Alright… Thanks for all the input! Some really valuable comments on all sides.
Remarkably, Ang’s first post in this thread aligns with my thoughts in most aspects.
I will delve slightly deeper into a couple of areas.
---
60.4(b)(3)
2001–2004 – but not as a result of a report by a competitor from another boat or other interested party or of information in an invalid protest;
2005–2008 – protest a boat, but not as a result of a report from an interested party or information in an invalid protest or in a request for redress;
2025–2028 – a report from a person with a conflict of interest (other than a representative of the boat herself).
We can see that the rule we have today stems from the 2001–2004 version, which sought to restrict other boats and people not in the race committee from making reports to the race committee.
I too have always thought (and still think) the restriction is against people outside the race committee reporting to the race committee. In other words, a report to the race committee cannot originate from within the race committee.
In which case, to me, RRS 60.4(b)(3) does not invalidate this protest.
(I do accept, though, that the wording is a little ambiguous and I may be wrong!)
---
Did the parent volunteer act incorrectly?
A number of people have jumped on the parent here, hinting at poor sportsmanship/fair play/possible misconduct/malice.
I don’t think necessarily so.
The parent saw a rule breach (in this case, a safety issue) and enforced the rules as they thought was their duty and as they knew how. This isn’t unfair.
Of course, my scenario is deliberately posed to raise the issue of the “conflict of interest” question.
I don’t think it is a problem that the parent has a conflict of interest and that they may even have protested the competitor with a secret underlying goal to advance their own child. If a possible rule breach is tabled before the protest committee, it is fair game. Would they have protested their own kid in the same situation? - - we will never know - - but it's irrelevant.
---
The Race Committee – and any person performing the functions of…
Here’s an interesting one. In another recent thread, we are discussing “language, language, language!”. Perhaps this case illustrates some important points.
Some people here have applied their own understanding of the word “committee,” asserting that in general use, the word *committee* implies a group. True. Other volunteer people have said they don’t feel they are “the race committee” as parent volunteers—again, applying their understanding that the race committee is limited to those members of the management with special roles. They are just small-fry.
Yet, in that other language thread I said this: “If a phrase is defined in RRS then we must use it as defined.”
In racing sailing, a committee may be a single person (PC, TC or RC may all be one person). The RRS Introduction essentially defines the term for use in RRS. So we need to put the “general use” meaning (a group) out of our minds and look at the term “Race Committee” as the Introduction says. It's the name given to the job:
“The race committee appointed under rule 89.2(c) and any other person or committee performing a race committee function.”
The parent volunteer is inarguably a member of the race committee.
Why is this important? There needs to be a pathway back to the race committee for an improper action claim against any person performing a race committee function. If a parent volunteer at the launch ramp misidentifies a boat failing to sign in, that would be an improper action and subject to redress. But “improper action of a volunteer parent”, quite rightly, isn't grounds for redress, is it?!
In short, any function which may result in a penalty (linked to a rule), could be said to be a 'race committee function'. Perhaps giving out lunchboxes and free t-shirts...no. Sign-in/sign-out, absolutely.
---
In summary, then, I think that this scenario, while not ideal for all the reasons mentioned, is technically viable. The protest could well stand as valid and actionable.
Jim Champ has already said this is an internal RC management issue, rather than RRS. I tend to agree.
In the RC team briefing at the beginning of the event, the PRO should be clear that all penalty actions / protests should go through the PRO or that only certain protests may bypass. This would make it clear what can come from a conflicted volunteer and what cannot.
Good chat.