No. A boat may protest another boat but not for a breach of a rule of Part 2 unless she was involved in or saw the incident. Rule 69(a).
She can report that she observed a single turn being taken and the location...

I believe Greg's question is, can a boat protest another boat for breaking RRS ? RRS is not a rule of Part 2, so Boat X does not have to be involved in it. And nothing in RRS prevents it. I can't see any reason that would preclude Boat X from being able to protest.

You mean 60.1(a), right? I understand that a boat can't protest under Part 2 unless witnessing the incident, but that kind of gets to the heart of my question: So Boat X would still be considered protesting under a rule of Part 2? And could not protest under rule 44? Technically, Boat X witnessed Boat Y taking an incorrect penalty under rule 44.

Thanks Paul. Yes, that's exactly my question. So, sounds like it's fair to protest under rule 44?

Greg,
Boat X must have special people to divine what they were witnessing. It is amazing that they knew that Boat Y had an infraction? How can they possibly KNOW what Boat Y was doing. They may be correct, but I would have a hard time penalizing Boat Y on Boat X's assumption. That is not evidence.

No way. You can not protest for thatever you saw in this situation. You may protest a boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 you was involved in or saw the incident.
On the other hand Rule 44.1 gives the competitor the possibility to take a One-Turn o Two- Turn penalties. The writing said "may take", and it is his/her option to do it or not.

No valid protest can be lodged. Rule 44 is permissive. A boat "may" do turns. Rule 44 cannot be breached. Put another way, doing turns creates a defence to a protest if properly done. Doing them improperly may not create a defence but is not a separate foul. It is just a wasted turn.
The most that X can do is see if someone else is protesting Y and offer to tesify if Y's defence is reliance upon the turn as exoneration.

I believe a boat can protest for anything in the rules that is not precluded in RRS . Therefore, I can't see why a protest would be invalid alleging some violation of RRS . Does anyone know of any grounds for refusing the protest?

Let me add another twist to this. Say Boat Y comes into the protest hearing and explains that they did foul Boat Z and they intended to take a penalty for it but did only one turn.. Now the jury has evidence of a foul and an incomplete penalty. Has Boat X managed to get around the limitations of RRS ?

I'm with Lloyd and Stephen on this one. Boat X observed Boat Y sailing in a circle, but (not having seen the original incident) cannot know the cause for that action. Added to that is the permissive nature of . How can X "know" that Y was taking a penalty? Perhaps Y got part way through a 2-turn Penalty and decided she wasn't in the wrong and had not infringed a rule of Part II.

This points out the responsibility of the boat that (ostensibly) Y fouled (let's call her "Z" and assume that both boats are >6m in length). If Z hailed, "Protest" at the time of the incident and Y replied, "Oops, sorry. I'll circle." and then Z then did not display her flag promptly or took it down when she saw Y begin to circle, Z's protest will be ruled invalid. It the boats are <6m, then the protest could still be heard if Z finds out later that Y did not do both turns.

Clark, Lloyd and Stephen. You're on the appeals committee where a competitor brings you an appeal stating they were denied a hearing based on an assertion the protest was invalid. Where in the rules does it support that conclusion.

Paul,
I did not say that I would not allow the protest to be heard. If they filed a protest on rule 44 and they had notified the Boat Y we would hear it. What I was saying is that boat X has NO evidence to support their assertion. What if Boat Y skippers favorite cap blew overboard and they retrieved it? Boat X would have to call a witness to give first hand witness of some facts to support their assertion. Boat X has only imagination.

Paul Zupan
said
Clark, Lloyd and Stephen. You're on the appeals committee where a competitor brings you an appeal stating they were denied a hearing based on an assertion the protest was invalid. Where in the rules does it support that conclusion.

---

US Sailing Appeal 46—The failure of a boat to take a Two-Turns Penalty does not break a rule. A boat may not be disqualified for an incident not described in a valid protest.

RYA Appeal 1981/7 When a boat protests, believing that another boat has not taken a penalty as described in rule 44.2, she must establish first that the other boat broke a rule of Part 2 (or rule 31).

Paul Zupan
said
Let me add another twist to this. Say Boat Y comes into the protest hearing and explains that they did foul Boat Z and they intended to take a penalty for it but did only one turn.. Now the jury has evidence of a foul and an incomplete penalty. Has Boat X managed to get around the limitations of RRS 60.1?

---

Normally, for a protest committee to hear testimony from a boat about breaking a part 2 rule, the protest committee would first have had to decide that all the requirements for the protest have been met and continue the hearing (rule 63.5) In my opinion, such a conclusion, in the circumstances described would be wrong. As indicated above the protest does not meet the requirements of rule 60.1( a ) and is thus invalid.

Suppose that the admission was made by Boat Y immediately on entering the protest room. The fact remains that Boat X's protest is invalid and the hearing of that protest should be closed (rule 63.5).

Normally, a protest committee may not protest a boat as a result of information arising from an invalid protest (rule 60.3( a ))

However,

A protest committee may protest a boat as a result of information arising from a report from a ... representative of the boat herself (rule 60.3( (a )).

In the circumstanced described the protest committee might protest Boat Y, but this is technically a fresh protest, requiring Boat Y to be informed of the protest committee's intention and given further notice of the time and place of hearing.

OK Paul .. I'll bite. All of RRS 44,1 is predicated by the word "may" and therefore taking an on the water penalty at the time of the incident is completely at the option of the competitor.

Therefore it is impossible to "break" RRS 44.1. Appeal 46.

Ang

So, based on my initial incident, it looks like the protest should be disallowed. And I think that's the right call since, in essence, you can't protest someone for doing a circle.

So, how about we add this little wrinkle: Everything stays the same as I originally mentioned, except Boat X has Boat Z (who the foul was committed against) as a witness to the foul and to not completing a 720. For whatever reason, Boat Z doesn't follow through properly with the protest, but Boat X protests because they saw Boat Y only do a 360 penalty turn and assumed they must have fouled (even though they didn't see the original incident). After the race, Boat X talks with Boat Z and finds out for sure that a foul occurred and Boat Y did not complete the proper penalty.

Can Boat X win this protest? Technically the only thing they can protest for is Rule 44, but as has been mentioned in these comments, it seems Rule 44 is permissive and cannot be breached. Even though it is clear a foul occurred because of a breach of Part 2 and the proper penalty was not completed, I don't know if Boat Y can be disqualified under this scenario...

Thoughts?

I dont think it changes anything. The failure to complete the turns means the boat has not exonerated herself for any penalty she might be assessed if a violation occurred or is found to have occurred. It doesn't change the fact that the vessel that observed the single turn can not bring a valid protest for failure to take the turns.

I think John Allan is on the right path. It would otherwise open the door to going around the requirements of RRS 60.1. But I would suggest that's it's not a good idea to summarily determine a boat didn't break a rule and therefore the protest is invalid. The protest should be heard and then the jury can make a decision on whether a rule was broken...

Paul
I would hear the protest as long as it met the validity "tests". However like I said above Boat X has NO evidence, only assumptions. Unless they had other witnesses, it would be a short hearing.

Lloyd -- I don't think this is so much about evidence as much as it is about Boat X's allegation. Once Boat X testified as to what she saw, I believe the right thing to do is for the jury to allow for Boat Y to respond. Boat Y might say she was taking a penalty turn. She might say that she fouled Boat Z. She might say she was going back for her hat. But if Boat X states she was not involved in the incident, nor saw Boat Y hit the mark, the jury should conclude that the protest should be dismissed as Boat X has failed to prove that Boat Y had broken a rule. But unless the jury allows for testimony of both parties, you're denying them what is required by RRS and . We may be saying the same thing in a different way, but we shouldn't assume that Boat X has no evidence. She may come in and say that she knows Boat Y only took one turn because Boat X had to do a crash gybe to avoid Boat Y and Boat Y just sailed off without finishing her penalty. You just don't know until you hear the testimony.

Paul,
Once again I said that if the met validation we would precede with taking testimony. We would hear all evidence parties had to present. It was never given that X had other testimony. If I start assuming that there is other testimony, then I am doing the same a Boat X presenting assumptions as fact.
I could postulate on all possible variations, but that was not the question.

Paul,

I'm now coming around to the view that there is a valid protest, although the conclusion and decision will be that no rule was broken, which is What US Sailing Appeal 46 and RYA Appeal 1981/7 actually say.

Boat X protests Boat Y (alleges that Y broke a rule), describing an incident observed by her of Y sailing around in a circle, and citing rule 44.

Assuming hail, flag, and timely submission, this is a valid protest alleging that the incident of sailing around in a circle broke a rule, and the protest committee should so decide and continue the hearing in accordance with rule 63.5.

Boat X has no testimony as to anything other than Boat Y sailing around in a circle.

As discussed above and supported by the appeals, no rule is broken by a boat sailing around in circles, and if there is no further evidence, the protest committee should so conclude and dismiss the protest.

Suppose, however, that Boat X brings a witness, Boat Z who gives evidence to the effect that, immediately before the circling began, Boat Y failed to keep clear of Boat Z.

This will be a different incident to the one protested by Boat X. The circles incident is by no means the 'inevitable result' of the right-of-way incident.
Boat X's protest is about sailing in circles and rule 44. It is not a protest identifying an incident (rule 61.2( b )) concerning right-of-way. It is not permissible to deal with allegations of breach of right of way in the hearing of Boat X's protest See Edits below

• It's not the protest committee's business to fixing up carelessness or ineptitude on the part of competitors in complying with protest requirements; and
• Boat Z may have good reasons to exercise her right to refrain from protesting Boat Y, which should not be upset by the protest committee stepping in.

The original question was:

The answer is the same as to the question 'Can A sue B for X?': Yes, anybody can sue anybody else for anything, but they might not be successful.

The better question is 'Can X protest Y successfully'.

Boat x can protest boat y because any boat can protest any other boat. The protest would be dismissed because boat x did not witness the incident - see RRS 60.1(a). If another boat had witnessed the incident and protested then boat x may be called as a witness to show that boat y had failed to complete her turns in accordance with rule 44.

Boat Y starts to do a two turns penalty. Boat Z sees that Boat Y is taking her penalty and sails off. Boat Y does one turn and continues up the course. Boat X can protest Boat Y for breaking rule 2.

John A ..

Boat Z may have good reasons to exercise her right to refrain from protesting Boat Y, which should not be upset by the protest committee stepping in.

Man .. that sure makes me pause with a "hmmmm" ... (not to get too far afield) ..Seems to me the only acceptable reason (lets toss out "good") IMO is that the existence of a foul is in question and there is no contact.

Maybe you had that in your mind? - Ang

John, thank you for that explanation. I think that makes total sense.

I guess my last question regarding this topic comes from Steve in the previous comment. Let's say boat Boat X hears Boat Z protest Boat Y, but never actually saw the incident. Boat Y starts their first circle and Boat Z sails off assuming both circles are about to be completed. Boat X witnesses Boat Y only complete one circle. Can Boat X protest Boat Y successfully under Rule 2?

I am not sure if that rises to the level of Rule 2 violation, since Boat Y can always argue that it reassessed and thought it had not violated any rule. It might different if, for example, Boat X heard Boat Y yell protest, fly a flag and heard Boat Y state to Boat Z that she was taking penalty turns, and in reliance Boat Z never looks back. It still requires proof of the initial violation, which Boat X does not have, absent Boat Z giving evidence. But, Boat X would still need to comply with notice requirements of Rule 61. Boat X can always advise Boat Z of Boat Y's failure to take turns. It may be that Boat Z doesn't really care, since it has moved ahead. (I have been port tacked a number of times, had to duck and yelled protest but not really cared if the other boat took turns-in disparate fleet PHRF racing, we race the clock, not each other!).

John,
I took interest in your comment introducing Boat Z as a possible witness to the hearing. Do you believe a report from such a witness could be seen as being from someone without a conflict of interest, thereby allowing the PC to protest Boat Y?

Kjell,

Thank you very much for pointing out that Boat Z is a person with a conflict of interest.

I agree that that rules out a protest by the protest committee. The protest committee is forbidden by rule 60.2( a ) from protesting a boat as a result of information arising from a report from a person with a conflict of interest other than the representative of the boat herself.

This differs from the scenario where it was Boat Y, the boat breaking the rule that admitted the facts in a hearing about rule 44.

I'm very glad that you brought this up. It makes it clear that the provision of rule 60.1( a ) can't be 'got around' by an unmeritorious protest about rule 44.

Angelo,

The rules do not oblige anybody to protest a boat. Ever. All the entitlements to protest in rule 60 are couched in terms of what a boat or a committee MAY do, not ‘shall’ or ‘must’ do.

Good reasons why a boat might protest another boat include:

1. To gain or protect her own position in a race or pointscore that is important to her;
2. With respect to another that she thinks is a serious or serial rule-breaker, to ‘teach that boat a lesson’; or
3. She wants to demonstrate that she is not a ‘pushover’ to her competitors.

Good reasons why a boat may refrain from protesting (either by not hailing ‘protest’ at the first reasonable opportunity, or, having done that, by not following through and delivering a a written protest) include:

1. The outcome of the protest may disadvantage her in a pointscore, for example, by 'moving up' a third competitor, who finished behind the protestee.
2. The outcome of the protest will gain her no significant advantage;
3. On balance, she has better things to do with her time (whether those things may be preparation for further races, or merely socialising: that’s up to her): or even
4. She wishes to avoid the risk that the protest hearing may conclude that she, herself, broke a rule and decide to penalise her.

A protest committee has no occasion to examine the reasons why a boat refrains from protesting.

John A.
I agree 100% and could not have put it better. Many contestants do not protest because they are not sure what they saw in the heat of competition, or the don't know exact rule definition and do not want to look foolish.

I attended a U S Sailing round table with 4 of the top teams in team racing. I was surprised to learn that almost to a man they do not protest except in rare occasions when they feel 100% sure of gaining. When I asked why this was they said over the years they know that you have almost no better than 50% winning when entering a protest hearing. I was shocked but accepted they felt strongly that way.

RRS 44 is not a rule that a boat can break. Rather, it is a way for a boat to accept a penalty instead of DSQ (or a DP) as a result of a protest hearing. If a boat does not comply with the penalty prescribed in RRS 44, then the boat simply hasn’t taken an alternate penalty, nothing more.

Similarly, a boat entitled to ‘mark-room’ cannot break RRS 18; only a boat that owes another boat ‘mark-room’ can break that rule. When a boat entitled to mark-room doesn’t sail within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, then she loses any exoneration under RRS 21 if she breaks a rule of Part A, 15 or 16.1. This was the big change to rule 18 in 2009; the other Part 2 rules continue to apply.

So a boat CAN file a protest ALLEGING that another boat, by not fully complying with the requirements of RRS 44, has broken that rule, but the protest will not (or certainly should not; otherwise te decision would be appealable) be upheld because a boat cannot break RRS 44!

Maybe it's possible for a boat to break rule 44.1( b ).

In which case, in a protest hearing which concludes that a boat [broke a Part 2 rule and] caused injury or serious damage or, despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach ' should the protest committee's decision be:

• ​​​​​ to disqualify her (in accordance with rule 64.1), or
• that she shall be taken to have retired (in accordance with rule 44.1( b ))?

Good reasons why a boat may refrain from protesting..

1. The outcome of the protest may disadvantage her in a pointscore, for example, by 'moving up' a third competitor, who finished behind the protestee.
2. The outcome of the protest will gain her no significant advantage;
3. On balance, she has better things to do with her time (whether those things may be preparation for further races, or merely socialising: that’s up to her): or even
4. She wishes to avoid the risk that the protest hearing may conclude that she, herself, broke a rule and decide to penalise her.

John and Llyod ... .. I think I have a way to fix the RRS's so that we can agree on this point .. we just need a itsy-weenie little change to RRS Basic Principles .. which I've added in red below.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce, but are only expected to enforce when they determine it is their individual interest to do so, regardless of the advantage their competitor may have gained against other competitors in the race by breaking a rule. Furthermore, competitors are not obligated to enforce the rules in an equal, fair and consistent manner if they feel they may gain an advantage in doing so . A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

There .. all better now ..

Ang

Sailboat racing is a rule based athletic competition.

Neither racing sailboats nor officating at sailboat races should be seen as a beauty contest for parading moral virtues.

The RRS are in no need of 'fixing'.

I agree with John that the RRS is OK.

Back when the US held Olympic trials, two jury members didn't see the Part 2 incident, but heard the hails and witnessed a boat do one circle and then continue racing. After the race, the jury had a discussion about whether or not to protest for a breach of rule 2. Some jurors knew the competitor and said they were sure the sailor would not cheat. The jury decided not to protest. After the event, a juror asked the sailor about that incident, and the sailor admitted that he had purposefully not done a second turn, because he was out of sight of the sailor that was going to protest him. If the jury had protested, I suspect that the protestee would have confessed during the hearing, resulting in a DSQ or DND.

If a jury or sailor protests for rule 2, the jury will have to find the facts, which may result in a penalty.

I thought it was obvious, but I wasn't actually suggesting changing the RRS Basic Principle (I was just trying to make a point of what it doesn't say as currently written). - Ang

Angelo - When something is NOT described as black, it does not automatically become white. Maybe it is a shade of gray. I try to avoid putting my personal ideas or ideals into interpreting RRS.

Lloyd

I try to avoid putting my personal ideas or ideals into interpreting RRS.

Me too .. and that was exactly the point of my exercise. From my POV, that's precisely what is happening ... and the words I added in red are exactly the foreign ideas and ideals that are being added (without speaking them aloud) to the Basic Principle to support the first 2 "good reasons" ... as both of them are focused only the individual and not the responsibility we have to the other competitors on the water.

The Basic Principle's simple and clear language is in fact a statement of that ideal in our sport .. our responsibility to others .. and I think we should aspire to it and support it in our conversations whenever we can.

Ang

Basic Principles - Sportsmanship and the Rules says [boats]] are expected to ... enforce [the rules]..

This expresses an expectation, in the passive voice.

Obligations in the rules are expressed using the word 'shall'.

Basic Principles - Sportsmanship and the Rules does NOT turn the discretionary entitlement in rule 60.1, "A boat may ... protest another boat" into an obligation, "A boat shall ... protest ...".

John

First, let me say that I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and the input you share on the board. Hopefully nothing I've posted might lead you to think otherwise. If I see that you've put your 2 cents in on a topic, I make sure I read it and carefully.

... on "expected", "may" and "shall"

I completely agree with your last post.

Upon reflection, I think my reaction to your post was mostly in response to your use of the word "good" in "good reasons" .. especially in reference to your reasons (a) and (b).

I agree that those are reasons, that they are technically "unprotestable" reasons if they are part of a competitor's 'internal dialog' of when and why to protest, and that absent other extenuating circumstances, a 3rd party (boat, RC, PC) couldn't under the RRS protest a boat for not protesting (which is your point). I haven't and don't argue against that point.

My argument is that those reasons aren't "good". There is often a large space between what is legal (or within the letter of the law) and what is good.

The logical extension of your reasons (a) and (b) is the uneven application of the RRS as a boat lets one boat go without protest but protests another for the exact same foul. How does that support a fair race for all competitors?

In my mind .. that is the purpose of the Basic Principle regarding Sportsmanship and why it sets-out what is "expected" of us.

Let's say that the top 2 boats in a fleet never protest each other, but consistently protest other boats in the fleet with regularity. Nothing is ever spoken between them .. just over many years, each has never protested the other .. .Boat A let's Boat B "off" .. so Boat B returns the favor and this goes on and on and on.

I would agree with you, that technically that doesn't break a rule, but to my mind that breaks the Basic Principle. That said, I would agree that if somehow Boat A admitted that they simply choose not to protest Boat B and likewise separately Boat B admits the same about protesting Boat A, that absent evidence that they overtly formed a compact for this purpose ... anyone would be hard pressed to protest them under RRS 2 .. but it still tends to make sailing in their fleet unfair .. and thus is not good for the sport.

Ang

Angelo,

Thank you for your kind words.

I’m very pleased that you got my point about keeping personal moral values and beliefs out of application of the rules.

Perhaps a better phrase than 'good reasons' would have been 'sound reasons'.

IMHO, what makes those reasons sound is the principle demonstrated in Case 78 that a boat is allowed to take action that benefits her series result, and does not break rule 2 by doing so, as long a no other rule is broken.

Competitors are expected, or at least allowed to act in self-regarding and self-interested, and not altruistic ways.

Competitors and judges and other race officials (when acting as race officials) are required to apply the rules as they are written: they are not required to 'act for the good of the sport' where this goes beyond the application of the rules.

reasons sound is the principle demonstrated in Case 78

John .. that's too funny, I was going to bring up Case 78 in my last reply to argue my side! LOL

Maybe that's an appropriate place to leave it linger .. and for anyone still interested in or following this thread to consider ...

Is purposely and with forethought, allowing a competitor to break a rule (unpenalized) because it will benefit your score or standing ... is that the same as sailing your boat tactically, in a way and within the rules, to benefit your score or standing (.. as outlined in Case 78 ..), and thus allowing a competitor to break a rule is covered by Case 78?

John argues yes ..
Angelo argues no ..

Great dialog John ..thanks

Ang

Going back to Greg Koman's original question:

"Let's say Boat X witnesses Boat Y do a one turn penalty in the middle of a leg (minutes from a mark at either end of the leg), but Boat X didn't see the actual infraction. Can Boat X still protest Boat Y for clearly not fulfilling their obligations under rule 44?"

I've had some additional thoughts on the original question. Boat X can protest Boat Y for breaking rule 44, a rule in Part 4. Assuming she followed the other protest requirements, it's a valid protest. Per rule 63.6, "The committee shall find the facts and base its decision on them." Rule 64.1 says, "When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing broke a rule and is not exonerated, it shall disqualify her unless some other rule applies. A penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest." Although the PC cannot penalize the protested boat for breaking rule 44, the PC may find facts that show that the boat broke another rule. Rule 63.6 requires the PC to base its decision on those facts.

I think we are all pretty much agreed that it is possible for X to validly protest Y for breaking rule 44.

I think, likewise we have agreed that rule 44 is a rule that a boat cannot break.

Going on the OP scenario that the only thing X saw was Y sailing in a circle, then that is the only incident that she protested.

There may have been another incident involving a breach of a Part 2 rule some time before X say Y sailing in a circle, but that incident is not the same as the incident of sailing in a circle witnessed by X (US Sailing Appeal 65).

A hearing of a protest alleging that Y broke a rule by sailing in a circle, is not allowed to investigate whether Y broke a rule in some other incident (CASE 80 A hearing of a protest or a request for redress must be limited to the alleged incident, action or omission).

We discussed a couple of ways in which evidence of a previous incident might come out in a hearing of X's protest above, but if such evidence did come out, it would be an improper action of the protest committee to seek any further evidence about that previous incident or to express any conclusion about that previous incident.

A protesting boat is stuck with the incident she protested about. Case 80 makes that quite clear.

Good point John. I agree the Part 2 incident and the one circle are separate incidents, so penalizing Y for the Part 2 incident is out. Y is still at risk for a penalty under rule 2 for the incident that is being protested.

I strongly disagree.

There is no possible element in a boat sailing around in a circle that can indicate a breach of rule 2.

Taking evidence of some previous breach of the rules, and reaching a conclusion about that are the very things that Case 80 prohibits a protest committee from doing.

If the protest committee is all that fired up about the scenario they can use rule 69 to get around the rules for protests.

You have a valid protest from X alleging that Y broke rule 44 by doing only one penalty turn. You're required to hold a hearing. During the hearing, X says that they heard hails about a protest and saw Y do one turn. X says that they thought they'd fouled Z and decided to take a rule 44 penalty, and hailed, "Sorry, I'll spin." The jury, or X, asks Y why they did just one circle. There is no testimony about the Part 2 incident. Here are 4 possible responses from Y:

1. I usually sail in a fleet where we change rule 44 to a one turn penalty, and I forgot that I had to do two turns.
2. I changed my mind about having to take a penalty.
3. I had already been passed by 10 boats and thought that was a sufficient penalty.
4. I didn't think anyone would notice that I had just done one turn.

What should the jury do in each of these cases?

Boy this is one dead horse!!

I do not believe a party can break Rule 44, hence it can not be penalized for it.
Rule 44 presents an optional way to accept a penalty, and is not obligatory.
If you can't penalize for the underlying violation, then the protest committee can take no action, unless it finds some grounds other than Rule 44.

Stephen, I agree with you 100%. What I was hoping to find out is what other judges would do if Y admitted to trying to get away with not doing the second turn. I would expect that everyone would consider that to be a breach of sportsmanship, and that it would qualify as your "some grounds other than rule 44". Would you penalize Y under rule 2 or have a rule 69 hearing, as John mentioned as a possibility?

Paul posed the question of what should happen if, in a hearing of a protest about rule 44, Y, the protestee, gave evidence that she had broken a [Part 2] rule before sailing in a circle.

I responded to that question as follows
I think that a boat's evidence that she "thought they'd fouled Z" would be sufficient 'information' to justify the protest committee protesting Y.

I later commented that

• It's not the protest committee's business to be fixing up carelessness or ineptitude on the part of competitors in complying with protest requirements; and
• Boat Z may have good reasons to exercise her right to refrain from protesting Boat Y, which should not be upset by the protest committee stepping in.

Practically speaking, what I'd probably do in a hearing if Y admitted to trying to get away with not doing the second turn would be to stare dreamily at the ceiling and ask if anyone in the hearing would like to retire from the race.