|
JURY DECISIONS SUMMARY
International Jury:
Bryan Willis (GBR) (Chairman),
Johan
Devocht
(BEL), Ronnie McCracken (HKG), Glen Stanaway (AUS), Takao Otani
(JPN), Rut Subniran (THA)
Case 1 heard 2nd April: Race 1, Under 16 Mixed.
IND 195378 (Aishwarya Nedunchezhuiyan) protested HKG 135666 (Jamin
Early), claiming that HKG and IND were approaching mark 5 with
IND inside to windward, when HKG hit IND’s stern.
The protest was lodged at the race office at 1724. Protest time
expired at 1717. The Jury has the power to extend the protest
time when there is a good reason. Aishwarya explained that she
hailed ‘protest’ at the time of the incident. However, thinking
there was no chance of winning a protest without a witness, she
decided not to lodge a protest. Only after she became aware
there was an independent witness did she change her mind and
lodge the protest.
The Jury decided that this reason for lodging the protest late,
did not empower the jury to extend the time limit and the
Request was refused. Not having an independent witness is not a
good reason for not lodging a protest; the jury is experienced
in deciding what most likely happened, even with no outside
witnesses.
Case 2 heard 3rd April: Race 4, Boys under 18.
NED 193611 (Jolbert van Dyke) requested redress, claiming that
his boat was physically damaged in an incident one and a half
minutes before the start when 191898 (Max Stein) accidentally
collided and became entangled with him causing him to capsize.
Max’s boat was damaged and he retired. Jolbert drifted down wind
and down tide and took about one and a half minutes to get
sailing again. His boat was not damaged.
Jolbert agreed that for the Request to have a chance to be
successful, the jury would have to interpret ‘physically
damaged’ in such a way as to include entanglement and/or
capsize. He claimed there was a USA Case which supported such an
opinion. However, when given a current edition of the US Case
Book, he could not find such a case. In any event, this Jury was
of the opinion that a boat only entangled or capsized is not
‘physically damaged’ in terms of rule 62.1(b). Max Stein, who
attended as a witness, supported Jolbert’s request. The Jury had
sympathy for Jolbert’s situation but could not detract from
well-established ISAF interpretations on this subject. Only ISAF
Cases are authoritative interpretations; cases 19 and 110 apply
to this situation. The Request was refused.
Case 3 heard 3rd April: Race 4, Girls under 18.
The Race Committee protested IND 190923 (Aparya Mahule) for
hitting the starting line pin-end boat at the start of the race
and not taking a turn penalty. Aparya was informed immediately
after finishing of the race committee’s intention to protest.
The hearing schedule was properly posted on the official notice
board. However, Aparya did not attend the hearing on the 3rd
April when the Race Committee’s representative gave evidence.
From the evidence presented the Jury decided IND 190923 hit the
mark and did not take a penalty. The hearing was adjourned to
the next morning to decide the appropriate penalty.
Aparya attended with her coach and team representative the next
morning. Aparya accepted that she hit the mark and not taken a
turn penalty. She had not told her coach that she had been
informed about the protest, and by not attending the hearing had
no chance to make submissions to the Jury. The Team
Representative made submissions on her behalf explaining,
amongst other matters, that this was her first major
championship.
The jury decided that as Aparya knew she hit the mark and did
not take the appropriate penalty this was a breach of rule 2.
The Jury believes it important that at a World Championship, it
apples the same standards to all competitors. IND 190923 to be
scored DNE (disqualification not to be excluded) for race 3.
Case 4 heard 3rd April: Race 4, Girls under 18.
FIN 195507 (Jennifer Rundberg) protested IND 190923 (Aparya
Mahule) for tacking on her lee bow when both boat’s were on
starboard tack below the pin end of the finishing line. Both
boats would have required to tack to cross the finish line.
Aparya’s tack forced Jennifer to tack to keep clear. The hearing
schedule was properly posted on the official notice board.
However, Aparya did not attend the hearing. The Jury accepted
Jennifer’s description of the incident. IND 190923 was
disqualified from race 4.
Case 5 heard 4th April.
The Race Committee claimed that the SLO and CRO coaches came
ashore in their allocated hard bottomed coach boat on the RVYC
beach, thereby breaching the Coach Boat Rules. At the hearing
the three coaches on board explained that they had run out of
petrol near the beach and had accepted a tow from the SIN coach,
but the SIN coach was itself very low on fuel and rather than
risk running out of fuel to windward of nearby rocks which were
between the RVYC beach and the beach designated for hard-hull
coach boats, decided to approach the RVYC beach where sailors
were coming ashore. The reason for the rules prohibiting landing
hard hulls on the beach is because of the risk of damage to the
Laser hulls. Having heard submissions from the three coaches the
Jury gave no penalty (which could have been in the form of
scoring penalties on the 9 SLO & CRO sailors, most of whom
attended the hearing) but emphasised the importance of
compliance with these safety rules.
Case 6, heard 4th April: Race 2, Girls under 18.
GRE 195794 (Vasiliki Zografou) requested redress claiming that
the race committee should have scored her position the first
time she crossed the finishing line rather than the second time
after she had taken a two-turns penalty. As she approached the
finishing line she was involved in an incident. After she had
crossed the finishing line she heard a whistle from the judges
and thought she was being protested for breaking rule 42 (though
she did not see a yellow flag or hear her sail number called).
So she took a penalty and refinished. She claimed she was not at
fault in the incident with the other boat and therefore taking
the penalty turns and refinishing should not affect her score.
The whistle from the judges was in fact a signal (described in
the Sailing Instructions) to indicate they had seen an incident
and could give evidence should a boat choose to protest.
DECISION:
A boat choosing to take penalty turns at a finish line (other
than in accordance with Appendix P for which the Sailing
Instructions provide a penalty of 8 points) and re-crossing the
line must be scored on the second crossing. The Request for
Redress was therefore refused.
Case 7, heard 4th April: Race 5, Under 18 Girls.
SIN 185404 (Germaine Tao Wei Yin) protested COL 171201 (Elisa
Echavarria) claiming that at the (leeward) mark 3, Elisa did not
give mark room. The two sailors chose to accept the offer of
Arbitration (a process described in the Sailing Instructions.
After listening to the evidence from both sailors and the
answers to questions, the two jury members conducting the
arbitration decided that Germaine was clear ahead at the zone
and that within the zone Alisa established an inside overlap to
windward. There was contact between the boats but no damage.
Elisa was given a 30% penalty (in accordance with the
Arbitration procedure)
Case 8 heard 4th April: Race 6 Under 16 Mixed.
GBR 186860 (Aaron White) protested AUS 172242 (Chris Andersen)
for not keeping clear in a port and starboard incident on the
beat. AUS on port tack crossed ahead of THA on starboard tack
but in tacking to avoid GBR who was to windward of THA, forced
GBR to tack to avoid contact. AUS was DSQd.
Case 9 heard 4th April: Race 5, Under 18 Girls.
GRE 181011 (Alexandra Lalioti) protested AUS 196889 (Caitlin
Elks) claiming that AUS tacked as GRE was ducking her stern,
forcing her to bear away further to avoid contact.
Jury’s diagram:
At position 3, AUS began her tack (started luffing). At position
5 AUS had completed her tack.
DECISION:
AUS kept clear of GRE while tacking and after completing her
tack. GRE kept clear of AUS before AUS was head-to-wind, and did
not luff above close-hauled after the tack was complete. The
protest was dismissed.
Case 10 heard 6th April: Race 7 Under 18 Boys.
JPN 196493 (Shinpei Kunimasa) protested USA 192089 (AJ Degan)
claiming that AJ was overlapped on the outside as they entered
the zone at mark 3 (port hand leeward mark) and became clear
astern and overlapped to windward inside the zone. JPN made
contact with USA as they were rounding the mark. There was no
damage. AJ did not attend the hearing. The Jury accepted
Shinpei’s version of the incident. AJ was disqualified from race
7 for breaking rules 11, 14 and 18.2(b).
Case 11 heard 6th April: Under 16 Mixed.
The Organising Authority referred the following matter to the
Jury under Rule N2.2(a) and N2.3: On publishing results on the
morning of the 6th, for the first time with birth
dates included, the race office became aware that there was a
competitor, Chaichanawoot Dee-nak (THA 173500), competing in the
‘Under 16 Mixed’ Fleet with a birth year of 1994. The Notice of
Race requires sailors born in 1994 to race in the appropriate
Under 18 fleet.
Evidence was taken from Jeff Martin (representing the Organising
Authority and Race Committee), Rulo (the Thai Coach for this
event), Chaichanawoot Dee-nak, and Mona Ramasoot.
Mona had registered all the Thai sailors using the on-line
registration system. She followed instructions from the Thai
coach (not Rulo) as to which Fleet each sailor was to be
registered (‘Under 16 Mixed’, ‘Under 18 Boys’, ‘Under 18
Girls’). She registered Chaichanawoot in the ‘Under 18 Boys’
Fleet. Had she tried to register him in the ‘Under 16 Mixed’
fleet, the system would have automatically rejected the
application. However, Chaichanawoot before the event and on
arrival assumed he would be sailing in the ‘Under 16 Mixed’
Fleet. He was born on 11th May 1994 and is currently
only 15 years old. On the day of registration, on discovering he
was listed to sail in the ‘Under 18 Boys’ Fleet, his Event Coach
Rulo asked the race office if he could be switched to the ‘Under
16 Mixed’ Fleet. He was told he needed Jeff’s approval which he
obtained. He was then switched to the ‘Under 16 Mixed’ Fleet.
The race office did not check whether he was eligible.
FINDINGS:
There was no intention by Chaichanawoot or his coaches to
deceive; Chaichanawoot thought he was eligible to sail in the
‘Under 16 Mixed’ Fleet; Rulo assumed he was eligible when he
asked for Chaichanawoot to be switched. The race office assumed
he was eligible and did not check his birth date.
DECISION:
The Competitor has the prime responsibility to enter in
accordance with the published entry criteria. In a Youth event
this responsibility will normally be borne by the competitor’s
coach or team leader, and in this instance they failed to do so.
However, the Organising Authority also has a responsibility to
ensure competitors are eligible to sail in the fleet for which
they have applied. By programming the on-line registration
facility in such a way as to reject over-age applicants
attempting to register in the Under 16 Fleet, the Organising
Authority had partly met this obligation, but failed when
processing the application to change fleets at the venue Race
Office.
Chaichanawoot ‘s results in the 8 races sailed to date in the
Under 16 Fleet are to expunged from the results and other
results adjusted accordingly. Chaichanawoot is to be switched
back to the ‘Under 18 Boys’ Fleet and scored as ‘DNS’ (Did not
start) in the first 8 races. He is eligible to sail in the
remaining 4 races.
Case 12 heard 7th April: Race 9, Under 18 Boys:
The Jury received a Report alleging that sailor Grigorios Garis
(GRE 171321) used abusive language during race 9 at the end of
the first beat. After reading the report and interviewing its
author, the Jury decided it was appropriate to open a hearing
under Rule 69.1(a). Grigorios had taken a penalty at the start
when protested by the jury for a Rule 42 infringement and was
upset when he approached the first windward mark in or near last
place. On starboard tack approaching the port tack lay-line he
was prevented from tacking by the presence of a boat to
windward. When the boat to windward would not tack after being
asked to do so, he used abusive language [details suppressed for
this report summary]. The language used was offensive to the
other sailor. The Jury was satisfied that this was a gross
breach of good manners which is unacceptable in the sport of
sailing. A penalty for this offensive would result in exclusion
and disqualification from this race or all remaining races, and
a report to the Thai and Greek National Authorities, and
possible further penalties. However, Grigorios was sorry and
offered an apology to the abused sailor, and on this occasion
the Jury decided to give a warning in accordance with Rule
69.1(b)(1).
Case 13 heard 7th April: Race 10 Under 18 Boys:
Max Stein (GER 191898) asked for redress on the grounds that he
had not broken rule 42 when penalized by the Jury under Appendix
P at the start of race 10. It was explained to Max that having
taken the two-turn penalty, Rule P4 prevents a Redress
procedure. However, the Jury gave Max the opportunity to
present, and speak to, a video taken at the time of the incident
which Max claimed showed he was not breaking rule 42. The jury
decided that the video neither confirmed nor contradicted Max’s
claim that Rule 42 was not broken and so decided not to use its
discretion (provided for in the sailing Instructions) in
granting redress.
Case 14 heard 7th April: Race 10 Under 18 Boys:
COL 171216 (Esteban Echavarria) protested TUR 195571 (Mustafa
Murat Bilir) claiming that Mustafa hit mark 5 (from a reach to
the last beat). From the evidence the Jury was satisfied that
Mustafa hit the mark. The jury was also satisfied he may not
have known he hit the mark, and therefore the penalty is DSQ
from race 10. (Had the Jury been satisfied that he knew he hit
the mark the penalty may have been greater, e.g. DNE)
Report ends
Compiler: Bryan Willis. Editors: The other jury members.
|
