AMERICA CUP RACE

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 35, 11 February 1935, Page 7

AMERICA CUP RACE

ENDEAVOUR'S PROTEST

W : YORK" DECISION

The New York-Yacht Club ha's published: an official report containing an explanation of its reason, for refusing to hear Mr. ~Sopwith's" protests against the Rainbow in the fourth race of the "series recently completed for the America Gup at Newport, says the "Daily Telegraph." ' ■ The "report states in -unequivocal terms thatin the opinion the.Rainbow was fouled by the Endeavour just before the start. . . The committee says that had.Mr. Sopwith raised his protest flag immediately after the incident occurred, instead of later on in the race, as he did after what has come to be known as the "luffing incident, 1' Mr. Vanderbilt would probably have done likewise,.; and entered a counter-protest. [The protest was that the Rainbow failed to meet, the Endeavour's first luf£.;and that the defender, failed, to respect the challenger's right of way before the start.] Mr. Vanderbilt did not hoist a protest'flag, the committee points out, because of an understanding between himself and the committee which had been made prior to the races, that protests should .be avoided as far as possible. Froih their own pbservar tion'of the incident at the start.of the fourth "race, the committee states that had not' Mr. Sopwith's first protest on that day been /set faside by them, they would have had -to ' disqualify " 'the Endeavour. "MUCH ADO . . . " The dual protesting by both boats in the last race is cursorily dismissed as much ado about nothing, the com- ■ mittee holding that no foul had been committed. To support its arguments, the report contains two photographs taken during the alleged foul. , The report further reviews in detail the correspondence exchanged surrounding the protest incident. "•A.•■.'few-, passages may usefully be quoted from the report: Endeavour's delay in displaying protest flag was so glaring a violation of Rule 45 that the committee felt they j could not overlook it. - - They further declare:: ' It seemed impossible to the committee that taking of evidence at- a hearing would cause %us to modify materially the views formed as a result of our own very clear observation and now -substantiated by photographs. . We are reliably informed that only the international character of the race ■prevented Rainbow from protesting at the start. .■ : . '■ The committee were unanimously of opinion that in the event of a hearing they would have had to disqualify.the Endeavour for having failed to observe Racing Rule 30, Section F. ■.'■■'■/. We believe we could serve no useful purpose in holding a hearing, which could only have resulted in the disqualification of Endeavour. "I'have not seen the report of the. j race committee of the New York Yacht Club," wrote Major W. B. Heckstall- ] Sniith in commenting on the above. I If r the extracts are correct it would j appear that ' after a lapse of three months the Race Committee has pub- I lished a verdict upon the case or cases without having held any inquiry or trial. ' - - In the fourth race of the series Mr. ■Sopwith made two protests, against Rainbow. The Race Committee dismissed these protests because Mr. Sopwith did riot hoist his protest flag 'ipromptly'' -as Rule 45 ("Protests") requires: -■■'■■ ;.~ • • -.- : -~'■•• r: It was then open to the Race Committee to; consider the incidents under the rule of their club Number 47. This rule is called "Disqualification -without Protest." ■•■ ■-...;■■ :::' •..-,;. ■ -j ; - ;. ; i ;y : ":',' ' " THE SAME. "'■ . ■''-' ;'. It is., immaterial to a competitor 'whether his case is heard by the judges under Rule 45 or Rule 47, because' the' procedure under both rules is similar; the evidence must be heard before the verdict of the judges is given. Rule 47 of. the New York Yacht Club reads: "Should it come to the j knowledge of the Race Committee/ or they have. reasonable grounds jtd v belieye thata competitor' : in a race'-l lias infringed 'these.rules,; they 'shall j have -the power to disqualify such competitor without protest, but only after! notice has been given as hereafter provided and after a hearing at which the owner of the yacht involved shall .have the right to be present and submit . such evidence as he may deem necessary. . ~.": . ' . "The jßaica Committee of the New York Yacht; .Club, having dismissed the:;protesfsxunder^.Rule 45 (on the grounds, that■,the,;protest flag was not promptly/flown) "did not proceed to hear 4Ke .cases under Rule 47. According to the. extracts from the report it appears their reasons for not hearing the cases, under Rule 47 were: O) That they observed what they 'considered, to'be a foul, on the part of the Endeavour; (2): if they had heard the cases, they would have had to disqualify .the.: Endeavour.' ■ '■■■ ; In other, words, the judges have now promulgated ;a decision condemning Mr. ' Sopwith without hearing ,his evidence or.jftat of his witnesses. '•'