THIS DECISION MEANS THAT THE JURY disqualified Land Rover BAR just from yesterday's race, not more than that as some misconstrued when they read the jury's decision online. It has no impact on yesterday's results inasmuch as GBR lost the race anyway. But had GBR gone on to win the race, this decision (after racing) would have taken the point away from GBR, and assuming JPN completed the race, they would have been awarded the point. Had JPN not been able to complete due to damage, the jury could have awarded them redress (and a point), but the jury didn't have to get into that as far as Race 6 itself is concerned since JPN got the win anyway. However, if it is determined by the Measurement Committee that JPN had serious damage as a result of GBR (1) being the keep clear yacht, and (2) their failure to keep clear, and that (3) JPN is reasonably unable to compete for some period of time (starting with today's racing), then the jury might award them some sort of redress – points in lieu of race results, or require make-up races down the road. Stay tuned, and as always you will read it first, with proper analysis, here on SAILING ILLUSTRATED. –FLB
AC35 Jury Notice #01
Date 27 May 2017
Yachts GBR vs. JPN
• There was a collision between GBR and JPN in the pre-start of race 6.
• JPN was to leeward and GBR was to windward, with the port (leeward) hull of GBR
lifting up and hitting on top of the starboard (windward) hull of JPN.
• Both boats Y-flag protested.
• The umpires penalized GBR for breaking rule 11.
• Both yachts continued to sail and finish the race.
• Both yachts requested the Measurement Committee (MC) to assess the damage
after the race under rule 60.8.
• The MC determined that GBR had serious damage.
• The MC is currently assessing damage on JPN and will report to the jury tonight.
• The on-the-water umpire agreed with the call from the booth and that JPN could not have avoided the contact from the moment it was clear that GBR was not keeping clear.
• It was not possible for JPN to avoid the contact when it was clear that GBR was not
keeping clear. JPN did not break rule 14.
• It was possible for GBR to avoid the contact. GBR broke rule 14 and is disqualified.
• GBR is not entitled to redress.
• The jury is awaiting a final report from the MC with regards to JPN and will amend
this notice with regards to redress, if any, for JPN.
Jurisprudence, by the noted Norwegian painter Edvard Munch,1887, from the Expressionism Period. Media: oil, canvas. Courtesy of the National Gallery, Oslo, Norway.