Russel re: “and perhaps I'm asking that we reconsider reframing this rule's wording”

Why don’t you show us the language you think would be better?  

As someone who’s dabbled in trying to “improve” the rules with new language … improving is easy in the abstract … but quite another to do in practice without breaking something else in the process.

Let us see what’cha got. 

It is quite simple to utter the word ‘Protest’. If the other competitor/s take penalties, you have lost nothing. If you choose to wait to see if you have in your fleet one or more of those rare individuals who take responsibility for their own actions, you may forgo the opportunity to have a valid protest. And to be generous to your competition, they may not realise that they have infringed you so may sail on blissfully unaware that you have been wronged. So shout it out loud!

Absolutely agree with Nick - the point being that, by shouting immediately, you give the infringing boat the opportunity of taking an on the water penalty.
I did once have a protest ruled invalid at a European championship because I yelled "Do your turns, Protest" - the word protest was not made at the "first reasonable opportunity".   The concept is universally accepted so why change.

I can see that it's quite easy to say, and I accept that.  But in reality, re Robin's point, saying "do your turns, Protest" is surely something that should also be valid?  There's no disadvantage to any competitor, it intention is clear.  And it cannot be universally accepted (because it happened) and so some clarification/discussion/interpretation is needed.

Picking me up on not offering an alternative is fine.  And perhaps the solution is for a case to determine that "first reasonable" may not be "immediately".  However, I can also see there are perhaps more important areas to focus on :0)

The "Five Second Rule" is valid for food dropped on the floor and recall flags at the start. I was on RCs when a redress committee rightfully voided an OCS call because the horn was at 6 seconds (documented by video). 
This is a self-policing sport. Most skippers know enough about the rules that when they violate one, they do their turns. If they must be reminded to do so at the "First Reasonable Opportunity" their sportsmanship is put into question. The first reasonable verbal opportunity may come at a time much more than 5 seconds. Posting the protest flag needs to be much closer to the 5 seconds.

As a sailor who has competed and judged at all levels, I know to say "Protest" immediately at the time of an incident, and in bigger boats I make sure there's a protest flag rolled up on the backstay, ready to be pulled less than 2 seconds after an incident.  But I agree with Russell -- many sailors have not competed in those circumstances and don't hail or, if required, fly a red flag immediately, either because, as he says, they want to give the other boat a chance to take the penalty without being protested or because it takes them a moment to analyze what just happened and to decide whether to protest or take a penalty.  

I think we might want to look at the big picture here.  I'm guessing that just about every sailor out there has learned at some point that protest committees interpret "as soon as possible" for protest hails to mean "immediately" and that if a crew member had to go below to get the flag, that's too long a delay.  The way they learned that lesson was, usually, that they protested somebody for fouling them and the protest was found to be invalid.  So, assuming there are tens of thousands of competitors, that means tens of thousands of times sailors have thought they got fouled, tried to protest, and were rejected for technical reasons.  Given how reluctant most sailors are to protest in the first place, that probably means tens of thousands of times boats have fouled other boats and gotten away with it just because of overly stringent protest requirements.  

The argument given in this thread for an immediate hail and almost immediate flag is to give the other boat an opportunity to take an immediate penalty, but why are we requiring penalties to be taken immediately?  

I think the problem here is that people think of protesting differently at the level of club sailing than they do at the level of, say, Olympic sailing, and the rules are written more for the top levels than for the bottom ones.  Fortunately, rules 61.1 and 43 can be changed by sailing instructions (or, preferably, by the notice of race).  For club-level competition, why not say something like,

'NoR X  Replace "as soon as possible" with "soon" in RRS 61.1 and in rule 44.2. An action is "soon after the incident" when it is close enough in time to the incident that the incident is clearly identified.'

Alternatively, write an NoR that interprets "as soon as possible" to mean something like "as soon as she can conveniently do so" in RRS 61.1 and "as soon as the boat recognizes they may have broke a rule" in rule 44.2.  

This might lead to fewer boats "getting away with it" on the racecourse and, possibly, fairer sailing.

Case 124 is relevant (US) though it only applies to flags.

US Appeal 122 covers “Protest” hail … in the US of course. I think of 122 and 124 as twin sister appeals.  

This harkens to another recent post on a similar topic .. and I made a similar comment. 

Russel .. why don’t you toss some language up here and let us see what you are thinking. 

Here's a slight paraphrase of an SI from a race this weekend: 

"A boat that has broken rule 31 or a rule of Part 2 of the RRS may 
take a one-turn penalty before reaching the next mark of the course.  This changes rule 44.1."

This removes the requirement for immediacy in the jail and flag.

When training ROs to write NoR and SIs I am always very concious of the need to attempt to standardise the format of these documents.  The byword is that if you need to change a Rule, you need to have a very good reason to change that rule.  It is difficult enough to get competitors to read the darn documents.  By changing the way that we protest or take penalties in each separate set of NoR and SIs we have the potential to confuse or even favour the local "as Johny RO always changes this or that rule".  Yes, a competitor should read and understand the race documents, but by changing this rule here or that rule there we are adding to the complication of an already complicated set of rules. 
I am not sure I agree with the thought that we have different standards at Club and International competiton when considering this aspect of the Rules - as I said above, The concept is universally accepted so why change.  Certainly the process of protesting should be part of the pre season rules talks.

As regards "first reasonable opportunity": "reasonable" is a qualifier. It it is not "first opportunity", but "first reasonable opportunity" [emphasis added]; that is, there is a lower requirement of immediacy than "first opportunity" if the first opportunity was not a reasonable one. "Reasonable" is, I would also note, a qualifier from the Common Law tradition in which the RRS are largely drafted, and is always context-contingent.

To then equate "first reasonable opportunity" [again, emphasis added] with "immediate" seems to me to be doing violence to the plain words of the RRS. It's not immediate, it's the first reasonable opportunity, and they are not the same.

Even on a purposive interpretation, the aim is to give people a chance to exonerate themselves on the water as swiftly as possible. Robin's "Do your turns, protest!" fits the bill perfectly, and sufficiently swiftly. It undermines the purpose and plain words to then insist there must be a magic word immediately.

I would also note that in other sports, rugby uses "immediately", but referees are told to use a five-beat count for it: im-me-di-ate-ly. If you haven't done it by then, it's not immediate. 

I would therefore tend to agree with Russell and Rob on the substantive, but would suggest: leave it as in RRS 61 (1) (a); avoid the temptation to read it as "immediate" when it is not; interpret "reasonable" as the context-specific qualifier it is intended to be; and work from there. If you have to go below for a flag, that is not reasonable because you could and should reasonably have had it ready while racing. By contrast, if you say, "Do your turns, protest!", that is reasonable because you are informing them of your intention as soon as reasonably possible.

To my mind, "first reasonable opportunity" is always in the eyes of the jury, guided by the specific circumstances of the incident. There's good reason why the RRS don't define an objective standard like "within 5 seconds". The usual standard for a hail is immediate, but if the protestor describes circumstances that prevented them from hailing "protest" immediately then the jury should consider that.

For example, consider a singlehanded dinghy sailor who, while inhaling to immediately shout "protest", ingests a mouthful of salt water which results in a coughing fit. It's not reasonably possible to hail until the sailor has recovered. I'd say that in that instance 10-15 seconds, or maybe even 30, after the incident would still represent first reasonable opportunity.

US Appeal 122 makes clear that if you decide to wait to see if a competitor takes turns voluntarily or delay hailing "protest" because you decide to hail some other things first, you haven't hailed "protest" at first reasonable opportunity. Even if cases or appeals describe a set time period (like "10-15 seconds" for a flag in US Appeal 124), that time period still needs to be evaluated based on the circumstances of the incident as compared to the circumstances described in the case.

I do still think, per my other thread, that it's worth considering giving competitors more time to think about whether they should take a turns penalty. Protestors should still be required to inform as soon as reasonably possible, but a protestor has options to "take it back" if they decide they protested erroneously. Once a penalty turn is taken it can't be erased even if it becomes clear you were innocent, so I tend to favor giving competitors some more time to analyze the incident and decide whether they think they owe turns or not.

I agree with that. What about "Do your turns or I will protest!"

Tim re: What about "Do your turns or I will protest!"

In the US, Appeal 122 covers this … sound the buzzer. 

I’m a weekend warrior in a heavy, 35-foot boat. It’s is a little odd that it is taken for granted that the standards for our races and, say, Olympic lasers are the same. 

We have a lot of things to do with our weekends. We recently quit a fleet because of the poor feeling of sportsmanship. Sadly, the fleet soon lost its dedicated, one-design start. It’s sad. 

And I understand that sometimes a rule just has to be super clear to be practical. The other boat needs to know pretty quick, boats get separated fast, trying to spot a flag from a distance isn’t practical. 

But, if I said “Do your turns, protest!” and lost because I didn’t say “Protest, do your turns!”…or some other five-second-sized delay, that would be my last race with that fleet. That is minutia over fairness. It is the opposite of self-policing. Unlike Robin’s case, we are not racing for a European championship. 

I get the judges have a massive responsibility for high-profile events. 

But, that doesn’t make me think it is a fun way to spend my weekends. And if people don’t think they having fun, well, there are consequences for the sport. 

Dan, "do your turns, protest" would meet validity for me, as long as it wasn't unreasonably delayed. 

 i sit on a fair number of protest committees and agree with Tim H that "Do your turns protest" meets the test.  When I lost my protests validity becasue of a perceived incorrect order of words it was at a high level continetal championship event wher the standards required were of the highest. However I also witness the demise or decline of some fleets because there are incidents but no protests and the newbies just don't see the point. :) 

Dan it has to be a statement that your ARE protesting, not what you WILL protest.

“Protest, do you your turns” -> OK
“Do your turns, Protest” -> OK IMO

… but …

“Do your turns or I will protest” -> Nope.

The last one is clear that the boat saying this has not yet protested.  They are clearly stating that they may protest in the future depending upon what happens next. 

In the US at least, US122 clearly makes this distinction. 

@Angelo - I understand the distinctions.  But surely the intentions are clear - an incident has occurred, a boat should take a penalty, and is being clearly told that they should do so else the protest committee will be engaged - so there's hardly a lack of understanding happening.  I accept the line has to be drawn somewhere, but my point was that we seem to have drawn it in a place that a lawyer might draw it, not a competitor..... it's less good for racing the way it's currently interpreted, and means people are less likely to follow the rules if incidents are not being investigated because of esoteric interpretations of wording.

Try listening in to bar talk when protests are thrown out on such grounds, and transgressors get away with things - it suggests we're not getting it right.

I think sailors have the impression that every PC is trying to find any excuse to throw out every protest on validity. I know certified judges think that’s weird - who wouldn’t want to have a hearing? But I suspect with many more informal PCs it might be accurate.

I would think by now the requirement to immediately hail “protest” would be reasonably well understood.

Russel, I don’t serve on the US Sailing Appeals Comm. I am just reading the clear language of Appeal 122. If you have a beef … it’s with US122 not me.  As a US Sailing Judge, I try not to go against US Appeals.

Again .. Z’s “2nd hail” … [emphasis added]

“Z hailed that she would protest both boats if neither took a penalty.” …

What is the difference between the above in bold and ….

“Do your turns or I will protest”? 

I don’t see any.

.. Appeal 122 finds …

“Although she used the word “protest” in her second hail, the word “protest” was used in a sentence that did not convey the meaning “I intend to protest.” Her hail “Protest” approximately 15 seconds after the incident, with no mitigating circumstances that prevented a hail of “Protest” from being made much sooner, is later than the “first reasonable opportunity” to make the hail. Therefore Z did not comply with the hail requirement in rule 61.1(a)”

I often feel people might be scared of the formality, finality, and potential accusation the word "protest" connotes. I intend to start teaching my learn-to-racers to say "I doth ProTEST!" In their best Elizabethan accent (US based group) for a bit of levity and gentleness in the request.

From my similar thread on rule 44:

It seems the requirement for promptly informing the protestee is linked to the introduction of the on the water turns penalty (for a more thorough review of that history see the other thread).