Applying the rules is the easy part of a protest hearing. The hard part is figuring out what actually took place on the water. The parties usually give conflicting reports. That doesn't mean anybody's evading responsibility - different people see things from different perspectives and can honestly tell different stories.

When faced with irreconcilable testimony, poor protest committees will often declare that they cannot determine what happened and dismiss the protest. A good protest committee will keep digging until they find something that sways their judgement one way or the other. Rule 63.6 states (in part) "The committee shall then find the facts and base its decision on them". PC must find the facts.

Protest committee can just keep questioning the parties and witnesses until some telling piece of information pops out. Sometimes, it boils down to which boat had the better view of an incident. Other times, one party will simply tell his story more believably than the other. It's very important to present your testimony as clearly and factually as you can.

Protest committees cherish hard data (distances, speeds, times, etc.). The committee can use them to place boats more precisely. Boatspeeds and distances are notoriously difficult to estimate accurately, however, and are hard to get without instrumentation. Times on the other hand, are easier to guage. If you start counting ("one-thousand one, one-thousand two...") as you approach another boat, you can give PC accurate times between maneuvers. The committee can then determine boat speeds (yes, we have a calculator for that) and reconstruct an incident with greater confidence. PC is also more likely to trust you when you say "I counted x seconds" than "I'd guess we were going y knots".

Regards,
Eric