Forum: Share your SI/NOR language.

Outside Information

John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
Sharing for comment and critique as I'm writing a bunch of race docs.

Background:

Appendix LG says:  [DP] [While racing][From the first warning signal until the end of the last race of the day], except in an emergency, a boat shall not make voice or data transmissions and shall not receive voice or data communication that is not available to all boats.

Case 120 uses the phrase "information freely available"

As medical technology advances, internet connected medical devices are common and often necessary for competitors. For instance, looping insulin systems (I'm diabetic) utilize outside connections between a glucose monitor and a pump.

My proposed language is as follows:

[DP] [While racing][From the first warning signal until the end of the last race of the day], except in an emergency, a boat shall not make voice or data transmissions and shall not receive voice or data communication that is not medically necessary or freely available to all boats. 

I'd love the group's thoughts. 


Created: 23-May-06 14:36

Comments

John Fothergill
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
0
There could be other valid reasons so why be restrictive?  Why not add something like "... that could advantage themselves or advantage or disadvantage any of the competitors directly or indirectly." (Or something!!)
Created: 23-May-06 15:06
Nigel Vick
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
They'd better take their earplugs as well, just to ensure that no one talks to them.
Interesting idea, not receiving voice communications.
I guess you can receive a transmission, so why not use the same term for receiving.
Created: 23-May-06 18:26
Warren Nethercote
Nationality: Canada
0
Unnecessary in my view as outside the context intended.  You (in this case) are part of the boat, but the communication between your blood sugar monitor and the 'watchers' ashore is unrelated to the race and the RRS' concept of outside assistance.
Created: 23-May-06 19:03
Graham Smith
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
0
I sometimes wonder if our sport is being used as a training ground for lawyers. The intent is clear and needs no further clarification beyond the standard wording. If someone wants to protest you for an insulin device, or for your brain transmitting instructions to your muscles to initiate a tack, I would suggest they find another sport. 
Created: 23-May-06 19:12
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
I think that [DP] totally covers the matter.
.
However, if you insist, go with "neither...nor."
Created: 23-May-06 23:50
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I believe in keeping the si as simple as possible, so I advocate no change to the standard wording.
I agree that, really it falls outside, the recognised concept of outside assistance. 

A jury should have sense do the DP enough. 

Yes I am a lawyer! 
Mike
Created: 23-May-07 13:37
John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
The problem with relying on [DP] is that if you determine they broke a rule, but the penalty is a warning, they need to stop or it becomes a Rule 2 issue. Yes, we all agree that we wouldn't stop medical monitoring, be it diabetes, heart issues, seizure monitoring, etc. That doesn't change that it breaks the plain wording of the standard appendix wording. 

That said, with the case using the word "freely", I'm confused as to why we aren't using the word "freely" as the standard. 
Created: 23-May-07 13:49
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I cannot see rule 2 ever as a problem. How using a medical advice could be "against the principles of fair sailing and sportsmanship" is beyond me. 

Mike
Created: 23-May-07 14:06
John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
What would you do for [DP] decision? X broke SI XX.X.
The Protest Committee determined the appropriate discretionary penalty was ??

You probably need to at least give a warning because it did break a rule. 
Even if you give a penalty of 0 points, if the behavior continues in the next race, the person has intentionally broken a rule. As such, I think we should be clear it isn't against a rule. 

I think a normal path might be "penalty is a warning" or "penalty is zero", then make an SI change to make it not breaking a rule tomorrow. As such, why not avoid it altogether and think ahead by adding a few words. 

Clearly, this could be addressed in class rules, and likely should work its way through class rules on permitted equipment. Getting that done for all classes is likely to take a while, if even possible. 
Created: 23-May-07 14:12
Michael Moradzadeh
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
0
I have long been concerned about this kind of SI. On its face, it prohibits a crew member from texting their spouse to say "looks like we'll be in a little late."  For that matter, it appears that some of the standard functions of my trusty iPhone would also violate the SI. It broadcasts my location to MY spouse; it performs updates on its own. It gets text messages.  I could, I suppose turn it off and command everyone on the boat to do likewise.  I wonder, however whether this rule adds anything to the general "No Outside Assistance" rule.
Created: 23-May-07 17:05
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
What is the need for this SI? If they receive outside assistance they've broken a rule anyway, and if they don't receive outside assistance then there's no point in the rule. 
Created: 23-May-08 13:42
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Appendix LG says:  
[DP] [While racing][From the first warning signal until the end of the last race of the day], except in an emergency, a boat shall not make voice or data transmissions and shall not receive voice or data communication that is not available to all boats.

Despite claims that Appendix KG and LG are 'tried and true', this is not necessarily always the case.

Don't get me wrong, for the main part the model wordings are as sound as can be and carry the imprimatur of being 'Appendices'.  I'm not sure what to, but they're from WS anyway.  This can be handy when trying to hose down the more extravagant proposals for NOR/SI from inexperienced OA/RC members.

Two comments on the above.

  1. It refers to 'voice or data communication':  seemingly this is intended to refer to 'electronic  voice or data comunication', but that's not what it says.  As others have observed, 'voice communication' on the face of it, and there is no warrant to construe it any other way, includes speech between persons.  OK, you could rely on absurdity to rule this out, but 'electronic' would have been a good inclusion'.
  2. It refers to 'voice or data communication [that is:  "information"] that is not available to all boats.  RRS 41.(c) provides an exemption for 'information freely available to all boats'.  As any legal drafter will tell you, change your words, change your meaning'.  The wording would have been better to say 'freely available', expecially, as the meaning of this is amplified in Case 120.
Created: 23-May-16 12:32
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Michael Moradzadeh
said Created: 23-May-07 17:05
I have long been concerned about this kind of SI. On its face, it prohibits a crew member from texting their spouse to say "looks like we'll be in a little late."  For that matter, it appears that some of the standard functions of my trusty iPhone would also violate the SI. It broadcasts my location to MY spouse; it performs updates on its own. It gets text messages.  I could, I suppose turn it off and command everyone on the boat to do likewise.  I wonder, however whether this rule adds anything to the general "No Outside Assistance" rule.

Yes, that's exactly what it does do, 'while racing'.  If you are racing under this SI, turn your iPhone off and save your domestic arrangements for after you have finished.  Or is you think it's overkill, write a letter to your club sailing committee saying so and suggesting that not be included in future.

The purpose of this SI is to prohibit identifiable processes that could contribute to outside help.  Who's to know that your message to your wife that you will be late to dinner doesn't mean that she should hang the red towel out the window if there's a left shift at the top mark?

If your wife, and other wives at the club wouldn't know what a left shift was, and don't own red towels, then persuade your Sailing Committee to ditch the SI.
Created: 23-May-16 12:43
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
John Fothergill
saidCreated: 23-May-06 15:06
There could be other valid reasons so why be restrictive?  Why not add something like "... that could advantage themselves or advantage or disadvantage any of the competitors directly or indirectly." (Or something!!)

Because that would create a two part offence:
  1. that the communication did take place, and
  2. that the communication resulted in advantage.

That's no better than RRS  41 bare.

As I said above, the purpose of the SI is to prohibit an identifiable intermediate action that may lead to breach of RRS 41, without having to prove the whole of RRS 41.
Created: 23-May-16 12:46
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
John Porter
sad Created: 23-May-07 13:49
The problem with relying on [DP] is that if you determine they broke a rule, but the penalty is a warning, they need to stop or it becomes a Rule 2 issue. Yes, we all agree that we wouldn't stop medical monitoring, be it diabetes, heart issues, seizure monitoring, etc. That doesn't change that it breaks the plain wording of the standard appendix wording. 

I follow your logic, but I think you're going too far.  There may well be circumstances where a subsequent breach after a warning was not a breach of sportsmanship.  I don't think your idea should be adopted a some sort of principle.

WS Jury Policies Discretionary Penalties contains numerous examples of breaches after warning that just attract no more than a further or higher penalty.

John Porter
said Created: 23-May-07 14:12
What would you do for [DP] decision? X broke SI XX.X.
The Protest Committee determined the appropriate discretionary penalty was ??

You probably need to at least give a warning because it did break a rule. 
Even if you give a penalty of 0 points, if the behavior continues in the next race, the person has intentionally broken a rule. As such, I think we should be clear it isn't against a rule. 


WS Preferred Wording gives the following for writing up DP,  which mirrors the wording provided in the DP Policy

Using the Discretionary Penalty Policy, a starting penalty of [##]% was decided.
[The penalty was decreased because……] or [There were no facts to justify decreasing the penalty].
[The penalty was increased because…...] or [There were no facts to justify increasing the penalty].
X is penalized [##]% applied to [all races of the day] [race(s) ##], calculated to the nearest tenth of a point, (0.05 to be rounded upward), but not worse than the score for DNF.

Section C of the DP Policy addresses breaches by boats, while Section D addresses beaches by Support Persons.  There is no provision in Section C for a warning to be given as a DP.  I guess the thinking is that you can't warn a boat (and yes I know what the definition of 'boat' is).

The SI we are discussing addresses 'boats', so Section C of the DP Policy is the one that applies.

I think a normal path might be "penalty is a warning" or "penalty is zero", then make an SI change to make it not breaking a rule tomorrow. As such, why not avoid it altogether and think ahead by adding a few words. 

So the protest commitee could penalise the boat zero points.

Clearly, this could be addressed in class rules, and likely should work its way through class rules on permitted equipment. Getting that done for all classes is likely to take a while, if even possible. 

I agree.

These sorts of constraints on electronics are a preoccupation of some particular classes, so let them and their technical committees take care of it.

SI are beset with restrictive but unneccessary requirements that somebody saw somewhere once and thought it gave a 'professional  look', or 'rigour' to the SI.


Created: 23-May-16 16:34
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Yes, we know what "boat" means. It is in the Introduction/Terminology.
However, "help" is not defined in the rules. 
Therefore, a dictionary or common sense definition would find that the medical data communication described does not help the boat.
Created: 23-May-16 17:01
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Phillip,

The SI we are talking about has nothing to do with help.

It refers only to transissions and communication.
Created: 23-May-16 18:03
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more