I don't think this is contrary to E5.2.  E5.2 only places limits on where observers and umpires can be while performing their tasks.  Witnesses in a hearing may umpires or observers but not necessarily.  They could also be other competitors (limited to control area, E3.1) or race officers.  Race officers are *not* limited by the rules to remaining in the control area during a heat.  Rule 63.6(a) gives the PC wide latitude under "other evidence it considers necessary" to gather whatever information they feel they need to reach a decision.

Rule E6.8 adds the requirement that all witnesses to an incident have to be in the control area at the time of the incident, so I think the answer to question 1 is no, the witness must be in the control area.  I agree that videos are acceptable as noted but I think it could be argued that the taker of the video is a witness for the purpose of this rule and must be in the control area, or it might be concluded that the video itself is a witness for the purpose of this rule and so must have been in the control area when created.  I don't think there are any precedents or persuasive texts on this.

I stand corrected...

Bob, video isn’t considered a “witness”. It is a type of evidence. 

The taker of video could be called as a witness if there was question of its authenticity or that it may have been manipulated/edited and the videographer is not a party to the hearing.  That said, that isn’t very common. 

A party to the hearing can “run down” video from 3rd parties and present the video without being expected to produce the owner of the video as a witness. 

So, I think your point is correct. Without a specific case/call that says otherwise, rule 63.6(a) and (d) are still in effect. 

PS: This is a really interesting question though!  Maybe an OA or IJ that specializes in RC events could submit the question to the Q&A service. 

Here is the ref page for the RC Call Book.  Nothing that I could find that limits the use of video evidence. 

Bob, I completely missed E6.8. Must be getting old...

Angelo, which/who's point are you referring to in "So, I think your point is correct"; mine or Bobs?

I find it odd that E6.8 limits witnesses to the control area (which makes sense) and E5.2 bans any visual aid, but Appendix E does not place restrictions on video evidence in terms of location and zoom.

Johan … I guess Bob’s .. “I don't think there are any precedents or persuasive texts on this [that the video is considered a witness, or that it is testimony of the owner who is then a witness].” … and a helping of John C’s comment of 63.3(a). 

Don’t get me wrong.  Your logic makes a lot of sense in the context the RC rules you cited .. but IMO an RC Call is needed or a mod to the rule. 

If this is indeed the intent of the rule … maybe just …

This issue has arisen on several occasions. The interpretation has been that:
- the witness is the person filming. Their evidence may be presented by a party to the hearing as a form of hearsay evidence.
- when the protest concerns an alleged breach of a rule of part 2, 3 or 4 the witness shall have been in the control area at the time of the incident (E6.8). 
- A witness who is a competitor must have been scheduled to race in the heat (E6.8)
- Any other witness must be entitled to be in the control area (a signifcant issue when the control area is small and the are SIs controlling who may be in the control area when racing).

There is a philosophical or ethical issue: decisions of umpires and judges should be based on information that was available to the persons controlling the boats at the time of the incident.There is widespread consensus that umpires and observers should be in the control area with the same, or similar view of the sailing area as the competitors.
I have been to some events with a very restricted control area ( a platform built out over the lake). As a result the windward mark was frequently 100 m away. There were spectators standing on the bank 15-20 m  from the mark
 Radio sailing  does not really worlk at these distances. When competitors are having difficulty reading sail numbers, it is also diffiuclt to judge angles, distance between boats, lay-lines etc. Incidents may occur that compeitotros are unaware of. The establishment of facts depepndent upon these forms of information becomes difficult or not impossible.
The current rules require the umpires and observers to make their decisions based on the same information as that available to compeititors.If they were standing outside the control area they might have a better view of the incident but:
- any decision would be unfair
- the observer or umpire process depends on a dialogue between the competitors and the race officials. This cannot function if they are not in the same space.

There is an example from athletics: the rules of Olympic walking events are that at least one foot shall be in contact with the ground. Unfortunately, when video evidence became available it became clear that no walker was conforming to the law. As a result the rules specify that any breach of the rule must be observed with the naked eye.

I would suggest that any change to the principle that decisions must be based on observations from the control area should only be envisaged when there is convincing evidence that such a change would be welcomed by the competitors. That is not the case at present.

Thanks for you comments Gordon. Just so I’m not misunderstanding, are you saying that if the video evidence is presented by the competitor as hearsay evidence and the videographer is not present at the protest, the current practiced is to exclude the evidence if the videographer did not take the video from the control area?  

That is exactly what we have done. The information from the viewpoint outside the control area is not available to the competitors at the time of the incident.

Gordon, that’s great info.  Thank you!

I’m surprised that an RC Call hasn’t been issued on this since it does change 63.3(a) and (d) to an extent (by narrowing them).  Or, adding  “or visual evidence source” to E6.8 I think would make it very clear as well.

It is quite a departure from what’s allowed in general fleet racing, especially your point about the sense that they are  “to make their decisions based on the same information as that available to compeititors”.  Drone footage coming from a media source, that was later publicly shown at the dock party for instance .. or uploaded to the internet .. could be submitted in a hearing in fleet racing. 

Hi everyone 
I totally agree with Gordon. 
I should add that recently I met one French competitor and very committed in Radio Sailing (IRSA, French IOM Class... ) , during a regional event. He told me that the proposal for umpires to be located close to the windward mark sitting on a RIB to have a better look on this part of the race which is often subject to incidents (mark touched, infringement of RRS 18.3 ...) will not be acceptable. 
In addition, RS competitors are not onboard as in other sailing activities and that is the key point to keep in mind to understand these restrictions of proofs outside of the control area. Every one has to be in the same conditions for the fairness of competitions.  

2 points:
- the prohibition of use of visual aids only applies to observers and umpires (see RRS E5.2). A witness filming the heat is not an observer or umpire.
- it is remarkable how infrequently a video provides conclusive evidence.

I disagree fundamentally with your propsal to change E6.8. The basic principle of sportsmanship and the rules states that competitors are expected to follow and enforce the rules. The first person on whom a competitor must enforce the rules is himself.  In order to follow and enforce the rules a competitor must be in a position where it is possible to see the incident. A boat cannot propmptly take an appropriate penalty or action when they are unaware that a rule has broken.

I would, reluctantly, accept a change to this rule if there is clear evidence that it is supported by a large majority of radio sailors. I see no evidence of this at present

The solution to this whole issue is rather that race officers should not set courses where boats are sailing so far away from the control area that competitors cannot clearly see their boats.

Gordon, my only point here is that you are sharing how this has been interpreted… but that interpretation is not found directly in the RC rules or RC Calls (or Cases that I could find). 

Since it does restrict the evidence that may be considered in a hearing (especially in the context of the new 63.6(a)), I think that interpretation is important enough that it deserves to be documented and disseminated in some fashion .. either in the rule or maybe more easily (and more appropriately) in an RC Call (maybe one in a Q&A form). 

Ang