Case 65

At the start of race 4, boat 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 boat 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 required 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 69.1(a). It excluded him and disqualified A from all races of the series. A appealed the protest committee’s decisions.

A’s appeal is dismissed.

A was correctly disqualified from race 4 for breaking rule 30.4. The protest committee found as fact that 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 rule 2. The protest committee was justified in calling a hearing under rule 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 61.1(c) to consider redress for B (see rule 61.4(b)(5)).