Subscribe to this feed Subscribe via Email
The RC is permitted by rule 60.2 (Right to Protest and Request Redress) to protest a boat under specific conditions. The PC must ensure all validity requirements have been complied with before proceeding with the hearing.
The RC is prohibited from filing protests based on a report from a competitor or other interested party, or based on information in an invalid protest or in a request for redress. For example, if a coach or parent complains to the RC about something that happened on the water, the RC cannot protest based on that information. However, such a complaint might cause the RC to examine its own records further to determine if there are grounds to protest.
When the RC intends to protest for an incident it observes in the racing area, it shall inform the boat after the race and within the time limit of rule 61.3. For other protests it shall inform the boat as soon as reasonably possible and within the time limit, so the competitor has the opportunity to review the protest, find witnesses, and prepare his or her defense. The SIs may state that posting constitutes the notice required by rule 61.1(b). However, PROs should locate the skipper of the boat(s) being protested and notify them in person.
Protests by the RC are not common and usually involve touching a mark or improper sailing of the course. If the RC witnesses a boat in violation of rule 28 (Sailing the Course), the RC must protest the boat for that breach, not merely score her DNF. Case 80 includes useful discussions of the definition Finish, an interpretation of an incident, the requirement for the RC to protest and the right to a hearing.
During the hearing, a RC is a full party to the hearing and acts as the protestor, very much as a protesting boat would do in a normal boat-to-boat protest. This includes giving evidence, being given the opportunity to ask questions, answering questions, calling witnesses, and being asked to leave the room during the PC deliberation.
As stated in rule 63.1 (Requirement for a Hearing), a protest or hearing is not required for:
· Breaches of starting rules such as rule 29.1 (Individual Recall), rule 30.2 (Z Flag Rule), rule 30.3 (Black Flag Rule).
· Breaches of rule 42 (Propulsion), but only when either rule 67 (Rule 42 and Hearing Requirement) or rule P2 (Penalties) apply.
· Boats that are scored DNS, RAF or DNF under rule A5.
Boats that are scored in anything other than their finishing places should be notified promptly. The RC usually does this by posting the scores or if there is any significant delay, by posting a separate report of “Race Committee Actions.”
The RC cannot grant redress; it can file a request for redress with the PC. Therefore, the RC may request that the PC consider giving redress (rule 60.2(b)). This is not common, but it should be done when the RC knows they have made a mistake. It is generally done when the error is discovered and it is too late to recall, postpone, or abandon the race, or when abandoning the race is not clearly the proper action. If the RC has scored a boat as being OCS but suspects that the boat may have actually returned and started properly, the RC should ask the PC to consider redress under rule 60.2(b). If a mark boat interferes with competitors, the RC should also initiate the redress request.
Rule 60.3 (Right to Protest and Request Redress) permits the PC to protest a boat under specific conditions. A protest initiated by the PC has the same validity requirements as for those initiated by the RC, which the PC must ensure have been complied with before proceeding with the hearing.
Rule 60.3(a) prohibits the PC from protesting “as a result of information arising from a request for redress or an invalid protest, or from a report from an interested party other than the representative of the boat herself.”
However, there are exceptions; rule 60.3(a)(1) permits the PC, after receiving a report of an incident that may have resulted in injury or serious damage, to protest any boat involved in the incident. In such instances, rule 63.5 (Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress) places additional requirements on the PC.
When the PC initiates the protest, the “protestor” is the PC as a whole (not individual members of the PC). When conducting the hearing, the chair should ensure that the boat’s representative is aware that although one or more individual members of the PC will present the evidence, it is the PC as a body that has initiated the hearing under rule 60.3 or 61.1(c).
The members of the PC that see an incident must be careful not to discuss testimony with the other PC members prior to the hearing. A committee member may be a witness to an incident, or he or she can be the PC representative in a protest initiated by the committee against a boat. Under either scenario, rule 63.3 (Right to be Present) gives all parties (not just the PC) the right to be present for all testimony. Before racing begins, PCs should establish a procedure to protect the rights of the parties by agreeing on the circumstances under which they will protest.
Consequently, if any member witnesses an incident that falls within the agreed guidelines, he can complete and deliver a protest on behalf of the PC without discussing the incident in detail. However, the member should also discuss their intent to file with the PC chair before actually doing so.
A basic principle of rules enforcement in the sport of sailboat racing is stated in Sportsmanship and the Rules (near the beginning of the RRS). Competitors are expected to follow and enforce the rules, and competitors are expected to protest when a rule is broken.
There may be circumstances when the PC might consider initiating a protest under rule 60.3. However, the US SAILING Judges Committee recommends that, unless specifically directed by the OA to do otherwise, judges not initiate a protest under rule 60.3(a) against a boat on the water, except when:
· It is obvious a boat broke a rule and there is no other boat in the vicinity that could protest.
· It is likely that a boat or competitor broke rule 2 (Fair Sailing).
· The SIs state that the PC can enforce rule 42 (Propulsion) on-the-water as allowed under rule 67 (Rule 42 and Hearing Requirement).
When the PC initiates a protest under rule 60.3(a), it is important to remember the principles of hearing evidence laid out in rule 63.6 (Taking Evidence and Finding Facts). One judge will represent the PC as the protestor in the hearing. That judge should not discuss the incident with other members of the PC prior to the hearing. If more than one judge saw the incident, one judge will present the case, and the others may give testimony during the protest hearing as witnesses. The parties to the hearing and the PC can question any judge who gives testimony.
Rule 61.1(b) (Informing the Protestee) requires that the PC inform the boat that the PC is protesting them, and do so within the protest time limit (unless the protest is based on information in another valid protest). The SIs may state that posting qualifies as notification. However, even if posting is the only notification, the posting must still be accomplished within the protest time limit.
Competitors sometimes perceive judges who witness incidents on the water as interested parties. The rules specifically declare that they are not, but precision in protest hearing procedures will go a long way in convincing the parties that due process is preserved.
Since appearances do influence people’s attitudes, the PC member that acts as the protestor usually sits in the position usually occupied by the protestor. When the PC is protesting a boat, if the PC as a whole is large enough and skilled enough, the PC should consider having the judge who is representing the committee act only as the protestor and not serve on the panel for that hearing. This gives the PC a more objective appearance to the competitor. However, there are circumstances when this is impractical. See Section 6.8 (Taking Testimony and Gathering Evidence) for a detailed discussion on protest hearing procedures to be considered when a PC member is a witness in a hearing.
The PC may consider granting redress without a request from a boat if it receives such a request from the RC under rule 60.2(b) (Right to Protest and Request Redress), or if the PC decides it is appropriate under rule 60.3(b). If the PC observes an incident on the water which appears to fall within the requirements for granting redress under rule 62 (Redress) and neither a competitor nor the RC initiates a request for redress, the PC may initiate a hearing under rule 60.3(b) and decide if granting redress is appropriate.
The PC may initiate a hearing under rule 69 as described in Section 10 (Hearings Involving Misconduct).
If the SIs invoke Appendix P (Special Procedures for Rule 42), the PC may disqualify a boat without a hearing for breaking rule 42 (Propulsion). Also if stated in the SIs, rule 67 (Rule 42 and Hearing Requirement) allows the PC to disqualify a boat without a hearing, but limits such penalties to incidents that a member of the committee or its designated observer has seen. Rule 67 also states that the boat shall be informed by “notification in the race results.” Therefore, even when the competitor is told on the water, the race results need to indicate that the boat was penalized under rule 42.
There are two circumstances described in rule 66 (Reopening a Hearing) when a PC is permitted to reopen a hearing after it has made its decision. The first is when the PC decides that it may have made a significant error. The second is when significant new evidence becomes available within a reasonable time. In both circumstances the reopening is optional. The word “significant” is used in both parts of the rule. The determination of what is significant is a conclusion made by the PC and is therefore subject to appeal. The only circumstance under which a PC is required to reopen a hearing is when it is directed to do so by an appeals committee under rule F6 (Inadequate Facts; Reopening).
If a party requests reopening, the PC first must decide if the request is valid. There is a time limit for requests. A party has 24 hours under rule 66 (Reopening a Hearing) after being informed of the protest hearing decision to ask for a reopening, unless otherwise stated in the SIs.
If the request is timely, the PC decides whether to reopen. The initial portion of the hearing is a presentation by the requesting party of the reasons for reopening. That presentation should be limited to a discussion of reasons for reopening, not to actually taking any new evidence. While the rules do not require it, if all parties are available try to have them present during this initial fact-finding.
Evidence that was available to the party at the time of the original hearing but was not introduced is generally not considered “new evidence.” For example, suppose a boat that was scored OCS and a redress hearing was held that confirmed the RC’s decision. Then suppose the next day, the boat requests reopening to call a new witness. The PC should ask why this witness was not called in the original hearing. If the PC believes that the boat had proper time to prepare their case originally and that witness could have been called in the original hearing then they would probably deny the request.
After the parties are dismissed, the PC decides whether there is sufficient reason to reopen and notifies the parties of its decision. If the hearing will be reopened, the PC must provide the same notification that is required for a protest hearing. Rule 66 (Reopening a Hearing) states that a majority of the members of the PC conducting a reopened hearing should, if possible, be members of the original PC.
It is not necessary for a party to request reopening in order for the PC to reopen a hearing. If the PC decides that it may have made a significant error, it may reopen the hearing and re-deliberate without taking any new evidence and can revise its decision as necessary. The parties are not entitled to be present for the deliberation. The PC could also learn of significant new evidence and decide to reopen the hearing. If any new evidence is to be considered, the parties have a right to be present under rule 63.3 (Right to be Present). In addition, the parties have the right under rule 63.6 (Taking Evidence and Finding Facts) to question any new witnesses.
Frequently, competitors try to use a reopened hearing to have the entire matter reconsidered. At a reopened hearing, only the new evidence or evidence related to the error should be considered. Parties may ask questions, call witnesses and sum up, and the PC proceeds as it would in any other hearing.
Hearings that permit observers, such as other competitors, prospective judges, parents and coaches at protest hearings are called “open hearings.” This practice is becoming more common, and is very beneficial to all concerned. It is especially useful for juniors, whose concerns about protest hearings can be diminished by attending an open hearing.
The major thrust of holding open hearings is educational. In an open hearing, observers’ knowledge of the rules will be enhanced, and they will gain a better understanding of due process and proper protest-hearing procedures. But there are other benefits to open hearings as well:
· All participants in an open hearing (PC, the parties and witnesses) know that what they say and how they say it will be observed by a number of people, some of whom may have seen the incident being discussed.
· Once observers in an open hearing understand how a PC functions, they will be less intimidated in the future.
· The impression that PCs act arbitrarily will be diminished.
· When coaches are allowed as observers, they will be able to de-brief the sailors more accurately, having heard the testimony first-hand.
If hearings are to be open, the PC chair must make three rules for the observers very clear:
· Observers cannot be witnesses for either party. Before the hearing begins, this rule must be spelled out clearly to the parties and the observers. The chair should ask the parties to the hearing to scan the room and make sure that they do not see anyone that they might like to have as a witness, because anyone who remains in the room when the hearing begins can no longer serve as a witness. Witnesses must be excluded from a hearing under rule 63.3(a) (Right to Be Present), except when giving evidence.
· Observers cannot speak or communicate with the parties during the hearing. The chair must carefully control this rule. However, after the conclusion of the hearing, questions from observers should be encouraged, if time permits.
· Once the hearing begins, observers will not be allowed to leave the room until they are dismissed, since they cannot communicate with any of the parties or witnesses. Before the hearing begins, the chair should make sure that this rule is well understood among all observers. The chair should give any observer who might not be able to honor this rule a chance to leave the room before the hearing begins.
Some PCs prefer to dismiss all observers (close the hearing) during deliberations. The decision on whether to allow observers to remain in the room during this segment depends, in part, on the nature of the protest. If the issue is straightforward, observers may well benefit from hearing how deliberations are conducted. If the case is particularly difficult or contentious, it may be wise to close the hearing during deliberations. No part of the hearing under rule 2 (Fair Sailing) or rule 69 (Allegations of Gross Misconduct) should ever be open to observers, due to the sensitive nature of the testimony.
Umpired events seek, to the extent possible, to determine a winner at the end of a race. When the boats are racing, this requires on-the-water resolution of rules issues, including the imposition and execution of penalties. This system makes racing more exciting, but does not completely eliminate the need for protest and redress hearings after a race is over.
To address that need, RRS Appendix C [Match Racing] and Appendix D [Team Racing] provide an expedited process for protest and redress hearings. Appendix C and Appendix D:
· Does not require a written protest or request for redress [C6.4(b) & D2.4(b)].
· Allows the PC to take evidence in any way it considers appropriate.
· The PC may communicate its decision orally [C6.6(a) and D2.4(b)].
For these reasons, protest hearings and redress hearings in umpired events differ from similar type hearings in fleet racing. However, basic procedural practices should be followed in umpired events to insure that the hearing is fair to all competitors.
In Match and Team Racing, protest hearings and redress hearings commonly convene on an umpire boat, the signal boat, a nearby dock or at any other suitable location.
In most cases, the PC and parties do not have anything in writing to review before proceeding with a hearing. Members of the umpire team gather the parties as soon as the protest committee is ready to proceed with a hearing – delivering them to the hearing site. Written notice of the time and place of the hearing is not posted. If a party needs time to prepare for the hearing, they should request that time and the PC should address that request (this request is rarely made).
After gathering the PC members and parties together, the hearing can proceed by addressing preliminary issues such as interest and validity. A simple question of the protestee – do you have any issues with validity - may resolve this issue quickly. Once those issues are addressed and the matter is found to be valid, the primary issues of the matter can then be addressed. While evidence on any issue can be taken in any way the protest committee considers appropriate, the members of the protest committee should not forget the procedural practices outlined in other portions of this manual:
· Make sure you have the necessary parties on hand before proceeding.
· Ask the person initiating the hearing to tell his or her story.
· Ask the adverse party to tell his or her story.
· Allow the parties to question each other.
· Allow questions from the members of the protest committee.
If a member of the protest committee is a witness, he or she should present his or her evidence and be questioned by the parties.
After this is accomplished, the protest committee must decide if it has sufficient information from which to render a decision. If it does, it need not hear other witnesses but can proceed to finding facts, conclusions, and rendering a decision orally. If the protest committee feels the need for additional information, it should obtain that information so that a fair decision can be reached.
Some procedural suggestions to keep in mind:
· While it is desirable to hold a hearing as soon as possible after a race is finished while the facts are fresh on everyone’s mind to expedite resolution of the matter, hearings can and do hold up the progress of rotations. It may, therefore, be preferable to wait until there is some down time to hold the hearing.
· Hear complicated matters when time permits; if necessary, hold the hearing ashore so that you can give the matter the attention it deserves.
· If circumstances require, it is permissible to adjourn a hearing in progress and continue it at a later time when time permits.
· When gathering competitors for a hearing, make sure that the competitor’s crew will safely maintain the boat while the hearing is being held.
In Match Racing (Appendix C), rule C6.6 gives the protest committee discretion to decide what to do when a rule breach has had no significant effect on the outcome of the match or when RRS 14 is broken and damage or injury has occurred.
In Team Racing (Appendix D), a protest committee’s options for penalizing rules breaches (primarily point adjustments to a boat’s score) are set forth under rules D3.1(b) and (c).
Once a decision is reached, that decision should be communicated to the race committee so that they can properly record and follow up (as needed) the hearing decision.
Please remember that RRS 69 hearings are neither protest hearings or redress hearings (see rule M5.1). Therefore, the provisions of rules C6.4(b), D2.4(b), and C6.6(a) do not apply to such hearings.
Measurement protests are initiated by another boat under rule 60.1, or by the RC based upon a report from the measurer or equipment inspector under rules 60.2 and rule 43.1(c) or 78.3, or by the PC under rule 60.3. The rules do not give the Class Association, National Authority or the event measurer the right to protest directly.
Measurement is the process for determining under rule 78 (Compliance with Class Rules; Certificates) that a boat conforms to her class rules and her measurement or rating certificate. Measurement protests are rare and are governed by the RRS and the class measurement rules. Competitors, RCs, PCs, and measurers are all required to abide by these rules. Rule 78.1 requires that a boat owner (or person in charge) responsible for ensuring that the boat complies with her class rules and her measurement or rating certificate (if any) is valid. The procedures for deciding a measurement protest are described in rule 64.3 (Decisions on Measurement Protests).
Class rules include the details of how a boat is measured and rated. The class rules usually contain administrative provisions and owners’ responsibilities. Although class rules and measurement procedures sometimes appear complex, a PC usually can understand them with a little effort and some informed assistance from an expert witness, usually a measurer or class rule administrator. The definition of rule includes the class rules. The class rules are always in effect even when they are not mentioned in the NOR or SIs.
Prior to an event, the PC should consult with the OA and possibly the relevant class authorities to determine if and how a measurer or equipment inspector will be appointed for the event.
Some class rules describe the qualifications and appointment process. However, when the ISAF Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS) are invoked by the NOR or SI (or other governing document), they say that the RC appoints an equipment inspector (ERS C.4.6). In such cases, prior to the event, the PC should ensure that these are met – or there are no misunderstandings between the OA and the class.
Since the equipment inspector or measurer cannot directly protest, their enforcement of the class rules is accomplished through the RC. Rule 78.3 requires that when an event measurer decides that when a boat or personal equipment does not comply with class rules, the measurer shall report the matter in writing to the RC. When the RC receives such a written report, rule 60.2 then requires the RC to protest that boat. The SIs may include provisions regarding measurement. They may also include specific requirements for pre-race measurement and measurement checks during or after the racing.
A measurer appointed for an event works for the RC. People not so appointed, even if they are certified measurers, have no official status at an event. Such a person can, of course, be called as an expert witness. Case 57 confirms that under the racing rules, the official measurer is subject to the direction of the RC and the racing rules.
Before a race or regatta, when the measurer concludes that a boat does not comply with the rules, he or she may only request that the defect be corrected. If the boat then races without correcting the defect, the measurer reports the matter in writing to the RC, which is then required by rule 78.3 to protest the boat. When the defect is found after a race, the measurer again reports the matter to the RC. The RC must then notify the boat and protest the boat as provided in rule 60.2(a) (Right to Protest and Request Redress).
When hearing a measurement protest, the PC must first determine whether the protest is valid. The requirements of rule 61 must be met. Rule 61.2(b) requires that the protest identify “the incident, including when it occurred.” Rule 61.2 (c) requires the protestor to identify the rule believed to be broken. A protest stating only that “the boat doesn’t measure in” or that “she is too fast for her rating” does not meet the requirements of rule 61.2(b) or 61.2(c). If no incident is identified, the protest is invalid. As with any other protest, if it is not valid the hearing must be terminated under rule 63.5 (Validity of the Protest).
Requiring a reasonable description of the measurement infringement does not prejudice the protestor. The same requirement exists for any other protest. If the protestor cannot be specific about an alleged breach, he is simply asking the PC to go on a “fishing expedition.” A PC can deal with a specific complaint, but it can’t be expected to order a full re-measurement simply because a protestor thinks the boat does not measure in.
When a protest has been lodged alleging a breach of rule 78 and is found to be valid, the PC should refer to rule 64.3 (Decisions on Measurement Protests). The PC must hold a hearing, find the facts, determine whether it can interpret the rules, and if so, decide the protest. If the PC is in doubt about the meaning of a measurement rule, rule 64.3(b) requires it to refer its questions to “an authority responsible for interpreting the rule.” In this case, the PC may defer making a decision, but the PC must still find the facts and identify the interpretation or application about which it is not clear. The PC need not be expert on class rules. It may call witnesses who understand the rule including administrators, inspectors, measurers, designers or any other witness it deems necessary. Rule 63.6 (Taking Evidence and Finding Facts) requires that the PC take evidence from the parties and other evidence it considers necessary. The PC is required to obtain the evidence it needs to decide the protest.
A person who is thoroughly familiar with the class rules and procedures, such as a measurer, can be helpful to the PC as an expert witness. Boat designers and builders can also be expert witnesses, but may have conflicts of interest. Witnesses, no matter how expert, are just witnesses. The PC makes the final decisions.
When a measurer is available, and the protest involves complex measurement issues, the PC may wish to order measurement checks or even complete re-measurement. This falls within the “other evidence it considers necessary” part of rule 63.6 (Taking Evidence and Finding Facts). Nothing in the rules, however, gives a boat or her representative the right to demand that another boat be re-measured. The decision to order re-measurement is for the PC to decide (or an OA decision if so stated in the SIs or NOR).
The “authority responsible for interpreting” measurement rules noted in rule 64.3(b) is usually identified in the class rules. In the prescription to rule 64.3(b), US SAILING prescribes the authority for interpreting rules of a handicap or rating system is the organization that issued the certificate involved. In the United States, for IRC and IMS, this is the Offshore Director of US SAILING. For PHRF, the authority would be the PHRF handicapping committee that issued the certificate.
Once a PC refers a measurement question to the qualified authority, rule 64.3(b) requires the committee to be “bound by the reply.” When such a reference is made, the PC gives up some of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the PC should word its questions carefully to ensure that it gets the information needed to make its decision without abdicating its responsibilities.
As provided by rule 64.3(c) (Decisions on Measurement Protests), a boat that has been disqualified under a measurement rule may continue to race if she states in writing that she intends to appeal. She remains disqualified if she does not appeal or if her appeal is not sustained.
In a measurement protest, the PC has an additional responsibility. Rule 64.3(d) requires the unsuccessful party in a measurement protest to pay any measurement costs associated with the protest, unless the PC decides otherwise. The assignment of responsibility for paying the costs should be included in the PC’s decision.
Even though ISAF regulations 19 (Eligibility Code), 20 (Advertising Code), 21 (Anti-doping Code) and 22 (Sailor Classification Code) are not printed in the 2009 - 2012 rule book, they rank as rules under definition Rule(b). As described in the rule book’s Introduction (itself a rule), one reason for their exclusion as text is that these regulations may be amended or changed at any time by ISAF. Changes are posted on the ISAF website (www.sailing.org) as soon as practicable after approval and may be obtained directly from the ISAF. Judges who wish to stay current with these regulations should access the website periodically to check for changes.
The Sailor’s Classification Code of ISAF Regulation 22 defines three groups of competitors according to the degree of financial benefit that the competitor derives from an activity that contributes to the performance of racing boats. A Group 1 competitor is generally one who does not benefit financially from such an activity, while Group 2 and 3 competitors benefit financially to some greater degree from such activity. Regattas and classes can use the Classification Code to limit the participation of “professional sailors” in given events. The code is only reflected when properly invoked by a class through its class rules or by an OA through the NOR.
Rule 79 (Classification) requires that if the NOR or class rules state that some or all competitors must satisfy classification requirements, the classification shall be carried out as described in ISAF Regulation 22. Some (usually older) class rules have competitor classification systems that are different from the Sailor’s Classification Code of ISAF Regulation 22. If faced with such a protest, and finding these class rule classifications do not comply with regulation 22, the PC must dismiss the protest.
The Code can be applied in a variety of ways. It may apply to helmsmen or crew only (e.g., the helmsman shall be a Group 1 competitor), or it may be used to limit the number of competitors from a specific Group (for example, not more than one Group 3 competitor shall be permitted per boat). The rule is rarely applied to an entire multi-class event but if it is to be applied, it must be stated in the NOR. Normally, the Code is adopted by a class and incorporated into its class rules in order to help shape the nature of competition in that particular class. Use of the Classification Code is not required, but if it is used, the wording cannot be altered in the NOR or the SIs. Protests involving competitor classification are rare, primarily because competitors are urged (and often required) to apply for a classification before an event. Further, the code itself has processes for handling challenges about a competitor’s classification so that protests during an event are the last resort. However, if a PC receives a protest based on classification and it is in doubt as to the classification of a competitor, it may refer its facts found to the Classification Authority at ISAF and shall be governed by the decision of the Classification Authority on those facts. The PC must also report its decision to the Classification Authority.
Occasionally the OA authority will request a report from the PC. The chair normally writes this report. At the end of each race day, the PC should meet to discuss each course and any problems, and the chair and vice-chair should meet with the race officers. The chair should meet with the jury secretary to compile the hearing results. A wise chair will arrange to keep notes for producing reports. The report should outline the conduct of the racing and include recommendations for improving future similar events. It should include a summary of the scoring and results. When innovative or unusual race management procedures are used, a description should be forwarded to the US SAILING Race Management Committee.
The chair of the RC and each judge should receive a copy of the completed report. The report can also be included in the individual judge’s reports to their respective RAJs.
The report should include any controversial or interesting decisions, preferably after discussion by the PC. If there was a rule 69 hearing where a penalty was imposed, a report to the national authority is required. The report to the OA should include sufficient detail for a reader to understand why the decision was made. More than one report may be required. See Chapter 10 (Hearings Involving Misconduct) for guidance on rule 69 hearings. If no penalty was imposed, the PC must be very careful to protect the confidentiality of a competitor.
Photo 8.1. Judges taking a short “breather” while on the water.