Robin, some overlapping issues/concepts might be touched on in this thread: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/1043-crossing-the-starting-line-to-take-an-rrs-44-2-penalty.

ang

We saw scenario 2 at a junior event this summer in Kingston, Canada, with a sequence started just before time limit on last day of event.  Intentional blocking of both ends of the line, and a significant number in the middle heading over.   The questions posed are good, and I would add another one:  If a competitor was on the cusp of a medal or a win, what action could/should they consider when the last race might be considered "sabotaged" by their fellow competitors.

In the previous thread we made a distinction between being OCS (doesn't break a rule) and being in the triangle <1 min, which does break rule RRS 30.4 (RRS 30.4 includes the words ".. breaks this rule..."). 

Look at Case  78.

“Whenever a boat intentionally breaks a rule, she also breaks rule 2, and possibly rule 69.1(a).”

Proving intent to intentionally break the rule will be the challenge.

True. Standard of proof is still "balance of probabilities", isn't it?

Tim .. the answer to that question is in Rule 2 . :-)

I’m glad I don’t live in the USA if people are judged on the basis of the balance of probability. In the UK we base such decisions on the basis of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. 

Derek, instead of making the case for basing this type of decision on the evidence and reasonable doubt, you elect to apply your own "balance of probability" judgement to all sailors in the USA based on a couple of contrary posts. As a US sailor belonging to a community of sailors who value decisions based on a preponderance of evidence, I would find your argument more convincing if it didn't combine with a generalized cultural mischaracterization. 

In the first scenario described, I think the bigger question is why is the RC running a race in a situation where clearly the bulk of the fleet thinks a race should not be sailed.  I think that in this case the PRO should realize that the event is being run likely for the enjoyment of the sailors and forcing a race when the vase majority of them clearly think he should not might be the wrong choice.  In the second scenario, if single or pair of boats that intentionally sabotages a start is a violation of Rule 2.  As mentioned above, It is always difficult to prove intent. This is true regardless of what country they are from ;-)

Derek, balance of prob’s is not a US thing. It is a World Sailing thing.  It is the standard all sailing judges use worldwide to determine the facts found in most circumstances (most Part 2 incidences on the water for instance).

Rule 2 (Fair Sailing) is different. Rule 2 is stated with its own standard that is higher, and that is the “clearly established” standard.

Rule 69 (Misconduct) requires judges reach a “comfortable satisfaction” standard of proof.  Rule 69 does provide that local prescriptions can conform Rule 69 to local laws

“ However, if the standard of proof in this rule conflicts with the laws of a country, the national authority may, with the approval of World Sailing, change it with a prescription to this rule.“

These are all World Sailing standards. 

In the first case, assuming that the RC is confident that it was able to identify all the boats that started correctly, only those boats should be recorded as finished.  All others should be scored OCS, or penalized 20% under Z if they restarted properly, or DSQ if under U.  In the second case,  the RC should protest the boat blocking the line under rule 2 or 69. 

One minor comment to Angelo's comment:

This is a common misunderstanding of what Rule 2 requires.  It is not a different standard.  It still requires a balance of probabilities standard. (See case 122)  However, the PC may only penalize a boat if "it is clearly established that [the principals of sportsmanship] have been violated."  That statement refers to the previous sentence, in that there are "recognized principles of sportsmanship."  So it must clearly fall into one of those principles to be penalized.  So the test is, based on the balance of probabilities, did the incident clearly violate one of the principles of sportsmanship.  Many of these are described in case 138

Thanks Paul for straightening me out on that one. - Ang

Two issues here.

1) If the fleet was trying to manipulate the event by 'forcing' an outcome by way of the time limit loophole, consider the phrasing in the NOR/SI.  Everyone knows the may/will/shall implications, so only use shall if it is necessary to be absolutely binding.

2) If the plan was to stage a mass OCS and force a GR, bad luck if it backfires.  I was starting a fleet of twelve 23' keelboats, all very evenly matched.  The increasing tidal stream over the schedule of four races in the day caused 10 of the 12 to be OCS in the last race, and 2 clear starters.  Not just by elimination, but by positive identification of the 10 OCS, I signalled an IR because it didn't meet the requirements of 29.2.  Eight of the ten restarted correctly, two were scored OCS, one of which had an effect on their podium placing.  There was of course much discussion in the clubhouse, and accusations that I "must" make a GR if so many boats are OCS.  Of course I could have, and in the final ten seconds of prestart those options were going through my mind, but at the start I had a clear, unambiguous view of the line, and the causes (and non-causes) of the scenario.

Robin Gray

 

As the RO what principle of sportsmanship and fair play would you say was broken?

 

I think that if you are protesting for rule 2, you need to enunciate the principle that you are relying on.

 

 

So you think it ‘appears’ to be deliberate and you think it appears to be intended to cause a general recall.

 

What proof are you going to offer?

Tim Hohmann

Said Created: Today 20:42

 Angelo Guarino

Said Created: Today 20:45

 

I’m not sure if Angelo isn’t playing a word game (which I don’t quite get) with ‘intentional intentionality’, and I don’t see how rule 2 directly addresses standard of proof, but here are some thoughts about proving a breach of rule 2.

 

I think that because of the requirement in rule 2 for it to be ‘clearly established’ that ‘recognised principles’ of sportsmanship and fair play have been violated that’s in effect raising the standard of proof above a bare 51/49 balance of probabilities.

 

Another way of looking at it might be to say that:

 

Breach of rule 2 will almost always involve intentionality, the proof of which is, likewise, almost always inferential.  Because of the severity of the penalty for breaking rule 2 and the difficulties in drawing inferences about the mental state of intention from the conduct of boats or competitors, considerable care should be exercised in the drawing of such inferences.

 

There are two parts to intentionality:

·         Intention to break a rule and

·         Intention to gain a benefit by doing so.

It’s not sufficient that the act constituting the breach of a rule was intentional; It’s the intention to break a rule that counts.  Late inside overlap at a mark is an example. A boat can quite intentionally sail into the inside late, but if they believe that they have made the overlap in time, there is no intention to break any rule.

 

Establishment of this first intention to break a rule is a gateway to any consideration of the second intention to derive an advantage.  There’s no point in considering whether a sailor intended to gain an advantage until you have concluded that he or she intentionally broke a rule.

 
Maybe a handy way of expressing the thought is to talk about "knowingly breaking a rule intending to gain an advantage"

Angelo Guarino

Said Created: Today 20:29

I think you are citing those words seriously out of context if you mean it as a general statement.

Context of that was Question 3 of the Case, where the intention to gain an advantage was clearly inferred. 

It may be possible to prove that a boat intentionally broke a rule, but it can’t automatically be presumed that she intended to gain an advantage by doing so.  Consider the case of a hailing boat, for safety reasons, tacking before the hailed boat responds contrary to rule 20.2(a).

" No warning signal shall be made after 1500." I have used the line "This does not apply to races that are re-started or re-sailed." Anyone see any issues with that statement? This would allow for a Gen Rec/ AP to happen past a posted finish time. 

Robin, Drew, Paul,

no warning signal will be made after <time>

Those are the words used in Appendix LG.

The purpose, used with the Race Time Limit, is to give competitors a firm commitment about when racing will finish.

I don't think they should be tinkered with.

John re: “I think you are citing those words seriously out of context if you mean it as a general statement.”

Very fair critique there John. Yes, the context of the Case and our discussion here revolves around a few concepts .. collusion, intent, and advantage. 

I guess we could put together a no-win scenario where a boat has put themselves in a bad place with no ROW, no room and no way out and international chooses to break one rule over some other rule to minimize damage in an unavoidable collision. 

So yes, intention is necessary but insufficient. 

We as race officers serve the fleet.. If they do not want to start do not srart them. We should not be protesting boats if we want happy events and people to comtinue sailing. The us and them attitude hope was changed years ago. 

Michael - Agreed, we are the servants of the competitors and personally I will always attempt to provide the racing that the class want.  There could be more too it, in that, by preventing a race from starting, those currently in podium positions consort together to prevent others from displacing them. e.g. if the first few races were in heavy air and it is now light air - the light air specialists deserve their chance.  As always, in the event that prompted my questions, there was more to it and in this particular fleet, other bad behaviour and bad manners.

Mike re: " If they do not want to start do not start them."

The question is who is "they" in that sentence.  I think Robin's reply and OP captures the issue which is the possibility that a subset of boats in the event would be advantaged by not having a last race and purposely, and in a coordinated fashion, deliberately break a rule.

I guess if somehow, before racing that day, every boat entered in the event came to the OA/RC and asked for racing to end sooner   .. I think that's a scenario which better captures your reply .. not a group of boats trying to lock in their standings.

I have seen the Finn class banging their tiller extensions on the decks saying they do not want to go. if the wind is light sailors often do not want a 4 to 5kt race they want to pack up.
If you have this sailing instruction you invite this behaviour.
if you do not want this have a different sailing instruction, so once a sequence is started it can continue.
, Do not create the problem then blame the sailors or do something fancy and within the rules to change the results. We gave these practices up years ago
Sailing is a simple sport made difficult by sailing instructions! Act in the interests of good race management and being on the same page as the sailors not "us and them".

Just catching up

Paul Brennan

said Created: Yesterday 20:06

 

 

If she thinks a boat has broken a rule and should be penalised she needs to validly protest.   She should not rely on anybody else like a race committee to do it for her (Case 39).

 

A boat can’t get redress for the actions of another boat unless that boat is penalised under rule 2 or rule 69 (RRS 62.1(d)), so it’s up to the boat to start the ball rolling with a protest.

And she should also validly request redress.  As for protests, she should not rely on the protest committee to consider redress for her without being asked.

I'd like to go back to the OP Scenario #1's setup.  

As stated in the OP, if the boats not over the line were identifiable, the RC lets the race run and those who attempted the coup will be scored by the RC for breaking rule 30.4.

If the boats that start correctly can not be ID'd, then maybe the decision of the RC to protest the other boats comes down to proximity of other boats, who were not part of the coordinated effort, to overhear the "plot".  This would be consistent with other RC protest/don't-protest lines drawn for a boat touching a mark or not sailing the course for instance, when the RC is, but other boats are not, in a position to see such a rule-breach.

For those "not in on it", it might not dawn on them what the heck is going on without over-hearing the conversation.  Therefore, they are not in a position to "see" the potential Rule 2 breach without overhearing the conversation.

Certainly, it is not the responsibility of the RC to protest, and the competitors should not rely upon the RC to do so.  The only Committee with a "shall protest a boat" is the TechComm (see last sentence RRS 60.4(a)), all other Committees are "may protest a boat" .

That said, it seems squarely within the rights of the RC to protest these boats under RRS 2, especially if the RC thinks they are in a position to see/hear information that constitutes/is-evidence-of the breach (overhearing the discussion).. where other boats were not able to hear.

Angelo, you said

Well, hold it right there.

The race officer hears one single statement from one single boat, specifically 

"If we all go over they will have to general recall"

Which, by the way is incorrect.

That's  nothing like evidence of .'a plot'.

That is part of the evidence of a "plot" .. the other part being other boats going over the line early starting at T-30 sec. .. certainly a bizarre and out of the ordinary behavior worthy of notice in context.

I am agreeing with you John. 

The RC is under no obligation to protest under Rule 2 and boats should not rely upon the RC to do so.

That said, I think the RC is fully within their powers to do so if they feel they are in a position to see (or hear) a possible Rule 2 violation, that other boats are not, and put it to the PC to decide.