Well, if Boat B t-boned and sank the committee boat, then she could be protested (serious damage) and penalized. That, however, was not the scenerio posed.

There's no hard and fast rule about what a protest committee can do for redress. RRS 64.2 states "When the protest committee decides that a boat is entitled to redress under rule 62, it shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected...". That arrangement is limited only by the imagination of the committee.

When I'm considering what (if any) redress to grant, my litmus test is what whould have happened if RC (in this case) had done the correct thing. Taking the original facts as stated (i.e. Boat B hit the mark), then the right thing for RC to have done was to protest B (rather than score her DNF). If B admits to the infraction, then it is a short step to say she would likely have been disqualified. So, if RC had done it right, the score outcome would have been the same. That leads me to deny the "no fault of her own" claim. Or, possibly, to decide that the most fair thing is to let the DNF score stand.

If, however, B claims not to have hit the mark, then (in the absence of other information or sportsmanship issues) I would lean the other way. Without a protest hearing to find fact, and being unable to convene a protest hearing, I'd be inclined to grant redress. I think that is how an appeals committee would view things (based on my readings of the appeals casebook), which is why I said I think B would probably win an appeal. Reinstating B's finish position is a fair and likely redress.

Aren't hypothetical situations fun? The more you study them, the more the outcome is "it depends".

Regards,
Eric