Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
3 questions
Matthew Blake
1
1) When granting redress, is it the PC’s role to specify the redress points and/or redress scoring method to be applied? Is the redress purely discretionary, or are there defined points/methods written somewhere that the public can read?
2) If a single race where redress is awarded is counted in more than one series, should the redress be "the same” in each series? The same points or the same methodology? (If there are different numbers of races in each series, the same “averaging” methodology likely could see different points applied in each series, but the method could be the same.) Or, is the PC responsible for specifying how redress is applied to each series, and it very well could be a different method and/or points for each series? Is there a “standard” written down somewhere that the public can read?
3) If an incident (serious collision) occurs between races, and if the "at-fault" boat withdraws from the subsequent race, does that preclude the PC from penalizing the "at fault" boat in the previous race? Does how close in time the incident occurred to the "end" of the prior race vs. the start of the subsequent race enter into the answer?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
A1: Below is from the RRS with emphasis added. Note the words “may”, “guidance”, “advised”. The only “shall” imposed on the PC is to “make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected”. Beyond the RRS here, you can look at the WS Judges Manual and US Sailing Judges Manual for more “guidance”.
So, though there are methods published in the RRS, WSJM and USJM, they are all only advisory and guidance. In the end it’s discretionary to the PC to decide what’s as fair an arrangement as possible.
“64.3. Decisions on Redress
A9 GUIDANCE ON REDRESS
If the protest committee decides to give redress by adjusting a boat’s score for a race, it is advised to consider scoring her(
2) Redress is generally only ever granted for the race in question. However, if I understand the question correctly, if a race counts towards more than one thing (say it’s a race in a series but also for a separate trophy), you would still grant for just that race. Where it gets tricky is the “fair to all competitors” bit. This is where the PC will have to decide something that’s fair for both series. Using my example above, a fair redress might be average races raced for the series, and have that apply for the trophy. Not knowing the facts, it would be hard to say. However, it could be conceivable that redress might be two things, if that’s the fairest, though I’ve never seen that before.
3) See 44.1d. If an at fault boat causes serious damage, her penalty shall be to retire (an alternative penalty such as a two turns circle is not sufficient). This is for the race in question where the foul and damage occurred. While it may be very sportsmanlike to withdraw from the subsequent race, this does not absolve the boat from a penalty in the race in question.
A side note here. If a boat received serious damage warranting redress, as I mentioned, in general, it’s only for the race. A boat, however, may certainly apply for redress in subsequent races if the damage is serious enough to keep them out of multiple races. However, it is incumbent on the PC to ensure that the redressee has done enough to try and get back out sailing. Case in point, I recall a scenario once where a boat that was holed during a race was granted redress for the races missed that day, but denied for the following days races because they made no attempt to repair the boat (in this case, the redressee no longer meets the definition of “through no fault of their own”).
Regarding question #3 and penalty, I am thinking of a case where the collision happens between races, so which "race in question" is a matter of judgement. As I read the rules, it seems the rules encourage the PC to apply the (RET) penalty to the race closest to the incident. But, if the at-fault boat withdraws from the next race because of the incident, does that negate the PC's ability or inclination to apply the penalty to the prior race? Or, conceivably the PC could still rule that the incident occurred closer to the prior race and impose a withdrawal to that prior race, even though the competitor withdrew from the subsequent race. Would that overly penalize the at-fault boat?
So, if I get your scenario correctly,
So, Boat A has taken an “applicable penalty”. If Boat A could have otherwise raced in the following race (she wasn’t also seriously damaged) but retired thinking she was doing the right thing, I’d think a PC would be hard-pressed after the fact to say, “sorry, you should have raced in that 2nd race and retired in the first … too bad for you”.
The PC would have to find that retiring in the 2nd race was not an “applicable penalty”.
As far as the "applicable penalty" decision... one situation I can think of is that what if Race 2 was found later to not count for some procedural snafu. So, does Boat A luck out because they retired from the race that was later thrown out, or would/should the PC then ask Boat A to retire from the previous race?
I don’t think I’d want to get into a lot of specifics with different possible scenarios, but I will say that descriptions like “not count” or “thrown out” aren’t the terms used in the RRS.
“Abandoned” is an RRS defined term meaning “void”. So if the 2nd race is “abandoned”, then it’s like it never happened. If a 2nd race never happened, then this changes the fundamental premise of Q3 as now there is no longer a “between races”.
Even though Race 2 becomes "abandoned," I would think that the boats are still considered to be "in the racing area" but are not racing. So, since a collision occurred, a penalty (RET) would still be called for on the "at-fault" boat. Boat A would then be scored RET for Race 1, as that is the nearest race in time to the incident (race 2 having been voided). So that would prevent Boat A from escaping the penalty (no lucking out), but the PC likely would have to reopen that case if they had already accepted Boat A's retirement from Race 2.
Is that how you see it?
I could be wrong but with a post-hearing abandonment of Race 2, I imagine many PC’s would consider this a bookkeeping issue and simply instruct the RC to adjust the penalty to Race 1. If the boat had a problem with that, they could request for redress. If I was the PC Chair, I’d reach out to the boat directly letting them know that’s what I was doing.
Any other judges feel that making this change without reopening the hearing would constitute an improper action or omission? Maybe the answer would depend upon the level of the event?
Jim, you’re probably right and I suggested a process out of order of what I’d likely do as chair. If I was chair, I’d probably do the following in this order.
There are a couple more useful resources.
Case 116
and
Standard Decision Wordings
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/decision_wordings?wording_type=decision
See previous posts for various resources.
Generally a protest committee should prefer to express a redress decision as a method or a formula, and leave the arithmetic to the race committee.
This will probably better indicate the protest committee's reasoning and compliance with, for example, Case 116, but also, if the race committee makes an arithmetic error it can be immediately corrected under rule 90.3(c), which if the protest committee makes the error, it has to reopen th hearing and write a new decision.
For some redress decisions, for example allowing time for rule 1 giving help, a firm number from the protest committee may be unavoidable.
Well, a protest committee should try to be consistent.
But different provisions, such as handicap rule or scorning systems, or state of progress through the series, may make it appropriate to give different redress for different series.
If the protest committee expresses redress given by formula or method, this may be workable for different series without modification.
Rule 64.2 requires that the penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to that of the incident.
So the first step for the protest committee is to find facts about relativ times of the preceding race, the incident and the next race. That will determine which race the penalty is to be applied to.
If the race nearest in time was the preceding race, the protestee has not retired from that race. Retirement is the only applicable penalty for a contact causing serious damage, so the protest committee shall disquaify the boat from that race.
If the race nearest in time is the next race, the boat has retired from that race, she has therefore taken the applicable penalty and in accordance with Rule 64.2 (a), she shall not be further penalised.
With regard to redress for the other boat, if the protestee's penalty was to be applied to the preceding race, she has been penalised, or if it applied to the next race, she has taken an appropriate penalty, so those requirements of rule 62.1 (b) are met and the other boat may be entitled to redress.
In the case os serious damage it is quite common for a protest committee to give redress for as many races as the protest committee considers reasonable to allow sufficient time for the boat to be repaired (although possibly limited by Case 116.
The protest committee will certainly ask the requesting boat how long repairs will take, but there's no onus on the boat to request a specific amount of redress. In accordance with rule 64.3, the protest committee shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress.
And whatever war stories are going around, I wouldn't consider an all night fibreglassing session reasonable.
The issue here is not about 'applicable penalty', its about 'race nearest in time'.
If the next scheduled race was abandoned before the protest hearing, then the protes committee is not going to take account of that scheduled time in determining the time of the next race after the incident: they're just going to look for the time of the next race that actually did start.
If the next race was abandoned after the protest hearing, then there would have to be some unwinding, but its still just add-ups and take-aways of dates and times.
Chances are, of course, that if the next scheduled race, that would have been closest in time to the incident was abandoned, the next race sailed will not be closest in time to the incident, and the penalty will apply to the preceding race, which will have been the closest in time.
Yes Part 2 rules apply.
On valid protest a boat that broke a part 2 rule resulting in serious damage should be disqualified unless she took an applicable penalty which would be to retire.
As described in my previous post, for the penalty arising from the protest, we have to consider nearest in time to determine which race the penalty applies to.
In the scenario described, unless the protestee tells us otherwise, logically, she is retiring from the next race, possibly because she is also damaged (the reason is nobody's business but her own).
Race official can't go transferring a boat's retirement around between races.
If the previous race was nearest in time, the boat is DSQ in that race and RET in the next race. Otherwise if the next race us nearest in time the boat is not penalised in the preceding race and RET in the next race
If the next race is then abandoned, the preceding race will probably become the nearest in time and th boat will be DSQ in that race.
If the next race is abandoned and the resail, or the next race in the schedule, remains nearer in time than the preceding race, then that race is the race to which the boat's penalty applies, and we would need to determine whether the boat had retired from that race to decide whether she should be scored RET or DSQ.
Within a little club you might get away with it, but at a serious event, particularly where you are publishing written protest decisions, i think its a problem.
Firstly, if a race is abandoned after finishing, that's a pretty big deal and everyone is going to be paying attention.
Second, a protest committee can't 'instruct' a race committee anything except by a proper protest committee decision.
If the original decision was that the now abandoned race was nearest in time to the incident, thus the penalty was RET in that race, and no penalty in thepreceding race, the correct new decision will be completely different: it will be DSQ in the preceding race.
If you don't publish a new decision there will be an inconsistency between the score annotations, and the protest committee's decisions.
I'm not that keen on encouraging the protestee to retire from the preceding race. It makes no difference to the score and IMHO its just virtue signalling.
Scenario …
I saw your previous post.
There are two 'applies' here: the race to which a penalty applies in accordance with rule 64.2 chapeau, and what sort of penalty is 'applicable' under rule 64.2(a) (and rule 44.1(b))..
My point was that before considereing 'applicable penalty' under rule 64.2(a), you need to consider to which race the penalty applies under rule 64.2 chapeau, that is, which race is nearest in time to the incident.
In all liklihood, if the next race is abandoned, then the previous race will be nearest in time to the incident and the race to which penalisation by the protest committee applies. The boat has not retired or taken any other penalty in that race, so she has not taken an applicable penalty and shall be disqualified in that race.
In the unlikely event that, afer abandonment of the next scheduled race, the next race actually started, was nearest in time to the incident, it would be necessary to find out whether or not the boat had retired from that race, to see whether she should be disqualified or is protected from further penalty by rule 64.2.
I strongly disagree with you when you are considering whether the offending boat is damaged and unable to compete in a later race as a factor in concluding whether she had taken an applicable penalty.
Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules tells us that 'an appropriate penalty ... may be to retire'. The obvious corollary of this is that to retire is to take a penalty. No rule requires that retirement in a race be connected to a particular incident. IMHO, if a boat breaks a rule in a race and retires she should not be further penalised (DNE excepted, of course).
Hmmm … I did not intend to imply that Boat A’s RET would only be valid if she could race. I only added that to illustrate intention on the part of Boat A .. but I can see how it could be read as you did.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Ang
But that's my point.
Her intention is irrelevant.
She retired. She took an applicable penalty.
End of.
Fair point. Adding that info was an unnecessary distraction to the scenario that has no impact of the resulting decision.
Mindset and intension only matter when looking at RRS 2/69, otherwise it’s what is done and not-done.
Thanks - Ang
No.
Rule 44.1(b) does not specify any particular race the boat must retire from.
She has retired. This meets the requirement of rule 44.1(b).
However, if Race 1 is the nearest in time to the incident and the boat is to be penalised by a valid protest, the penalty (DSQ) is to be applied to Race 1, and if the boat has only retired from Race 2, she is not protected from further penalisation by rule 64.2, and will be DSQ in Race 1,
I was talking this thread over with a judge (who follows the forum sometimes but doesn't like to post), and they pointed-out a few interesting ideas/questions.
Here they are ..
Given the above ..
Q1: Where in the rules does it say that a boat can "take a penalty" for an incident that occurs when the boat is "not racing"?
Q2: What rule defines what the "applicable penalty" would be in this instance (the requirement of RRS 64.2(a))?
Q3: If a boat does not compete in the race following the incident (but a race is completed without her), is there actually a "between races" for that boat?
Q3(better): Is the post-incident 2nd race available for a boat to "take a penalty" or is it even available for a PC to apply a penalty, if the boat in question did not compete in the 2nd race?I thought I was seeing the light at the end of the tunnel on this situation. But, it is the proverbial oncoming train!
To Q3... The intro to Part 2 states... intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. The "between races" jargon, I suspect, is a shortcut to the actual wording.
have[has] been racing", regardless if they compete in the 2nd race.Q3 is asking whether or not the post-incident 2nd race is available for a boat to "take a penalty" or even it it's available for a PC to apply a penalty, if the boat in question did not compete in the race.