RYA GUIDANCE ON RULE 69, ALLEGATIONS OF GROSS MISCONDUCT
Rule 69 is for disciplinary action against competitors for bad behaviour. The RYA supports the use of this
rule to deter and penalize bad behaviour. Because rule 69 involves allegations against an individual and
the possibility of a greater penalty than normally results from a protest, it must be employed carefully, in
compliance with the correct procedures. The RYA Racing Division will do its best to give any further
advice and assistance when asked. Unless a decision needs to be made urgently during the course of a
regatta, it is best not to call a hearing until the protest committee is confident it fully understands the
procedures.
1. POLICY AND JURISDICTION CONCERNING BEHAVIOUR
Q1.1. When should the use of rule 69 be considered?
A1.1. The sport should not tolerate bad behaviour, and action under rule 69 is a potent way of dealing
with this problem. If in doubt, it is better to call a hearing under rule 69, only then to find the allegation
unsubstantiated, than not to call a hearing at all.
Q1.2. Who can be subject to a rule 69 hearing?
A1.2. A ‘competitor’, which means the person in charge and any crew member. Rule 69.1 does not apply
to others, even if associated with a competitor, but their bad behaviour can be reported directly to the
national authority – the RYA – under rule 69.2.
Q1.3. From when until when may misconduct be relevant to an event, giving the protest committee
jurisdiction under rule 69?
A1.3. From the time competitors arrive at the event location for the purpose of competing until they
depart. Misconduct occuring after the end of the event, possibly even away from the event location, may
be included – see Q&A 1.4, below.
Q1.4. May action under rule 69 be taken in respect of bad behaviour by a competitor during or after an
event, but away from the event location?
A1.4 Yes, if the competitor can readily be associated with the event, or if there is brawl in a public place
between competitors, or if several competitors join together in bad behaviour.
When a complaint is received by a club or event from someone not associated with the event about the
behaviour of one or more competitors, it indicates that the sport in general and the event in particular may
have been brought into disrepute.
Q1.5. What types of behaviour would justify action under rule 69?
A1.5. Examples include:
•
bullying and intimidation
•
fighting and assaults
•
deliberately damaging or abusing property1
•
intentional or wilful refusal to comply with organizing authority requirements
•
abuse of officials
•
theft
1
This would include damaging a boat
v10 Dec 2004
1
•
deliberately breaking a racing rule with the intention of gaining an advantage as a result2
•
other forms of cheating3
•
telling a lie at a protest hearing
•
using foul and abusive language intended to offend4
Q1.6. If the competitor is a member of a national or class squad, would it be right either not to call a rule
69 hearing, or only to warn when otherwise a penalty would be imposed, to avoid adversely affecting the
competitor’s future in the sport?
A1.6. No. RYA policy is that an adverse rule 69 hearing does not necessarily worsen the future prospects
of a competitor. All competitors must expect, and receive, equal treatment.
2. LODGING A REPORT
Q2.1. Who may lodge a report alleging a gross breach of a rule or of good manners or sportsmanship?
A2.1. A report can be lodged by any person (who need not be a competitor – indeed, the person might not
have any direct relation with the event: examples include a spectator, a person on a passing cruising boat,
and a local resident). It can be lodged by the race committee, or by the protest committee (see Q&A 3.1),
either as a body or by or one of the members. It might also be lodged by (if different) a host club or by the
race organizers. One event can lodge a report concerning something that happened at a nearby event.
Q2.2. Does the report have to be in writing, or say specifically that it is being lodged under rule 69.1(a)?
A2.2. No. It may be just couched as a complaint, and may be written or oral. It is preferable that it is put
in writing, if possible.
Q2.3. With whom should the report be lodged?
A2.3. If a protest committee is already appointed for an event, then the report may be lodged with it.
However, a protest committee in receipt of such a report should involve the organizing authority at the
earliest opportunity, since a hearing might better take place before a different or strengthened protest
committee, and it is for the organizing authority to appoint the protest committee for any hearing under
rule 69.1(a).
If an International Jury is in place for the event, then it would be a suitable recipient for a report, and it
would normally be the body to hold the hearing.
In all cases, it is appropriate (and if no protest committee is appointed, it is necessary) to lodge a report
with the race committee or the host club, which should then liaise with the organizing authority over the
appointment of a protest committee if it is thought that a hearing under rule 69.1 is indicated. Once the
protest committee is appointed, it should then be given the report.
2
See Q&A 3.2, below
3
For example, falsifying personal, measurement or class documents in order to have an entry accepted: entering a boat known
not to comply with class rules with intention to gain an advantage; and, afloat, missing out a mark to gain places.
4
Using foul and abusive language depends on the context. It should not be tolerated when juniors are involved, and it is quite
proper for clubs and events to make clear before an event that any use of such language may result in action under rule 69. If a
club, class or event has hitherto tolerated foul and abusive language afloat, it would not be appropriate for a single example to
be the subject of a rule 69 hearing (as a result of a complaint, for instance). That is not to condone such behaviour, and the
RYA supports the principle that clubs and events should seek to improve behaviour, and are entitled to set their own standards,
as long as these have been made clear before action is taken for non-observance.
v10 Dec 2004
2
Q2.4. If a race committee, club or organizing authority receives a report alleging a gross breach of a rule
or of good manners or sportsmanship, is it compelled to refer it to a protest committee seeking a hearing
under rule 69.1?
A2.4. No, but it is firmly recommended to do so.
Q2.5. If a club receives a report alleging a gross breach of a rule or of good manners or sportsmanship
by one of its members, may it invoke disciplinary sanctions in the club rules as well as, or instead of,
seeking a hearing under rule 69.1?
A2.5. Yes. The power to suspend or remove membership – a sanction that is frequently appropriate - is
unlikely to be within the jurisdiction of the protest committee holding a rule 69 hearing. However, that
should not preclude seeking action under rule 69.1, which may be in the interests not only of the Club in
particular but also of the sport of sailing in general. Club disciplinary action should await the outcome of
a rule 69.1 hearing.
3. THE ROLE OF THE PROTEST COMMITTEE
Q3.1. A protest committee can act under rule 69.1(a) either having received a report, or based on ‘its
own observation’. What might ‘its own observation’ include?
A3.1. It includes information it acquires during a normal protest hearing or redress hearing: and anything
seen or heard (whether on the water or ashore) by one or more members of a protest committee that is
already in being, including a failure of a boat to retire after a third penalization under rule 42 and
Appendix N.
Q3.2. If a protest committee received a report alleging a gross breach of a rule or of good manners or
sportsmanship, is it compelled to call a hearing under rule 69.1?
A3.2. No. However, ISAF and RYA policy is that it is essential to the healthy development of the sport
that appropriate penalties be imposed on competitors guilty of a gross breach of a rule or of good manners
or sportsmanship, or who have brought the sport into disrepute In addition, rule N2.3 requires the protest
committee to consider calling a rule 69 hearing when a boat fails to retire after a third ‘yellow flag’
protest under rule 42. It is an option in the event of a gross breach of the ISAF Advertising Code,
Appendix I of the Racing Rules of Sailing.
However, neither a hearing under rule 69 nor a protest under rule 2 (see below) may be the best way to
deal with every problem, particularly:
•
non-malicious excess aggression arising from youth or inexperience of the sport
•
an isolated instance of knowingly having broken a rule without intent to do so, but not then taking a
penalty
A protest committee can ask a competitor to appear before it, to make it clear to the competitor that this
is unacceptable behaviour, noting the ISAF Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules (see the start of
the Racing Rules of Sailing) and rule 2, Fair Sailing. This is not a hearing under rule 69.1, even though
the effect may be to give an informal warning as to future conduct that, if repeated, might give rise to a
hearing under rule 69.
Q3.3. How does rule 69 interact with rule 2, Fair Sailing?
A3.3. A protest under rule 2 is against a boat, and, as with all protests, the action has to comply
completely with rule 63, Hearings. A hearing under rule 69 is not a protest, even though it is heard by
what is called a protest committee, and only parts of rule 63 apply. It is brought against a named
competitor, not a boat, although it may give rise to a boat being excluded.
v10 Dec 2004
3
Behaviour that gives rise to a rule 69 hearing will usually break rule 2 if it occurred while a boat was
competing. The penalty under rule 2 (‘DNE’, a non-excludable disqualification for the boat concerned) is
given only in a protest hearing. The protest may have been lodged under rule 2 and then upheld. It may
have been lodged under some other rule, and the protest committee may then decide, on the facts found,
that a boat that was a party to the hearing (the protestor as well as, or instead of, the protestee) broke rule
2.
The DNE penalty applies only to the race concerned.
A boat cannot protest under rule 69. She can submit a report requesting action under rule 69, but it is for
the protest committee to decide whether to call a rule 69 hearing. She can, however, protest under rule 2
for bad behaviour during competition, and when her protest is found valid, the hearing must continue.
When a boat is penalized under rule 2, it is always appropriate for the protest committee to consider
whether a hearing under rule 69 should then be called against any individual competitor involved. If so, a
separate hearing is required.
Penalization under rule 2 is confined to things that happen during competition. That can include the
consequences of things that happened before competition – for instance, cheating by sailing a boat that
has knowingly been modified contrary to her class rules. Rule 2 is not designed for action in respect of
general bad behaviour ashore, where action under rule 69 is more appropriate.
As will be seen (Q&A 4.14, below), rule 69 offers a wider range of penalization.
When a boat is believed to have broken a racing rule with an intention to gain an advantage, it will often
be appropriate first to lodge a protest under rule 2, or rule 44.1 if relevant. A hearing under rule 69 should
then be called only if it is decided that rule 2 was broken, but that the DNE penalty is insufficient.
If it is perceived that the compulsory DNE penalty arising from breaking rule 2 might be too severe, then
going straight to a rule 69 hearing, with a warning in mind, might be preferable.
Q3.4. How should a protest committee be selected for a rule 69 hearing?
A3.4. A protest committee of at least three people is compulsory, to be appointed by the organizing
authority or the race committee. If the matter that is the subject of the hearing is potentially controversial
within a club, or if it is difficult finding members ready to serve, it may be sensible to seek at least one
member (particularly the person who is to chair the hearing) from outside the Club. The RYA Racing
Division can assist in recommending National or International Judges.
Q3.5. Is it appropriate for a person who saw the behaviour alleged to have occurred to be a member of
the protest committee that will conduct the hearing?
A3.5. Yes, if the protest committee was already established, and with that person as a member of it, at the
time of the alleged misconduct. However, when the protest committee remains constituted (3 persons)
without that person being a member it is preferable for that member to stand down for the hearing. If that
person happens to be the chairman, it may be appropriate to hand over the chair, even if the person
remains on the protest committee. This would be especially appropriate if the behaviour being
investigated was directed at the protest committee member concerned. In addition, if a fresh protest
committee has to be set up, any person to be called as a witness should not be a member of the committee.
4. PROTEST COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
Q4.1. It is noted that the protest committee must promptly inform the competitor in writing of the alleged
misconduct, and of the time and place of the hearing. How much notice should be given?
A4.1 Rule 63.2 requires the competitor to be allowed reasonable time to prepare for the hearing. When
the misconduct is learned of in a protest hearing, particularly if the facts are already well established for
the purposes of rule 2, it would be appropriate to proceed directly to a rule 69 hearing if the competitor
does not object, with a short break to allow for any further preparation: note the form already used for the
v10 Dec 2004
4
protest is not sufficient to convene the hearing; a new written notification is needed, but it can be given
when the protest decision is announced. Otherwise, if the alleged misconduct occurs during a regatta, a
hearing called for the same or the following day will usually be satisfactory, and it is unfair to the
competitor to leave a serious allegation unheard for several days. Misconduct occurring on the last day of
a regatta (whether before or after the prizegiving) needs a hearing that day, if at all possible.
Q4.2 What should be included in the written allegation?
A4.2. It must state specifically and in detail what is alleged to have happened, and whether, in each case,
this is believed to be a gross breach of a rule (and, if so, which), or a gross breach of good manners or
sportsmanship, or a bringing of the sport into disrepute.
Q4.3. If the competitor asks for more time to prepare, should this be granted?
A4.3. Yes, but, in the case of regatta, not if a reasonable time has already been given, and to give more
would delay the hearing beyond the end of the event.
Q4.4. Is a competitor entitled to be represented at a rule 69 hearing?
A4.4. Yes. Indeed, this should be encouraged. It will prevent false accusations from an upset penalized
competitor concerning the conduct of the hearing. The competitor can be represented or assisted by
anyone the competitor chooses, including a friend, a parent, a coach, or a lawyer. That person can advise
the competitor as to how to answer questions, can question witnesses, and can sum up in favour of the
competitor. If legal representation is involved, the protest committee chairman/chairwoman in particular
must be a person capable of firm control of the hearing.
Q4.5. What action should be taken if the competitor threatens the protest committee with legal action?
A4.5. Do not delay the hearing. Be absolutely sure that the hearing procedure is correct and that the
procedure and the evidence is fully documented and recorded. If time permits, consult the Legal
Department of the RYA, whose further advice might also be sought after the hearing.
Q4.6. Are any special measures advised when the competitor is a junior?
A4.6. Yes, as follows.
•
The junior’s parents or legal guardian should be advised of the imminent hearing, and this may best
be done by the protest committee chairman/chairwoman in person.
•
The protest committee chairman/chairwoman should take positive steps to ensure that the competitor
has present (whether or not actually as a representative) an adult who can give advice and who should
be entitled to ask questions of witnesses and speak for the competitor.
•
If that adviser is not a parent, a parent should also be made welcome as an observer at the hearing.
•
The questioning of the competitor by the protest committee, while firm, should take account of the
competitor’s age, and the atmosphere of the hearing should not be intimidatory.
Q4.7. How should the hearing be conducted?
A4.7. As required by the parts of the procedure for hearing protests that apply – rules 63.2, 63.3, 63.4
and 63.6. In addition, it is most important that a record is kept as near verbatim as possible of the
procedure, questions, answers and statements. This task should be delegated either to one of the members
of the committee, or (preferably) to a secretary.
v10 Dec 2004
5
Q4.8. Is the competitor allowed to object to a member of the committee?
A4.8. The competitor should be asked at the start of the hearing whether he has any objection to any
member of the committee. An interested party, as defined, should not be a member of the committee, nor
if in the past there have been strong individual disagreements or animosity between the competitor and
the intended committee member. As stated above (Q&A 3.5), a person need not be prevented from being
a member of the protest committee for having seen the alleged incident. An objection should be upheld
only when there are firm grounds for doing so.
Q4.9. If the allegation of misconduct has come from the race committee, is a member of the race
committee entitled to be present throughout the hearing?
A4.9. No. Only a party to the hearing, as defined, is entitled to be present throughout. The procedure is
not the normal ‘adversarial’ one of a boat v boat protest. It is inquisitorial, with the protest committee in
the role of inquisitor. Race committee members are no different from any other witness, and are present
only to give evidence and be questioned. As there is no ‘prosecutor’ as such, the identities of witnesses
supporting the allegations must be established before the hearing, and steps taken to ensure their presence.
However, see also the footnote to A4.11 (6).
Q4.10. What happens if the competitor fails to attend the hearing?
A4.10. The committee should try to establish the reason. If the competitor cannot attend a hearing for a
good reason, the hearing should be postponed and heard later when it is convenient to do so. If the
competitor has already left the event and as a result cannot reasonably be expected to attend a hearing,
rule 69.1(d) says that there will be no hearing. Instead, the protest committee shall collect all available
information, and if the allegation seems justified, make a report to the relevant national authority(ies).
However, if a competitor who is notified of a hearing to be held during the course of an event decides to
quit the scene and not attend, the hearing can proceed in the competitor’s absence.
Q4.11. What are the main steps of the hearing?
A.4.11 (1) Introduce the members of the committee by name, stating any relevant judging qualifications.
(2) Ask if there are any objections to any member of the committee, and rule on any objection.
(3) Ask if sufficient time has been given for preparation.
(4) Ask if the competitor clearly understands what is alleged. If English is not the first language of
the competitor, offer the services of a translator.
(5) Explain to the competitor what the possible outcome might be if the allegation is upheld, in
terms of the choice of a warning or a penalty, the type of penalty that is possible, and the
consequences that follow from penalization.
(6) Hear the main witness supporting the allegation, and allow the competitor to question the
witness, who may then be questioned by the committee That person should then leave the hearing,
unless he or she is a member of the protest committee, whose presence throughout has been
foreseen.5
(7) Hear the evidence of the competitor, who may then be questioned by the committee. Probe for
any mitigating reasons for admitted bad behaviour.
5
The person bringing the allegation is not a party to the hearing, and that person ranks only as a witness. Rule 63.3, which
applies to hearings under rule 69.1, states clearly that any witness, other than a member of the protest committee, shall be
excluded except when giving evidence. That precludes any witness, other than a member of the protest committee, from
questioning the competitor.
v10 Dec 2004
6
(8) Hear, one by one, other witnesses supporting the allegations, and allow the competitor to
question each witness, who may then be questioned by the committee.
(9) Hear, one by one, the witnesses called by the competitor: allow the competitor to question
each witness, who may then be questioned by the committee.
(10) Ask the competitor to sum up his case.
(11) Ask the competitor and all others present to withdraw, and confer.
(12) Find the facts, writing down exactly what happened and/or what was said. If the use of
bad language is relevant to the case, write down the exact words believed to have been used. As
with a protest, avoid making conclusions in the facts found.
(13) Conclude in writing whether the facts constitute a gross breach of a rule (in which case, state
the rule) or of good manners or sportsmanship, or a bringing of the sport into disrepute.
(14) The test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ should be applied. This is quite different from a protest
hearing between boats, where the test of ‘balance of probabilities’ would be appropriate.
(15) Recall the competitor to announce whether the allegation is upheld or dismissed. If it is
dismissed, close the hearing. If it is upheld, ask the competitor whether there are any mitigating
circumstances the committee might consider when deciding whether to warn or penalize. Receive
any apologies.
(16) Ask the competitor to withdraw again, and decide whether only to warn, or to penalize, in
which case decide the penalty. See Q&As 4.13, 4.14, 4.15 and 6.3 below.
(17) Recall the competitor, and announce the decision. Repeat or explain it if necessary, but avoid
getting into further argument if the competitor is upset and does not accept the decision.
(18) Explain the right of appeal (see below).
(19) Advise the race committee of the decision if it affects the scores for the event, or if a
competitor is to be excluded for the remainder of the event.
(20) Post a notice on the official notice board, giving the result of the hearing, but not facts or
conclusions. These are confidential, and their publication could give rise to legal action.
(21) If a penalty is imposed, notify the facts found, conclusions and decision to the RYA. Include
the names of the committee and the address of the chairman/chairwoman. Record that the
competitor was asked whether sufficient time had been given for preparation, and whether there
was any objection to the composition of the committee, noting the answers given. Advise also (if
different), the national authorities of the competitor and of the boat owner.
(22) Retain all records for at least a year.
Q 4.12 If evidence arises at the hearing of further misconduct that was not referred to in the original
written allegation, can this be considered by the committee, and penalized as well?
A4.12. No. The hearing must be confined to the contents of the written allegation, Evidence of other bad
behaviour is not admissible, and cannot be penalized. A separate hearing would be required.
Q4.13. What is the point of only issuing a warning, if no report is made? What is to stop the same thing
happening again in the future, with the same outcome, if the next protest committee is unaware of what
happened before?
A4.13. Warnings are usually taken seriously by competitors. If the protest committee believes from the
demeanour of the competitor at the hearing that a warning would not be heeded, then it should penalize. If
the competitor’s boat has already been given a non-excludable disqualification for breaking rule 2 (DNE),
and if it were thought that this is sufficient punishment, then a warning would be appropriate. See also
Q&A 4.15.
v10 Dec 2004
7
Q4.14. What are the options for penalizing?
A4.14. These are set out in rule 69.1(b)(2). Individual competitors can be excluded from a race, or the
remaining races or all races of the series, and boats can be disqualified from a race, or the remaining races
or all races of the series, when appropriate.
Exclusion from a race that has already been sailed would be appropriate if the misconduct occurred
during that race. In order for this to be reflected in the score, the boat must also be disqualified from that
race, and the disqualification, identified as ‘DGM’ for scoring purposes, is not excludable and must be
counted towards the results of the series. If a competitor is excluded from races not yet sailed, the effect
that this has on the boat’s participation in future races will depend on the rules applicable to crew
substitution at the event. Disqualification of the boat from future races would be appropriate when there
was serious misconduct during a race either by the person in charge or by more than one crew member.
A combination of competitor exclusion from later races and boat disqualification from previous races is
permitted
If a hearing under rule 69 follows a penalization under rule 2, then the effect of a disqualification for the
race concerned under rule 69.1(b)(2) will be a duplicated non-excludable penalty, but one that will now
be reported to the RYA, which may be felt to be sufficient additional penalty. However, in serious cases,
a rule 2 DNE (which can only be for the race concerned) might quite properly be followed by a rule 69
DGM for later or all races.
When misconduct occurs after the last race of a series, there is now nothing from which a competitor can
be excluded, and so the only option may be to disqualify the boat concerned, presumably from the last
race.
The maximum penalty is exclusion or disqualification from the whole regatta or series, unless there is
some other action possible within the protest committee’s jurisdiction. There is no authority to impose a
penalty relevant to any other event or series, even if it is organized by the same authority.
Q4.15. What ranks as an ‘other action within its (the protest committee’s) jurisdiction’?
A 4.15. When a competitor has been excluded from future races, the protest committee may wish as well
to exclude the competitor from the event location.
When there has been damage, the protest committee can require compensation or restitution.
It could be appropriate (rather than to disqualify a boat or exclude the competitor) to penalize by
worsening a boat’s points score in a race or in the series – a form of ‘negative redress’.
Some events are scored on overall elapsed or corrected times, often over a number of legs, and it is
against the policy of the event that boats are disqualified. Instead, boats are penalized in protests, not by
disqualification, but by the award of time penalties. In such an event, a rule 69 hearing might result in a
very heavy time penalty for a boat rather than exclusion of a competitor or a boat.
It would also be appropriate for the protest committee to send a report of its findings, as well as to the
RYA, to any club or sailing body of which the competitor is a member, and the fact that the protest
committee has acted and the national authority may also take action does not preclude any other body
then taking action within its jurisdiction.
Taking some other action within the protest committee’s jurisdiction may be selected instead of exclusion
or disqualification, or it can be additional.
When a protest committee takes any other action within its jurisdiction, this ranks as a penalty (see rule
69.1(b)(2), and must therefore be reported to the RYA
When an apology is freely and sincerely offered by a competitor, it is appropriate for the apology, as well
as being made directly to anyone who was affected by the misconduct, to be put in writing and posted on
the official notice board. A voluntary apology is not a penalty, and it might lead to the protest committee
more towards a warning than penalization. However, when an apology is not forthcoming voluntarily, and
v10 Dec 2004
8
the protest committee requires one to be made, this ranks an ‘other action’ within its jurisdiction, which
would give rise to the need to report the matter to the RYA, even if no other penalty is imposed.
Q4.16. Is there a right to request a reopening of the hearing?
A4.16. There is no explicit power for a rule 69 hearing to be reopened, but it would be appropriate to
follow the principles of rule 66, and reconvene to restart proceedings, for instance if material new
evidence became available, or when it transpires that a competitor had a good reason for failing to attend
a hearing but is now available, or if the protest committee realises that it has made a mistake.
5. THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
Q5.1. Can the competitor appeal against the decision?
A5.1. Yes. Rule 70.1 gives the right of appeal to a boat or competitor that is a party to a hearing, and a
party is defined to include a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1. The facts found cannot be
appealed. Grounds for appeal might be:
•
that a conclusion of misconduct and a decision therefore to penalize (or warn) was not supported by
the facts found: or
•
that the protest committee had found that there was a gross breach of a racing rule, when in fact it was
possible that no rule had been broken; or
•
that the procedures of the protest committee were alleged to have been at fault.
While there is no explicit power to appeal on the grounds that the penalty imposed was inappropriate, the
national authority is permitted by rule 71.2 to change the protest committee’s decision, and it would be
inequitable to refuse an appeal that claimed an inappropriate penalty.
The RYA may uphold, change or reverse the protest committee's decision. There is no provision in rule
71.2 to return the case for a new hearing, as that applies only to protests and requests for redress. If there
is an appeal from a hearing when only a warning was given, this is treated strictly as an appeal only, and
it does not activate the role of the national authority under rule 69.2.
Q5.2. Can the race committee, or the organizing authority, or the original complainant, or some other
boat or person lodge an appeal if it disagrees with the protest committee’s decision?
A5.2. No
Q5.3. If a competitor is excluded (or a boat is disqualified) from one or more race in the rest of the series,
can he or she give notice of an intention to appeal, and continue to compete?
A5.3. No. He or she must comply with the penalty. Not to do so should result in a further action under
rule 69.1.
6. THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PENALTY
Q6.1. If a report of a penalty is made to the RYA, what happens next?
A6.1. The case is considered by a Tribunal with legal expertise, wide racing experience and knowledge of
the racing rules. The options open to the Tribunal are set out in rule 69.2. The RYA will contact the
competitor to advise its intentions. That might be to say that it does not intend to take matters further.
Q6.2. When reporting a penalty under rule 69.1 to the RYA, is it appropriate for the protest committee to
advise if it feels that further penalization is, or is not, appropriate?
A6.2. Yes. The RYA welcomes this.
v10 Dec 2004
9
Q6.3. Is there any other official guidance on rule 69?
A6.3. See pages 74-78 of the ISAF International Judges’ Manual, available from ISAF and on the ISAF
website (www.sailing.org).
In addition, the RYA suggests the following ranges of action. (levels 1 to 5 following a hearing):
- Interview with competitor, but no hearing (level 0)
- Warning, but no penalty (level 1)
- Increase the boat’s points score (level 2)
- Disqualify boat or exclude competitor from race or races (level 3)
- Disqualify boat or exclude competitor from event (level 4)
- Disqualify boat or exclude competitor from event and recommend further action by RYA (level 5).
The table below shows types of alleged behaviour that will lead to a rule 69 hearing, and appropriate
outcomes if the allegation is proven. The range of outcomes allows the seriousness of the offence,
whether it is a repeated offence and the attitude of the competitor to be taken into account.
Misconduct Established by the Protest Committee
Range of
action
A breach of a racing rule that may be sufficiently serious, or linked to unacceptable
behaviour, such that the normal penalty may be inadequate
0–4
Repeating the same measurement offence with intent
3–5
Bullying, intimidating or discriminatory behaviour against another competitor
3–5
Lying in a protest committee hearing
3–5
Foul language: intended to offend, or inappropriate for the occasion or location
0–4
Fighting and assaults
3–5
Intentionally disobeying a reasonable request of the organizing authority or its
officials
0–5
Abuse of officials
0–5
Theft, damage or abuse of property
3–5
NOTE
This document has been updated to comply with the Racing Rules of Sailing 2005-2008.
v10 Dec 2004
10