Volvo Ocean Race 2001/2002 zurück zur Übersicht Tagesberichte VOLVO OCEAN RACE Auckland, New Zealand, January 9th 2002 Tyco Fined £500 JURY HEARING Case 6, Hearing 10h00 9th January 2002 at the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron. On January 9th in Auckland, New Zealand, the International Jury upheld the protest by Team News Corp against Team Tyco and fined Team Tyco £500. Team News Corp had indextained that Tyco should be penalised in the Volvo Ocean Race for an infringement of the Sydney to Hobart Sailing Instructions. (Tyco had previously been scored DNF in the Sydney-Hobart for failing to make a mandatory radio safety call within the prescribed time limit). The International Jury first considered the validity of the protest, deciding that Team News Corp had provided a good reason for filing the protest outside the normal time limit of 24-hours after finishing leg three. Once it had decided the protest was valid, all parties to the protest accepted the findings of the Sydney to Hobart Jury that had ruled that Team Tyco had infringed the Sailing Instructions. The only matter to consider was an appropriate penalty. Team News Corp asked the International Jury to impose a one-point penalty. Team Tyco replied that it had already suffered a penalty as imposed by the Sydney to Hobart Race Committee. Other teams present at the hearing made submissions to the International Jury, with Team SEB wondering if a point penalty might be disproportionate to the nature of the rule infringement. Illbruck said no penalty, saying it wanted to see the race settled on the water. Assa Abloy submitted that it would support Team News Corp’s request. The International Jury found that: Team Tyco was required by the Volvo Ocean Race Sailing Instructions to make the required radio call. Team Tyco made every attempt to make the report (but had equipment failure). Team Tyco gained no advantage by not making the report within the prescribed time limit and therefore a points penalty would be inappropriate. The International Jury fined Team Tyco £500.00 The full findings of the International Jury are below: VOLVO OCEAN RACE (Volvo Ocean Race) Leg 3 JURY HEARING Case 6, Hearing 10h00 9th January 2002 at the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron. NEWS CORP protested TYCO, claiming she infringed the Sydney Hobart (SH) Sailing Instruction (SI) 43.2. VALIDITY The only disputed validity requirement was that of whether the protest was lodged in time. The Sailing Instructions were not clear on the issue as to whether the Volvo Ocean Race Committee was required to apply a score of ‘DNF’ (‘did not finish’) to a boat breaking SH SI 43.2. It was reasonable for a boat to believe that the Volvo Ocean Race Committee would apply a ‘DNF’. NEWS CORP attempted to establish whether the VOR RC was going to apply the ‘DNF’ score, which NEWS CORP believed to be applicable. When learning of the fact that the Volvo Ocean Race Committee would not apply the ‘DNF’ score to TYCO, NEWS CORP lodged an application for redress, which was considered by the Volvo Ocean Race International Jury on 7th January. At that hearing, the jury determined that the scoring of ‘DNF’ in SH SI 43.3 did not apply to the Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3. On being informed of this decision, NEWS CORP lodged a protest against TYCO at 18h23 on the same day. The jury is satisfied that the above constitutes good reason to extend the time limit under Racing Rule 61.3 and Standard Sailing Instruction (SSI) 10.3. The protest is therefore valid. THE PROTEST In view of the decision of the SH jury, TYCO accepted that she had infringed Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3 SI 300.19.1 which required boats to comply with SH SI 43.2. THE PENALTY Submissions as to an appropriate penalty were received from NEWS CORP, TYCO, ILLBRUCK, SEB and ASSA ABLOY. RATIONALE ON PENALTY 1. TYCO was required by Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3 SI 300.19.1 to comply with SH SI 43.2 which required boats to report by SSB radio within 60 minutes of passing latitude 37º 15’ South. 2. TYCO reported at 67 minutes. 3. TYCO made every effort to attempt to make their SSB radio operational during this time. 4. TYCO did not gain any advantage by the delay in reporting. DECISION ON PENALTY TYCO infringed a VOR Leg 3 Sailing Instruction and a penalty will therefore be imposed. Having regard to the above rationale, a place penalty is inappropriate. In SSI 1.7, the Organising Authority has given the jury a framework of penalties, with a maximum financial penalty of £1000 for this type of infringement where no boats’ position in the race was affected. Within this scale the jury imposes a £500 fine, which is to be paid to the Organising Authority before the start of Leg 4. Bryan Willis Chairman International Jury Jury: Doug Elder (NZL), Lister Hughes (AUS), Tony Mooney (AUS), Geoff Myburgh (RSA), Bryan Willis (GBR) SH SI 43.2: ‘When in the vicinity of 370 15’ South but not later than 1 hour after crossing 370 15’ South, if a boat is able to meet all the requirements of SI 43.1, the boat shall call ACS Race Control on the Race Frequency and make the following report:… ‘ SH SI 43.3: ‘Boats that do not comply with the requirements of SI 43.1 and 43.2 and continue racing shall be recorded DNF’ Racing Rule 61.3 Protest Time Limit: ‘A protest by a boat shall be delivered to the race office no later than the time limit stated in the sailing instructions. The protest committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so.’ Standard Sailing Instruction 10.3: ‘RRS 61.2 and 61.3 are amended in that protests shall be written on the form provided and it shall be handed to the Director of Race Operations within 24 hours of the protesting boat finishing the leg to which the protest applies.’ Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3 SI 300.19 COMMUNICATIONS. 300.19.1: ‘For the period of the Leg from the Start in Sydney until the Hobart Pitstop Finishing Line, boats shall comply with SHYR Sailing Instructions.’ Volvo Ocean Race Standard Sailing Instruction 1.7: ‘1.7.1 Racing Rules of Sailing 64.1(a) is amended to permit the International Jury to invoke penalties other than disqualification.’ ‘1.7.2 ‘The International Jury may use the alternative penalties listed below (a) infringements from which no boats’ position in the Race was affected: No penalty or fine up to £1,000…’ Meldung vom Vortag VOLVO OCEAN RACE Auckland, New Zealand, January 9th 2002 Cases 4 & 5, Request for reopening NEWS CORP has requested a re-opening of the Redress Hearing held on 7th January (cases 4 and 5), on the grounds that the Jury may have made a significant error in that the decision does not address the question of whether the “DNF” referred to in SHYR SI 43.3, applies to Volvo Ocean Race leg 3 in addition to the Sydney Hobart Race’. RATIONALE In its decision, the jury stated ‘Between Sydney and Hobart, the Volvo Ocean Race boats were sailing in two separate races, each being scored separately.’ and ‘Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3 SIs 300.19.1 and 300.28 set out the communications requirements of Volvo Ocean Race boats for the Sydney to Hobart period of Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3. These SIs apply only to boats’ communication obligations, not the consequences of not complying with SH SI 43.2.’ and ‘Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3 SI 300.18 states that ‘Scoring from the SHYR will not affect the results of Leg 3 in any way’.’ and ‘Had there been a valid protest against TYCO the Volvo Ocean Race Jury would not have been bound by SH SI 43.3. It would have had the range of penalties available in Volvo Ocean Race Standard Sailing Instructions 1.7 (including applying no penalty).’ CONCLUSION This means that although the Volvo Ocean Race boats were required to comply with the reporting requirements of SH SI 43.2, the penalty of ‘DNF’ applied only to the Sydney Hobart Race and not to the Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3. A penalty applicable to the Volvo Ocean Race Leg 3, can be determined only by the Volvo Ocean Race jury after a protest hearing. The jury is satisfied that it did not make a significant error in denying the Requests for Redress. DECISION The requirements of rule 66 have not been met and therefore the request to reopen is refused. Bryan Willis Chairman International Jury Jury: Doug Elder (NZL), Lister Hughes (AUS), Tony Mooney (AUS), Geoff Myburgh (RSA), Bryan Willis (GBR) 66 REOPENING A HEARING: The [jury] may reopen a hearing when it decides that it may have made a significant error. A party to the hearing may ask for a reopening no later than 24 hours after being informed of the decision.’ Copyright © 1996-2016 - SEGEL.DE