions about why it was delayed
• Therefore Red’s protest is valid.
• B has attacked Red’s ability to judge orientation of B, Y, and G:  B has NOT challenged Red’s ability to see B passing the buoy.  Red’s evidence of this remains unchallenged.
• based on the words, or lack of words, in the SI we are not dealing with a rule 28 breach.
• B admits she crossed the boundary and thus broke the SI
• B’s evidence is that B became overlapped on Y just as they passed the corner (@2)
• B’s evidence is that G changed course to leeward, Y changed course to leeward, B changed course to leeward to avoid Y.
• B claims that she was compelled to break the SI by Y and G breaking the rules (at least rule 11, probably rule 19.2(b))

Is it possible for the protest committee to decide the protest as it stands, bearing in mind that there is no valid protest against Y or G at this stage?

Is it possible for the protest committee to decide the protest as it stands, bearing in mind that there is no valid protest against Y or G at this stage?

1. that Y and/or G broke a rule;  and
2. by so doing compelled B to break the SI.

• Red displayed a red flag promptly upon witnessing the incident and carried it through the finish line.
• Red was outside hailing distance at the time of the incident and so was not required to hail at that time. Red informed Blue of her intent to protest on the dock shortly after the race, which was her first opportunity to do so. Blue does not disagree.
• Red notified the RC of her intent to protest Blue as required by the SIs and filed a written protest within the established protest time limit.

1. Wind was approximately 5-7 knots with approximately 1 ft seas. Current was insignificant.
2. SI X.X defined a line connecting midchannel buoys 1, 2, etc. as a continuing obstruction and prohibited boats from crossing that line. No alternative penalty was prescribed for breaking SI X.X. A local ordinance requires boats to remain to the right of the midchannel buoys while transiting the channel. This ordinance requires inbound boats to pass the midchannel buoys to port and not cross a line connecting the buoys.
3. Neither the buoys individually nor the continuing obstruction were marks of the course.
4. Blue broad reaching on starboard established an overlap inside and to leeward of Yellow broad reaching on starboard as they approached the continuing obstruction. The overlap was established approximately 1.5 boat lengths from buoy 1. As the boats approached buoy 1 Blue hailed for room to pass buoy 1 to port.
5. Green was overlapped outside to weather and bow-forward of Yellow and gybed onto port at buoy 1. 
6. Since Yellow was between and overlapped with both Blue and Green and since all three boats were sailing more than 90 degrees from true wind, Blue, Yellow and Green were all overlapped with each other both before and after Green’s gybe.
7. Green and Yellow passed buoy 1 to port but did not leave sufficient room for Blue to pass between Yellow and buoy 1.
8. The protest committee declined to protest Yellow or Green.
9. Blue with right of way desired to pass buoy 1 to port but was unable to do so without making contact with Yellow or buoy 1.
10. Blue passed buoy 1 starboard and promptly crossed the line connecting the buoys to the inbound side of the channel in compliance with the local ordinance. Red was able to observe Blue passing buoy 1 to starboard.

1. Wind was approximately 5-7 knots with approximately 1 ft seas. Current was insignificant.
2. SI X.X defined a line connecting midchannel buoys 1, 2, etc. as a continuing obstruction and prohibited boats from crossing that line. No alternative penalty was prescribed for breaking SI X.X. A local ordinance requires boats to remain to the right of the midchannel buoys while transiting the channel. This ordinance requires inbound boats to pass the midchannel buoys to port and not cross a line connecting the buoys.
   
   See Local Port Regulation comment above.  Last sentence is irrelevant.
   
   
3. Neither the buoys individually nor the continuing obstruction were marks of the course.
4. Blue broad reaching on starboard established an overlap inside and to leeward of Yellow broad reaching on starboard as they approached the continuing obstruction. The overlap was established approximately 1.5 boat lengths from buoy 1. As the boats approached buoy 1 Blue hailed for room to pass buoy 1 to port.
   
   Which boat was 1.5 boat lengths from the buoy, and which part of the boat?
   
   Don't we need to say how much space there was between Y and the buoy when the overlap began?
   
   
5. Green was overlapped outside to weather and bow-forward of Yellow and gybed onto port at buoy 1.
   
   I take it you mean 'at the time B and G became overlapped', but woulldn't it be better to say so?
    
6. Since Yellow was between and overlapped with both Blue and Green and since all three boats were sailing more than 90 degrees from true wind, Blue, Yellow and Green were all overlapped with each other both before and after Green’s gybe.
   
   Once you start pulling in significant parts of a definition, this is starting to look like a Conclusion, or perhaps unnecessary explanation.
   
   
7. Green and Yellow passed buoy 1 to port but did not leave sufficient room for Blue to pass between Yellow and buoy 1.
   
   'Did not leave sufficient room' is definitely a conclusion, not a fact.
   
   Facts would be
   "G passed not more than x metres from Buoy 1"
   "Y passed not more than y metres from Buoy 1"
   
   
8. The protest committee declined to protest Yellow or Green.
   
   We're omitting this?
   
   
9. Blue with right of way desired to pass buoy 1 to port but was unable to do so without making contact with Yellow or buoy 1.
   
   "B with right of way" is a conclusion
   
   B's 'desire' is irrelevant.
   
   Normally for a right of way conclusion we need to find facts that:
   
   "The right of way boat changed course (or speed) because she reasonably apprehended that there would be contact (Case 50), and 'reasonableness needs to be supported by distance apart:  OR
   
   "There was contact":  OR
   
    Boats overlapped on same tack and right of way boat cannot change course in either direction without immediately making contact (again supported by distance apart)
   
   But in this case, we're looking to find facts that support conclusion about whether B had right of way and was entitled to room to pass the obstruction or not.  Both of these depend on whether, at the moment the overlap began, there  was space between Y and the Buoy for B to fit through (rule 19.2(c)).  See my comment on FF 4.
   
   If there was, B is right of way (rule 11) entitled to room to pass the obstruction (rule 19.2(b)), if not, B is required to keep clear of Y and is not entitled to room.
   
   
10. Blue passed buoy 1 starboard and promptly crossed the line connecting the buoys
    
    
    to the inbound side of the channel in compliance with the local ordinance.
    
    See comment on Local Port Regulation:  legal compliance is irrelevant.
    
    Red was able to observe Blue passing buoy 1 to starboard.
    
    This is a discussion of evidence, not a Fact Found:  the Fact found is in 10.

John, (I am channeling Blue again)

Blue can see the writing on the wall and now sees that based upon how SI’s were written, she was not compelled to cross the imaginary line and thus may not be exonerated for breaking the "NO YACHT MAY CROSS SAID LINE " SI.

Given that, Blue will argue that the RC made an error in writing the SI.

That in fact, the CO is either a mark of the course

 or that the SI’s should have provided a way for a boat forced to the “wrong side” the ability to “cross back”.

  That the intent of the RC was to prevent boats from crossing from the course-side to the non-course side of the CO, not the other direction.

Therefore, ambiguity was created by the poorly written SI, which in this case had boats forced to the wrong side stuck in a dangerous situation going in though the out-door, was not the intent or understanding of the course of her competitors or the RC. Blue will call the RC as a witness.

Blue will ask the PC to find the SI ambiguous.

Failing that, Blue intends request redress that failing to list the CO as a mark was an error/omission, failing to meet her J2.1(5) obligation.

Mark
An object the sailing instructions require a boat to leave on a specified side,