The View From the Jury Boat - Two Common Scenarios David Battye

Many classes experience a reluctance to lodge protests following boat-on-boat incidents. There are many reasons which lie behind this reluctance to protest when sailors are aggrieved at an apparent rule breach? Here are six possible reasons:

Sailing is a sociable sport with some long-term friendships which can be damaged by an adversarial encounter in the protest room
The other party is someone who always pushes the rules and can be unpleasant if challenged
Sailors hope an on-the-water judge will protest for rule breaches
Forgetting to hail “protest” at the time of the incident
Not certain of the current rules particularly when more than one other boat is involved
The outcome of a protest hearing is unpredictable when the facts are in in dispute.

Dealing with all these possibilities is beyond the scope of this article. I will therefore focus on the last two and examine a couple of regularly occurring scenarios when approaching a mark. When the facts about an incident are in dispute, a protest committee is required by the rules to find facts. This means deciding, on the balance of probabilities, which story is the most likely in the circumstances. Sometimes this makes the outcome of a protest hearing unpredictable and can depend on which party tells the best story. In these situations, the chance of a favourable outcome can depend on the availability of a credible independent witness.

This is not always possible and in such circumstances a protest may not be appropriate. However, if you are not sure if you are at fault in an incident but think the other party has broken a rule, one possibility is to hail “protest” and then take penalty turns as an insurance policy. That way, even if the hearing goes against you, you cannot be penalised further unless you have gained an advantage even after taking your penalty. Here are a couple of frequently occurring incidents where, even when the facts are in dispute, the rules and cases give clear guidance to a protest committee on how to resolve the facts. The risk of an unpredictable outcome in these incidents is much reduced so let’s look at the two situations which follow.

Approaching a Leeward Mark

The first incident is at the approach to a leeward mark.

Before entering the three boat-length zone at position 1, Yellow is clear ahead of Blue and hails No Room. At the zone at position 2, Blue has advanced on Yellow and hails for room. At the mark at position 4, Yellow curtails her luff to avoid contact and hails “protest”. There are no witnesses.

At the hearing the facts about whether an overlap existed when Yellow entered the zone are in dispute and the protest committee needs to resolve this point.

In this situation Rule 18.2(e) assists the protest committee to find that an overlap did not exist. This rule states: If there is reasonable doubt that a boat obtained or broke an overlap in time, it shall be presumed that she did not.

In other words, the protest committee go back to the last point of certainty when both boats agree that Yellow was clear ahead. In this scenario the risk of an unpredictable outcome for Yellow is very low. The other useful learning point from this scenario is Grey’s situation. Grey has three boats inside her as she approaches the mark. She is clear ahead of Blue at positions 1 and 2 but has not entered the zone yet and is therefore not entitled to mark-room against Blue. When she does eventually enter the zone at position 4, she is outside overlapped with Blue and under Rule 18.2(a) is required to give her mark-room. This is useful point to remember whenever you approach a leeward mark overlapped with three or more boats inside you.

Approaching a Windward Mark

Here is another commonly occurring scenario this time at the approach to a windward mark.

In this scenario Yellow approaches the windward mark on the starboard lay line. Blue, on port tack, thinks she can cross Yellow. At position 2 Yellow bears away slightly to avoid contact with Blue’s rudder and hails “protest”. Green is a witness and confirms that Yellow bore away. Blue states that Yellow’s bear away was unnecessary as she would have crossed ahead without contact.

The protest committee need to decide if Yellow’s bear away was necessary. After consulting Case 50 they disqualify Blue.

Case 50 states: When the committee finds that S (starboard tack) did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P (port tack) could have crossed ahead if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified.

Again, in this scenario the risk of an unpredictable outcome for Yellow is very low.