Below is the decision from the protest committee for the protest in race 3 of the Black Star Regatta for your information.Facts Found:
1. Bow #14 (Yellow) rounded the windward mark clear ahead of Bow #23 (Blue).
2. #23 overtook #14 between the windward and offset mark and became overlapped to leeward of #14.
3. As #14 rounded the offset mark there was no room between #14 and the offset mark for #23 to pass the mark.
4. #23 hit the offset mark and did not take a penalty.
Rules that apply: 11, 12, 18, 31 and 44
Conclusions:
1. There is reasonable doubt that #23 established an overlap before #14 reached the zone. Therefore by Rule 18.2 (d) it is presumed that she did not.
2. #23, clear astern when #14 reached the zone, did not give #14 mark-room to sail her proper course at the mark. #23 broke rule 18.2(b).
3. #23 hit the offset mark and broke Rule 31 but did not exonerate herself as allowed by Rule 44.
4. As #14 rounds the offset mark to her proper course, as windward boat she did not keep clear of #23 and broke Rule 11.
Decision:
By Rule 64.1(a) #23 is DSQ from Race 3 of the Black Star Regatta for breaking Rules 18.2(b) and 31. #14 is exonerated for breaking Rule 11 by Rule 18.5(b).
I would like to know more about the reasonable doubt. From what I heard, the overlap was well established.
ReplyDeleteThe overlap was established well outside the 3 length zone. 23's crew testimony was in error due to his "having his head too much in the boat".
ReplyDeleteThe driver of 14 was inexperienced and did not respond to repeated hails. At the last minute, he did try to give room at the mark, but it was too late. This caused 23 to wrap around the mark's anchor line after trying to avoid a collision with 14's transom as she turned up at the last moment.
The decision of the protest committee is not a fair rendition of the facts on the course.
Sorry if I've offended a young trainee, but I think 23 was driven into the mark by someone who didn't follow the rules.
Joseph
Joseph,
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing you need to remember from this protest ruling is Rule 18.2(d). You need to be extra cautious when obtaining an overlap near the 3 length zone. If there is equally valid testimony given that makes it impossible for the PC to determine as a fact that the overlap was established before the zone then you will lose the protest. Conversely if you believe that you broken an overlap just before the 3 length zone you will also lose if there is not clear evidence to establish that fact. You need to understand this and be cautious when you find yourself in these circumstances.
The PC can only establish facts based on the evidence given and because the exact moment when an overlap is broken or established is a difficult thing to establish in a hearing, the rule writers have told us with 18.2(d) how it is to be determined when there is "reasonable doubt". Be very cautious when on the wrong side of Rule 18.2(d).
led shoes for kids
ReplyDeletekobe sneakers
air max
timberland boots
adidas nmd
ultra boost
michael kors uk
air yeezy
air jordan
nike roshe run