World Sailing Official Case Book
Case 22
A written protest does not need to identify a rule that the protestor believes was broken. If it does identify such a rule, it is not relevant to the validity of the protest that the protest committee decides that a different rule had been broken.
Facts
After a collision near a mark, S hailed ‘Protest’ and displayed a red flag. Within the protest time limit, S delivered a written protest that identified the protestor, the protestee and the incident. In the section of the protest that identified the incident, S alleged that P broke rule 18.
The protest committee declared the protest invalid and refused to proceed with the hearing, because it said the protest should have cited rule 10 rather than rule 18. The protest committee said that, had the hearing gone ahead and the parties been questioned, the protest might have been upheld. S appealed.
Decision
The protest that S delivered satisfied the requirement of rules 60.2 and 60.3(a) and was therefore valid (see rule 60.4(a)(1)). A protest is defined as an allegation that a boat has broken a rule, but no rule requires a protest to identify the rule or rules that might have been broken. Furthermore, rule 60.5(c) states that it is not relevant to the protest committee’s decision whether the rule it finds to be applicable was mentioned in the protest.
The appeal is upheld to the extent that the protest committee is instructed to reopen the hearing, declare the protest valid, and proceed with the hearing.