New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Protests and the first reasonable opportunity
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Protests and the first reasonable opportunity

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 131415
Author
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037
Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Protests and the first reasonable opportunity
    Posted: 08 Sep 14 at 10:06am
To support Brass - protest committees do try not to throw out protests on a technicality.

An example from yesterday:

There was a port and starboard incident near the finsh line There was damage to both boats but it was not obvious. The boat on port took turns then informed the committee boat of his intention to protest, then chased after the starboard tack boat to inform her of an intention to lodge a protest.

Evidence was given that the out board bracket had been damaged with possible damage to the transom requiring inspection.

The incident involved small cruisers sailing out of a marina which requires boats to enter harbour under motor.

We declared the protest invalid on the grounds that there was no hail of protest at the first reasonable opportunity.

However, we also found that the incident may have resulted in serious damage. So th PC protested under rule 60.3(a)1. The original protest alleged that the starboard boat did not take action to avoid contact. We were presented with convincing evidence that she did bear away. Protest dismissed. The important point was that the PC provided a means for the 2 competitors to air their grievances and resolve the issue between them. Job done.
Gordon
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 14 at 10:20am
Originally posted by gordon

To support Brass - protest committees do try not to throw out protests on a technicality.

An example from yesterday:

There was a port and starboard incident near the finsh line There was damage to both boats but it was not obvious. The boat on port took turns then informed the committee boat of his intention to protest, then chased after the starboard tack boat to inform her of an intention to lodge a protest.

Evidence was given that the out board bracket had been damaged with possible damage to the transom requiring inspection.

The incident involved small cruisers sailing out of a marina which requires boats to enter harbour under motor.

We declared the protest invalid on the grounds that there was no hail of protest at the first reasonable opportunity.

However, we also found that the incident may have resulted in serious damage. So th PC protested under rule 60.3(a)1. 

So did the protest committee determine that the damage was serious as required by rule 63.5?

What criteria were satisfied to persuade you that the damage was serious? <g>.
Back to Top
Assassin View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 24 Jul 14
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 25
Post Options Post Options   Quote Assassin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 14 at 10:28am
Rupert, the others are spot on but could I just add that because you're going to have to write the sail number/bow number on the protest form, it's not a bad idea to hail that number straight after the word protest. Two reasons, firstly, it helps you to remember the number, (embarrassing listing the wrong boat) and secondly it gives the hail a bit of determination and credibility. Doesn't hurt in the room either.
This is certainly not a rule, just a tip.

Cheers.
Back to Top
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037
Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 14 at 10:59am
Brass,

The rule says that, in order to protest, the PC, does not have to establish that serious damage WAS caused by the incident, but that there MAY have been serious damage. A hearing is required to establish that serious damage was caused!

We agreed, based on the evidence given while discussing validity, that the outboard bracket had been damaged and had been displaced as a result of the contact. This may have caused damage to the transom. The boat relies on the motor to enter the marina, and cannot sail until repairs are carried out.

Both parties agreed that the damage may be serious.

I agree that we were doing all we could to hear a protest that both parties wished to be heard.
Gordon
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 131415

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy