90.3 (c)
When the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly, it shall correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors.

Era meglio se prima di scrivere davi un occhiata al regolamento

ok, thanks Paul.
Now, next step: is the RC alone entitle to evaluate situation, where he deem the OCS (or other infraction) amendable? 
Example:  RC find out the pin end was moving backward, so OCS are doubtful. Is he entitled to cancel the OCS, or is mandatory that what happened have do go through a PC hearing for a redress? 

Aldo, a moving mark is a different situation IMO. 

The RC is only allowed to make corrections of “errors” from its own records and observations.  This is different from the “errors and omissions” in an R4R.  The error in 90.3(c) is more limited to recording errors. 

The fact that the mark was moving is not part of the evaluation of whether or not a boat is OCS.   If the RC saw the boat’s bow past the pin at the gun, the boat is OCS .. that is what their record should state.  This would not be an error.  

IMO, if an RC believes that the mark movement was due to their doing (too little scope/weight on anchor to hold in the conditions) … they could file a R4R for the boat and claim that they made an error and leave it to the PC.  

If the RC sees that a mark is moving during a start, why would they not do a General Recall?

One would hope. Or postpone if they notice it before the starting signal, which they should - line sighter is looking right at it…

Tim re: “One would hope. Or postpone if they notice it before the starting signal,”

Absolutely … but I don’t think that’s the premise of Aldo’s follow-on question.  I think we are to assume that the RC let the start run, a single boat is called over, and the RC’s line spotter reports that the pin moved … after OCS has been called and recorded. 

With these facts, IMO, I do not think the RC can change the OCS to a clean-start using 90.3(c).  The line is based on where the pin is at the gun, not the location the RC wished it was. 

IMO, it’s  not a recording error and an RC that is concerned about this information should file an R4R on behalf of the OCS boat. 

Angelo, I personally would take the opposite view. The scoring of OCS in this particular case, I would view in the light of the information about the pin slip as an error which I would correct. To my mind, the error is clear - that a mark off the course was moved (perhaps by nature, but the position of it is the responsibility of the RC) after the prep signal (27.4) and no action was taken to replace or substitute it (32) nor to abandon or postpone. Perhaps think of it this way: if I had known at the time that the mark had slipped, what action would I have taken? Probably not to score OCS. Therefore, I am correcting my judgement of the situation, which was an error of omission. Added benefit: no one has to attend a hearing.

Paul .. it’s an interesting question.

IMO such an RC is doing one of the things below (without telling anyone):

1) they are changing the definition of “start”, or
2) they are changing the SI, on the fly, that defines the starting-line being defined by the course-side of the pin. 

… neither of the above is a proper action of an RC. 

Also, what about the other competitors?  What if others noticed the pin slipping and adjusted their starts to add cushion to accommodate this slippage?  How is that fair to those boats?

IMO, RC’s should call it straight, and not change defined terms or SI’s quietly on the water to accommodate individual boats. 

Even if the pin is drifting, it is not necessarily a movement by the RC. For instance a self propelled mark has no anchor. There is no rule that states a pin end has to be stationary. 27.2 is the other way round. Stating only that until the preparatory signal they may be moved.

Scoring a boat OCS when it is clearly over the line is never an improper action. Not doing so on the other hand would be an omission by the RC.

An active moving of a starting mark may be improper, but not necessarily. Letting the PC define this for a case that is not clear cut is in my opinion a good decision.

I actually think that rule 90.3 (c) is talking about actually making errors when scoring. Say a penalty is incorrectly applied to the score.  It talks about SCORING incorrectly.

Lloyd, OCS is a scoring action as it’s a just a version of “did not start” listed in A5 and detailed in A10 … so it’s within the bounds of 90.3(c). 

Also, I don’t think additional observational information is out of the question either.  For instance a boat scored at her finish-place initially, but then later changed to NSC based on a report from a mark-boat once ashore, would be required under 90.3(c) and A5.1. 

I think the strongest nail to hang our hat on is that the RC must defy the def:start, and/or the SI defining the starting line, in order to decide such a boat is not OCS, which as Hans points out would be an improper action or omission (depending on how the question was phrased). 

There are no disclosure requirements on the part of the RC when making scoring changes under 90.3(c).   Therefore, other competitors in this race impacted by this OCS score change get no notice of the basis of this change and thus no clue that this change may be an improper action/omission by the RC. 

That’s why I believe this change should only be make by the PC in a redress hearing.  In the US, all boats in that fleet will be given notice and an opportunity to chime in. 

In the case of the drifting pin,

If the boat is over the line between the starting marks she is OCS:  no error or improper action there.

And if a boat was OCS, there will be recall signals and all sorts of things to unwind.

The improper action was for the race committee to allow the pin to drift.

If the race committee sees this, It should consider requesting redress for affected boats.

I agree with Angelo that the race committee shouldn't be stretching or rewriting the SI.

@Allan Is there a rule that says a starting mark shall not drift? If not, why is this an improper action by the race committee?

If you say by RRS 27.2, what does „move“ mean? A self propelled mark does propel herself constantly through the water and is stationary over ground, but will move constantly to this GPS coordinate. Waves, current changes or wind changes can move a mark around, even if they are properly anchored. At what point does such a movement become an improper action by the RC?

Once I was pin end on a really shitty day and the mark would not stop to drift at a speed of maybe 2m per minute which was significant enough for some boats to be BFD. Was that start sequence improper? Line length was about 300m for 60 420 dinghies. 7 Bft, 8 in gusts, 3-5m waves, current against the wind.

Hans,

I think rule 34 comes pretty close.


Of course if its not possible .....

thank you all for your comments.
Sorry i was absent since i posted the question, but we had a flood here, pretty bad.

My example/doubt was not the pin end moving, but a RC boat that, due to high waves and bad anchoring,  drift backward  in the last seconds, with no one in RC taking care or realizing that.
Boats are all on starboard (i.e. RC boat is behind their back) and cannot not realize the starting line is moving.
No general recall, no abandonement.
Now, if the RC, ashore, after further investigation realizes that the anchoring was bad, and that it was highly probable that the RC boat actually drifted backward. 
Say it was.
So:
- can the RC amend the OCS under 90.3 c) ? I was positive about the yes, but now i'm no more.
- can the PC give redress to the OCS boats, considering  " improper action or omission" of the RC (they should have interrupted the race) , or PC cannot, because the boats are bound to respect the definition of start, whatever happen?
Thanks