• REDRESS: ".....as fair an arrangement as possible...."
  2 Comments
  Catalan Benaros Today 16:15
• Safety Regulations
  12 Comments
  Ewan McEwan Today 11:37
• Rule 40.2.b ......at all times while afloat that day
  17 Comments
  Ralf Weidner Sun 20:19
• Any NOR/SI Language Needed to Allow Redress if Race-Automation System Makes an Error?
  12 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Wed 20:26
• RRS 70.3(b) - Denial of right to appeal (conditional)
  19 Comments
  Benjamin Harding 26-Feb-17 01:10

• RRS Power Point Presentation
  il link non funziona
  Leonardo Giannini Today 17:02
• Safety Regulations
  MY two cents - As a judge, our purpose is to provide the application of the rules as they are written in the book, NORs or SIs, whether we agree with them or not.  Having said that, there are times that such rules can cause problems.  Sign-out / sign-in will create a bottle neck at a desk so it better be located where competitors can access it freely and easily, else there will be a problem in a large fleet.  "Dog Tags" have been tried as another method, but again, the OA must set up a numbered peg board which will allow the free and easy access.  "Seagulls" are another option, tagging boats on the way our and in.  My preferred option is a check-in on the race course with the RC.  The exact number of the boats on course is known.
  As to penalties -  I have always been against a penalty on a boat for a "parking violation". 
  At a Canadian youth event of which I was chair, the first day the RC came with a list of several boats that had not signed in after racing.  I asked how many boats in the search party were out. None - RC knew all the boats were on shore as they followed the entire fleet in.  BTW, this was on a body of water that the entire shoreline around it can be seen from the center of the course. 
  Another youth event, a storm came up and RC ordered all boats back to harbour, and I mean line squall weather.  Five skippers headed for the nearest shore, a beach.  They eventually reported by phone and sailed in a hour or two later.  As chair, I refused to penalize the boats because the skippers first duty is the safety of his crew and vessel. The shoreline was less than half a mile away with the harbour being at least two miles.
  The last example, world championship, where safety was a real concern was off the coast of Nova Scotia where the next shore stop would have been the Europe shore, fog came in to the point safety boats RC boats, coach boats formed an arch with less than 25 yards between them to herd all competitors ashore and then a physical head count.
  I am definitely not saying safety should not be a concern but I am saying that if an OA decided to have a reporting system on shore, they must consider the real risk involved, and govern themselves accordingly.
  Leo Reise (IJ Retired) Today 17:00
• REDRESS: ".....as fair an arrangement as possible...."
  Under 61.4(c), and given a two-race, one-day event, give B redress only for the race nearest in time (Race 1) and score Race 2 DNC. For Race 1, use 61.4(d) to determine B’s probable finishing place from credible evidence (recent comparable results, practice/qualifying performance, rankings if relevant, and reliable testimony), then award B a Race 1 score consistent with that probable result. Race 2 remains DNC (Case 116).
  John D. Farris Today 16:45
• Rule 40.2.b ......at all times while afloat that day
  Also if you want to get truly technical... Was "Y" still hoisted? Because if not the RC or protester would have a tough case enforcing it. 
  Craig Priniski Today 16:31
• Any NOR/SI Language Needed to Allow Redress if Race-Automation System Makes an Error?
  Dustin ... thanks for that input. The standard language out of Vakaros overly-broadly denies R4R IMO (as the "no fault of their own" clause should take care of the vast majority of a boat's individual equipment issues). That's why in my OP I framed the question based on the assumption that R4R-restrictive language was not present. 
  
  Seems the consensus thus far is that errors/omission from systems, that perform an "RC function" and are implemented by the RC, map onto "improper action/omission of the [race] committee .." in RRS 61.4(a)(1) without further clarification needed in the race-docs. 
  
  That said, I think my suggestion of adding "system" to the term "Race Committee" would hurt anything. 
  Angelo Guarino Thu 13:51

Forums Leader Board

This Month