The word 'shall' makes the hail obligatory. So, yes, the PC should find the protest to be invalid, unless 61.1 (a) (4) [obvious damage or injury] applies.  In that case, the PC may use 60.3 (a) (1) to lodge a protest.

I think most protest committees would decide that the protest was invalid.  A protest committee could decide that because the protestee knew at the time that they were being protested that the requirement of informing the protestee under 61.1(a) was met but it is highly unlikely that it would survive an appeal, especially when there is a fact found that 'Protest' was not hailed.

I think most of us would find "do your turns......you fouled me......if you don't do your turns, I'll protest........fine, Protest!" invalid. As John Christman mentioned, it is unlikely to survive appeal if you allowed the protest to proceed beyond validity. 

In addition to Ant’s comments regarding 61.1(a)(4), don’t forget to run through 61.1(a)(1) and 61.1(a)(3) as well to make sure none of those apply. 

I agree that the rules don’t allow the protestee to waive the hailing requirement of 61.1(a) and the proper thing to do would be to dismiss the protest as invalid.

That said, if the protestee wanted to allow the protest to be heard anyway and the PC went ahead, it seems pretty dubious that the protestee would appeal. Unless I guess for some reason they thought the protestor might get DSQd and protestee would get off but it didn’t go that way.

The point John P is making is illustrated well in US 122 …

Not the finest moment in the rule book in my opinion. A failure on the part of the victim to follow the letter of the law ought not to be a get out of jail free for the criminal. 
There is certainly a case to argue that a failure to follow the procedure properly, (especially if the protested was unaware that a protest was intended) should result in a lesser penalty than disqualification, but I don't believe it's healthy to discard the protest completely. 

Tim, a PC doesn’t have a choice in the matter as RRS 63.5 uses “shall” [emphasis added]

If the protested boat knew that they were being protested then the correct course of action after the invalidation of the protest would be to retire.
And yes, I have been on all three sides of the "hail Protest" issue - both as a plaintiff, defendant and as a protest committee participant.  All three have resulted in invalidating the protest because "Protest" wasn't hailed.

A more nebulous issue is if the word "Protest" was used and the receiving boat did not hear it, or chose not to hear it.

The requirement is to hail protest, not for the other party to hear it.

Now, technically, there is a way for it to be valid without hailing "Protest".  Hails A language other than English may be used for a hail required by the rules provided that it is reasonable for it to be understood by all boats affected. So in a regatta in China, they might be able to get away with saying 

反对 

instead  :-)

Yes, agree. But I remain open to the possibility (having seen examples) that the PC may not do something that the book says they shall do. ;-)

And I agree that if such an error were to be appealed the AC would be correct in finding that the protest was invalid, the hearing should not have proceeded and the decision of the PC is void.

Question - if the PC checks the "Protest Valid" box on the form, does that constitute a fact even if other facts mitigate against it?

Tim, not doing something that the book says you shall do is absolutely unacceptable. Aside from the problems at appeal, it creates a record indicating lack of honesty, integrity, and fairness that is required of all US Sailing Judges.

US-Sailing-RO-Personal-Attributes-Standards-1.pdf (ussailing.org)

John, I wholeheartedly agree with that. It's particularly a sore point for me having been the victim of such an error which my skipper decided not to appeal. I'd never go along with letting such a hearing proceed myself and not suggesting anyone else should. But sometimes it happens.

We had this situation happening in a clubrace. The incident happened shortly after the starting signal. A competitor claimed he saw another boat which was ahead of him hit the pin-end mark (which was unmanned) and he shouted to him "You hit the mark". The boat which allegedly hit the mark did not do a penalty turn saying that though he heard the other boat hail, he was not sure if he really hit the mark and decided not to do a penalty turn. A protest form was then filled and though the result of the protest was immaterial to the final result of both boats, the protest scenario was still discussed as a learning opportunity and the question arose as to whether this would pass the validity test given the specific word 'Protest' was not hailed on the water. 

It is tough enough for the PC to decide on the things it is required to decide on. No sense in making a decision it is required not to make. The PC ignoring rules (which have been developed with care taking account of unintended consequences) can only end in tears. 

Coincidentally, there is a Canadian Appeal that addresses this:

GENTLEMEN,
Since it says that one must HAIL at the first opportunity look at that meaning:
"They hailed the recent advances in medicine. to call out to in order to stop, attract attention, ask aid, etc.: to hail a cab." from dictionary.
So, as I understand, the party intending to protest must do it right away, and do it loudly so that the other competitor realizes your intent and can exonerate themselves. 

I agree with what has been said above which also applies to the display of the protest flag if needed. 
However I think the wording of the rule should be looked at. 
The reason for the hail and flag is to mark the moment in time of a potential rules breach so those involved know something has happened. I was involved in an arbitration recently where the form advised a hail had been made, a flag flown. At the hearing the protestee said he was well aware of the incident and heard the hail but that the flag was displayed 2 or 3 minutes after the incident. To me this should be a valid protest as it is not helpful to either the people involved and others in the race to allow someone to possibly escape a part 2 rules breach on such a technicality.
I explained the issues with the flag and that this may lead to an invalid protest if the parties did not accept the arbitration outcome but went ahead with the arbitration. Both parties agreed the facts which indicated a clear a breach of 13 at the windward mark. When the rules were explained to the protestee he accepted he was wrong and took the penalty offered. Had the hearing not gone ahead, because of a late flag, the protestee would not have 'learned the lesson' and he is likely to repeat the offence next week. 
After he hearing there was a lot of chat in the bar about how blatant the offence had been. 
It gives the wrong message if we allow people to get away with things on technicalities and, as I said earlier, I think the rules should be changed in some way to allow protest committees to find a protest valid if both parties are clearly aware of an incident.
There are many people who only think they need to take a penalty when the other boat hails protest.as if there is no hail or flag they know they cannot be successfully portested.
They seem blissfully unaware of the basic principles!
Applying a less strict interpretation to the wording of a hail and only require the words said to indicate that someone is not happy with what happened would give a lot more leeway to protest committees and allow fairer outcomes in many cases. What difference does it make if a flag display is delayed by a couple of minutes?

Rule 61.1(a) is clear, if none of the exceptions apply the word "Protest" (quotation marks are used) or possibly its translation (see Introduction / Hails in the RRS) shall be hailed.
However, I have seen over the years that International Juries (not appealable) tend to validate protests if the protestee was aware of the incident, even if a different word was hailed. However, appealable juries (probably imagining what the decision from a possible appeal would most likely be) almost always decide that if the word "Protest" (or its translation) is not hailed the protest is invalid. This double interpretation is not fair for competitors.
I have addressed my concern about this matter to the World Sailing Q&A Panel but, unfortunately, from the five questions I asked only the first one (whose answer was obvious to me) was answered, leading to Q&A 2018.015  and later to the Hails paragraph in Introduction.
I must notice that RRS prior to 1997 used the expression «"Protest" or words to that effect», different from the current version of the rules.
So, in my opinion, the unfairness of the situation remains, appealable juries tend to be more strict than International Juries about the use of the word "Protest". It shouldn't be so.

Well said Luis. I fully agree with you.

We might also consider that a rule that, if taken to the letter, requires the entire fleet to hail protest immediately and every time they observe the slightest potential infringement on the water is not conducive to a pleasant afternoon on the water and is decidedly hostile to newcomers to the sport. Whatever the advantages and disadvantages at championhip/international level the requirement is, where I sail at least, widely ignored at grass roots level. But the result of this is a wide perception that it's not worth protesting since a PC will refuse to hear a protest on the slightest pretext. It also means that in the event a protest is heard it comes with a far greater degree of animosity than is desirable. 

John S, I have to agree with your “sends the wrong message” idea. 

We have Basic Principles’ statement that we “… are expected to follow and enforce.” the rules.

Then a competitor’s obligation to act on its own, based on their knowledge alone, is underlined with its own sentence … “A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when a boat breaks a rule and is not exonerated she will promptly take an appropriate penalty or action”

The point you and Luis seem to be making is that, the “protest” process tends to reinforce a different understanding of BP expectations … that it is “outside forces” (the actions of other boats) that are more paramount .. and as a result … the “follow” half of “follow and enforce” and the entire next sentence dedicated to self-enforcement, are sort of lost in the mechanisms and enforcement of rule 61.1(a). 

So how does it work if the protestee is deaf. 

Angelo, far from me to let the Basic Principal out. It is the most important rule in the book. One should not need to protest if everybody would respect the rules (including take penalties if they failed to do so). And races would be much more pleasant.
My point is, if a rule is not to be followed, it should not be there. And also, if judjes do not follow the rules, how can they expect that sailors will?

In response to Tim's question:
Question - if the PC checks the "Protest Valid" box on the form, does that constitute a fact even if other facts mitigate against it?

That the protest is valid is a decision based on facts found and conclusions drawn.  It really is no different than a decision on the rules.  The kinds of facts found would be when protest was hailed and the flag flown relative to the incident, did the protestee hear the hail and see the flag and when, the size of the flag and where it was flown, etc.  The conclusions are that the hail was made and flag was displayed at the first reasonably opportunity, etc. and the decision is that the protest is valid.

Note that this is an area where the PC often is too brief and doesn't write up their decision thinking about what an appeals committee will think about when reviewing a protest.  The PC should include all of these facts and conclusions, not just check the box.

Luis re: "far from me to let the Basic Principal out."

My apologies, I certainly did not mean to imply that you were.  I was attempting to make a subtle observation that I was pulling from your comment, and that is as follows.

The Basic Principles seemingly occupy a place of prominence (and maybe even honor) in the RRS, by their title and by their station in the RRS, that should convey their importance.

Why is it that this first notion in the rules is so easily passed-over and not retained by so many competitors?

I'm observing that to get to Basic Principle 'Sportsmanship and the Rules' in application, we go though Rule 2 or Rule 69, so they are functionally once-removed from being front and center.

On the other hand, protesting, taking penalty turns, validity of protests and direction to the PC to not proceed, all directly occupy their own rules and in the process a lot more words describing them.

In my post, I was wondering if that could possibly explain the behavior we are describing where competitors have the notion that if they are not protested, then they can sail-on? (not that I have a suggested solution).  Maybe it's this 2-step process to get to it.

I don't know .. I'm just thinking out loud with my fingers on a keyboard (a dangerous practice indeed!)

Ang

John, thanks, that was exactly my question. And in the latest AJS I did, one thing mentioned was that it’s a good practice to use the “Relevant Information” boxes on the Hearing Decision form to document why the checks are in the boxes they’re in. 

I notice on closer look at the form, though, Validity is presented as a conclusion (thus still subject to appeal if the facts found don’t support it). I think the decision would be “Protest dismissed”

I think the sequence would be:

Fact: Hail of Protest was made at ___ time after the incident
Conclusion:  Hail was made at first reasonable opportunity (yes or no)
Conclusion: All other validity requirements met, based on facts (yes or no)
Conclusion: Protest is valid (yes or no)
Decision: If not valid, protest dismissed.

Tim - that works.

If the boat is unaware that broke a rule, and not properly being hailed "protest", ok, protest dismissed, because she did not have the opportunity to penalize herself on the water. Fair.
But if a boat knows perfectly she has broken a rule, she must have taken a penalty, wether protested or not. By not doing so, she breaks RRS 2. And, if protested, to be cleared of her misbehaving by a formality is totally unfair.
Unfortunately, PC cannot protest that boat because she knew the fact from an invalid protest. That is frustrating; to rule 60.3 2) should be added the breach of sportmanship. 
Well, my opinion...

I still think I understand the rule as it is. Is it perfect?  I don't know, but it can surely be worse.  I think trying to perfect rules often make them more complex and not easy to apply.  I think certified judges should apply the rules as they are written. There are steps to getting rules altered in place.

What an interesting thread!

There is so much discussed here, its hard to know where to start.

I agree with most of the discussion and feelings so far, but there are a small number of aspects which raise my eyebrows on what are exceptionally fundamental and important topics.  Here's a summary of my thoughts on what has been raised already.

------------------------------------------------
Summary

1.  "Protest" or its translated equivalent is the only word that works.

2.  The sport is governed by some important basic principals, which include protections for the accused before and during a hearing.  These then make requirements of all involved, and often place greater burdens on the accuser at this stage.

3.  Once a hearing is deemed invalid, it should be closed. It is not wise to continue in any form (say, unofficial discussion with officials) after that.  After invalid, there is no decision on the protest.  It is not 'dismissed'.  It was simply, invalid and not heard.

4.  "He got off on a technicality!" These so called 'technicalities' (validity requirements) are a part of the rules and there for good reason.  They should not be waivered even if they appear go against the justice, because they don't.  They are part of the 'justice', whichever way they work.  Complaining that someone got off on a technicality is not valid, and shows a misunderstanding of the whole system.  Rather see it as, "He got off because the accuser did not meet all the requirements of him, which are part of and required in any justice system that prioritises fairness and protection for an accused before and during the justice process, and so which must be complied with prior to any processing of the allegations."

5.  Validity consideration part of a hearing need not be over-cooked.  Nor does the validity write-up.  Mention any facts or solid evidence, perhaps.  Mention the final decision or tick the box. Leave out all the rest.

Well, that's the summary to my essay I typed up this morning!

Hope it gives some food for thought.

None of that is wrong, but... 

The ultimate reason we have racing rules is to promote fun competitive racing. Aggressive behaviour on the water is increasingly seen as undesirable and unfashionable. It could be said that the ideal for any rules breach - and one that happens countless times in the circles I race in (dinghies, inland waters mostly) - is a dialogue on the lines of 
"Come on Bill, that was too close, you'd better do your turns" 
"Yeah, sorry, I misjudged, will do" 
Which I submit is how ladies and gentlemen should play the game, leads to no rancour and no stress. 

But with the current rules it means that if Bill disagrees, or if Bill is not quite such a gentleman, there is no possibility of a hearing. In addition it means that the first word of any dialogue between competitors must be "Protest" which is pretty much guaranteed to sound aggressive and escalate emotions. 

There's also the widespread perception that you'll see on forums etc from the more casual competitors that there's no point in protesting because it will simply be thrown out. 

Even more consider the effect of racing with beginners/inexperienced. It could be considered that the ideal would be a calm dialogue with the beginner to explain why they shouldn't do that, and if necessary escalate to arbitration or even protest. Instead we are supposed to start with the aggressive hail of protest. Good way to put newcomers off the sport I suggest. 

My final argument is that up thread it's stated that in at least some IJ circles the requirement for protest to be the first word is somewhat relaxed. I submit that if some of the most experienced and qualified rules officials are finding the strict letter of the law to be excessive then there must be a problem. 

I think there are two changes that could be considered. 
The first is that while the word protest should be required, it need not be immediate, and may follow a dialogue about a potential rules breach. 
The second is that in the event of a protest not being properly notified and the rule breaker is unaware that a rule has been broken then the PC should have the option of imposing a lesser penalty than disqualification. 

Jim,

Thanks for response.

Isn't this the root cause of the problem?  Isn't the problem with the sailors, not the rules?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the game of Rugby? I'm sure you're familiar with football (soccer).

When you can, please take a moment to compare the two as they respond to the referee's whistle.  Certainaly, you'll see that rugby players take it as a matter of fact that they broke the rules.  They accept and get on with the game.  Versus footballers (soccer) who argue, complain and moan.  It seems we have rugby sailors and football sailors.

Where did sailing go wrong, so that the action of calling someone out is now seen as aggressive and in need for such emotional response?

Much of the discussion revolves around the problem that many people find that word 'protest' as aggressive and emotional.

Perhaps, the first place we need to start with is how we teach sailors the rules, the principals of sport, how to deal with emotions etc..  This needs to start with the youth.  Perhaps, we need to change the mindset of those which partake in the sport to accept that a protest is no more than that rugby referee's whistle.

How can we change a mindset to view that word, "Protest!" as nothing more than,"Come on Bill, that was too close.  You now have the chance to do your turns."

I find it is at the more 'so-called' friendly sailing circles where the action of protesting is mostly seen as aggressive and where protests are 'discouraged'.  This same sailing circle is where rules compliance is lowest, and bullies crop up unchecked.  Most people who are or find protesting aggressive are ones that (generally) have a lower respect and knowledge of the rules.

By the way, Bill has the right to disagree.  If he's not a gentleman, he's broken the basic principal.  That doesn't change the requirements of the protestor.

Just thoughts!

So can we explore why people find the word so offensive?

I played many a game of rugby at school level, and suggest that a major, maybe the only factor in the superior discipline of rugby players is the referee's power to march play ten yards up the field on any dissent, and another ten yards if dissent continues!

Don't you think that rules should be there for the sailors, rather than the sailors for the rules? And if the rules no longer fit the spirit of the age then maybe they should change to match society? I find it hard to see many grave injustices resulting from a relaxation of the hail requirements, since we must hope that if the protestee did not break a rule the PC will not penalise them. 

Forgive me. I should have registered the 'co.uk' in your email. I think the average rugby player has a greater respect for the Laws of the game and officials than in other sports. There is an understanding that they work both ways. 

I'm all for sports keeping up with trends in the game and sometimes that needs rule changes. 

On the other hand, I truly belive that most rules are a result of years of refinement, and changing tried and tested rules is dangerous. 

I'm busy now so can't elaborate deeply on the hail requirements and their place in the entire sailing justice system. I will say that a relaxation of immediate notice of intended protest is problematic when that system is considered wholly. 

Let's see what others say! 

Thanks. 

Interesting where these discussions take us!
Benjamin,

Are all rules equal?
Whilst a strict answer may be ‘yes’ I am sure that there are many who may think, for example, that Part 2 rules are perhaps more important than Part 5 as they have a much greater effect on the way we sail our boats and on the enjoyment of the sport.
As Angelo points out there are two sides to the Basic Principle
To follow the rules and to enforce them.
If we strictly enforce protest requirements, we are in some (possibly many) cases allowing other boats to get away with breaking different rules.
As an example as to how we may view things differently I ask the following questions:
Does a boat that knowingly breaks a part 2 rules and does not take a penalty break the Basic Principles? I hope all would say ‘Yes’. They are not following the rules.
Does a boat that does not bother to protest in accordance with 61.1(a) when they see rules being broken break the Basic Principles? I believe many would say ‘No' but they are equally guilty of not enforcing the rules.
I believe most would find one of these far more deserving of a rule 2 protest that the other!

So yes, we have to apply the rules as they are but, for the reasons Jim has stated, perhaps rule 61.1 needs some more flexibility.

A similar situation arises when boats take a turns penalty.
I seem to recall a medal race some time ago when sailing on for 15 seconds was considered an invalid penalty and led to a dsq. I would suggest at lower levels of sailing these days we are so happy to see penalties being taken that sailors do not protest if a penalty is not taken ‘as soon as possible after the incident’.
The difference between a strict and a pragmatic interpretation.

Ben re: “It seems we have rugby sailors and football sailors.”

Thanks Ben … looks like I’ve found my next submission to the WS Rules Committee for new defined terms! ;-D

JohnS,

Yes, I find this discussion fascinating.

Are all rules equal?  Yes, but they don't all perform the same functions.  Part 2 rules are predominantly 'safety rules'.  Where as Part 5 rules are fairness rules.  (Other rules are organisational.)

If you consider that the 'sport' comprises of 'fair' competition in the art of sailing, you need to keep the fairness rules at the same importance level as other rules of the sport.  It is not enough to say that Part 2 are more important than Part 5, since unfair competition is not fun.

In the basic principal, we are asked to enforce the rules.  Since there is no requirement in 60.1 to protest, a boat does not break the basic principal by choosing not to protest.

Yes, by enforcing the protest requirements there will be some cases which slip through the net.  Just like there will be some speeding drivers who 'get off' because the court finds the speed camera wasn't properly calibrated.

You suggest that the 'other rules' are more important than the protest requirements, and so we should capture those cases at the expense of enforcement of the protest requirements.

Relegating the validity requirements to a lower importance is incorrect in my opinion.  We need to step back and take an in-depth, but holistic look at the fundamental reasons for those validity requirements to see where they fit into the whole the sailing justice system.

To me, those validity requirements actually outweigh loss of the few cases which slip through the net.  In order to maintain the integrity of the sailing justice system, we need to look at the entire system, and not one stage of it. But more on that when I'm not so tired!

Enjoy.

On the water, the protest hail is relevant only if the protestee is not aware that he broke a rule, or if he thinks he did not brake a rule but, if other boat  hails, he might want to do turns to defend himself (just in case). Otherwise, a boat that infringed a rule should take a penalty, even if there is no hail or no protest, even if there is nobody around that might have seen it.
However, in the hearing room, for a protest to be valid, the hail is a requirement, not an option. Like it or not, it is in the rule, amongst other requirements. If the lack of a proper hail is allowed for, why not forget about the other requirements (flag - if applicable, time limit, contents, sailing instructions requirements)?
Who decides which rules are to be followed and those that may be forgotten? Each protest committee or jury on its own? I don't think its a good idea.
It certainly is not easy to write rules that make everybody happy. What we have is what has been achieved so far, even it may be improved. And there is always people working on it.
If the rule is there, it must be followed by everybody, certainly by the judges who will hear protests. Nothing worse for the sailors than inconsistency from judges. And, as I have written before, if judjes do not follow the rules, how can they expect that sailors will?

Well, I 99.999% agree with everything Luis just said.

I see two issues cropped up in this thread.
1. Some sailor's perception that validity rules are less important than say, Part 2 rules.

I am preparing a response to that, but in short, I see all rules as equal for our game.

2. The everlasting perception by some sailor's that a protest is an act of aggression, emotional statement, major inconvenience, a challenge to a fight, a tool to hide behind; anything other than simply 'part of the game'.

This is more worrying since it is the main obstruction to acceptance of the process, but arguably the most widespread concern and the most difficult to address.

I don't really have a solution to this and would love to learn more about this psychology.



0.0001% because I think that the hail is also relevant to the flow process between 'on-the-water' incident and the hearing. 

The hail (and flag) serve to eliminate a later defence by the protestee that she was not afforded the opportunity to self-exonerate at the time when she could have, in keeping with the principal of self-policing. This step is written into the rules as a requirement on the protestor to preserve her right to take the issue to the next level.

I don't think anyone is disputing the principle that all rules as they exist should be followed. But the rules are worked on and improved over time, and what we have here is a discussion on one possible change. 

On the one side we have the belief that the immediate hail requirement is not how sailors wish to play the game, and results in rule infringements not being penalised. 

On the other side we have the possibility of the protested boat being unaware of the protest and unable to take an alternative penalty, and worse still of 'ambush' protests where an unsporting competitor deliberately fails to inform the protested boat in order that they have no opportunity to take an alternate penalty. 

Is that a reasonable summary? The question is whether there's a practical rule change that would minimise undesirable outcomes in both directions. 

I'll echo other comments here ... 

Now, just for the sake of discussion (again thinking aloud with my fingers on the keyboard), on to the savory morsels ..

#1 - The word 'Protest' is an unfortunate and possibly overly limiting choice for the single word required

I can see where folk are coming from here.  "Protest" has other meanings and connotations which are hard to remove from the word's application in sailing.  It is an appropriate word to describe the process when we take/file the complaint to a panel/jury (or on the water in an umpired/judged event).  We file/make "a protest" to a body/3rd-person .. and that body hears/decides the protest.  We also file a "complaint".  We don't yell "COMPLAINT!" .. that would be socially awkward and unnatural and likewise so can be hailing "Protest"

We "protest" the government and maybe in the Elizabethan era ... 'I must unfortunately sternly protest your outlandish conduct, Sir' .. with a glove slapped across the face .. but not so much today.

To the extent forum-members have taken the position that hailing "Protest" is socially awkward and unnatural and that this social/awkward-burden contributes to the timidity in its use as well as defensiveness when received, maybe the above is a partial explanation?

In the USA, we naturally say/call "FOUL" to an opponent when they break a rule (maybe that is only an American habit?). "Protest" is something make to a 3rd party  to settle a disagreement.

This is possibly why the word "protest" is so often surrounded by other words, which seemingly are an attempt to put the word in its more natural context ..

"Foul! .. you hit me .. if you don't do your turns  I'm going to protest"

#2 - Rule 61 is not restricted from change in Rule 86

If an OA/RC thinks the hail is onerous and unnecessary .. they can change rule 61.1(a) to remove the requirement for a specific hail in the NOR or SI's .. or change the hail to something else.   Likewise, if you want to provide a boat a longer time to do their turns or take a scoring penalty, change rules 44.2/44.3.  If you want to allow a boat to take a scoring penalty any time before the hearing, invoke Appx T1 in your NOR and customize the % penalties to your liking.

What I'm trying to point out here is that OA's have broad flexibility to set the stage for how on-the-water rule-breaches and penalties are defined and handled.    Write it up how you think it would work best in your area and in the sailing-culture of the event or area and try/refine ideas and processes.

For instance, the Annapolis YC uses the same penalty NOR's/SI's for their "fun" races (Wednesday Night Racing/Frostbite Racing), which remove penalty turns and have a graduated scale of scoring penalties .. (10% for hitting a mark, 20% for Part 2, 30% if you don't take the penalty at the time of the incident but do before the hearing).  This works out very well for these events.

#3 - Without the "Protest" hail, it's unfair to the Protestee as they are not afforded the opportunity to take an on-the-water penalty

Couple thoughts here .. 

First, there is no requirement that the hail of "protest" be heard, only that it be hailed.  I have been in many hearings were the Protestee does not acknowledge that they heard the hail, the Protestor testifies that they did hail and we find that the hail happened and that requirement was satisfied.  Sometimes we call in crew from the protesting boat .. other times not.  

Secondly, even within rule 61, we have .. 

So, the idea that the Protestee 'has a right to know immediately so they can have an opportunity to take an on-the-water penalty' is inconsistent at best.  The hail does not have to be heard by the Protestee to be a valid hail and the hail is not required from a distance or from the RC/PC.

I think that this idea that the hail doesn't have to be heard to be valid, contributes to this feeling of "getting off on a technicality" in some people's mind .. when "a hail" happens, is heard, but is not "Protest".

Interesting that the word 'protest' is thought to be overly aggressive. Sometimes in life when something has a bad image, the name is changed. The new friendly name takes on all the negative connotations of the old name. 

Angelo mentioned team racing and umpires. In my experience, competitors have no reticence about shouting protest. Digressing for a moment I find the etiquette of team racers (I mostly umpire university team racing) to be of the highest order.

Angelo speaks of a conversation on the water along the lines of. I think you fouled there. If you don't do your turns, I shall protest. I think a protest following that would be invalid because it would not be at the earliest opportunity. Further conversation of that nature might be on the edge of bullying, particularly where there is an empire and the protester tries to get an opponent to take a penalty without laying themselves open to the possibility of a red flag

Charles .. I personally agree and have no problems with hailing “protest” (or being hailed that)… just trying to understand what might be behind what seems to be more comfortable and come more naturally to some. 

It would be an easy experiment for those who would like to try. Add “Foul” in an NOR/SI as an allowable hail and see if there are fewer invalid protests due to lack of proper hail. 

My observation in the circles I move in is that what people actually do is a call on the lines of say "that was too close, I think you should do some turns". To my mind it's not so much the actual word but the 'immediate/earliest opportunity' part of it. To match how the sailors I see actually behave on the water the hail that results in a protest hearing should be able to be postponed until it is evident that the offending boat is not going to take an alternative penalty. I think Charles is correct to suggest a different word would make little difference. I am less convinced that team racing, where the rules are a sword rather than a shield, is usefully compared to casual club level racing.

I too agree that the actual word isn't the problem.

We should be mindful that in-trying to fix one thing, we risk breaking another.

Jim, the alternate penalty is required to be taken 'as soon as possible after the incident' to count.  This is a very standard requirement of an 'exclusion' penalty in any sport.  The offender is removed from the game at once, so they can have no possible influence in the play, and gain no advantage from their breach.

If you allow the delay, to wait to see if the offender will take that penalty by themselves, you are messing up the 'exclusion penalty' principals.

Firstly, the door is opened for the protestor to weigh up the pros and cons of protesting.  Also, by the time they eventually registered their complaint and hail, the offender has had enough time to say, round the mark or gas his opponent a little longer.

From a rules perspective you would now need to go in and somehow change RRS44 to allow that alternate penalty to be taken after that delay to still count.

You do hit a point though in this discussion.  To what extent does the competitive level of the competition count when considering and applying rules?  None, in my opinion.  It comes back to this misconstrued emotional link with the act and words.  A protest is simply a routine part of the game.  If in club sailing it has become to be seen as an act of aggression, then we need to work on fixing the club sailing, not the rules.

I know a club whose slogan is something like "We're the most friendliest club in town - we don't protest!"  So, that connection between protesting and aggression is perpetuated by the OA.  On the few occasions a protest hearing is required at this club, its a massive hurdle. The OA does what it can to change the mind of the protestor. "It's only a club race, Bill." "Let me have a talk to Bob."  "Bob says he's sorry, so let's leave it at that, shall we?"  If the protestor still goes ahead, the club scrambles to convene a committee and book a location.  At the last hearing at this club, the PC was inexperienced, and the decision was appealed on procedures.  It went on and on.  It is quite cumbersome for a protestor to get the hearing they are entitled to. No wonder the sailors resist this system.  The OA doesn't provide for it or support it.

But this discussion branch was launched on the question of the hail and protest being needed for hearing validity.  I still urge we must discuss the link between that immediate hail, and validity for a hearing.

Ben, I am with you. 

My point, to the extent that I have one, is that there is no need to complain if you don’t like the world as it is … build the world you want to see.  

These rules we are discussing are not restricted from change.   If, as some might  say, you are a club that wants to have a more flexible process to protest and more “friendly” options for your events … write it out in the NOR and SI’s (properly of course … be clear and state which rules you are changing) … but write it down so that it works for everyone.   

The WORST are these situations where people are supposed just understand and intuit what is going on. There shouldn’t be unwritten rules based on the culture of the event or club … as in your “friendly” example. 

You want to give people more time to protest?  Write it properly in an SI/NOR.

You want to give people more time to take their penalty?  Write it properly in an SI/NOR. 

You want to broaden the possibilities that qualify as the hail indicating the foul “foul”, “do your turns”, etc… or want to experiment with removing the hail all together?  Write it properly in an SI/NOR.

Personally, I think the rules work really well as they are, but these  rules we speak of are open to customization. 

Who knows, maybe someone will stumble on something what’s really good. 

I still think I understand the rule as it is. Is it perfect?  I don't know, but it can surely be worse.  I think trying to perfect rules often make them more complex and not easy to apply.  I think certified judges should apply the rules as they are written. There are steps to getting rules altered in place.

This thread has touched on so many topics of interest to me as I work to support the sport of sailboat racing through the many hats I wear at the many venues I serve. My approach has been, in regard to the rules, to encourage racers to learn as much as they can about the rules that we have agreed to abide by, but to not get too caught up in the minutia. Instead, they should look at the big picture and try to better understand how these rules help to orchestrate an orderly progression of boats around a race course. If you are weak in your knowledge of the rules of Part 2 then just don’t ‘meet’ any other boats and you will avoid confrontation on the race course and subsequently your 50/50 chances in a protest hearing.

There are definitely some competitors who are in it for the win and only the win and they can make for an unpleasant outing. Most are looking for a pleasant day on the water with like minded sailors and enjoy their company both during the race and at the bar afterwards. When my wife pointed out that I was always coming home from sailboat racing in a bad mood and complaining about my day’s experience I felt it was time to give up the tiller and take up the megaphone. For the past 15 years I’ve focused my attention on the Race Management side of the sport and have been honing my skills in that arena. This forum has been fortifying in my endeavor to perfect the process of running regattas and practice sessions.

In an effort to enforce the Basic Principles and Fundamental Rule 2, I frequently quote a couple of passages from my club’s 1927 Handbook at skippers’ meetings. It is not attributed to any particular author but I am sure that some of our current member’s fathers and/or grandfathers were responsible for these entries.

The true sportsman plays the game to the utmost with keenness and courage, but above all with fairness. He conceals his pride in victory with proper modesty, paying Dame Fortune her credit where due, and hides his disappointment in defeat behind a smile made possible by the thoughts of future victories. He is quick to acknowledge the skill and better judgment of his successful opponents, maintains both self-control and self-respect, and has consideration for the rights and opinions of others.

Additionally,

The Club believes in keen, alert helmsmanship, but it draws the line where keenness ends and sharp practice begins. It believes in playing the game according to the spirit, as well as the letter of the rules, and it insists that any and all infractions be duly reported at the conclusion of each race, for only in that way can high standards be maintained. When two or more boats touch or are in immediate danger of collision, someone is almost always violating the rules of the game and should be penalized, and the offending skipper will, if he is a true sportsman, be the first to insist that he must suffer for taking an unfair advantage of some other good sportsman, even though the chances are that the advantage was taken unintentionally.

One of my takeaways from these quotes is that the true sportsman is the first to acknowledge an unfair advantage (i.e. breaks a rule). If the hail ‘Protest’ is spoken then, almost by default, the protested boat is the second to acknowledge an infraction. Another takeaway is that these statements speak directly to the Corinthian Spirit we all espouse to live by.

I recently ran across another passage from a book written by Abby Freeman—The Sailing Rules of Life—2013. She writes:

The Corinthian Spirit is the code through which we judge our actions and gauge our decisions on the racecourse and in our personal lives. Sailing is a self-governed sport where each competitor must possess a high moral standard and personal code of ethics in order to have a fair race. The Corinthian spirit is a law greater than ourselves that maintains the underlying foundation for sailboat racing as well as the way in which competitors choose to live their lives.

These words of wisdom have helped me to contribute to the wholesome experience that exists at the clubs where I promote sailboat racing. We seldom have protest hearings, but when we do we turn them into learning experiences for the entire fleet. My hope is that in sharing this here it may have an even greater influence on this life-long sport. 

Gentlemen I agree with nearly all of that, and especially the malign effects of the 'no protest culture', the likelihood of unintended consequences if the rules are altered and the problems if competitors with quite different unwritten rule sets meet. 

However I'm not sure the RRS needs altering at all. As we know the RRS says "The protesting boat shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity." and "When necessary, was ‘Protest’ hailed and, if required, a red flag displayed correctly (rule 61.1(a))?". Isn't it just the case book that brings in the interpretation of 'first reasonable opportunity' meaning 'first action' ? It seems to me the actual text in the RRS is not incompatible with "the word Protest was hailed within a minute of the incident in the course of a dialogue between boats" or "the red flag was hoisted once it had been retrieved from the flag locker", both of which would result in the protest found invalid in current practice. 

Indeed, now I think of it, isn't this the source of the negativity one sees about protests being found invalid - that the requirement is not really in the rule book, but in the relatively obscure (to the casual competitor) case book? I'm not at all sure the average English speaker in the street where I live would understand  'first reasonable opportunity' to mean 'first action: no exceptions ' in quite the extreme and dare I say doctrinaire way that the Case Book interprets the words. I suggest that the case book interpretation would better serve words on the lines of 'inform the other boat as soon as humanly possible' - quite a different thing. 

JimC 

Love your thoughts Benjamin. I agree with them entirely.

Phil.

ED., please note that I have retired my IJ and am now NJ.

Jim re: "However I'm not sure the RRS needs altering at all. As we know the RRS says "The protesting boat shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity." and "When necessary, was ‘Protest’ hailed and, if required, a red flag displayed correctly (rule 61.1(a))?". Isn't it just the case book that brings in the interpretation of 'first reasonable opportunity' meaning 'first action' ? It seems to me the actual text in the RRS is not incompatible with "the word Protest was hailed within a minute of the incident in the course of a dialogue between boats" or "the red flag was hoisted once it had been retrieved from the flag locker", both of which would result in the protest found invalid in current practice. "

Yes, the Cases are definitive, while these appeals are opinions/guidance in their MNA's.
US122 on the Hail timing
US124 on the Flag timing
US125 on both Hail and Flag
RYA1999-01 about waiting to see if a boat is going to take a penalty before protesting

Well, I'd like to say thanks to everyone for chipping into this fascinating discussion.  Particularly, to Peter Clapp for sharing those quotations and thoughts.  I will certainly put them into my collection for use at seminars.

I remarked to myself, I don't think there's anyone in this online discussion who would disagree with the messages they are relaying. But that got me thinking.

I really believe that each of us is dedicated to promotion of fun, fair sailing, which ever method we personally think is best.  It's great to collect so many good ideas on how to improve sailing for everyone.

But that got me thinking even more.  The people who post in this kind of forum (you, me them, everyone), are largely doing so for out of interest in the rules, and a desire to share and discuss in order to help others and possibly improve our sport.

Aren't we preaching to the converted, as they say?

Similar to every rules seminar I've presented, there is always a void of people who don't want to be at the seminar! Duh, of course..!  I never see those who hate rules, who think they're a waste of time and obstacle to fun at my seminars.  Same in this discussion thread.  To fully understand the problems, somehow we need to find a way of polling the attitudes of those who don't care.

Does anyone know of any major study of competitor attitudes done recently (or ever)?

Just thinking aloud!

----------------------------------------
Meanwhile back to the subject...

JohnS/Jim, present a very good case that there is a significant group of sailors who find the rules a source of intimidation and a barrier to fun.  This does need to be addressed.  Perhaps we will never be able to fix that.  Perhaps its life or simple mathematics.  (Have you ever tried getting the right half of a normal distribution to the left?)

Peter's quotes are inspiring and also  interesting.  They are utopian in my opinion (there will always be bad guys), but they do set good goals to strive for.   Interestingly, I copy from Peter's quotes...

"It believes in playing the game according to the spirit, as well as the letter of the rules..."

"The realization that there is not always a referee to enforce fairness and how quickly the sport changes when rules are thrown out the window demonstrates the importance and the need for rules to maintain and progress the sport."

Both quotations are adamant that the existence and enforcement of rules are an integral part of that utopian sailing world. This I agree with.  For the Corinthian Spirit to properly work, rules are necessary and must be enforced.

Ang points out that the hailing and flag rules can be changed locally to suit to enhance the fun and enjoyment of the sport.  I am in two minds about this. I have seen modifications to the rules set changed to enhance 'fun' of the event.

One set of SIs I've raced under said...:

"To protest, the skipper must wave some underwear (clean of course) and wear it on their head for the rest of the race. If you're found guilty (at the kangaroo court), you must buy a round of beers!"

Sailing at this event was certainly fun, I can tell you!

However, I think most rule modifications often have a limited lifetime and fall apart quickly and easily or will need patching.

That's because the rule book is a product of Dawin-ium evolution of the rules its made of. It's why I generally say that the rule book should be left as it is.  (Don't get me wrong, a game should be adapted to keep up with changes over time.)  However, mostly the current rule book works with the tried-and-tested rules in there.

Rules come and rules go. Good rules stay.

Peter says that most sailors don't want to get too caught up in the minutia, and that is exactly right.

However, at least some people must get caught up in the minutia.  In this and many forums like this, we like to get caught up, so the rest of the sailors don't have to.

Talking of minutia, there is still a discussion why an immediate hail is required to validate written protest.  We'll get there eventually.

Well, that's all for now!

To Peter's contribution I would add this quote, from the foreword to early editions of "Paul Elvstrom Explains the Racing Rules:

Sailors might be more willing to protest if the understanding was that by declining to hail protest, you're giving up a significant tactical advantage.