This appendix is advisory only; in some circumstances changing these procedures may be advisable. It is addressed primarily to pro-test committee chairmen but may also help judges, protest committee secretaries, race committees and others connected with protest and redress hearings.

In a protest or redress hearing, the protest committee should weigh all testimony with equal care; should recognize that honest testimony can vary, and even be in conflict, as a result of different observations and recollections; should resolve such differences as best it can; should recognize that no boat or competitor is guilty until a breach of a rule has been established to the satisfaction of the protest commit-tee; and should keep an open mind until all the evidence has been heard as to whether a boat or competitor has broken a rule.

M1 PRELIMINARIES (may be performed by race office staff)

M2.1 Make sure that

M2.2 Determine if any members of the protest committee saw the incident. If so, require each of them to state that fact in the presence of the parties (rule 63.6 ).

M2.3 Assess conflicts of interest.

M3.1 Check the validity of the protest or request for redress.

M3.2 Take the evidence (rule 63.6).

M3.3 Find the facts (rule 63.6).

M3.4 Decide the protest or request for redress (rule 64).

M3.5 Inform the parties (rule 65).

M4.1 When a party, within the time limit, has asked for a hearing to be
reopened, hear the party making the request, look at any video, etc., and decide whether there is any material new evidence that might lead you to change your decision. Decide whether your interpretation of the rules may have been wrong; be open-minded as to whether you have made a mistake. If none of these applies refuse to reopen; otherwise schedule a hearing.

M4.2 Evidence is ‘new’

An action under this rule is not a protest, but the protest committee gives its allegations in writing to the competitor before the hearing. The hearing is conducted under rules similar to those governing a protest hearing but the protest committee must have at least three members (rule 69.2(a)). Use the greatest care to protect the competitor’s rights.
A competitor or a boat cannot protest under rule 69, but the protest form of a competitor who tries to do so may be accepted as a report to the protest committee, which can then decide whether or not to call a hearing.
Unless World Sailing has appointed a person for the role, the protest committee may appoint a person to present the allegation. This person might be a race official, the person making the allegation or other appropriate person. When no reasonable alternative person is available, a person who was appointed as a member of the protest committee may present the allegation.
When it is desirable to call a hearing under rule 69 as a result of a Part 2 incident, it is important to hear any boat-vs.-boat protest in the normal way, deciding which boat, if any, broke which rule, before proceeding against the competitor under rule 69.
Although action under rule 69 is taken against a competitor, boat owner or support person, and not a boat, a boat may also be penalized (rules 69.2(h)(2) and 64.4).
When a protest committee upholds a rule 69 allegation it will need to consider if it is appropriate to report to either a national authority or World Sailing. Guidance on when to report may be found in the World Sailing Case Book. When the protest committee does make a report it may recommend whether or not further action should be taken.
Unless the right of appeal is denied in accordance with rule 70.5, a party to a rule 69 hearing may appeal the decision of the protest committee.
Further guidance for protest committees about misconduct may be found on the World Sailing website.

M6 APPEALS (rule 70 and Appendix R)
When decisions can be appealed,

Photographs and videotapes can sometimes provide useful evidence but protest committees should recognize their limitations and note the following points: