Paul .. 

Q1: "Does the last sentence apply to the 1st sentence. i.e. if the race committee intends to protest a boat for an incident in the racing area and they are not within hailing distance does a notice of their intention to protest posted on the official notice board within the time limit of 61.3 meet the requirements of informing the protestee? "

A1: yes

Many regattas have the PTL keyed to the docktime of the signal boat (i.e. "... the PTL is 1hr after the signal boat dock time") .. so this takes care of itself.  Otherwise, the RC/PC/TC would need to communicate this protest information to someone who can file on behalf of the Committee.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If the PTL is set at a reasonable time for competitors to comply with, then the it should be also reasonable for the Committee.  Otherwise, you might look at your PTL in general and redefine it to be relative to the signal boat dock time as that gives everyone time to get to shore and get their ducks in a row (sorry for mixing my waterfowl metaphors!).

Many RC's specifically "follow the fleet in" for this purpose, so that they know that the majority of the boats had plenty of time to get back.

Ang

Paul,

This problem disappears with the implementation of online systems like racingrulesofsailing.org and others.   The RC can post a notice to competitors or even file the protest online from the signal boat.

Peter

Just to extend on Peter's comment, as there has been a bit of confusion about this, any Hearing Request which is a protest or request for redress by the RC, PC or TC (or a Support Person hearing) on RacingRulesOfSailing.org is automatically posted on the notice board both on the Hearing Schedule and on the Event Documents.  So if a Hearing Request (not a Hearing Decision) is submitted electronically from the course, the notice is properly posted immediately.  And if messaging is enabled for the event, the competitor is notified by message as well.

Hey Guys,

I don’t see a problem. Herewith the last sentence of rule 61:3;

The protest committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so.

Many thanks for the comnents.

Just to be clear the issue is about informing the protestee not the actual protest form (which was delivered within the time limit of 61.3)

Having spoken to a few colleagues and re-read Part 5 of the RRS several times I think I am now clear that if the race committee intends to protest a boat concerning an incident the committee observed in the racing area then the committee must inform the protestee of the intention to protest within the time limit of 61.3.

The protest form itself does not fufill the intent of 61.1(b) and the form may be completed after  the time limit of 61.3 and the protest committee shall extend the time limit for the protest form if there is good reason to do so. (But if the form is late you then have to convince the protest committee that there is a good reason for being late)

So….. if the race committee intends to protest a boat as above make sure that the protestee is informed of the intent before the time limit of 61.3. This could be a simple notice on the official notice board. So make sure that someone in the team has access to the official notice board and the notice is posted within the time limit, otherwise the protest will be deemed invalid for failing to comply with 61.1(b).

Everyday is a school day :-)

Paul, I don’t disagree with anything you just posted, though I’d add one item.

Differentiating between the information that an RC might submit to indicate their intention to protest a boat, and the actually filing, can be a distinction without a difference.

The only requirement of a protest filing at the time of filing is a description of the incident. Here, the RC is also identifying Protestee and Protestor (which is not actually required at the time of filing .. so that’s “extra”).

If the RC wrote on a piece of paper or emailed/delivered to the Race Office within PTL …

 “Race Committee is protesting Boat 123 in race 1. She missed the offset mark at 1st windward rounding [She touched the stand-off buoy attached to stern of signal boat]”  (edited based on Sue's correction that NSC is now part of A5.1)

… that’s a valid protest filing. 

The communication to those in charge of the ONB of the importance of that being posted on the NB before the PTL would also be the same either way. 

So … absolutely you could separate those 2 operations … have someone in the RC post the notice of intent to protest and then file something later, but practically they are typically combined … and as others pointed-out “automatically” done simultaneously when using RRoS. 

Angelo - bad example as RRS A5.1 eliminates the need to protest the boat in this example.  They failed to sail the course and RC just has to score NSC.  That being said I would expect that to be posted ASAP to allow the boat to file for redress if they s desire.  

Nice catch Sue! .. you're absolutely correct .. not sailing the course is a bad example.  I guess I'm still not used to NSC being part of A5.1.

I'll change that to touching the stand-off buoy tied to the back of the signal boat.  Thanks.. Ang