I've seen good reasoning for both yes and no so it will be interesting what the forum thinks. 

(One note, Appendix T4(b) allows the protest to be withdrawn "after the arbitrator offers an opinion" rather than during arbitration. If the arbitrator refuses, the boat that the arbitrator thinks broke a rule is one step closer to accepting a post race penalty rather than the decision of the hearing.

The world Sailing Jury Policy addresses this in section 4:4.1 A competitor may request the protest committee to allow withdrawal of a protest or request for redress that this competitor has delivered. Such approval is a protest committee decision (RRS 63.1). The protest committee may appoint a member or members to make the decision. If the member is in doubt, the decision may be referred to a full panel. If the panel is in doubt, consult the Jury Chairman or Vice-Chairman.
It is a competitor’s decision to protest or request redress, or to request that it be withdrawn. The protest committee should determine why it is being withdrawn. If damage or injury is suspected, or the protest committee thinks the protestor has realized she may have broken a rule and is attempting to avoid a penalty, permission should not be given. In both cases the protestor may be in breach of RRS 2 Fair Sailing.

I would think the Protestor would be able to take a post race penalty or go to a hearing. If they choose a hearing I think RRS 2 would be on the table as well. 

 Probably there is a good reason ( even if I do not nknow it),  why the wording of the rule T4b) is not more straight and one has to look for the answer to the other 2 documents, as seen below.

1.     World Sailing Judges Manual February 2022, H 5 Arbitration , The procedures:

… Also, regardless of whether a Post-Race penalty is taken, a protestor may ask to withdraw the protest and the judge who arbitrated may allow the withdrawal in accordance with normal jury policy for allowing the withdrawal.

 

@ “normal jury policies”: 

2.     Jury Policies 2021, 4. Permission to Withdraw a Hearing Request: 

4.1 ….If damage or injury is suspected, or the protest committee thinks the protestor has realized she may have broken a rule and is attempting to avoid a penalty, permission should not be given.

 

Therefore, I understand the Appendix T4(b), 2nd sentence as :

Pat,

The guidance that withdrawal should not be allowed if it appears that a boat is attempting to avoid a penalty is pretty clear.

What is the 'good reasoning' that you have seen for it to be applied any differently in an arbitration?

You appear to be saying that the actions of taking a PRP and withdrawing a protest do not form part of 'arbitration'.

Why do you say that?

David, we also have 2 previous threads which touch on this topic in different ways. 

John,

   <<You appear to be saying that the actions of taking a PRP and withdrawing a protest do not form part of 'arbitration'.>>

Kind of. The point I'm trying to make is about who the RRS give the authority to approve the withdrawal of a protest. I think there are only two. Rule 63.1 says the protest committee. T4 says the arbitrator, but only after his opinion is offered. Although it has been common practice for a judge at the protest desk to allow a protest to be withdrawn, there is no rule that allows the protest committee to delegate that responsibility the judge at the protest desk or the arbitrator prior to announcing his opinion. I hope someday some MNA Appeals Committee will see this as a mistake and put in a submission adding "or it's delegate" to 63.1. 

The Post Race Penalty is independent of the arbitration meeting (and should be a separate rule). It can be taken anytime after the race and before the hearing starts. (A second puzzle, when do the rules say a hearing starts?)

If the protesting party thinks his witness can strengthen his hearsay claim that the protested boat gained significant advantage or only made one turn, The"no further penalty" would turn into  something a DSQ quickly'

Pat re: "(A second puzzle, when do the rules say a hearing starts?)"

I've wrestled with that Q before,  Appx M and RRS 63.5 used to be a little crossways, but in the last quad, they are aligned pointing to a specific place in time .. when the PC starts taking evidence to decide on the validity of the protest or R4R.

RRS 63.5 states, "At the beginning of the hearing the protest committee shall take any evidence it considers necessary to decide whether all requirements for the protest or request for redress have been met."

Appx M.2 describes several items that occur "Before the Hearing" including assessing conflicts of interest.  Then M.3 is "The Hearing" and M3.1 is checking validity.

So, those both point to "Validity" as when the hearing starts. But ... it does beg the question of what is it when the PC discusses and decides on conflicts of interest?  Those deliberations and decisions will be recorded in the decision, but it appears that process occurs outside of the hearing itself in a preparatory phase.

This makes sense to me, as the "hearing" is about the filing and the first items relative to the filing and the incident/claim is validity.

What'cha think of that arguement?

I would advise not putting too much weight in Appendix M. First, it is advisory. Second, M didn’t get the same attention the other parts of the rule book did in the last quadrennial. The most obvious lapse is it’s advice on hearsay evidence.

In my opinion the most logical answer is for the system to be based on the first action a party could appeal. If the protest committee mistakenly concludes a COI is insignificant, I think that could be viewed as an significant error or an improper action, and lead to a reopening or a second hearing. All happening well before validity is considered.

We’ve acted for a long time without this causing problems. But, the Post Race Penalty has changed things. Now the hearing chair should say. “This hearing is about to start. Does anyone want to take a PRP?”

Pat, that's a good argument for it to be at the COI phase.   It's not clear (and thus worthy of a wrestle), and elements of the RRS imply or point to a different conclusion, as I indicated above.