As the sixth and final race of a championship series began, A's accumulated score was such that the only way she could lose the prize was for B to finish ahead of her and among the first three of the 48 competitors. A crossed the line early and was recalled by loud hailer. About 70 to 100 metres beyond the starting line, she turned back, but she had sailed only some 20 to 30 metres towards the line when she met B, which had started correctly. Instead of continuing towards the pre-start side of the line A turned and began to hinder B by covering her closely.

The race committee hailed A again that she was still above the line and received a wave of acknowledgement in return, but A continued to sail the course, hindering B throughout the windward leg. When A and B reached the windward mark, they were last but one and last respectively, whereupon A retired. B ultimately finished in 22nd place.

Since it was obvious to the race committee that A continued to race solely for the purpose of hindering B, it protested A under rule 2. A, which had been scored OCS, was then given a disqualification that was not excludable for breaking rule 2. She appealed, asserting that she believed she had returned and started correctly.

A's appeal is dismissed. It is clear from the facts found that A knew she had not started as required by rule 28.1, and that she chose not to do so. Facts are not subject to appeal. The protest committee's decision was appropriate.

B could have requested redress and was entitled to receive it under rule 62.1(d).

The facts show a breach of sportsmanship and, therefore, of rule 2 . Such a clear breach of rule 2 should be dealt with severely. The protest committee could also have called a hearing under rule 69.2, as a result of which it could have disqualified A from the entire series or taken other action under rule 69.2(h).

A would not have broken rule 2 if she had returned to the pre-start side of the starting line and started and, after having done so and without intentionally breaking any rule, she had managed to overtake and pass B and then closely covered her.

See Case 78.

NOR 1975/1