| No. | Parties
(click for detailed protest results) | Abstract | Conclusion | Decision |
| 1 |
Australian Maid (Request for Redress) (Race 1) |
AUSTRALIAN MAID requested redress, claiming that she lost 4 minutes by having to avoid fishing trawlers pair-trawling near the last mark. The Jury decided that neither the Race Committee nor the Organising Authority has authority to instruct trawlers to move and therefore made no error or omission (an essential requirement to get redress in these circumstances). The request was denied. The Race Committee reported it was doing its best to set courses in areas free from fishing boats and would continue to do so. |
No improper action by the race committee |
Request denied. |
| 2 |
Skandia Endeavour of Whitby v Phoenix (Race 2) |
SKANDIA ENDEAVOUR OF WHITBY protested PHOENIX claiming that PHOENIX had passed through head-to-wind when ‘shooting’ the windward mark, forcing SKANDIA to change course to avoid contact. The Jury was satisfied that PHOENIX did not pass head-to-wind. SKANDIA was therefore the keep-clear boat to windward, and was required to keep clear. As SKANDIA kept clear, there was no infringement, and the protest was dismissed.
PHOENIX hit the mark, but took a one-turn penalty.
The validity of the protest was questioned by PHOENIX. PHOENIX claimed that although she heard a hail of protest from SKANDIA, she thought it was in relation to het touching the mark, and did not realise that the hail was in relation to another incident (which would have required a two-turns penalty for exoneration). The Jury decided that the rules do not require a protestor to identify an incident or a rule number, the requirement is simply to hail and display a protest flag. |
Skandia is required by r11 to keep clear and did so. Phoenix did a 360 penalty turn for hitting the mark. |
No further penalty applies. |
| 3 |
Skandia Endeavour of Whitby v Phoenix (Race 2) |
SKANDIA ENDEAVOUR OF WHITBY protested PHOENIX claiming PHOENIX had not given her mark-room, and SKANDIA’s spinnaker had touched PHOENIX’s shrouds.
PHONEIX counter-protested claiming that there was contact but SKANDIA had no rights to mark-room.
The Jury was satisfied that SKANDIA was overlapped inside when the boats first reached the zone and was therefore entitled to mark-room. There was no damage. PHOENIX was penalised by her being moved down 50% of number of places, and the boats affected to move up one place.
Phoenix and Skandia were approaching the leeward mark on opposite tacks with Phoenix outside boat. Skandia gybed to give room to two other boats. A collision occurred with Phoenix. Skandia Protested. |
Phoenix did not give Skandia sufficient room. |
Phoenix is to be scored 150% of her corrected finishing place rounded up to the nearest point. |
| 4 |
Phoenix v Skandia Endeavour of Whitby (Race 2) |
Refer Protest 3 |
|
Held in conjunction with Protest #3 |
| 5 |
FfreeFire 52 v Foxy Lady (Race 1) |
FFREEFIRE 52 protested FOXY LADY claiming that FOXY LADY completed a tack from p[ort to starboard, inside the zone, and FFREEFIRE was forced to sail above close-hauled to avoid her. FOXY LADY claimed that FFREEFIRE was approaching above the layline, and that she was not forced to sail above close hauled in order to fulfil her obligation as windward boat to keep clear. The Jury was satisfied that FFREEFIRE was forced to sail above close-hauled in order to keep clear and therefore upheld the protest. PHOENIX was penalised by her being moved down 20% of number of places, and the boats affected to move up one place. |
Foxy Lady failed to meet her obligations of a boat tacking inside the zone. |
Foxy lady is to be scored 130% of her corrected finishing place rounded up to the nearest point. |
| 6 |
Miss Saigon v Thor (Race 1) |
MISS SAIGON protested THOR, but before the start of the hearing asked that it be withdrawn. The Jury agreed to allow it to be withdrawn. |
|
Protest Withdrawn |
| 7 |
Schwalbe v Alondra and Sirius (Race 1) |
SCHWALBE protested ALONDRA and SIRIUS claiming that they had rounded mark 2 (a red triangular mark) instead of mark 1 (a black cube further to windward) and therefore not sailed the correct course. After taking evidence including GPS tracks, the Jury agreed, upheld the protest, and ALONDA and SIRIUS were disqualified. |
Alonda and Sirius did not sail the course. |
Alonda and Sirius are disqualified |
| 8 |
Race Committee v Ocean Agassy (Race 2) |
Race Committee protested OCEAN AGASSY claiming she hit a mark. Alex from LUANA gave evidence that he too saw OCEAN AGASSY hit the mark. However neither witness actually saw OCEAN AGASSY hit the mark, rather they concluded that she hit the mark from seeing the mark laying flat and then coming upright as OCEANAGASSY passed the mark. The Race Committee was 250 metres away, and LUNA was 7 boat-lengths to leeward, and the Jury was not satisfied from the evidence that OCEAN AGASSY hit the mark. |
Jury is not satisfied that Ocean Agassy hit the mark. |
Protest Dismissed |
| 9 |
Fidji v Race Committee (Request for Redress) (Race 2) |
FIDJI asked for redress claiming that she had been scored DNF in error. However, apparently the results showing FIDJI as DNF were provisional results and the Race Committee then corrected the results to FIDJI’s satisfaction. The request was withdrawn. |
|
Protest Withdrawn |
| 10 |
Ratchawadee v Fidji (Race 2) |
RATCHAWADEE protested FIDJI in relation to a collision during the pre-start period. The Parties did not appear for the hearing. There was no evidence of serious damage and the Jury dismissed the protest. |
Fidgi failed to keep clear as required by r11. |
As Fidgi carried out an alternative penalty, no further penalty applies. |
| 11 |
Da Vinci Nina v Race Committee (Request for Redress) (Race 4) |
DA VINCI NINA requested redress claiming that she had been scored DNF (Did not finish) when she had in fact finished at a shortened course finishing line. She claimed she stopped racing after going through a gate where she saw a shortened course signal (a board depicting flag S) together with her class board (blue/red). There was another board (white/pink) also displayed relating to another class. Two members of the race management team on board the race committee vessel at that gate explained that DA VINCI NINA’s class had not been shorted at the gate and at no time had a blue/red board been displayed. A blue/pink board (along with a white/pink board) had been displayed relating to two other classes. DA VINCI NINA brought three crew members who all claimed they clearly saw their blue/red signal.
The signal boards were shown in evidence and the pink on the blue/pink board was considerably redder than the pink on the white/pink board being displayed adjacent to it.
The Jury therefore concluded that DA VINCI NINA had mistaken the blue/pink board as their blue/red board, and that this was a reasonable interpretation, given that the two ‘pinks’ were dissimilar.
The Jury decided that although the Race Committee had made no error (because it had displayed the correct boards), the Organising Authority had made an error in not ensuring that the ‘pinks’ were the same.
The Jury awarded redress by awarding DA VINCI NINA 9th place, and after receiving evidence that STORM was satisfied that had the error not occurred DA VINCI NINA would have finished ahead of her, STORM is to be scored as 10th. |
The Race Committee displayed a flag which was easily mistaken due to its indistiguisable colouring. |
Da Vinci Nina is awarded points equal to 9th place and Storm is awarded points equal to 10th place. |
| 12 |
Voodoo Child v Twin Sharks (Race 5) |
VOODOO CHILD protested TWIN SHARKS claiming that TWIN SHARKS failed to keep clear as windward boat after rounding a leeward mark. The Jury was satisfied that on entering the zone at the mark at the end of a down-wind leg, VOODOO CHILD was clear ahead of TWIN SHARKS and that during the rounding, TWIN SHARKS established an inside overlap inside the zone. VOODOO CHILD was forced to alter course to avoid a collision with TWIN SHARKS. TWIN SHARKS was required to give VOODOO CHILD mark room and failed to do so. TWIN SHARKS was penalised by 20% of the fleet (2 places) being added to her finishing place (and the boats affected were moved up). [Two days later TWIN SHARKS asked for a re-opening (see Hearing 16)] |
As there was not overlap at the zone, Twin Sharks was required to give Vood Child mark room. Twin Sharls failed to do this. |
Twin Sharks is penalised to the extent that 20% of the fleet (2 places) is to be added to her finishing place. |
| 13 |
TAG v Kinnon (Race 3) |
TAG protested KINNON regarding a collision at the finishing line. The parties did not appear for the hearing. There was no evidence in the protest form of serious damage. With no oral evidence presented, the Jury dismissed the protest. |
Parties did not appear. |
Protest Dismissed. |
| 14 |
Hugo v Fei Mao (Race 3) |
HUGO protested FEI MAO FEI MAO claiming she had to alter course in an incident of tacking inside the zone. HUGO did not display a protest flag at the time of the incident. The protest was invalid and therefore refused. |
Protest is invalid. |
Protest Dismissed. |
| 15 |
Hugo v Race Committee (Race 3) |
HUGO requested redress claiming that the Race Committee made an error in not scoring many boats as OCS (on the Course Side at the Start) after many boats started a minute before the starting signal. During the hearing HUGO accepted that she had thought the P flag would be displayed for 5 minutes and had planned her own start accordingly, whereas for the past 12 years the standard starting sequence required the P flag to be displayed for only 3 minutes (up at start minus 4, down at start minus 1). HUGO agreed to study the race starting procedures during the lay day. |
Protest withdrawn |
Protest Withdrawn |
| 16 |
Voodoo Child v Twin Sharks (Race 5) |
TWIN SHARKS asked to reopen case 12. At the conclusion of the original hearing, the Jury chairman had informed the parties that TWIN SHARKS would be penalised by one place (making her equal second) and that there would be no first place. However, the results showed she had been penalised two places (to 3rd) and the other two had moved up one place (to 1st and 2nd).
The Jury chairman explained that after several hearings, the Jury had discussed and agreed on a policy on how the Jury should use the discretion on penalties given to it in the Sailing Instructions and applied the policy retrospectively. In addition, the Jury had been informed that there were in fact 7 boats in the fleet rather than 5 (so 20% of 7 rounded up became 2 places rather than one).
However, TWIN SHARKS informed the Jury that of the 7 entrants 2 had not showed up to sail and had not registered.
The Jury’s decision was that only boats actually registered would count and therefore the penalty would be 20% of 5, which is one place, but that the policy of moving other boats up when a boat is penalised would stand. Therefore TWIN SHARKS will be rescored as second, and the boat that was originally scored 2nd will be awarded 1st place. The boat that had originally been scored 3rd would remain in 3rd. |
Jury erred in calculating the penalty. The total fleet size was 5 not 7 therefore the penalty should have been 1 place not 2. Twin Sharks should be scored in second place |
Twin Sharks is to be scored in second place. The positions of other boats adjusted accordingly. |
| 17 |
Full Metal Jacket v Evolution Sails (Race 7) |
FULL METAL JACKET protested EVELUTION RACING for motoring during the preparatory period. EVELUTION accepted that she had used her engine but said it was to keep the boat head-to-wind so that she could safely lower her mainsail, and that this was permitted by the rules. FMJ did not display a protest flag at that time because she was out of hailing distance. She displayed a protest flag only when EVELUTION finished. The Jury ruled that the requirements to hail and to display a protest flag as soon as reasonably possible are two independent requirements and that for the protest to be valid the flag would have to have been displayed at the time of the incident. The protest was invalid and was therefore refused. |
Protest is invalid. |
Protest invalid |
| 18 |
Jellik v Race Committee (Race 7) |
JELIK claimed that the Organising Authority was at fault in not making clear to boats in the Racing Class whether or not it was permissible to: (a) have spare sails (not on board during racing) in a support boat in case they were needed should a sail be damaged, and put them onto the racing boat during the night and (b) allow sails on board during racing to be taken off between races (presumably for cleaning or repair). ‘IRC RULE 2009’ Rule 26.1.5(d) reads (somewhat confusingly) ‘There is no limitation on the number or type of sails on board racing under IRC except … (d) except in the case of significant damage, during a regatta run on consecutive days, including any lay days, the sails on board shall remain the same.’ Malcolm Reynolds, the Event Measurer, explained that ‘including lay days’ meant only that an event with lay days would not escape the exception. It seems that the Event would benefit from clearer rules and procedures, and the matter would be referred to the Organising Authority for consideration for future events. |
After consultation with ORC the RC agreed to adjust the Sailing Instructions for future regattas. |
Protest Withdrawn |
| 19 |
Yomo v Race Committee (Request for Redress) (Race 5) |
YOMO protested INTRIGUE, AUSTRALIAN MAID, BABY TONGA, SHATOOSH, LAWANA, & OCEAN AGASSY for not sailing the course. AUSTRALIAN MAID (case 20) and INTIGUE (case 24) requested redress claiming they (and others) had been advised by the race committee to sail the course she did and that it should therefore be held as a valid course.
In an interview, Ross Chisholm the relevant Race Officer, explained that he had made several VHF broadcasts advising a course change at the gate in response to learning that the Navy Boat, which should have anchored between two yellow marks (to make two gates), was unable to anchor properly due to deep water and insufficient anchor rode. The Race Committee accepted that it had made an error in not displaying Flag L.
YOMO’s protest is upheld as she sailed the correct course and the others did not, but request is granted to all the boats which complied with the Race Committee’s instructions, even though they were not properly indicated with an L flag. The fairest arrangement for all boats is to allow the results to stand, for any boat that sailed between the two yellow marks. Thus no results to be altered.
|
No boat's finishing position was made significantly worse by by the actions of the race committee. The race committee did not make an improper action. |
Request for redress refused. |
| 20 |
Australian Maid v Race Committee (Request for Redress) (Race 5) |
Heard with Protest 19 |
No boat's finishing position was made significantly worse by by the actions of the race committee. The race committee did not make an improper action. |
Request for redress refused. |
| 21 |
Princess Christina (Request for Redress) (Race 5) |
PRINCESS CHRISTINA requested redress, claiming that in an incident with PRINCESS ISOBELLA shortly before the start, she became entangled for 2 minutes and was damaged. PRINCESS ISOBELLA had taken a two-turn penalty 10 minutes after starting. To get redress in these circumstances, a boat must be physically damaged, and the damage itself must materially affect the performance of the boat. In this case the damage had no effect on the performance and therefore no redress can be given. The Request was dismissed. As there was no protest against PRINCESS ISOBELLA, the Jury did not address the question as whether the turns penalty was taken as soon as reasonably possible, as required by the rules. |
As there was no damage the request for redress is refused. |
Request for redress refused. |
| 22 |
Little Eva v Race Committee (Request for Redress) (Race 5) |
LITTLE EVA requested redress claiming that the Race Committee made an error in not informing boats correctly that there was a change to the published course. No flags had been displayed and owing to the fact that her radio was faulty, she had heard no broadcast advising a course change. John Ford representing LITTLE EVA explained she had lost 5 minutes because she missed the new gate.
In a previous interview, Ross Chisholm the relevant Race Officer, explained that he had made several VHF broadcasts advising a course change at the gate in response to learning that the Navy Boat, which should have anchored between two yellow marks (to make two gates), was unable to anchor properly due to deep water and insufficient anchor rode. The Race Committee accepted that it had made an error in not displaying Flag L.
One of the requirements for being awarded redress is that a boat’s finishing position has been materially prejudiced, and since it was discovered in the hearing that LITTLE EVA actually won her race on corrected time, redress was irrelevant and the Request was dismissed.
It was later found that Little Evas position was not first. The Protest Committe reopened the hearing and awarded Little Eva a reducaion of 2mins 30secs from her elapsed time. |
|
Little Eva's elapsed time is to be reduced by 2mins 30 seconds |
| 23 |
Shiraz v Tag (Race 5) |
SHIRAZ protested TAG regarding two incidents as a result of which there was damage, but not serious damage. Daniel Schwalb representing SHIRAZ explained that SHIRAZ had not displayed a protest flag until 10 minutes after the second of the two incidents. There was nothing preventing the display earlier. A flag is required to be displayed at the earliest reasonable opportunity and the Jury has no discretion to extend the time. The protest was ruled as invalid and was refused. The Jury offered an arbitration service in relation to the responsibility for damage. |
Protest is invalid. |
Protest Dismissed |
| 24 |
Intrigue v Race Committee (Race 5) |
Heard with Protest 19 |
No boat's finishing position was made significantly worse by by the actions of the race committee. The race committee did not make an improper action. |
Request for redress refused. |
| 25 |
Zola v Venture (Race 5) |
ZOLA appeared to be protesting VENTURE, but on inspection of the protest form was in fact making a general point to the Organising Authority that allowing the boat ZOLA to sail in the Bareboat Charter Class ‘does not fit in the spirit of the class’. Simon James representing the Organising Authority and Mike, the skipper of VENTURE, gave evidence at the hearing at which ZOLA did not to attend.
Simon explained that he went to considerable efforts to ensure every boat was in fact a true charter boat and showed paper evidence that VENTURE fitted this category. Mike explained that VENTURE was his boat and that it was a year old and had been out on 12 charters in that period. Most charter boats are owned by individuals and using their own boat for regattas was popular with owners even though they inevitably lost valuable charters by doing so. Simon felt that it was in the interests of the Event to accommodate this Class. |
All eligible criteria for entry to the Bareboat class we met by Venture |
Protest Dismissed |
| 26 |
Kamala v Princess Sharda (Race 6) |
KAMALA protested PRINCESS SHARDA regarding an incident at the top mark. Richard Macadam representing KAMALA said that they did not have a protest flag on board and were therefore not able to display one. The Jury ruled that the protest was therefore invalid. |
|
Protest Invalid |
| 27 |
Danaya v Morakot (Race 6) |
DANYA protested MORAKOT claiming that MORAKOT failed to keep clear as windward boat, and damage was caused. The damage did not make the boat unsafe, MORAKOT was not represented at the hearing and the Jury proceeded in their absence. The Jury accepted the evidence from DANYA. MORAKOT is to be scored DSQ. |
|
Morakot is to be scored DSQ |
| 28 |
FfreeFire 52 v Foxy Lady (Race 9) |
FFREEFIRE 52 protested FOXY LADY regarding a collision at the start causing damage which was not serious. However, before the start of the hearing, FFREEFIRE accepted that FOXY LADY took a two-turn penalty after the incident, and agreed to pay for the damage. FFREEFIRE’s request to with draw the protest was accepted. |
|
Protest was withdrawn |
