The fourth race of a series was scheduled to start at 10:00 a.m., but it was postponed for thirty minutes while the race committee waited for the wind to fill in. At the preparatory signal, the race committee displayed flag Z. Boat A was identified in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. After the starting signal the race committee signalled a general recall. The race committee then began a second starting sequence for that race and again displayed flag Z as the preparatory flag. After removing the preparatory flag, but before the starting signal, the race committee signalled a postponement. Later, the race committee began a third sequence of signals and was successful in starting the fourth race, and the race was completed. 

A was given a 20% Scoring Penalty, and she requested redress on the grounds that the race had been postponed - indeed, postponed twice - before its starting signal and, therefore, under rule 30.2's third sentence, she should not have received the penalty.

When the race committee imposed a 20% Scoring Penalty on boat A, did it act properly under rule 30.2?

Yes. The first three sentences of rule 30.2 refer to a single starting sequence. The starting sequence in which A was identified in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal was not postponed or abandoned before its starting signal. Therefore, the race committee acted properly under rule 30.2 when it imposed a 20% Scoring Penalty on A. That action was not an improper action, and A was not entitled to redress..

During the second starting sequence, if a boat had been identified in the triangle between the time that the preparatory flag was removed and the time that the postponement signal was made, then it would have been an improper action under rule 30.2 to give that boat a 20% Scoring Penalty.

The facts are the same as those in Question 1 except that the black flag was used as the preparatory flag for the first and second attempted starts. Before the warning signal for the second attempted start the race committee displayed A’s sail number. A sailed in the starting area during the second starting sequence and sailed in the race after the third starting sequence. A was scored DNE for that race without a hearing.

When the race committee scored A DNE without a hearing, did it act properly under rule 30.4?

Yes. The reasoning in Answer 1 also applies here. The race committee acted properly when it scored A DNE without a hearing, and A was not entitled to redress.

During the second starting sequence, if a boat had been identified in the triangle between the time that the preparatory flag was removed and the time that the postponement signal was made, then it would have been an improper action under rule 30.4 to disqualify that boat without a hearing.

World Sailing 2009