Overview:

Appeal against decision of national sporting organisation (KartSport) – junior kart driver (B) appealed against being placed second in race – karts fitted with transponders and electronic timing system used – initial result screens linked to electronic timing system showed B won race – however Finish Line Judge and 3 lap scorers saw finish differently and considered another kart (kart 20) finished first – kart 20 declared official winner – winner of race is who crossed finish line first and not who crossed transponder loop first (which was positioned before finish line) – whether Finish Line Judge entitled to declare different result to electronic timing system – inconsistencies in rules making them difficult to interpret – on interpretation of applicable rules, electronic system to be used but in event of dispute or equipment failure manual system to be reverted to – Tribunal considered there was a “dispute” between what all 4 officials saw and what the results screens showed – in circumstances, Finish Line Judge entitled to determine there was dispute and declare different result to the electronic system – initial order on screen is not final result – final result must be signed by Chief Steward who in this case, following determination of Finish Line Judge, determined kart 20 was winner – on facts this determination correct and appeal dismissed – no need to consider whether equipment failure – observations on field of play rule and whether any right to protest decision of Finish Line Judge under KartSport rules.