The Nelson Touch

 or a dereliction of duty?

Well, at a recent regatta the Race Officer set a bearing to the first mark, the visibility was low and the marklayer misread his gps so that he was around 30 degrees off that bearing. Marks 1, 2 and 3 were practically in a straight line. 

One sailor comes seeking redress, and gets it in before the expiry of protest time. Problem is, he is saying that the course was not as described, since he was told to sail from Mark 3 direct to the finish, ignoring Mark 5. He did also mention mention that he had been looking for Mark 1 upwind and had lost places when he saw everyone else going to what he had assumed was Mark 2. Normally, he would finish in the top 4, this race he was around 12th - he says as a result of the mislaying of Mark 1. He admits to not having a compass - they seem to have gone out of fashion.

The Race Officer admits to the mistakes. I didn't want to get into considering redress for everyone, so suggested that the Race Officer see if he could come to an equitable arrangement with the unhappy sailor. Which he does, and no one complains!

Then there is the protest where the protestor fails to turn up. From the form it seems that there were a number of boats involved. The protestee says he couldn't give room because of a boat outside of him but is unable to identify him. I was hoping to arbitrate it but that is not an option when the other party isn't there. Should I have got a  couple of other people and formed a protest committee, or was it OK to go ahead with a one person committee?

Was it OK to exonerate the boat on the basis of an infringement by an unknown boat? I suppose I could research it - but the protestee was happy and we heard nothing more from the protestor.

We did have a couple of arbitrations - one involving a windward mark and a boat coming in on port having overstood. Another boat on starboard claimed to have tacked outside the zone, and that the other boat was clear astern when she entered the zone. The interesting thing about this was that the tacking boat MUST have been overlapped with the other boat when she passed head to wind. She might or might not have completed her tack and broken the overlap before she entered the zone, but the geometry of the situation meant that they must have been on the same tack and overlapped from the moment that boat passed head to wind until some other point. So the onus part of the rule came into play and there was no way without a witness that she could prove she had broken the overlap before entering the zone. The advice was that she should have given room. Interesting in that the overlap existed from the moment she passed head to wind even though she was subject to rule 13.

,