This is an example of where a protest hearing might have provided some closure. Let's suppose you had been protested. In the hearing you state that you believed that you rounded the mark (even though you couldn't see it) because you were in a pack of boats that sailed the course correctly. Let's further suppose that the protest committee does things right, identifies the other boats in the pack, protests them as well, closes the hearing and begins a new one. In that hearing, PC sifts through testimony from all the boats, and from any witnesses, and determines who did or did not sail the course. PC exonerates boats that sailed correctly and disqualifies those who did not.

Now, had that occured, then either way (exonerated or disqualified), you wouldn't be left wondering.


This raises an interesting point (and one sometimes missed by seasoned judges too). Rule 28 allows a boat to correct any errors before finishing, so she doesn't actually break it until she crosses the line (at which point there's no exoneration). Therefore, the requirement to inform the protestee (rule 61.1) occurs after the finish. If someone hails you on the course that you missed a mark, he is effectively doing you a favor. He is helping you keep from breaking a rule.

Regards,
Eric