The case centers on a dispute between the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) and the International Sailing Federation (ISF) over the termination of the women’s match racing semi-finals during the 2012 London Olympics. The semi-final between the Russian and Spanish teams was halted after three races, with Spain leading 2-1, due to unfavorable weather conditions (lack of wind). The ROC challenged the decision, arguing it was abrupt and violated competition rules, which required the first team to score three points to win. They sought to overturn ISF's decision and have the remaining races completed. ISF defended its action, citing pre-published rules, specifically Item 13, which set a deadline of 5:30 pm on August 10, 2012, for the semi-finals to conclude. The ROC filed an urgent application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division on August 11, 2012, requesting relief. The Sole Arbitrator, Graeme Mew, expedited the proceedings due to the impending medal finals. The ROC claimed internal remedies were impractical given the urgency, while ISF countered that the ROC had not exhausted available internal remedies, such as filing a Request for Redress within the stipulated two-hour window after the race's termination. The jury office remained open until after 7:30 pm to address any protests, but the ROC took no action. ISF emphasized that the termination decision was a field of play judgment made by appointed officials and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The rules clearly stated that the leading teams at the termination time would advance. The CAS Ad Hoc Division ruled in favor of ISF, concluding that the ROC had not followed the necessary internal procedures before appealing to CAS, as required by the Olympic Charter and CAS Arbitration Rules. The Arbitrator found no evidence that the decision was arbitrary or capricious and dismissed the ROC's application due to lack of jurisdiction. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and exhausting internal remedies before seeking external arbitration, particularly in time-sensitive sporting events. It also highlights the limited scope for challenging field of play decisions in sports arbitration. The ruling allowed the medal finals to proceed as scheduled, upholding the integrity of the competition process.