The one coming out smelling like shit is the Chief Measurer, rather than the IJ decision. The MC rendered an interpretation at Telefornicator's request before the start of leg 4 which imo did not conflict with the clarification interpretation upon which the protest was lodged (contrary to the IJ decision). Imo, the only thing the CM can be accused of is in not volunteering the obvious NOR position that any additional storm jib or HWJs will not be counted in the storm jibs quota but in the headsails quota.
The IJ's claim that Tele was "reasonableto believe her sail inventory on leg 4 was in compliance" after the MC's reply in Sanya is BS. I don't accept that it was the CM's obligation to inform Telefornicator that the extra storm jibs will count as headsails for the purposes of the permitted number of sails: he was not specifically asked, nor should he have been. NOR 5.2.2 is quite specific:
5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on
board sails to a maximum of:
(a) 1 Mainsail
[b]2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)
Telefonica raced leg 4 with more headsails than they were legally entitled to. The Chief Measurer did not need to issue a "clarification interpretation" at all on 5.2.2: every other team clearly understood NOR 5.2.2b and complied with it.
The IJ fucked up: the protest should have been upheld.
Noting that in the NOR, Headsail is effectivelty defined as a headsail other than the required storm jib and heavy weather jib. This changes the ISAF definition of headsail.
Do you know for certain that telefonica had 5 headsails (in the ISAF generic definition) on board - 1 required storm jib + 1 required heavy weather jib + a second storm jib + 2 Headsails? The facts found indicate that they sailed with 2 storm jibs and 2 headsails. However, when an additional storm jib is carried it is measured in as a Headsail, and so counts as one of the 2 Headsails, by definition. By definition thererfore, i read the facts found as describing a double counting of the additional storm jib, once as one of the two storm jibs, and once as one of the two Headsails. There is no indication in the facts found that they sailed with extra sails, and the fact that they had a sign-off at either end of the leg confirms that they were in compliance. In fact, the interpretation on 16 March was to clarify the "may include additional ... storm jibs." in NOR 5.2.2("which probably should have been drafted as "additional storm jibs and heavy weather jibs shall be counted as headsails", may being ambiguous.
If you know for certain that they carried 5 headsails (as indicated above) and can cite the documentation (likely the sail inventory manifest provided to the Chief Measurer or the report of the Chief Measurer at the start and finish of the leg) then that would be very much appreciated. Otherwise, the facts stand that Telefonica sailed with 10 sails as noted and your opinion ignores the facts.
Of course anyone can quote 1 clause and see the world in black and white, but it's the combination of clauses that's the problem.
I don't doubt that the black and white view is the one the rule writers had in mind when they wrote the rules but they didn't quite get it right and so what they have written is grey.
Telefonica chose to read it one way; apparently 5 other boats chose to read it another.
I also wonder whether it really was advantageous on leg 4.
We'd need to see a sail log to know for sure, both in terms of the use of the actual sail in question but also in terms of the sail they didn't carry compared to the other 5 boats.