News from the Darwin Sailing Club
Sail, socalise and dine in the heart of Darwin
This Week's Quiz:
The sailing instructions stated that the finishing line was between a mast onshore and a mark, with an inner limit mark to be left to port. On the day in question, the inner limit mark lay on the post-finish side of the line. P crossed the line, and then rounded the inner limit mark as shown in the diagram.The race officer timed her as finishing when her bow crossed the line, before she had rounded the limit mark.
S requested redress on the grounds that the race officer acted incorrectly in recording P as having finished before she had completed the course.The protest committee did not give S redress. What would you have done?
Last Week's Answer:
At the start of race 4, A was clearly about three to four hull lengths on the course side of the starting line. Rule 30.4 was in effect, so the race committee disqualified her without a hearing. A, although she knew she was over the line at her starting signal, continued to race and covered B for the first part of the first beat. B protested A for breaking rule 2.
The protest committee confirmed the disqualification of A under rule 30.4. It also decided that, by continuing to race and cover B when she knew that she had broken rule 30.4, A broke rule 2. As permitted by rule 2, it penalized her by making her disqualification not excludable. Later the same day, acting under rule 69.2, it called a hearing alleging that the behaviour of A's helmsman in hindering B constituted acts of misconduct. It decided that the helmsman's actions were indeed acts of misconduct and that he had therefore broken rule 69.I(a). It excluded him and disqualified A from all races of the series. A appealed the protest committee's decisions. What would be the result?
A was correctly disqualified from race 4 for breaking rule 30.4. The protest committee found as factt hat A's helmsman knew that he had been on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal; that he had broken rule 30.4; that he was, therefore, already disqualified; and that he had seriously hindered another boat in the race. A competitor who, while knowing that his boat has already been disqualified, intentionally hinders another boat clearly commits a breach of sportsmanship (see Sportsmanship and the Rules) and rule2. The protest committee was justified in calling a hearing underrule 69.2, and it acted properly under rule 69.2(h) in excluding A's helmsman and disqualifying A from all races of the series. The committee could also call a hearing under rule 60.3(b) to consider redress for B (see rule 62.I(d)).
What did you think? Pick your social network below and share.