Interesting. I think the intent is “informing the protestee” … so another standardized method of informing would seem fine.

The question might be about “first avail opp” for taking a penalty. Are they also doing scoring penalties instead of turns?  If so, then maybe the yellow goes away with the red and maybe add a broad time span to take a penalty?

PS: Probably need a companion SI that says they shall monitor the designated VHF channel at all times while racing. 

If there were to be a Part 2 incident it seems like the boats involved would be in the same proximity as they would be in a buoy race so I don’t know if there’s a good reason to change the notification requirement. Depending on expected conditions it might be worth coming up with a safe & appropriate substitute for a turns penalty.

If there's a foul, and it's boat against boat, they should be close enough to see a flag during the day at least.
And, yes we certainly DO protest in an offshore race.

Interesting question though - would a hail made over VHF radio, if timely and including the word "protest", meet the requirements?

Does it make a difference if the hail is made on a channel the competitors have been advised to cover, or perhaps channel 16?

Is this a case where rules require a hail to be  made but don’t require it to be heard might come into play?

I don't see why flying a protest flag is a big imposition. But equally, boats less than six metres are already exempt from flying a protest flag and that doesn't cause too many troubles. So I don't see a problem with exempting bigger boats from flying a protest flag either. 

I’m not an offshore racer, so I have no view as to the need for the change. 

If you were to make the change, describing what is a sufficient hail on VHF would be important. Is the protested boat required to acknowledge? What if they choose not to, etc…

We did have an incident recently where one boat protested the other. After the on the water hail and flag, the protested boat did not do turns. The hailing boat was so surprised that they figured the other boat hadn’t heard the hail in all the ruckus. So they tried hailing on VHF. And they hailed, over and over and over, with no response. There was no requirement to monitor VHF after the start in most circumstances. And there is no requirement to acknowledge a protest hail. And, for the rest of us, it was very awkward to listen to ;)

Just something to think through…

Thank you for all the comments.  The consensus so far seems to be, there really isn’t a need for this, but it might work if done carefully.  I will continue to advocate for not removing the flag requirement

You may want to look at NoR/SI from races like the Pacific Cup or Transpac.  I think they have provisions to not display a protest flag for the entire race, but you are required to notify the RC during normal check-ins.

I would agree that for an offshore race the requirement to carry the protest flag continuously through the finish could be relieved. It serves no purpose and I imagine it could be a nuisance.

Turn it around. What purpose does the flag display achieve, other than to provide a get-out-of-gaol-free for a boat that has broken the fundamental rule? 

I Agree with Jim, protest flag and hail are a get out of jail card, remove both, I’ve seen protests thrown out because the incident was during a manoeuvre, and the skipper and crew were involved in operating the boat, protest flag goes up 30 seconds later, the shout didn’t actually say protest due to adrenaline flowing, anc the committee declares an obvious foul an “invalid protest” and the offending boat who cheated by not taking a penalty laughs all the way to the results sheet. Stupid rule been to there to long

How many times have we seen boats finishing Sydney Hobart with protest flags...?

Similar to Rob, in an offshore race, I know of a protest against a boat for not displaying navigation lights as required being thrown out because a red flag was not flown and the word protest not shouted - both of which would have been completely ineffective with the offending boat 1 mile away in the dark.  It seems sensible to have another method of communicating intention to protest.  There is already a legal requirement to monitor VHF channel 16, and often the SIs mandate a specific channel for interboat communications during a race.  If the offending boat isn't monitoring those channels, other competitors are likely to be able to witness that the call was made.  

Rule 61 (PROTEST REQUIREMENTS) and rule 44 (PENALTIES AT TIME OF INCIDENT)  are all customizable under RRS 86 and I don’t think there anything wrong with some experimentation ..as long as it’s clearly spelled out.  It can be a breeding ground for innovation.

For instance, if all boats in the regatta were required to monitor a VHF channel, a protest-hail over VHF has the potential of having many more witnesses than a flag or voice-only hail. 

Such an SI could add to the protest-hail requirement.  For instance, currently the name of boat being protested is not required in the hail … only the word “protest”.   One could envision NOR/SI’s such as (just a quick 1st swack at it):

Something like "Protest. Protest.  This is J/80 Clever sail #123 protesting boat sail #666 at 12:30hrs" .. repeat.

… I don’t know .. that might work.   Maybe add a requirement to notify the RC via email like they do in the VOR SI’s. 

In Rob's case, I think that was an error by the protest committee and should have been appealed.  In Kirsteen's case, 61.1(a)1 applies, and the hail is not necessary, but the flag still is.  I agree, that seems pointless.

For fun, I asked chatGPT:

Model: GPT-4

Crabbe:

You are an international judge, certified by world sailing.  You have been asked to write a set of sailing instructions for an offshore distance race involving boats up to 50 feet in length.  The organizing authority asks you to include language that removes the requirement to fly a red protest flag to protest another boat.  Argue that this is a bad idea.

ChatGPT

2 / 2

As an International Judge, I understand the reasons why the Organizing Authority might want to remove the requirement to fly a red protest flag during an offshore distance race. Indeed, the logistics and practicalities of flying a flag while offshore can be challenging. However, I would argue that this decision could have significant implications on the fairness and effectiveness of protests in these races. I present my reasons below:

Therefore, instead of removing the requirement altogether, I suggest considering adjustments that accommodate the realities of offshore racing but still uphold the intent of the rule. For example, we could allow for different methods of communicating protests that suit offshore conditions, such as designated radio communications or electronic signals, while maintaining the principle of immediate and visible notification.

In conclusion, maintaining some form of the red protest flag rule is important for maintaining fairness, consistency, evidence during hearings, and safety in offshore distance racing.

Crabbe:

Take the opposite position, that this is good for competitors and fairness

ChatGPT

As an International Judge, I understand the reasons why the Organizing Authority might want to remove the requirement to fly a red protest flag during an offshore distance race. I agree that this could be beneficial to competitors and overall fairness. Here's why:

While it is important to uphold the fundamental principles of fair sailing and sportsmanship, modifying the protest flag requirement could indeed provide a more practical and effective approach to protests in offshore distance racing. This approach could also open up opportunities for incorporating technology and modern communication methods into sailing, improving the overall management and execution of protests.

Ric re: ChatGPT … 

Ask it to argue with itself, decide which is correct and unplug the loser.  It just might work and save us all!!

PS .. looks like the Bot gave you a promotion!