Facts found:
Lasers were being issued from 17 July 2012 onwards.
The EIC found supplied equipment in the container park during the week and advised athletes to remove their equipment from the container park.
A warning was issued to the 9.00 hrs Team Leaders meeting on 24 July that violations of EIR 1.7 after midday would be protested.
Laser GRE arrived on site on 24 July and was issued his boat around 12.00 hrs.
The EIC chairman found Laser GRE at the GRE container in the container park on 24 July around 1300 hrs.
The EIC chairman recommended that the DPI be zero points.

Facts found:
During the second beat of the practice race Finn USA was partially outside of the boundary of the Competetion Area for a few seconds. The competitor was aware of the requirement to stay within the Competition Area. He had intended to sail as close to the boundary as possible, without crossing it. There was no other boat involved. Finn USA continued in the race but did not finish.

Facts found:
UKR sailing by-the-lee on port tack, reaches the zone of last starboard gate mark 2S before the finish, 2 boat lengths clear ahead of ITA who was 1 boat length clear ahead of POL both on Starboard tack.
At the mark UKR gybed, his boom touched the water and got pressure into the sail and the boat luffed 1 boat length to leeward of the mark.
ITA passed 1/2 a boat length behind of UKR.
POL passed within less than half a meter of the mark and collided with the starboard quarter of UKR"s hull.
UKR was damaged - hole in the hull.
UKR and POL retired from race 1 and UKR did not sail race 2.
ITA finished race 1.

Facts found:
POR had one outstanding penalty approaching mark 1 on the second lap of the race. She was far enough ahead of FIN that she could have taken her penalty before rounding the mark and remained ahead of FIN.
POR on port passed the mark about 1.5m to windward.
As she passed the mark, the anchor line became hooked on the keel and the mark moved towards the boat and there was contact.
The umpires penalised POR for the mark contact. While POR was attached to the mark, FIN rounded the mark to windward and passed ahead, winning the race.
The mark was laid with an anchor line of 30m length with no weight on the anchor line to hold it down in a place where the depth was at most 8m. After the race the depth of the anchor line was measured from the surface, 1.5m from the mark, to be less than 1.5m. The draft of an Elliott is 1.55m.

Facts found:
Star GBR requested to withdraw the request for redress after reviewing the evidence.

Facts found:
USA made 2 requests to the International Jury:
1 - USA requested redress alleging that the IJ had made an error in the decision in case 5 by not making an arrangement for USA even though they were in another match and had experienced the same circumstances.

2 - USA requested the International Jury to re-open hearing 5.
USA was not a party to the original hearing.

Other facts:
USA did not display a red flag during her match and did not request redress for the circumstances experienced during the match.
The International Jury was in no doubt about the facts or probable results of the arrangement that they had made for the redress granted to POR in match 10.

Facts found:
On the last downwind leg LTU and CRO approach Mark 3p to be rounded to port to reach to the finish, both on starboard tack.
5 boatlenghts from the mark CRO was inside overlapped to LTU .
Both boats gibed before rounding the mark. LTU gibed before CRO gibed.
LTU sailed wide around the mark to give room to ESP and GBR ahead of her.
At the mark CRO rounded inside of LTU and had room to do so.
There was no contact

Facts found:
The starting sequence was on schedule.
The VEN coach Boat engine stopped.
After some time he restarted the engine and the boat started moving slowly in the direction of the Coach Boat Zone.
10 seconds after the Preparatory signal the boat was still outside the Coach Boat Zone.

Facts found:
After the start of Race 2 of Laser Standard and while the orange flag for Race 2 of Laser Radial was displayed, Coach boat of URU, Mr. Diego Masseroni Bowley in boat number 195 left the Coach Boat Zone and approached Laser Radial URU sailor who at that moment was sailing close to the starting line. After some time URU Coach returned to the Coach Boat Zone.
In the hearing Mr. Diego Masseroni Bowley apologized for the incident.

Facts found:
Mr Arthur BRETT GBR was observed twice outside the Coach Boat Zone after the Warning of first start and until all racing has been completed for Laser Course area.
At the hearing Mr Arthur BRETT apologized for the incident.

Facts found:
NZL had to wait for the previous match to end before getting onto their allocated boat. ESP had sailed their boat out from the harbour.
ESP was instructed by the OA not to hoist their jib or spinnaker before NZL got ino their boat. ESP complied with this request.
After getting onto their allocated boat, NZL had approximately 25 minutes for prepararation before the attention signal, including 5 minutes extra time given by the Race Committee.
Boats are generally given 15 minutes for preparations before the attention signal.
NZL entered on time at her preparatory signal.

Facts found:
FRA to leeward and NED to windward sailing downwind. FRA luffed and there was contact with the spinnaker of NED and the shrouds of FRA. NED could have avoided contact and was penalised by the umpires. NED lost control and the boom and sail of NED were in the cockpit of FRA.
FRA bore away to avoid further contact. The tiller of FRA became caught in the spinnaker pole bail on the boom of NED. The tiller broke at the rudder stock.
NED won the match. FRA sailed the course.

Facts found:
POR on starboard approached the Competition Area boundary. She hailed and signaled GBR for room to tack. GBR responded immediately. POR did not hear or see the reply "you tack" and continued to sail for a short distance. POR hailed again and GBR tacked immediately. POR was penalised by the umpires. POR then tacked and during the tack 1m of the boat crossed the boundary.

Description:
Class Rules, safety equipment.

Facts found:
AUS did not have a towing rope during Race 3.

Facts found:
In Race 4 EST below close-hauled on starboard and above the layline approached mark 1 on a converging course with FRA close-hauled on port.
After entering the zone FRA tacked to leeward of EST. After FRA completed her tack approximately one boat length from the mark the lateral distance between FRA and EST was more than one metre.
EST luffed no higher than close-hauled.

Facts found:
Mr Bruno DI BERNADI and Mr Thomas RAHM, where observed outside the Coach Boat Zone after the Warning of first start and until all racing has been completed for Laser Course area.
At the hearing Mr. Ricardo Lobato who represented Mr Bruno DI BERNADI and Mr Thomas RAHM apologized for the incident.

Facts found:
See Case 17

Facts found:
Mr Victor BRIUKHOV (boat 204) was observed outside the Coach Boat Zone after the Warning of first start and until all racing has been completed for Laser Course area.
At the hearing Mr Victor BRIUKHOV apologized for the incident.

Facts found:
SWE"s protest form identifies the time of the incident and a rule number.

Facts found:
RUS retired after finishing.
RC requested withdrawal of its protest.

Facts found:
Approaching the last rounding mark (3p) before the reach to the finish POR entered the zone on starboard with SWE also on starboard overlapped on her inside.
POR gybed onto port. Then SWE gybed onto port. Both boats rounded the mark.
There was no contact.

Facts found:
CAN was represented by Ben Remoocker, coach.
CAN"s fin was replaced by OA on her request, night before races 1 and 2. During races CAN was unhappy with board steerage performance. After finishing she found cracks on both sides of the fin base. CAN finished 6th in race 1 and 14th in race 2.

Facts found:
The race committee identified TUR as OCS in Race 5. AUT, CHN and GRE were also identified as OCS.
A race committee boat made sound signals and displayed an X-flag, the national letters of TUR, AUT, CHN and GRE and their Event flag in the vicinity of both mark 1 and again mark 2.
AUT, CHN and GRE each retired at mark 1.
TUR did not retire and finished the race.
The race committee scored TUR DNE without a hearing.

Facts found:
During the second upwind leg of race 4 UKR Laser crossed the boundary of the competition area. He sailed about 1.5 to 2 boat lengths, tacked and returned within the boundary after over 30 seconds. UKR was not aware that he had crossed the boundary. No other boat was involved.

Facts found:
At the time of the starting signal of Race 3 the RC indentified BUL on the course side of the starting line.
2 seconds after the starting signal RC displayed code flag X (Individual Recall) with sound signal.
BUL did not look at the RC signal boat to check if there was any recall. He did not return to the pre-start side of the starting line but continued racing.
At the mark 1 on the first rounding and mark 1 on the third rounding the RC, being 30 meters from the mark to windward, displayed the board with code flag X and national letters of BUL with continuous sound signals.
BUL did not look at the mark boat.
The Race 3 was broadcasted by helicopter above the racing area.
BUL did not retire but finished race 3.
RC scored BUL DNE in Race 3 without hearing.

Facts found:
On leg 4, POL and NZL were sailing downwind on starboard tack in planing conditions with POL ahead and to windward for 1 minute after rounding mark 1 20 metres (4 seconds) apart. POL started to gybe on the layline appr 7 boat lenghts ahead. When on port tack, POL was on collision course with NZL. Both boards released their sails to slow down the boards. A collision occured, there were gel coat cracks on the NZL board and NZL capsized.
The incident took approximately 20 seconds.
POL took a One Turn Penalty.
The boards rounded mark 2 4 seconds apart with POL ahead of NZL in 4th and 5th place.
POL finished 4th.
NZL finished 7th 35 secondes behind the 6th board.

Facts found:
See Case 27

Facts found:
During the final upwind leg of race 2 today (race 4) EST RS:X M crossed the boundary of the Competition Area. He sailed about 2.5 board lengths, tacked and returned to the Competition Area after approximately 10 seconds. No other boards was involved.

Description:
Collision port / starboard.

Facts found:
On the first windward leg HUN was on starboard tack, GRE was on port tack. A collision occurred between the bow of GRE and the port side of HUN one third of a boat length from the stern. Neither boat did penalty turns. There was no damage to either boat.
From the time that HUN was aware that GRE was not keeping clear there was no opportunity for HUN to keep clear.

Facts found:
The protest form indicated an incident at the first rounding of the windward mark.
The tracking showed that there was no incident between POR and SWE at the first windward mark rounding.
The tracking showed a potencial incident at the second rounding of the windward mark.
The protestcommitee reconsiderd the validity of the protest.

Facts found:
Stephane Christidis, crew represented FRA

AUT approached the windward mark on starboard tack. FRA approached on port tack. She tacked within the three length zone, 3 boat lengths ahead of AUT and lost speed. AUT, travelling faster, closed the distance with FRA to one meter. FRA rounded the mark ahead of AUT.

Facts found:
Protestor represented by: Michael Hestbaek, protestee represented by Peter O"Leary

Notes on procedure: The protestee questioned validity, as the description of the incident was only a diagram with no text. The Jury found that there was enough information on the protest (time and location of incident, identity of protestor and protestee and diagram) to identify the incident as required by RRS 61.2(b)

During the first rounding of the windward mark, DEN and IRL were sailing on port tack, DEN to windward of IRL, with strong wind, waves and current. When DEN was within two boat lengths from the mark, the two boats luffed in order to tack. Shortly after passing head-to-wind the boats came close to each other. There was contact between the bow of IRL and the starboard quarter of DEN. The boats then bore down to close-hauled on starboard tack and sailed around the mark, with DEN in front. Neither boat was damaged, nor did they do penalty turns.

Facts found:
Juan Maria DeLaFuente represented ARG
Jason Sanders represented NZL
ARG was close-hauled on starboard tack. NZL approached closed-hauled on port tack The wind was about 16 to 18 knots and the seas were flat.
ARG on a collision course with NZL amidships hailed "starboard" more than once. NZL held her course. When she came within less than half a boat length of NZL, ARG bore off and passed close astern of NZL.

Facts found:
NZL approached the leeward mark on starboard gybe. CRO gybed to starboard and entered the zone clear astern of NZL. The wind was about 15 knots and the seas flat. CRO established an overlap inside of NZL inside the zone. The boats passed the mark with 2 to 3 meters between their hulls, with CRO inside NZL. As they luffed at the mark CRO"s spinnaker was flapping. Contact occurrred between the spinnaker of CRO and the back of the crew of NZL

Facts found:
POR approached the windward mark on starboard tack on the layline. CRO and GRE approached on port tack with CRO to leeward and ahead. After CRO passed in front of POR, GRE tacked onto starboard in front of POR inside the zone. POR luffed above close-hauled to avoid contact before GRE completed the tack.

Facts found:
ESP was ahead of POR with a penalty, approaching mark 1 for the second time. Both boats sailed above the mark and out of the zone, ESP then bore away to take her penalty. Before she completed the penalty turn, there was serious interference from the match umpire boat which pushed her into the zone. The umpires signalled that the penalty remained. Both boats sailed on downwind with ESP just ahead of POR.
The umpires consulted with the ISAF Race Officer and the Race Committee abandoned the match.
The ISAF Race Management Policies for the Olympic Sailing Competition Match Racing 5.1 states:" Any decision to abandon a match will be made by the ISAF Race Officer based on the following criteria. The race management team may consult with the match umpires.
(ii) Serious interference with a competing boat by an umpire"

Facts found:
DEN and ISR were sailing downwind, with DEN on starboard tack and ISR on port tack. The wind was 10 to 15 knots with swells and waves. The boats converged and came within half a boat length of each other. DEN bore away to avoid contact and then ISR gybed. There was no contact.

Facts found:
In deciding the validity of the protest, the jury took into consideration the fact that there was no text accompanying the diagram. As noted in case 34, it was found that the requirements of RRS 61.2(b) had been met.

The protestor of case 34 left the hearing room, while the hearing was in progress, to look for evidence from the tracking information. He was accompanied by a member of the jury. He had a brief exchange in Danish with the person handing tracking system print-outs, who was his rules advisor. This was a remark concerning what was shown on the print-outs. The evidence from the tracking system did not contribute to the hearing, as stated in front of the parties.

Upon inspection of DEN, a dent was observed on the starboard quarter, likely to have been caused by collision with another boat.

The photographic evidence which was produced after the hearing is positioned so that it can"t be said whether there was contact between the boats.

Facts found:
THA was not present at the hearing.
NED, ITA and THA overlapped on starboard tack with NED to leeward, ITA in the middle and THA to windward entered the zone of leeward gate mark 2P (course LR4) at the end of downwind leg. NED gybed onto port tack, THA gybed second and ITA gybed immediately after.
After ITA gave room to NED she gybed and her boom hit the mast of THA causing ITA spin up to head to wind and was hit by the boom in the head. There was no physical damage to the boats and no injury to the athlete. ITA finished the race and sailed the following one.

Facts found:
FRA on Starboard tack and USA on Port tack on collison courses when approaching the second windward mark in Race 3.
FRA approached the mark above the starboard layline.
USA tacked inside the Zone and completed his tack approx. 1 meter to windward of the mark.
When USA completed his tack, FRA was less than one boat length clear astern of USA.
FRA established the overlap with USA half a meter to windward of USA.
FRA luffed to close-hauled course and both boats bore away to continue racing.
There was no contact.
No penalty turns were taken on the water

Facts found:
NZL presented videos of the BBC coverage of three different episodes in the race, but not this incident. They also presented tracking from the race corresponding to these episodes, as well as the tracking of the incident with ARG. They argued that the tracking is an accurate representation of the TV footage. Since the tracking of their incident shows no alteration of course by ARG as she approached NZL, they argue that the International Jury made a significant error in their decision.

Facts found:
MON on Starboard tack and KOR on Port tack on collision course on first windward leg in race 7, approx 7 boat-lengths from the windward mark.
MON bore away one boat length from KOR but collided with the starboard aft quarter of MON.
The bow of MON was damaged.
No penalty turns were taken on the water.
Both boats finished race 7.

Facts found:
In Race 8 on the port layline approx. 10 boatlengths from mark 1 GBR closehauled on starboard is on a collision course with CRO below closehauled on port. CRO bears away to pass behind GBR"s stern. GBR crosses CRO and tacks onto port. Both boats continue on towards the mark with GBR slightly to windward and approximately bow to bow with CRO.

Facts found:
Race Committee represented by John Parrish

Note on procedure: The request was filed 2 minutes after the protest time limit had expired. Immediately after coming ashore, ARG was requested by the OA to proceed to the media centre where he stayed for a brief period. He then spent considerable time reviewing the video and tracking evidence available to him.

Facts found:
The protestor requested permission to withdraw the protest following the retirement of CRO.

Facts found:
Vered Bouskila represented ISR; Gur Steinberg ISR presented digital evidence.
ISR presented the tracking from the incident which she claims to be accurate. She was unable to present it at the original hearing because of difficulty in using the code to access the system at the time. She argued that the tracking demonstrates facts of the incident different from the facts found in the hearing. She argued that the tracking was significant new evidence.

Facts found:
Protest proceed without THA under RRS 63.3(b).
5 seconds after the starting signal HUN on close-hauled course when THA on windward of HUN sailed below close-hauled course both on starboard tack.
There was contact and the boats entangled.
HUN did not capsize. There was no damage or injury.
No board took a penalty turn.
Both boards finished race 8.

Facts found:
On the last downwind, SWE was sailing on starboard tack for appr 1 minute. CRO was still on the previous leg and sailing close hauled on port. The two boats were on collision courses. Approximately 3 seconds before a possible collision, SWE bore off, healing his boat to windward. There was contact between the masts of the two boats, when SWE passed in front of CRO.
CRO took a two turn penalty.

Facts found:
RC posted their intention to protest at 14:19. PRO completed the protest form within 5 minutes when arriving ashore i.e. 16:21. Protest time limit was 15:10.
International Jury extended the protest time limit.
During the third upwind leg of race 8 ESP RS:X crossed the boundary of the competition area on Nothe course. She sailed about 1 to 2 board lengths, tacked to starboard and returned within the boundary. ESP was not aware that she had crossed the boundary. No other boat was involved.

Facts found:
ESP on the starboard tack and DEN on port tack were approching mark 1.
DEN crossed ahead of ESP and completed her tack to windward of ESP.
There was room for ESP to pass between the mark and DEN.
Boats continued on the reach.

Facts found:
DEN did not informed RC of his intention to protest immediately after he finished.

Facts found:
DEN and ESP each had one penalty outstanding. When the umpires signalled that ESP had completed her penalty, she was on the course side of the finishing line. ESP then crossed the finishing line and the Race Committee signalled her as the winner and scored her one point. DEN still had one penalty outstanding.

Facts found:
Protestor represented by Luke Ramsay
Protestee represented by Efstathios Papadopoulos

Procedural notes: This was heard together with case 56.

30 seconds before the start GRE and CAN were both on starboard tack close to the starting line, with GRE clear ahead. CAN sailed at speed towards a gap to leeward of GRE. GRE bore away to defend her position. The boats became overlapped, CAN luffed and GRE responded. At 5 seconds to go the boats remained within 1 boat width of each other. GRE sheeted in to gain speed in order to start. There was contact between GRE and the crew of CAN. Neither boat took a penalty.

Facts found:
DEN to leeward of ESP approached the last port gate mark in race 4, both on starboard tack overlapped bow to bow.
When DEN and ESP reached the Zone, AUS was clear astern of DEN.
DEN and ESP gybed at the mark, DEN inside of ESP.
At the mark AUS sailed between DEN and mark.
DEN bore away and collision occurred between DEN and ESP.
ESP took a penalty on the water.

Facts found:
DEN requested re-opening based on the new video evidence that became available after coming back ashore.

Facts found:
The International Jury reopened Case 54 based on the significant new video evidence that became available on August 4, 2012.
The Jury proceeded under rule C6.
ESP was invited to the hearing and gave evidence.
NED was invited to the hearing as an observer as she may be affected by the decision of the Jury and was allowed to make a submission at the end of the hearing.
The Jury watched the video in the presence of all parties and observers.

Based on the video evidence the Jury found that after taking a voluntary penalty DEN was penalized by the umpires with a yellow and a red flag. She then luffed, passed head to wind and bore away to a course that was more than ninety degrees from the true wind thereby having taken her penalty.
The umpires did not remove the penalty flags when DEN completed her penalty.
The Race Committee did not establish where DEN was in relation to the finishing line after having taken her penalty.
ESP crossed the finishing line after DEN had taken her penalty.
The Race Committee scored ESP as the winner of the match.

Facts found:
UKR hailed protest approximately 30 seconds after the incident having first done a penalty turn.

Facts found:
While in the quarantine area and shortly before being released to race in the Medal Race, SWE found that the top section of the mast was bent and he openly proceeded to straighten it. It is common practice in the class to straighten the top section of the mast at events with provided equipment, and Laser Class Rule 26 allows this. In addition, Laser Class Rule 5 prohibits sailing with a bent mast.
EIR 3.3 requires permission to be obtained before any repair is done on boats and equipment. SWE did not ask for permission and does not dispute the allegations.
The Equipment Inspection Committee representative stated that if permission for straightening the top section of the mast had been requested, permission would have been given or the top section replaced.

Facts found:

Parties represented by: Gordon Cook (CAN) and Athanasios Papantoniou (RC)

After having considered the evidence available (TV footage and Tracking) before the hearing, the protestor asked for permission to withdraw the request.

Facts found:
After the finish of the Women"s Windsurfer Medal Race, the flag B was hoisted on the RC finishing vessel for 2 minutes as required by SI Q2.3.
UKR did not hail the Race Committee before or during the display of flag B.
Later on shore UKR lodged a protest at the jury office.

Facts found:
20 seconds before the starting signal, ITA, ESP and SWE were overlapped on starboard with ESP in the middle and ITA to windward, moving slowly forward towards the left hand end of the starting line. The distance between ESP and SWE was approximately 2 boat lenghts. SWE tacked onto port and sailed towards ESP. ESP sheeted in and bore away. The boats were on a collision course. SWE tacked back onto starboard while ESP luffed head to wind.
No contact occurred.
No boat took a penalty.

Facts found:
- Hearing started 15 minutes after scheduled time. JPN did not attend and IJ proceeded in her absence under rule 63.3(b).
- At the zone JPN, on starboard and outside was overlaped with BRA in the middle and AUT inside, both on port.
- BRA reached the zone first.
- BRA and AUT gybed inside the zone.
- Contact occured between AUT and BRA and BRA and JPN.

Facts found:
- Wakako Tabata, the crew, repesented JPN.
- Protest time expired at 1651.
- Hearing time was scheduled at 1700 and posted at 1645, i.e. before the protest time expired.
- JPN arrived to Jury office at 1705 and entered jury office.
- Believing that hearing has not started she continued waiting outside Jury Office.
- IJ was looking for parties and did not find her in the waiting area.
- Jury decided to start hearing and made decission in her absence .

Facts found:
The evidence provided at the request to re-open was tracking information from the start of race 10.

Facts found:
- Case reopened. See cases 66 and 68.
- At the zone JPN, on starboard and outside was overlaped with BRA in the middle and AUT inside, both on port.
- BRA and AUT gybed inside the zone at the same time and dropped their spinnakers.
- At the mark AUS clear ahead was rounding mark at the distance of half a meter from AUT.
- AUT and BRA slowed down significantly.
- Contact occured between AUT and BRA and BRA and JPN.

Facts found:
The hearing of the request for redress was held under C6. RUS was invited to the hearing and was allowed to make submissions.

GBR produced video and photographic evidence. The video was shot at an angle below the actual finishing line, and a photo that was taken from an angle that does not allow an accurate sighting of the line.
GBR and RUS were approaching the finishing line on port tack with GBR overlapped to windward of RUS. Both boats bore away just before the finishing line. The spinnaker of RUS collapsed and the spinnaker of GBR was partially collapsed. The finish was very close.
The line was sighted by two race officers.
The bow of RUS was the first part of the two boats to cross the finishing line.
The Race Committee scored RUS as winner.

Facts found:
In Match 4 of the petite final RUS and FIN were approaching the port end of the starting line on starboard tack with RUS to leeward of FIN.
The bows of both boats were very close to the the starting line at the starting signal.
The starting line was sighted by two ISAF Race Officers.
The Race Committee did not identify or signal any boat on the course side of the line at the moment the starting signal was made.

Facts found:
As a result of the International Jury"s decision on Case 70, being a request for redress conducted on the water (field-of-play), RUS requested the International Jury to reconsider its decision.
The International Jury observed video footage requested by RUS (such footage being taken from behind the race officer sighting the starting line) in the presence of the parties and allowed them to make submissions and ask questions of each other.
The video footage showed that both boats crossed the starting line very close to the starting signal. It also showed that the International Technical Official (ITO) was sighting the line as provided in SI 9.2(b) for match racing.
RUS acknowleged the following:
- the decision on whether either boat was on a course side of the starting line at the starting signal was a field-of-play decision to be made by the ITO.
- the race officer showed no bias in making her decision.