The changes in the 2017 RRS include replacing the definition of with in order to bring the current RRS up to date with best practices. This has been in the works since before 2014 as the definition of  was approved in November of that year. And just to clear things up, this new definition may or may not be broader than the previous definition.

But the new definition does identify three primary categories of conflict of interest: (a) any "gain or loss" as a result of a decision, (b) some appearance of a personal or financial interest which would affect impartiality, and (c) has a close personal interest in a decision. Paragraph (b) is new to the definition (though not a new concept in the RRS). And, paragraph (a) was broadened to include any decision, not just a protest committee's decision. Otherwise, the new definition is very similar to the old one, albeit with a new label. But we are awaiting some further interpretations of  which may be provided in the updated Case Book and/or Q&A's, so we may see a bit broader interpretation than the old .

More significantly, RRS was replaced from 2013. The new  more clearly defines the procedural requirements where there may be, or it is acknowledged that there is, a conflict of interest. But first, the rule attempts to take into account that a strict conflict of interest rule is not practical for all events. Club events depend on volunteers who frequently have some degree of conflict. The intent was not to exclude them but provide an avenue for protest committee's to acknowledge and address the issue without necessarily excluding the volunteer. Yet for major events the new rules require race officials to have a high degree of sensitivity to any appearance of a conflict.

The new rule still requires a member of the protest committee to disclose any conflict as soon as they are aware of it, and it requires a party to object to any potential conflict as soon as possible. But now the protest committee is required to include a written statement as to a declared conflict of interest in the protest decision. Thus, when a member of the protest committee declares there is a conflict of interest, whether or not the rest of the protest committee find the conflict significant, that fact needs to be captured in the written decision.

Additionally,  paragraph (b) is new. Instead of uniformly excluding a member of the protest committee where there is a conflict of interest, that member may remain on the panel where; (1) all consent, or (2) the protest committee finds the conflict is not significant. This new paragraph builds in some flexibility to suit different events. This is especially significant for youth events where most of the volunteers are either coaches or related to the competitor. But notice that (d) does not allow a member to remain on the panel with a conflict of interest if it is a major event.

Interpretation of what is a significant conflict of interest is subjective, but the new rules provide some guidelines. Specifically, (c) provides that the protest committee should (1) consider the views of the parties, (2) the level of the conflict, (3) the level of the event, (4) the importance to each party, and (5) the overall perception of fairness. Got it? My guess is not. Look for more interpretations from WS in the near future concerning the question of how to determine significance.

There is some further help in Appendix M. A new provides some additional clarity for the procedures to be followed by a protest committee. But it is mostly a restatement of what is in the rules.