Docstoc

JURY DECISIONS SUMMARY

Document Sample
JURY DECISIONS SUMMARY Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                               Laser Association of Thailand




                                        JURY DECISIONS SUMMARY

                               JURY DECISIONS SUMMARY
                                          As at Monday, 5 April 2010 15:35

International Jury: Bryan Willis (GBR) – Chair, 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.

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) 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 dismissed.

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 decribed 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.

                                ***********************************************
                                                        Back to Top

                                              Laser Association of Thailand
                                      7th Floor Bubhajit Building, 20 North Sathorn Road
                                                  Bangkok 10500, Thailand
                                                  T: 662-266-6485 Ext. 134
                      Attn: Al Chandler <atchandler@ctlo.com> or Mona Ramasoot <mona@ctlo.com>

				
DOCUMENT INFO