Hearing Decision

Procedural Matters

1. The jury protested 1695, in accordance with RRS 60.4(c)(2), after learning during the hearing of valid protest No. 6, that 1695, who was not party to the hearing, was involved in the incident and may have broken a rule.

2. Hearing No. 6 was heard together with hearing No. 8 in accordance with RRS 63.2(d).

3. Kate Baisden (coach of 1695) and Bram Stevens (parent of 4772) attended the hearing as observers.

Facts Found

1. The wind was 7-8 knots and there were no waves.

2. 4772 and 1695 were sailing downwind on starboard tack towards the gate 3S/3P.

3. When 1695 entered the zone of mark 3S, 4772 was overlapped inside of 1695.

4. While sailing to the mark, 1695 bore away and the distance between the boats was around 30 cms.

5. The distance between 1695 and the mark was around 2m.

6. While rounding mark 3S, 4772 gybed to port and her boom touched the windward side of mark 3S.

7. 4772 remained in contact with mark while rounding it and gybed back onto starboard.

8. Both boats continued to sail off on starboard tack on the next leg of the course.

8. Neither boat took a penalty.

1. 4772 touched mark 3S and broke RRS 31.

2. 1695 outside overlapped at the zone failed to give 4772 mark-room, and broke RRS 18.2(a).

3. Since 4772 broke RRS 31 while she was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, she is exonerated under RRS 43.1(b) for this breach.

1695 is DSQ in race 4.