TOP OF THE GULF Regatta 2012

Case 1, 6^th May; Sports Boat Class 5, Race 2.

BRACE BRACE BRACE, represented by Tony Murphy, requested redress to compensate for the time spent standing-by QANTUM which turned upside-down.

The Request was submitted well outside the time limit (the afternoon of the day following the incident); nevertheless after considering the circumstances the Jury extended the time limit.

BRACE was well ahead of the other boats in her class and saw QANTUM capsize and invert. She took 10 minutes to sail back to the upturned QANTUM and stood-by for 30 minutes until a safety boat took over. BRACE then sailed on but the finishing line was removed by the time she approached the finishing area.

DECISION: BRACE is entitled to redress (Rules 62.1(c) and 1.1)

RRS 62.1(c) A request for redress … shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by … giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with rule 1.1…

RRS 1.1 A boat or competitor shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger.

The Jury is required to make an arrangement as fair as possible to all boats affected.

RRS 64.2 ‘When the protest committee decides that a boat is entitled to redress … it shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected…’

BRACE submitted that she probably would not have beaten CRIME SCENE (on corrected time) but might have beaten PORT STAR. After hearing a submission from PORN STAR’s skipper Kipsan Beck (who was supportive of BRACE being given redress), the Jury decided the fairest redress would be as follows:

DECISION: Leave CRIME SCENE as being scored points for first place, PORN STAR and BRACE to be scored equally in second place; C U LATER to be moved down from third to fourth place.

Case 2, 6^th May; Platu class 6, Race 4.

MOTORNET (Sail 106) represented by Jun Avecillia, protested WIKKI (sail 108) in respect to a port-and-starboard incident near the leeward mark. MOTORNET was running on starboard tack having just doused her spinnaker in preparation for rounding the mark; WIKKI had rounded the mark and was close-hauled on port tack. Their rigs had clashed.

After lodging the protest, Jun had then requested that it be withdrawn.

A protest committee must hear a protest unless it allows it to be withdrawn. (RRS 63.1: ‘…The protest committee shall hear all protests … that have been delivered to the race office unless it allows a protest to be withdrawn.’ )

The Jury interviewed Jun who explained that he approached WIKKI’s skipper Kelvin Koh after the race to persuade him to ‘do the honourable thing’ and retire. Kelvin had told him that he had not heard a hail nor seen a protest flag and therefore could not protest.

The Jury decided not to allow the protest to be withdrawn, as it seemed entirely possible that the crew of WIKKI knew they had broken a rule at the time of the incident but had not taken a penalty as required by the fundamental rule.

(RRS ‘Basic Principle’ ‘SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES: ‘…A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty …’)

Jun, representing MOTORNET, satisfied the Jury that the hail and flag requirements were met, though as the boats were sailing in opposite directions, WIKKI may not heve heard the hail or seen the flag. MOTORNET had not changed course prior to the incident; the boats rigs made contact and WIKKI lost her windex on the top of her mast.

DECISION: WIKKI broke rules 10 and 14 and is disqualified.

Case 2, 6^th May; Platu class 6, Race 4.

MOTORNET (Sail 106) represented by Jun Avecillia, protested WIKKI (sail 108) in

Case 3 & 4, 7^th May; Platu class 6, Race 8.

STINGRAY protested PUMA claiming that PUMA failed to keep clear while tacking near the windward mark port-tack lay line. PUMA protested STINGRAY claiming STINGRAY failed to keep clear on port tack forcing PUMA to tack to avoid contact.

The Jury found that STINGRAY was close hauled on port tack on a collision course with PUMA close-hauled on starboard. STINGRAY became aware of PUMA only when they were two hull lengths apart. STINGRAY initially tried to dip PUMA. When they were one boat length apart PUMA was forced to tack to avoid a collision. STINGRAY in response luffed to try to climb above PUMA. There was no contact.

DECISION: STINGRAY failed to keep clear as required by rule 10, and is disqualified.

RE-OPENING

STINGRAY requested a re-opening claiming that tracking information not available at the time of the original hearing showed clearly that PUMA’s tack was not necessary to avoid contact, and that STINGRAY’s bearing away would have avoided contact without the need for STINGRAY to alter course.

The Jury was satisfied that there was significant new evidence available within a reasonable time and reopened the hearing (Rule 66).

Every Platu has issued with a tracker which stored GPS information which was downloaded each evening and was available on Tacktracker.com. After taking submissions from PUMA and STINGRAY, and viewing the tracking information the Jury confirmed its original decision.

Case 5, 7^th May; Platu class 6, Race 6.

NATAYA (131) represented by Rolf Heemskerk protested FERRET (124) represented by Tom, claiming FERRET was OCS at the start and did not return.

The race officer (Jerry Rolins) gave evidence stating that he at the committee boat end determined that there were two boats over the line at the start of the race near the pin end. His team made a second sound signal and raised the X flag. He then received the two boat numbers via a private radio channel from his officers at the pin end. They were recorded as 124 and 118. At about 40 seconds after the starting signal, he broadcast a message ‘118 and 124 OCS’. FERRET claimed she did not hear that broadcast. 118 returned to the line. When 118 was on the pre-course side of the line the race committee removed the X flag and broadcast a message like ‘124 is clear – wrong – 118 came back’. The X flag was not re-raised. FERRET claimed she heard only ‘124 is clear’ and seeing the X flag had been removed, continued to sail the course. She finished in second position.

The Jury first addressed the question as to whether FERRET was in fact OCS. FERRET claimed that her bowman was sure she was not OCS. Gerry was sure that two boats were OCS and that he had no reason to doubt the Pin boat’s determination that FERRET was one of the two boats. The Jury chairman explained that on the question of judgement as to whether or not a boat is OCS, the Jury will always accept the opinion of the Race Committee unless (a) the system for determining OCS by the Race Committee is clearly open to errors, or (b) a boat can provide clear and convincing evidence that she was not OCS.

The Jury was satisfied that FERRET was OCS and should be scored as such.

The Jury then proceeded to address the question as to whether FERRET should be given redress due to errors by the race committee. Clearly removing the X flag when FERRET was still on the course side of the line was an error.

The Jury therefore decided to give redress. In considering redress, the Jury is required to make a decision which is as fair as possible to all boats.

Rule 28.1 requires that a boat shall start. A boat starts when, having been entirely on the pre-start side of the starting line at or after her starting signal … any part of her hull, …crosses the starting line in the direction of the first mark. FERRET did not start, and therefore did not sail the course. Had the race committee not removed the X flag prematurely, FERRET may have realised after 118 had returned and started that FERRET had also been determined as OCS and returned to start. She would then have started well behind the rest the rest of the fleet. The Jury took into consideration that 118 finished 10^th having returned after being OCS, whereas her average result was below 6^th. FERRET’s average performance is considerably better but she would have had further distance to return. Therefore the Jury determined that FERRET should be have 4 places added to her score, resulting in her being given 6^th place. The boats scored 6^th to 3^rd should each be moved up one place.

Case 6, 7^th May; Optimist class, Race 7.

THA 147 (K. Tanaporn) protested THA 68 (K. Porrama) claiming that THA68 failed to keep clear in a port-and-starboard incident. THA 68 on port and THA 147 on starboard were approaching each other on a collision course. THA 68 did not see THA 147 until the last moment. When THA 68 tacked she made contact with THA 147. THA 68 sailed on starboard tack for about 50 seconds then did one tack one gybe and a second tack. THA 142 saw THA 68 do one turn.

THA68 accepted that she broke rule 10 in the incident but submitted that she took a penalty.

One turn followed by a tack does not fulfil the requirements of Rule 44.2. THA68 was therefore disqualified for breaking rule 10.