CASE 45 Rule 64.2, Decisions on Redress
Definitions, Finish
A sailing instruction for finishing a race that conflicts with the definition Finish is invalid. The protest committee is not entitled to give redress so as to negate the definition.
Summary of the Facts
During the day, the class sailed two races. After the first race on a long course
that finished leaving Mark 1 to starboard, the wind became light. Accordingly,
the race officer set a short second course with a sailing instruction that,
although Mark B was the last rounding mark, Mark 1 was to be left to starboard.
Other classes were finishing at the same mark, and the race officers had been
advised not to set courses that might lead to different classes passing a finishing
mark or crossing the finishing line in opposite directions.
X and two other boats finished leaving Mark 1 to port and were scored DNF. The
rest of the fleet followed the course indicated by the race officer, leaving
Mark 1 to starboard. They thus sailed a ‘hook round’ finish as shown in the
diagram.
X requested redress on the grounds that the race committee had not applied the
definition Finish correctly and had awarded the race to Y, whereas X had been
the first boat to finish as required by the definition. The protest committee
gave redress, agreed that the three boats had finished correctly, and reinstated
them in the race. For boats not so finishing, the protest committee exercised
its discretion under rule 64.2 to make such arrangements as it deemed fair and
adjusted the points score according to the order in which all the boats crossed
the finishing line, without regard to the direction in which they crossed it.
X appealed against the new finishing order, referring to the unequivocal wording
of the definition Finish and stating that such an arrangement would negate the
definition and defeat its purpose, which, she believed, was to prevent ‘hook
round’ finishes.
Decision
Appeal upheld. The sailing instruction that purported to change the definition
Finish was invalid. Such a sailing instruction is an improper action of the
race committee. In this case, the redress awarded was appropriate and, as is
required by rule 64.2, was as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats
that obeyed the invalid sailing instructions.
RYA 1979/1