Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • I would apply 49.1 in this case. He is not being supported by a lifeline but something illegal that is obviously designed to support his body outboard. In addition, I cannot see an upper lifeline where he is in the photo. Both good grounds for protest.
    Wed 20:14
  • Nice one. Thanks for sharing
    Wed 03:46
  • Yes - - you're right.  The WS Standard Wording does include wording for 18.2(e).  I have used it myself in the past.  Now, while I don't totally agree that it's necessary, I do concede that it is mostly harmless as a conclusion.

    Ok -  I think we all agree that use of 18.2(e) certainly shouldn't be mentioned as a fact.

    My problem is that this conclusion is effectively a disclosure of the deliberation process, and a justification of the 'facts'.  Neither of these are a normal part of the hearing process.  When we make a hearing decision on any other regular rule, we are not required to declare how we arrived at the facts we found.  I'm not sure that the use of 18.2(e) to create the 'Fact' needs to be 'supported' by additional facts, or that reasonable doubt needs to be 'established' (as mentioned in OP).

    Rule 63 says we must find the facts, and 18.2(e) tells us how to do it in the case of overlap.

    "It is an unalterable responsibility of the protest committee to establish the “facts”
    that the decision will be based upon, even when the parties present widely differing
    testimony." (Judges Manual)


    18.2(e) simply instructs that if the committee is not confident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' then they should make a presumption in order to establish the fact they are missing.  Nothing says they have to declare its use.

    Look at it this way. If 18.2(e) was not mentioned in the conclusion, no one else would have any clue that the jury did not find the overlap state established to the necessary standard.

    In other words, the Hearing Decision stands up without such a conclusion.  Begs the question whether it is necessary.

    22-Nov-26 15:24
  • Angelo, I included Rule 2 in the context of its need to give redress for the initial score of BFD (scenario 2). Given that the RC would, in most situations, not be able to see the push, I wouldn't suggest that they had made an error in their scoring.
    However, as written, you are right that it is possible simply to exonerate Orange for breaking 30.4 under 43.1(a).  In that situation I would send the Orange sailor away with a note (conclusion and scoring query) from the PC to the RC that their score is to be as finished. And instruction to the sailor to find those who finished before and after him to verify his/her place.

    Given the positioning of the boats in the diagram, I may conclude that Green could have avoided the collision by luffing, and that the act may therefore have been intentional.  Sailing conditions would have to be taken into account, as might age and experience. In this case I would most likely find Green to have broken Rule 2 and that would allow redress to be given to score in the finishing position recorded or discovered.  Even if there were only six boats in the race, as said above, I'm not sure I could find fault in the RC, as their attention would be on the line and not what's happening in the second row.

    22-Nov-16 17:32
  • I think that generally, rule 90.2(c) permits SI to be changed on the water in any way other than orally (but if not orally, how else than in writing?), but the race committee has to do someting (like a checklist) to prove that the change has been communicated to all boats..  To change SI orally, you need a procedure in your SI.

    So, written notes on the end of a pole with a clothes peg to hand them to boats coming past, or a white/black board are OK, as long as they are communicated to each boat before the warning signal.

    As to changing the schedule of racing by adding a race on a day, firstly, your SI can, and probably should prohibit this.  Secondly, whether or not the SI prohibit it, I don't think you should:  you have told boats what your intentions are in the NOR and SI, they have planned their racing, and their post race activities on that basis.  If you wrote SI to limit the number of races in a day, you should stick with it.

    On the other hand, I would not willingly put a number of races per day in Si. For a normal 7 race weekend regatta, you have a first warning signal, you have sunset and other local factors, and you have a no warning signal after time.  Let the RO fit the races in as best he or she can.  It doesn't take an act of genius for competitors to work out how many reaces are lilkely to be in a day.

    Coming back to the SI/NOR, while you aren't prevented from changing the SI, by writing, on the water, recall that most NOR will include a Schedule of Races which will probably, and should, have the same information about number or races, and time limits as your SI.  For a change in the schedule of racing contained in the NOR, I would not normally consider that a change on the water, shortly before racing was with 'adequate notice' as required by rule 89.2(b). 
    22-Nov-14 05:23
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more