A rules application scenario

At the mid-point of a 1x heat, a rower capsizes.  While capsizing the rower stayed in his lane and did not interfere with another crew. There was no apparent obstacle in the water that caused the rower to capsize.  The rescue boat responded immediately and went to the rower.  The rower with help from the rescue boat got back into the boat at the point on the course where he had capsized and continued rowing to finish the race in last place.

 As the Umpire what actions would you take?  Can the rower be allowed to race in the repechage?

 Rule 97 states “The Umpire shall ensure the proper conduct of the race and the safety of the rowers, in particular, he shall endeavour to ensure that no crew gains any advantage or suffers any disadvantage from its opponents or from outside interference. . . .  Where the Umpire considers that a crew has been significantly impeded he shall endeavour to ensure that its chance has been restored to it. . . . When the Umpire considers that the impediment has not affected the result of the race, or considers the effect of the impediment was not significant, he may decline to order a re-row of the race or of the crews involved in the incident.”

1. Safety of the rower: In this case, the safety of the rower was taken care of by the rescue boat immediate response to the capsized rower.  Once the rescue personnel determined that there was not serious medical problem with the rower, the rower was allowed to re-enter the boat and continue rowing.
2. Advantage: The second issue for the Umpire is did the rower gain any advantage that significantly changed the outcome of the race?
3. Interference: If the rower capsized with no interference from another crew or motor launch, then there was not a disadvantage suffered by interference from the rower’s opponents.
4. Obstacle: If the rower capsized without hitting any type of obstacle in the course, then there was not a disadvantage suffered from an outside interference. It can be argued that the rescue boat was an “outside interference.”  But looking at the next part of the rule, did this assistance from the rescue boat have significant impact on the outcome of the race?  Yes, there was an advantage for the rower when the rower was helped back into the boat, however the rower finished in last place.  Clearly, this assistance did not affect the rower’s placing in relation to the other rowers so no “advantage” was gained in this race.
5. Same fatigue: An additional consideration is whether the rower received an advantage over other rowers in the next round by since the rower did not row a continuous 2000 meters but had a “break” in the middle of the race.  If the rower capsizes and returns to the boat in the same area of the rowing course, then the rower will have rowed 2000 meters like all of the other competitors.  No “lack of fatigue” advantage has been gained over the rowers for the next round.

Based on the analysis, the rower should be ranked for the race (in last place) and be allowed to compete in the next round of racing. 

If the rower capsized due to the interference of another competitor or outside interference in the race, the analysis for the problem would be very different.  The Umpire would need to determine how to restore the rower’s chance to advance or place.