62.1A Requesting redress

 62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse by

 (a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee, organizing authority or technical committee for the event, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;

Scenario

Mornings racing run no issues with a dropping tide. As the tide goes out it leaves a big sandbank which goes out a long way. The sailors go onto the water and sit bobbing about expecting the course to be moved out to sea. It is, course is laid and they go into sequence the boats make their way to the start line back inshore un-aware of insufficient water until the sequence is already half way in. Boat 1 runs aground and his rudder comes clean off the back of the boat and Boat 2 has to sail with the board half up to prevent running aground, this is over the full distance of the start line. Because of the issues with bottoming out boat 2 who has the biggest draft's start is compromised and every subsequent lap as the tide was continuing to drop would have to sail with the board up to prevent running aground,

Is this an omission by the race committee to not lay the course with sufficient water for all boats to pass without grounding when sufficient water is readily available (the open sea) and would all effected boats have grounds for a redress under 62.1A 

The question would hinge on if all the boats were aware of the local under water geography. If an Open or a Nationals people might not know about the depth at the current state of the tide. If a local club race then everyone should be aware.

As far as abandoning the race, I was under the impression its the PC's decision to do that based on my request for redress to stop the RO from being influenced by certain individuals?

I do like that it actually prevents insurance from chasing RC's. Im no expert on insurance claims using protest information but surely they're completely final as to who's to blame as anyone could see from my protest that any damage would have been solely my fault for knowing there is insufficient water and going there anyway but from a fair racing point of view i had no choice and took the chance

C'mon:  the race officer is responsible for all the actions of various race officials on the day.  If the race officer couldn't rely on the mark-boat to lay a sensible line, then the race officer should have given more detailed instructions and supervised more closely.

If the first groundings happened about the start, the race officer should have quickly postponed or abandoned and reset the course.  And the race officer damn well should have seen the problems happening.

Originally posted by ClubRacer As far as abandoning the race, I was under the impression its the PC's decision to do that based on my request for redress to stop the RO from being influenced by certain individuals?

See my previous post.

Protest committee can abandon a race by way of redress once they conclude that a boat is entitled to redress (rules 62.1 and 64.2).

Race committee can abandon a race, without going near the protest committee under rule 32.1.

Originally posted by ClubRacer I do like that it actually prevents insurance from chasing RC's. Im no expert on insurance claims using protest information but surely they're completely final as to who's to blame

Protest hearings do nothing more than decide what boats broke what rules (plus exoneration).  They are about Places in Races.  They do NOT address what 'caused' an incident or who was to 'blame'

Rule 67 is designed to keep protest committees away from these problems