Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
What does it mean to "enforce" the rules?
Jerry Thompson
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
0
Sportsmanship and the Rules –“Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.”
Thistles racing upwind. Position 1 - Blue vs Green, Rule 11, not enough data to determine if Rule 17 is on.
Position 2 - Blue vs Green, Rule 11.
Position 3 - Blue vs Green, Rule 11.
Position 4 - Red vs Green, Red breaks Rule 10. Blue vs Green, Green breaks Rules 11. Green hails protest to Red and Blue hails protest to Green.
Red does not take a penalty. Green does not take a penalty. All three boats finish.
Blue completes and turns in a Request for Hearing against Green for breaking Rule 11 within the protest time limit.
Green does not complete a Request for Hearing.
The jury holds a hearing. Blue testifies that while she was overlapped to leeward of Green, Green bore down on her and caused her to change course breaking Rule 11.
Green testifies that indeed she did bear away towards Blue causing Blue to change course, but that she was exonerated for breaking Rule 11 by Rule 43.1(a) as Red, who broke Rule 10, compelled her to break Rule 11.
Question - Is Green’s decision not to protest Red consistent with the Basic Principles, Sportsmanship and the Rules?
Created: 23-Dec-05 14:18
Comments
Werner Esswein
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
National Judge
National Umpire
National Race Officer
2
RRS 60.3 (a) (2) The hearing should be closed without penalty and the PC may protest against red.
Created: 23-Dec-05 14:42
Jerry Thompson
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
0
Thanks Werner. What about the question I asked: Question - Is Green’s decision not to protest Red consistent with the Basic Principles, Sportsmanship and the Rules?
Created: 23-Dec-05 14:46
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Jerry .. the way I think about it is that magic word “shall” is not used in Sportsmanship and the Rules, nor in 60.1. Rather we have “are expected to” and “may”, respectively.
When boats protest on the water … nothing more than the word “protest” and sometimes a red flag (depending on length) are required. Blue did not need to identify Green or Red by name by hail at the time of the incident.
All Blue had to do is write Red down in the written hearing request. There is nothing actionable against Green for not filing the protest.
Created: 23-Dec-05 14:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
PS: regarding what Blue could do.
Also, Blue could have monitored the protests filed and seen that Green did not file. Rule 61.2(a) “identifying the protestor and protestee” can be done “any time before the hearing” as long as the hearing request identified the incident (61.2(b)).
Therefore, Blue could have added Red up until they are seated in the room and the hearing begins.
It’s all on Blue IMO. The rules give her every opportunity to make sure the protestees are part of the hearing.
Created: 23-Dec-05 15:04
Mark Evans
Certifications:
Club Judge
Club Race Officer
0
Blue could have also protested Red!
Created: 23-Dec-05 15:40
P
John D. Farris
Certifications:
Measurer in Training
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
Club Race Officer
0
Jerry, since you're only asking about Green, my answer would be Green's decision is inconsistent with the Basic Principles, Sportsmanship, and the Rules. Yes, she is "expected to follow and enforce" the rules of the sport of sailing. But I'm trying to understand: Did the action directly affect the competition?
Created: 23-Dec-05 16:01
Paul Murray
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
1
John, are you trying imply that if green does not file a protest because it would improve their standing in the regatta? If so it might be an issue with rule 2, if the PC could find facts to support that decision.
However , if the protest committee can not find a fact that red broke a rule, then green can not be exonerated under 43.1(a) I assume a PC would find the fact, that green admitted to, that she broke 11.
I would like to think that if I were on the PC I would protest red under 60.3 a(2) (following proper procedure)
Created: 23-Dec-05 17:06
P
John D. Farris
Certifications:
Measurer in Training
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
Club Race Officer
0
Paul - I see how my poor wording could be interpreted that way. The Basic Principle of our sport is that the competitors, not judges, have the lead responsibility for enforcing the rules on themselves and their fellow competitors. In this case, Jerry asks us if Green's "decision not to protest Red is consistent with the Basic Principles, Sportsmanship, and the Rules." I'm asking if it is clearly established that the principles of sportsmanship and fair play have been broken. If not clearly established, "the Protest Committee must conclude that the rule was not broken. (US Sailing Judge Manual pg 78)" What is the standard for clearly established? Or just established?
Created: 23-Dec-05 17:15
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Is Green exonerated? Was she compelled by Red to break 11?
Angelo, re: "Blue did not need to identify Green or Red by name by hail at the time of the incident." If the requirement is to notify the protestee of intent to protest doesn’t the potential protestor need to make it clear at whom the hail and flag are directed?
Created: 23-Dec-05 17:29
P
John D. Farris
Certifications:
Measurer in Training
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
Club Race Officer
0
Jerry tells us, "Green...was exonerated for breaking Rule 11 by Rule 43.1(a) as Red, who broke Rule 10, compelled her to break Rule 11." Angelo's point is correct and proper to ask if Green had filed a hearing request on Red.
However, the question is if Green's "decision not to protest Red is consistent with the Basic Principles, Sportsmanship, and the Rules."
Consistent or Inconsistent?
Created: 23-Dec-05 17:41
Paul Murray
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
1
Consistent or not? Depends on what facts the PC can find. If the result of not protesting red improves green’s standing, and the PC can find facts this was the reason for not protesting then it is inconsistent (this may be a big hill to climb). However, if facts are not found that red broke a rule compelling green to break 11, then green should be DSQ’s as she could not be exonerated under 43. Green could still face penalties under 2 if the above facts on why there was no protest could be found.
Created: 23-Dec-05 17:59
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Tim, can you find a case or appeal that dictates more than the word “protest” is required in the hail? (RC Racing requires more).
Paul, a panel wouldn’t need to protest Red and have her in the room to find that Red broke rule 10 and Green is exonerated for breaking rule 11. If both Blue and Green testify that Red did not keep clear of Green, and there is no evidence presented to the contrary, that would seem to meet the balance of probabilities standard.
The panel can find that Red broke a rule, but Red can not be penalized without being a party to the hearing.
I think each panel needs to decide when they will stop a hearing and protest a boat based upon information found in a valid hearing. For me, if there was damage or injury, I would suggest to the panel that we stop and protest the 3rd boat. No contact between any boat, I probably wouldn’t lead the charge. Contact and no damage … that’s a grey area for me.
Created: 23-Dec-05 18:53
Jerry Thompson
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
0
Ang, while racing your J105 you hit the windward mark, but no other boat sees it. Should you take a penalty? I believe that you would take a penalty, but if you do not, will you have broken Rule 2 in addition to Rule 31? I believe you would break Rule 2 because the Basic Principle expects you to enforce the rules even upon your boat.
If a sailor applies Rule 43.1(a) to exonerate themselves for breaking a rule that she was compelled to break by another boat she knows broke a rule, does the same Basic Principle and Rule 2 apply?
Created: 23-Dec-05 21:02
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Ang, I agree that no other verbiage is required, but if the name of the rule is "informing the protestee" it seems like some effort should be made to make sure the protestee knows it's directed at her. Especially if the boat intends to protest multiple boats. If a boat comes to the room and says "I heard the hail, but they were looking at the other boat and I didn't think I broke a rule, so I didn't think the hail was for me." Potential validity consideration? Better if the protestor eliminates ambiguity.
My question remains, is Green exonerated? I think not.
Created: 23-Dec-05 21:53
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Green, not taking any action to protest Red is not consistent with the expectation that she will enforce the rules.
It is, however, wholly consistent with the discretion whether or not to protest granted to her by RRS 60.1: 'A boat may protest another boat'.
Case 39, although it also refers to Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules, tells us how to interpret 'may' in RRS 60. 'May' does not mean 'is required to' or 'shall'.
Green is exonerated for breaking RRS 11by RRS 43.1(a). If she has been following the various discussions about the 2021 change to RRS 43, she knows that it is not up to a protest committee whether she is exonerated.
As to whether or not Green protesting Red would affect Green's standing in a series, Case 78 tells us that a boat, that does not break any other rule does not break rule 2 if she does something that had a reasonable chance of benefitting her final rankings in an event.
No boat is 'required' to protest. Ever.
Created: 23-Dec-05 22:12
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Doesn't Green have an option to tack to avoid Red when it's apparent that Red isn't keeping clear?
Created: 23-Dec-05 22:30
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Angelo Guarino
Said Created: Today 15:04
Also, Blue could have monitored the protests filed and seen that Green did not file. Rule 61.2(a) “identifying the protestor and protestee” can be done “any time before the hearing” as long as the hearing request identified the incident (61.2(b)).
Therefore, Blue could have added Red up until they are seated in the room and the hearing begins.
It’s all on Blue IMO. The rules give her every opportunity to make sure the protestees are part of the hearing.
I think that the allowance for the protestee to be identified after an incomplete protest is delivered, up to the time of the hearing only applies where no protestee at al is identified in the original written protest.
If at least one protestee is identified in the original written protest, and the protest hearing is scheduled and notified to the parties in accordance with RRS 63.2, then any attempt to bring a protest against Red is, in my opinion, a separate protest, which would need, in particular, to comply with RRS 61.3 Protest Time Limit.
Technically, only one boat can be the protestee in any one protest. RRS 60.1(a): 'A boat may protest another boat': 'boat' singular.
If the protest committee contemplated allowing Blue to 'add' Red to the original protest after the hearing had been scheduled and notified, then it would be necessary to cancel the hearing and reschedule it and give notice to Red in accordance with RRS 63.2.
I'd agree that if the protest committee is to conclude that Red broke a rule, it would be desirable to hear evidence from Red, and that the neatest way to do this is for the protest committee to protest Red in accordance with RRS 60.2(a)(2).
BTW, if Blue did protest Red, I wouldn't be too troubled about hail and flag. RRS 61.1(a) only requires the single word 'protest'.
Created: 23-Dec-05 22:38
Paul Murray
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
1
Ang, I respectfully disagree. Once the PC acknowledges that a boat broke a rule, and others at risk, they need to be penalized for that action, even if there was no contact. Red, by ignoring rule 10 created a dangerous situation for both blue and Green. (This is where I would draw the line-putting others at risk - if green did not see red or expected her to avoid then a t-bone collision could be the result. )Without a penalty, red will continue to misbehave. In this scenario, I would stop the hearing and protest Red. If appendix v is in effect they can take a post race penalty to avoid DSQ.
Created: 23-Dec-05 22:38
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Jerry Thompson
Said Created: Yesterday 21:02
Ang, while racing your J105 you hit the windward mark, but no other boat sees it. Should you take a penalty? I believe that you would take a penalty, but if you do not, will you have broken Rule 2 in addition to Rule 31?
Only if Ang knows he has touched the mark.
And if it comes to protest hearing, there needs to be evidence such as a witness seeing Ang fending off the mark to 'clearly establish' that knowledge.
I believe you would break Rule 2 because the Basic Principle expects you to enforce the rules even upon your boat.
It's a different part of Sportsmanship and the Rules.
The first sentence is about the expectation of enforcement.
The second sentence states a fundamental principle that a boat will take a penalty, which is then called up by RRS 2 'shall compete in compliance with recognized principles'.
If a sailor applies Rule 43.1(a) to exonerate themselves for breaking a rule that she was compelled to break by another boat she knows broke a rule, does the same Basic Principle and Rule 2 apply?
A sailor doesn't 'apply RRS 43 to exonerate themselves'.
If the relevant conditions stated in RRS 43 apply, the boat, not the competitor, is exonerated by the rule. No action or thought by the competitor is required or relevant.
Created: 23-Dec-06 01:34
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
2
Paul re: “Once the PC acknowledges that a boat broke a rule, and others at risk, they need to be penalized for that action, even if there was no contact.”
A PC may protest a boat from information gained from a valid protest.
A boat is exonerated when she is compelled to break a rule as a consequence of another boat breaking a rule
A PC shall take evidence of the parties present
A PC shall make its decision on a balance of probabilities
When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule and is not exonerated, it shall disqualify her unless some other penalty applies.
Right after the sentence above from 64.2 would have been the perfect place to put in your requirement, but it’s not there.
As far a PC’s protesting a boat, that’s for the PC to decide, either on the spot or as part of defined ‘jury policies’ prior to the event.
Created: 23-Dec-06 01:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Jerry in-line below …
Ang, while racing your J105 you hit the windward mark, but no other boat sees it. Should you take a penalty?
Of course I should and I would.
I believe that you would take a penalty, but if you do not, will you have broken Rule 2 in addition to Rule 31?
Yes, if I’m aware that I broke the rule and am not exonerated.
I believe you would break Rule 2 because the Basic Principle expects you to enforce the rules even upon your boat.
The “fundamental principle of sportsmanship” statement is a separate statement and sentence from the “expected” sentence before it. It states, “A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when a boat breaks a rule and is not exonerated she will promptly take an appropriate penalty ..”. This sentence ties taking a penalty when a boat breaks a rule directly to Rule 2. They both use “principle of sportsmanship”.
If a sailor applies Rule 43.1(a) to exonerate themselves for breaking a rule that she was compelled to break by another boat she knows broke a rule, does the same Basic Principle and Rule 2 apply?
It applies but it is satisfied by the rule itself . It says “when a boat breaks a ruleand is not exonerated”. Thus the exonerated boat does not break rule 2 for not taking penalty. Also, though she is expected to enforce the rules on others, that is not specifically stated as a fundamental principle of sportsmanship. The 2 ideas are in separate sentences.
Created: 23-Dec-06 02:07
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John A re: “I disagree with Ang …I think that the allowance for the protestee to be identified after an incomplete protest is delivered, up to the time of the hearing only applies where no protestee at al is identified in the original written protest.”
Do we have any Cases or Appeals to back that up? I’m not sure that’s true if the original description of the incident described a 3 boat scenario.
Let’s use the OP for an example.
Blue files a written hearing request within the PTL.
Blue only provides a description of the incident at time of filing, and their (Protestor’s) info.
The incident description describes 3 boats, 2 overlapped on a starboard beat on an intersecting course with a port tack boat. The boat requesting a protest hearing is the leeward starboard boat. The boat to windward of her had to duck the port boat who didn’t keep clear, forcing her to alter course to leeward to avoid contact with the windward boat.
Later, after the PTL, Blue identifies Green as the windward boat by amending her filing as a protestee.
Later yet, before the hearing, Blue again amends her filing identifying the port tack boat as Red as a protestee.
Where does this break 61.2?
Created: 23-Dec-06 02:22
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Perhaps Green could have tacked to avoid Red between 3 and 4. If Green could have tacked to avoid Red can she claim Red *compelled* Green to force Blue to change course? Does the word "compelled" mean that it applies only if there is no other alternative course that could reasonably have been taken?
Also Blue would have heard Green call "Protest" and relied upon Green's call. Is the failure to actually protest in this case an breach of Rule 2 Fair Sailing in that calling and not protesting in the circumstances where another boat is closely involved or affected is a failure to " compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play"
Summary: “[…] A protest committee can decide that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her.[…]”
Decision: “[…] The association appeals committee also erred when it concluded that the protest committee acted improperly in deciding that W broke rule 11. A protest committee cannot penalize a boat that has broken a rule if that boat is not a party to a hearing (see rules 63.1, Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing, and 64.2 Decisions: Penalties). However, no rule precludes a protest committee from deciding, based on the facts, that any boat in the incident has broken a rule. In this case, although W was not a party to the hearing, the protest committee was able to find sufficient facts to decide that she broke rule 11.“
In his Appeal, W [OP Red] was not protested, was not a party to the hearing, and was found to have broken a rule which exonerates M [OP Green] under 43.1(a)
The appeal is the same scenario as the OP except W breaks 11 and 19.2(b) instead of Red’s rule 10.
Created: 23-Dec-06 13:50
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
US Appeal 84 summary is as follows.
An appeals committee cannot require a protest committee to protest a boat. A protest committee can decide that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her. A protest committee complying with rule R5.4 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.
An appeals committee cannot require a protest committee to protest a boat. However, there is nothing in the appeal that prevents a protest committee from protesting a boat during the original hearing and making them a party. The PC would close the original hearing, then hear the original protest and the PC's protest together and start the hearing again. I have done that on several occasions.
Green breaks rule 11. Green is DSQ unless the protest committee find that Red broke rule 10 and forced Green to break 11. Scenarios 1) Red doesn't come to the hearing, and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Red broke rule 10. Green is NOT exonerated. 2) Red comes to the hearing and provides evidence that they did not break rule 10. Green is NOT exonerated. 3) Red comes to the hearing and admits that they broke rule 10 and didn't take a penalty. Green is exonerated. However, Red knowingly broke a rule and did not take the appropriate penalty... rule 2?
Created: 23-Dec-06 16:55
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Mark … 4) Red doesn't come to the hearing [nor was a party to the hearing], and there issufficient evidence [from both Blue and Green] to conclude that Red broke rule 10. Green is exonerated.
Mark do you agree that US84 seems pretty explicit that the PC can still find Red broke a rule and exonerate Green?
Created: 23-Dec-06 17:24
Jerry Thompson
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
1
The changes to the RSS 2021-2024 make clear that exoneration happens on the water at the time of the incident. "Shall be" exonerated has been replaced with "is" exonerated in all three instances: 43.1(a), 43.1(b), and 43.1(c). Submission 148-19: "To correct the erroneous belief that exoneration requires an action by a protest committee." The reason: "Readers of The Racing Rules of Sailing and its derivatives (Cases, Call Books, etc.) are often under the impression that only a protest committee can exonerate a boat that is compelled to break a rule by another boat’s breach of a rule. In fact, a protest committee is rarely involved following incidents on the water. We want the same application of the rules involved in an incident, including exoneration, to apply whether or not a protest committee is involved."
1997-2000 edition of the RRS Sportsmanship and the Rules first appears in the RRS on the first page, before the Introduction. In the 2001-2004 RRS, Basic Principles becomes a section with Sportsmanship and the Rules. I have tried to find a study version of those years or the submission that resulted in the Basic Principles to possibly get some insight as to what the rules makers were after. Does anyone have access to the study versions for those quads or the submission?
The Basic Principles are not rules. A “principle” is a fundamental truth or concept that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior motivate people, internally, to do things that seem good or right. A “rule” is an authoritative statement from an external source of what to do or not to do in a specific situation (from the internet).
I have come around to: a boat compelled to break a rule by another boat breaking a rule, need not protest the boat breaking that rule in order for her to be exonerated for being compelled to break a rule. If Green does not protest Red, the PC could protest Red in the subject scenario. No doubt in my mind, the good or right thing would have been for Green to protest Red.
Created: 23-Dec-06 18:06
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Jerry,
I think the first Study Version came out for the 2017 RRS.
Rules Commentary books such as Elvstrom Explains, and Dave Perry Racing Rules of Sailing through .. usually have a section on 'Changes to the rules'.
Created: 23-Dec-07 05:20
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Jerry Thompson
Said Created: Yesterday 18:06
1997-2000 edition of the RRS Sportsmanship and the Rules first appears in the RRS on the first page, before the Introduction. In the 2001-2004 RRS, Basic Principles becomes a section with Sportsmanship and the Rules.
I have tried to find a study version of those years or the submission that resulted in the Basic Principles to possibly get some insight as to what the rules makers were after. Does anyone have access to the study versions for those quads or the submission?
See my post immediately preceding.
The Basic Principles are not rules.
The very first internet definition of 'rule' I found said:
Rule ... one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.
A “principle” is a fundamental truth or concept that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior motivate people, internally, to do things that seem good or right. A “rule” is an authoritative statement from an external source of what to do or not to do in a specific situation (from the internet).
So maybe, outside the RRS, it depends on what internet you're looking at.
RRS Definition Rule says Rule (a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not titles;
BASIC PRINCIPLES appears in the RRS immediately at the foot of INTRODUCTION, just before Part 1 Fundamental Rules.
Although the heading BASIC PRINCIPLES has the same typeface as the heading INTRODUCTION, I'm very loth to argue that BASIC PRINCIPLES doesn't form part of the rules, although it does not impose an obligation (shall/shall not), or confer a right or entitlement (may).
Created: 23-Dec-07 06:00
Johan Bergkvist
Nationality: Australia
0
>>> "Is Green’s decision not to protest Red consistent with the Basic Principles, Sportsmanship and the Rules?"
Yes, it is. Green is not obliged to protest Red (60.1, "may"), so Green is not not enforcing the rules by not protesting. Green is "expected to follow and enforce" (the rule), but that does not include protesting when she doesn't have to.
Created: 23-Dec-07 06:27
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
1
Ultimately, what I gather from this thread is that Leeward boat Blue ought to protest Port boat Red directly. This is counter to what I learned in high school, but that was a long time ago and was either wrong at the time (likely) or has changed. This has been very helpful so that I don't teach the wrong thing to others. Thanks!
EDIT ADD: Per John Allan below: Right. IF Blue wants Red protested, she ought to do it herself and not wait for anyone else to do so.
Created: 23-Dec-07 13:29
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
NIck,
What I think you should take away is that it is absolutely a boats own choice whether to protest or not. No rules requires a boat to protest.
It is nobody's business to be deciding whether a boat should or should not protest.
Maybe you could tell people:
If you think another boat has broken a rule on the water and should be penalised:
hail 'protest' and, if you boat is over 6m, display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity,
deliver a written protest within the protest time limit,
attend the protest hearing at the scheduled time prepared to present evidence and argument to support your case.
Created: 23-Dec-07 19:57
Mark Evans
Certifications:
Club Judge
Club Race Officer
0
Keep in mind that green can only be exonerated if compelled to break a rule
Created: 23-Dec-07 21:39
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
said Created: Tue 22:30
Doesn't Green have an option to tack to avoid Red when it's apparent that Red isn't keeping clear?
Maybe.
Paul Hanly
Said Created: Yesterday 04:30
Perhaps Green could have tacked to avoid Red between 3 and 4. If Green could have tacked to avoid Red can she claim Red *compelled* Green to force Blue to change course? Does the word "compelled" mean that it applies only if there is no other alternative course that could reasonably have been taken?
Also Blue would have heard Green call "Protest" and relied upon Green's call. Is the failure to actually protest in this case an breach of Rule 2 Fair Sailing in that calling and not protesting in the circumstances where another boat is closely involved or affected is a failure to " compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play"
Lets have a think about that.
Created: 23-Dec-07 22:18
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
0
1. The Basic Principle only states that competitors are expected to follow and enforce the rules. They are not obliged to do so! 2 The Basic Principle does not state that only competitors have a role in enforcing the rules. Which is why RRS 60 sets out the rules governing protests by race committee, protest committee and technical committee. Referring to the 'self policing principle' to maintain that is only, or nearly always, the competitor's responsibility to initiate a protest is often a 'cop-out', a reason not to take action. Far better to set out clear guidelines as to when race officials intend to intervene. For instance in WS Jury Policies:
A1: Protests by the Jury for Incidents on the Water The Jury will not usually protest for a breach of a rule of Part 2 unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2). Examples of breaches where the Jury will consider protesting, include but are not limited to: • deliberately or knowingly breaking a rule without being exonerated and not taking the appropriate penalty; • intimidating other boats, often evidenced by unnecessary shouting or foul language directed to other boats; • team tactics, sailing to benefit another boat to the detriment of your own position; and • sailing that results in, or is likely to result in, damage or injury or gaining a significant advantage.
Created: 23-Dec-10 11:53
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
@ Jerry @ Allan I have the pdf 2013 to 2016 study version of the RRS if anyone wants a copy.
Created: 23-Dec-11 04:07
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Along Gordon's lines ..
2021 Quad US Sailing Judge's Manual (pg 61/62, emphasis added).
Note the qualification that judges not initiate a protest under rule 60.3(a) .. which includes both 60.3(a)(1) and 60.3(a)(2) ... specifically states "a boat on the water". I'm guessing that is to single out that if judges are on the water and witness an incident that USSJC recommends not initiating a protest. In doing so, the recommendation seems to be silent on what do to about what it "learns" under 60.3(a)(2).
Maybe others have a different interpretation of that sentence?
Mark T is there another way we should read that sentence and ".. against a boat on the water ..."?
"A basic principle in Sportsmanship and the Rules is that competitors are expected to follow and enforce the rules and to protest when a rule is broken.
There may be circumstances when the PC should consider initiating a protest under rule 60.3. However, the US Sailing Judges’ Committee recommends that, unless specifically directed by the OA to do so, judges not initiate a protest under rule 60.3(a) against a boat on the water except when:
• It is obvious a boat broke a rule and there is no other boat nearby that could protest • It is likely that a boat or competitor broke rule 2 • The NoR or SIs state that Appendix P (Special Procedures for Rule 42) applies
When the PC protests under rule 60.3(a), it is important to remember the principles of hearing evidence laid out in rule 63.6. One judge will represent the PC as the protestor in the hearing. If more than one judge saw the incident, one will present the case and the others may testify as witnesses. The parties to the hearing and the PC are entitled to question any judge who gives testimony.
Created: 23-Dec-11 16:34
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
0
Angelo, Gordon Davis posted stated the principles very well. The phrase you referenced ".. against a boat on the water ..." was part of a longer sentence, which appears to be trying to communicate the same principal, that since the primary responsibility for protesting breaches of the rules rests with competitors, the protest committee will not normally protest a boat.
The guidance in the WS Jury Policies is as follows:
Section A: Information to Competitors 1 Protests by the Jury for Incidents on the Water 1.1 The Jury will not usually protest for a breach of a rule of Part 2 unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2). Examples of breaches where the Jury will consider protesting, include but are not limited to: (a) deliberately or knowingly breaking a rule without justification for exoneration and not taking the appropriate penalty; (b) intimidating other boats, often evidenced by unnecessary shouting or foul language directed to other boats; (c) team tactics, sailing to benefit another boat to the detriment of your own position; (d) sailing that results in, or is likely to result in, damage or injury or gaining a significant advantage.
Section B: Jury Internal Policies 2 Jury Protests and Observation of Incidents on the Water See also: Information to Competitors in Section A 2.1 The Jury usually will not protest for breaches of a rule of Part 2, unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2), since the primary obligation to enforce the rules is on the competitors, when the boat has a chance to take a voluntary penalty on the water or make a report to the Jury under RRS 64.6. 2.2 Promptly notify the Jury Chairman or Vice-Chairman of any grounds for a jury protest against a boat in order that a decision can be made about whether or not to lodge a protest. The intention to protest must be posted before the protest time limit expires and the protest lodged within this time as well. However, the time limit may be extended if the judge cannot return to shore in time. If the judge is detained afloat, the basic information should be transmitted ashore if possible so the Jury can post the intention to protest 2.3 A judge having information that may make him or her a knowledgeable witness in an incident will take notes and avoid a discussion of the incident with any other judge, except to decide if a protest by the Jury is appropriate. A judge who witnesses an incident on the water that goes to a hearing will notify the Jury Secretary, Jury Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the race number, leg, location, and boats involved.
Created: 23-Dec-12 01:53
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Thanks Mark. I know you are part of the group that puts the USSJM together, so I offer this observation in that context.
When I read that section of the USSJM in its entirety, it mainly seems to be concerning PC protests for judge witnessed incidents. Even the policy you quote above seems to as well.
If that isn’t the intent, then I think there is an opportunity to have at least 1 paragraph dedicated to talking about 60.3(a)(2) protests specifically.
The darn rule is there … so it would be helpful to have some guidance and positive and negative examples when USS think it might be more and less appropriate to be used.
Created: 23-Dec-12 12:06
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
1
Angelo quotes the US Judges Manual: Judges (should) not initiate a protest under rule 60.3(a) against a boat on the water except when it is obvious a boat broke a rule and there is no other boat nearby that could protest .
Many judges forget the 'that could protest'.
In order to protest a boat must: - see the infringement - identify the boat that broke the rule
This is not always possible. A classic situation is at a crowded windward mark rounding especially in dinghy events (ILCA, Optimist...). A group of boats round the mark in a tight bunch. Sailors are looking at the boats next to them, trying to get round the mark. It is more than likely that they will not see a boat that touches the mark, or if they do, it might be impossible to read the sail number (ILCA's 6 figure sail number does not help!). If the jury clearly sees the boat touching the mark, and especially if a boat then gains an advantage, many judges will not consider protesting on the grounds that there were other boats nearby, without considering whether these boats could protest. Should the judge protest or not.
Created: 23-Dec-12 12:36
Jerry Thompson
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
0
When a judge or the race committee protests a boat for breaking a rule of Part 2 or rule 31, the opportunity for the boat to take a penalty per rule 44.1 is not there. A judge or member of race committee is not required to hail protest, show a red flag or otherwise notify the boat on the water. Per 61.1(b) "it shall inform her after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3." This may be a good reason to invoke Appendix T, T1, in the notice of race or sailing instructions. I believe the only other time a boat is not afforded the opportunity, per rule 44.1,to take a penalty on the water is when she breaks rule 23.1 as she is not racing when the breach occurs.
That said, if I see a boat plow into a mark leaving no doubt in my mind that the sailor had to have known and does not take a penalty, I will protest that boat whether other boats were in the vicinity or not.
Created: 23-Dec-13 14:30
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John A re: “I disagree with Ang …I think that the allowance for the protestee to be identified after an incomplete protest is delivered, up to the time of the hearing only applies where no protestee at al is identified in the original written protest.”
I was reading through the “Yellow Pages” that came out of the 2023 WSRC Conference and it appears they are closing that (apparent) hole in 2025. They are adding the identity of the both the protestor and protestee to the incident description for what is required when the protest hearing request is filed.
PS: Here’s what they got so far …
60.3 Delivering a Protest (a) A protest shall be in writing and identify the [protestor, the protestee, and the] incident when it is delivered. In addition, it shall identify (1) the protestor and protestee, (2) where and when the incident occurred, (3) any rule the protestor believes was broken, and (4) the name of the protestor’s representative. Requirement (1) may be met at any time before the hearing, and requirements (2), (3) and (4) may be met before or during the hearing.
Created: 23-Dec-14 12:04
Robin Meads
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
National Judge
0
I disagree with Angelo Guarino on his point about US84 & that a PC may conclude that a non party boat broke a rule. In GB we have no such case and, although RRS is silent on whether or not a PC may find that a boat that is not a party broke a rule, it is against fair justice to do so. Even if a PC may think that a non-party boat broke a rule, it cannot make any decision based on that, as it is not a fact, as there is no evidence for it, it is merely a conclusion based on an opinion. In English law, such a "fact" would be libellous if published. In this respect US84 is a bad decision. WS Case 135 Q1 & Q2 makes it clear that a PC cannot come to a conclusion/decision for other boats, as it states "First, the committee must determine that either P retired from the race after the incident, or P was protested and penalized for breakling the rule of Part 2 in the incident with S". It goes on to make granting redress dependent on this, so it follows that invoking any penalty/redress based on what a non party non protested boat may or may have done is not possible. The correct solution therefore is for the PC to protest the "missing" boat in the puzzle, as other contributors have stated.
Created: 23-Dec-29 15:01
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
1
I cannot accept all of Robin Meads' arguments: From time to time witnesses cannot identify a boat that was part of an incident. This does not prevent the PC from finding facts that include the actions of the unidentified boat. These facts cannot be libellous as they are true, based on the evidence available and on the balance of probabilities, and cannot harm a person's reputation as no person is identified! If a PC then concludes, on the basis of the facts found, that the unidentified boat broke a rule (including RRS14): - the PC cannot protest the unidentified boat, precisely because she in not identified; - the PC cannot penalise the unidentified boat, for the same reason, - the PC can exonerate another boat under 43.1(a) if she has been compelled to break a rule because of the unidentified boat breaking a rule; - the PC cannot give redress under RRS 62.1(b) because the PC cannot penalise the unidentified boat. I am struggling to think of circumstances in which a PC could be satisfied that an unidentified boat took a penalty appropriate to a situation in which there has been damage or injury to another boat sufficient to make her score significantly worse.
Created: 23-Dec-29 16:29
Robin Meads
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
National Judge
0
The implication was that the sail number of the non protested boat was known, where a finding of fact against that boat would not be justified without protesting her. Where the boat is not identified, Gordon Davies may be right for an unidentified boat, but I would want the weight of evidence to be stronger. i.e. not just from the aggrieved boat.
Created: 23-Dec-30 11:59
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Robin re: Gordon Davies may be right for an unidentified boat, but I would want the weight of evidence to be stronger. i.e. not just from the aggrieved boat.“
It is within your ability, as a member of the PC, to plead your case to the other members of the panel to protest the other identified boat. The PC “may” protest a boat …
IMO your reference Case 135 Q1/Q2 is not very applicable. Rule 62.1(b) for redress (which Case 135 addresses) ADDS very specific requirements BEYOND rule 43.1(a) Exoneration.
43.1(a) … as a consequence of a boat breaking a rule …
Note it’s ANY rule above ..
62.1(b) …injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 and took an appropriate penalty or was penalized,
So … what more is required for Redress vs Exoneration?
Rule of Part 2 … not just any Rule
Injury or physical damage .. none required for exoneration
Took an appropriate penalty or was penalized …. No such requirement for exoneration.
IMO it’s clear it is these additional burdens for Redress that Case 135 is addressing and thus is not very applicable to questions of exoneration
Furthermore, Redress is a “decision to consider” by the PC. Exoneration is not.
Exoneration is a state of being of the boat if it meets the criteria. The 2017 quad change was clear that exoneration is not “granted” and does not need a PC. 43.1(a) states “the boat is exonerated” … [ and not “A PC may consider a decision granting exoneration to a boat if …”]
Gordon … wouldn’t change a word of your reply.
Created: 23-Dec-30 13:59
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
PS re: “Furthermore, Redress is a “decision to consider” by the PC. Exoneration is not. ”
Another way to think about it.
A PC decides a boat IS/IS-NOT granted redress. (creating something new)
A PC concludes a boat WAS/WAS-NOT exonerated (confirming/rejecting the state of the boat in the past).
Created: 23-Dec-30 14:22
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo Guarino
Said Created: Sat 14:22
PS re: “Furthermore, Redress is a “decision to consider” by the PC. Exoneration is not. ”
Another way to think about it.
· A PC decides a boat IS/IS-NOT granted redress. (creating something new) · A PC concludes a boat WAS/WAS-NOT exonerated (confirming/rejecting the state of the boat in the past).
I don’t think you can find these distinctions in the text of the RRS.
I certainly agree with the latter statement.
RRS 64.3 says ‘When a protest committee decides that a boat is entitled to redress’
I would prefer to say that the protest committee concludes that a boat is entitled to redress
The WS Preferred wordings have statements that the requirements for redress are met shown as Conclusions.
It then shows the redress given (not ‘granted’) under ‘Decisions’.
So a protest committee:
· Concludes that a boat is entitled to redress (first step), then
· Decides what the redress given is. And
· May Find Facts that support it in Concluding that a boat is/has been exonerated.
Summary: An appeals committee cannot require a protest committee to protest a boat. A protest committee can decide that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her. A protest committee complying with rule R5.4 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.
Decision: ... However, no rule precludes a protest committee from deciding, based on the facts, that any boat in the incident has broken a rule. In this case, although W was not a party to the hearing, the protest committee was able to find sufficient facts to decide that she broke rule 11.“
Power to Direct a Protest Commitee US Appeal 84 does the following things:
Reminds us that the powers of an Appeal Committee (AC) are:
As stated in RRS 71 are to
With respect to a protest committee decision to:
Uphold it
Change it, or
Reverse it
With respect to hearings to Order that:
a hearing be reopened,
a new hearing be held by the same protest committee
a new hearing be held by a different protest committee, in which case the AC may appoint the protest committee.
Additionally, in accordance with RRS R5, an AC has a power and an obligation, when it decides the Facts Found by a protest committee in its decision are inadequate it shall require the committee:
to provide additional facts or other information, or
to reopen the hearing and report any new finding of facts.
Notes that these powers do not include any power to direct a protest committee to proceed in any particular way in a reopened or new hearing, much less to direct a protest committee to protest a boat.
Proper finding that a boat not penalised has broken a rule US Appeal 84 tells us that where there is a sufficiency of evidence, a protest committee may find facts and conclude that a boat that is not a party, and cannot be penalised has broken a rule.
In other words, it is not a requirement that a boat be a party to a hearing for the protest committee to concludee that she has broken a rule.
Restrictions on a Protest Committee's actions in a reopened hearing US Appeal 84 says A protest committee complying with rule R5.4 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.
The RRS underlying US Appeal 84 have changed somewhat since that appeal was written in 2003.
When US Appeal 84 was originally written in 2003
RRS 71.2 provided for the AC to direct or order a new hearing of the protest, but not a reopening, and
RRS F5 provided for the AC to direct or order the protest committee to reopen the hearing, and remedy inadequacies in its original findings of facts, but only where the the AC decided that the protest committee’s findings of facts were inadequate, but not to hold a new hearing.
Based on this, US Appeal 84 (2005 version), reasonably concluded, by inference from the condition of RRS F5 for requiring a reopening that it could only be done where the AC decided that the protest committee’s findings of facts were inadequate that:
A rehearing under rule F6 is limited to providing or finding additional facts.
While this inference on which this Appeal decision is based is reasonable and open to the US Sailing AC, it is not a necessary inference. Another possible inference would be that the discretion of a protest committee as to its actions or procedures should not be trammeled, other than by the express words of the RRS.
The 2021 version of the RRS
provides, in RRS 71.2, a power for the AC to order either of:
A reopening of the original hearing (without any limitation on circumstances or conditions) or
A new hearing.
provides, in RRS R5, as in previous versions, a power to require the protest committee to reopen the hearing and report new finding of facts, conditional on the AC deciding that the original findings of facts were inadequate.
The 2021 version of US Appeal 84 says
Rule R5.4 permits an appeals committee to direct a protest committee to reopen a hearing only “when [the appeals committee] decides [the facts] are inadequate” or that additional information is needed. The association appeals committee therefore erred in attempting to use rule R5.4 to direct the protest committee to reopen the hearing so as to “make W a party” to the hearing. A protest committee’s decision to protest a boat is discretionary, as provided in rule 60.3 and therefore an appeals committee has no authority in the matter.
While the first sentence of this is technically correct it overlooks the fact that the AC also has a power to order a reopening under RRS 71.2, without the condition of inadequacy of facts.
I suggest that the better application of the rules generally is not that the direction to reopen the hearing was invalid because the inadequacy of fact condition was not met, but that the part of the direction that ‘W be made a party to the hearing in accordance with rule 61.1(c)’ was invalid because the powers of an AC are exhaustively stated in RRS 71 and R5, and they do not include any such power.
The 2021 Appeal continues:
When acting on a request from an appeals committee under rule R5.4, a protest committee is limited to promptly providing the additional facts or information to the appeals committee; the protest committee does not have the right to change its decision.
This paragraph is also true as far as it goes, however it does not address what may happen when the protest committee reopens a hearing in compliance with an order from the AC under RRS 71.2, rather than RRS R5.
If an AC expressly (and validly, with respect to deciding that findings of fact are inadequate) refers to RRS R5, in requiring a protest committee to reopen a hearing, then, at least in the USA, the protest committee is limited to finding and reporting facts, but if the AC does not refer to RRS A5 and just orders the protest committee to reopen the hearing, then the protest committee may do anything that it would do in any other hearing, including initiating a protest against a boat in accordance with rule 61.1(c).
Created: 24-Jan-01 23:43
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Paul Hanly
Said Created: Yesterday 04:30
Perhaps Green could have tacked to avoid Red between 3 and 4. If Green could have tacked to avoid Red can she claim Red *compelled* Green to force Blue to change course? Does the word "compelled" mean that it applies only if there is no other alternative course that could reasonably have been taken?
Also Blue would have heard Green call "Protest" and relied upon Green's call. Is the failure to actually protest in this case an breach of Rule 2 Fair Sailing in that calling and not protesting in the circumstances where another boat is closely involved or affected is a failure to " compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play"
Lets have a think about that.
Also Blue would have heard Green call "Protest" and relied upon Green's call.
B has no ‘right’ to ‘rely’ on anything, least of all that another boat will validly protest.
RYA 1981/7
A third boat that has witnessed an incident between other boats, and wishes to protest, cannot justify her own failure to display a protest flag on the grounds that none of the other boats lodged a valid protest after displaying a protest flag.
RYA 1996/2
When a boat sees an incident between two other boats in the racing area and wishes to protest one or both of them, she must display a protest flag, when applicable, at the first reasonable opportunity after the incident.
RYA 1999/1
… A boat that waits to see whether another boat will take a penalty before displaying a protest flag has not acted at the first reasonable opportunity…
Is the failure to actually protest in this case an breach of Rule 2 Fair Sailing in that calling and not protesting in the circumstances where another boat is closely involved or affected is a failure to " compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play"
You seem to be contemplating Case 47, ‘false hails’.
A boat that deliberately hails ‘Starboard’ when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly, and has broken rule 2.
To paraphrase, ‘a boat that deliberately hails [something] when she knows that [it is not true] has not acted fairly and has broken rule 2.’
Note also that Case 47 had a couple of extra conditions:
· The other boat was a beginner,
· The other boat was scared of having their boat damaged.
Up to the 2021 version of the RRS, RRS 61.1 Informing the Protestee said
A boat intending to protest… concern[ing] an incident in the racing area … shall hail ‘Protest’ … at the first reasonable opportunity
The effect of this was:
· That a hail of ‘protest’ implied an intention to protest, and
· It was theoretically possible for a boat to break the rule and be penalised if she ‘intended’ to protest and did not hail.
The 2021 version of RRS 61.1 now states
The protesting boat shall … hail ‘Protest’.. at the first reasonable opportunity.
This can now be interpreted as no more than a condition for validity of a protest.
In summary:
· A hail of ‘protest’ has now been stripped of the meaning ‘I intend to protest’.
· A boat might genuinely intend to protest at the time of an incident, and later change her mind.
· See the RYA Appeals.
Bottom line: A boat that does not follow through with a written protest after hailing ‘protest’ does not break rule 2.
Created: 24-Jan-02 00:20
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Robin Meads
Said Created: Fri 15:01
I disagree with Angelo Guarino on his point about US84 & that a PC may conclude that a non party boat broke a rule. In GB we have no such case and, although RRS is silent on whether or not a PC may find that a boat that is not a party broke a rule, it is against fair justice to do so.
I think this is mis-applying the principle of natural justice that may be stated as the hearing rule which:
requires that a person who may be affected by a decision be given the opportunity to present their case prior to the decision being made. In most cases, this requires the decision-maker to disclose prejudicial allegations and information, and provide adequate notice that an adverse decision may be made.
This applies only to a person who may be adversely affected by a decision.
In the scenario where a boat that is not a party to a hearing may be found, in that hearing to have broken a rule, she is specifically protected from any adverse effect by rule 63.1 which requires that she must be a party to a hearing before she can be penalised.
Even if a PC may think that a non-party boat broke a rule, it cannot make any decision based on that, as it is not a fact, as there is no evidence for it, it is merely a conclusion based on an opinion.
I disagree. Of course there will be evidence: rule 63.6 requires the protest committee to take … evidence, … of the parties present at the hearing and of their witnesses and other evidence it considers necessary [and] give the weight it considers appropriate to the evidence presented, find the facts and base its decision on them.
In English law, such a "fact" would be libellous if published.
As Gordon said
These facts cannot be libellous as they are true, based on the evidence available and on the balance of probabilities,
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Because defamation is a false statement of fact, truthful statements are, by definition, not defamatory.
A protest committee acting with reasonable diligence and in good faith would also have a defence of qualified privilege in that it was acting in accordance with duties imposed upon it by RRS 63.
In this respect US84 is a bad decision. WS Case 135 Q1 & Q2 makes it clear that a PC cannot come to a conclusion/decision for other boats, as it states "First, the committee must determine that either P retired from the race after the incident, or P was protested and penalized for breaking the rule of Part 2 in the incident with S".
Case 135 is specifically about redress.
Case 135 (2017 version) said, in the context that A, a boat required to keep clear of B allegedly did not do so and caused B to make a large change in course to avoid her, and thus caused B to collide with C [and B did not protest A because A took a Two Turns Penalty], and C requested redress:
C [is] entitled to redress … provided that the protest committee concludes that … A broke a rule of Part 2 … .
In other words, a protest committee may conclude that a boat broke a rule even if the boat is not a party to a protest.
That has been changed in the 2021 version because the entitlement to redress under RRS 62.1(b) now depends on the boat taking or being given a penalty, rather than merely breaking a rule.
Case 142 (2017 version) although it has now been deleted, is more relevant to the issue:
If X does not protest Y, her request for redress can succeed if evidence given during the redress hearing leads the protest committee to conclude that Y broke a rule of Part 2
Nothing shakes the principle that a protest committee may, quite properly, conclude that a boat that may not be a party to a protest has broken a rule.
Note, there may be evidential difficulties if the boat is not represented or a witness from the boat does not give evidence, but if there is otherwise sufficient evidence the protest committee may so conclude.
[Case 135] goes on to make granting redress dependent on this,
Yes, because rule 62. RRS 62.1(b) now requires the boat taking or being given a penalty, rather than merely breaking a rule.
so it follows that invoking any penalty/redress based on what a non party non protested boat may or may have done is not possible.
That’s just not right: redress depends on a boat having broken a rule and in some cases having taken a penalty.
The correct solution therefore is for the PC to protest the "missing" boat in the puzzle, as other contributors have stated.
I agree.
Created: 24-Jan-02 05:55
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
While he mixed it up with the issue of natural justice to a boat alleged to have broken a rule, I think Robin Meads has highlighted a problem, not with natural justice, but with sufficiency of evidence.
When I hear evidence in a hearing that indicates that a boat that is not represented in the hearing has broken a rule, my first reaction will usually be 'I'd like to hear from that boat about what happened.'
We usually believe that 'there are two sides to every story'.
While I think that we should always start with the assumption that a witness in a hearing is telling the truth, to the best of his or her perception, recollection, and ability to express themself, we may be inclined to give less weight to uncorroborated evidence, from a party, that leads to exoneration for that party. Such evidence might be said to be 'self-serving'.
A judge might take the view that evidence from just one party, if uncorroborated, is unlikely to tip the balance of probability scale.
But you can’t discount evidence given by one party out of hand.
Here are some considerations relating to the weight of self-serving evidence
· the reasons for which the evidence was prepared;
· the date of the evidence;
· the relationship of the author to the party producing the evidence;
· whether the author has any interest in the outcome of the hearing;
· the content of the evidence;
· any apparent bias or contrived appearance;
· whether the evidence is corroborated by and consistent with other credible evidence;
· whether the author is available for cross-examination, if required; and the credibility of the party producing the evidence.
In my opinion, the most convenient way to deal with this is for the protest committee to make the boat alleged to have broken a rule a party to the hearing by protesting that boat in accordance with RRS 63.5.
Created: 24-Jan-02 06:22
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John A re: “So a protest committee: Concludes that a boat is entitled to redress (first step), then Decides what the redress given is. And May Find Facts that support it in Concluding that a boat is/has been exonerated”
Sure .. but that’s not really my point. The distinction I’m making is that a PC can’t decide to grant exoneration (which would be more like “special dispensation” granted by an authority), but can decide to grant regress.
Redress does not exist outside the context of the PC. It’s a product of the PC and hearing process.
How I think about at it, Exoneration is on equal footing as breaking a rule. A boat is/is-not in breach of a rule and is/is-not exonerated … both at the time of the incident. Basic Principles underlines this by putting them together …
So, for me, I find it helpful to think about a boat being in breach of a rule, and being exonerated, as joined as a single duality, like a single coin with 2 sides.
Created: 24-Jan-02 14:38
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
0
I do not think that your statement ' a PC can’t decide to grant exoneration' is helpful.
For me the process is simple: A PC can find facts which, under RRS, are the version of events on which the PC will then reach conclusions. When the facts found establish that one or more of the conditions set out in RRS 43 are met then the PC can conclude that a boat that has broken a rule is exonerated. The PC shall then take account of this exoneration when deciding to penalise or not that boat.
On the water a boat may decide that RRS 43 applies to her, and not take a penalty at the time of the incident, however, if it comes to a hearing the PC may not agree!
Created: 24-Jan-02 15:35
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Gordon, “grant” is the operative word. PC’s do not “grant” exoneration. It helps me … doesn’t help you … might or might not help others as well .. that’s fine.
In the immortal words of Michael Keaton in “Mr Mom” … “yea .. 220 .. 221 … whatever it takes” :-)
Created: 24-Jan-02 17:38
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Hey, Ang,
'Grant' can't be the oprerative word.
The word 'grant' never appears in the RRS.
Neither does tomato or potato.
Created: 24-Jan-03 00:48
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
0
The WS Judges Manual has excellent advice that should apply at all events, not just youth events: Judges should use the vocabulary of the rules throughout the hearing and when communicating the facts found, conclusion and decisions. This will avoid misunderstanding This is especially important at events at which some or all participants do not have English as a first language.
Based on the language of RRS: On the basis of facts found a PC may conclude that a boat's score has been made significantly worse though no fault of her own by one of 4 causes. Therefore, the requirements for redress in RRS 62.1[(a)] [(b)] [(c)] [(d)] are met.
The PC is then required to make as fair an arrangement as possible (RRS 64.3). The PC then gives redress.
Grant means: agree to give or allow (something requested) to. I see no real difference between saying the PC 'grants' redress and the 'gives' redress. So I recommend using the RRS wording.
Created: 24-Jan-03 11:44
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Thank you John and Gordon. Yes .. the RRS and preferred wording is “given” not “granted”. That said the thrust of the point remains the same. A PC does not “give” exoneration.
When boats protest on the water … nothing more than the word “protest” and sometimes a red flag (depending on length) are required. Blue did not need to identify Green or Red by name by hail at the time of the incident.
All Blue had to do is write Red down in the written hearing request. There is nothing actionable against Green for not filing the protest.
Also, Blue could have monitored the protests filed and seen that Green did not file. Rule 61.2(a) “identifying the protestor and protestee” can be done “any time before the hearing” as long as the hearing request identified the incident (61.2(b)).
Therefore, Blue could have added Red up until they are seated in the room and the hearing begins.
It’s all on Blue IMO. The rules give her every opportunity to make sure the protestees are part of the hearing.
However , if the protest committee can not find a fact that red broke a rule, then green can not be exonerated under 43.1(a) I assume a PC would find the fact, that green admitted to, that she broke 11.
I would like to think that if I were on the PC I would protest red under 60.3 a(2) (following proper procedure)
Angelo, re: "Blue did not need to identify Green or Red by name by hail at the time of the incident." If the requirement is to notify the protestee of intent to protest doesn’t the potential protestor need to make it clear at whom the hail and flag are directed?
However, the question is if Green's "decision not to protest Red is consistent with the Basic Principles, Sportsmanship, and the Rules."
Consistent or Inconsistent?
Paul, a panel wouldn’t need to protest Red and have her in the room to find that Red broke rule 10 and Green is exonerated for breaking rule 11. If both Blue and Green testify that Red did not keep clear of Green, and there is no evidence presented to the contrary, that would seem to meet the balance of probabilities standard.
The panel can find that Red broke a rule, but Red can not be penalized without being a party to the hearing.
I think each panel needs to decide when they will stop a hearing and protest a boat based upon information found in a valid hearing. For me, if there was damage or injury, I would suggest to the panel that we stop and protest the 3rd boat. No contact between any boat, I probably wouldn’t lead the charge. Contact and no damage … that’s a grey area for me.
If a sailor applies Rule 43.1(a) to exonerate themselves for breaking a rule that she was compelled to break by another boat she knows broke a rule, does the same Basic Principle and Rule 2 apply?
My question remains, is Green exonerated? I think not.
It is, however, wholly consistent with the discretion whether or not to protest granted to her by RRS 60.1: 'A boat may protest another boat'.
Case 39, although it also refers to Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules, tells us how to interpret 'may' in RRS 60. 'May' does not mean 'is required to' or 'shall'.
Green is exonerated for breaking RRS 11 by RRS 43.1(a). If she has been following the various discussions about the 2021 change to RRS 43, she knows that it is not up to a protest committee whether she is exonerated.
As to whether or not Green protesting Red would affect Green's standing in a series, Case 78 tells us that a boat, that does not break any other rule does not break rule 2 if she does something that had a reasonable chance of benefitting her final rankings in an event.
No boat is 'required' to protest. Ever.
I disagree with Ang's interpretation of RRS 61.2.
I think that the allowance for the protestee to be identified after an incomplete protest is delivered, up to the time of the hearing only applies where no protestee at al is identified in the original written protest.
If at least one protestee is identified in the original written protest, and the protest hearing is scheduled and notified to the parties in accordance with RRS 63.2, then any attempt to bring a protest against Red is, in my opinion, a separate protest, which would need, in particular, to comply with RRS 61.3 Protest Time Limit.
Technically, only one boat can be the protestee in any one protest. RRS 60.1(a): 'A boat may protest another boat': 'boat' singular.
If the protest committee contemplated allowing Blue to 'add' Red to the original protest after the hearing had been scheduled and notified, then it would be necessary to cancel the hearing and reschedule it and give notice to Red in accordance with RRS 63.2.
I'd agree that if the protest committee is to conclude that Red broke a rule, it would be desirable to hear evidence from Red, and that the neatest way to do this is for the protest committee to protest Red in accordance with RRS 60.2(a)(2).
BTW, if Blue did protest Red, I wouldn't be too troubled about hail and flag. RRS 61.1(a) only requires the single word 'protest'.
Only if Ang knows he has touched the mark.
And if it comes to protest hearing, there needs to be evidence such as a witness seeing Ang fending off the mark to 'clearly establish' that knowledge.
It's a different part of Sportsmanship and the Rules.
If the relevant conditions stated in RRS 43 apply, the boat, not the competitor, is exonerated by the rule. No action or thought by the competitor is required or relevant.
Right after the sentence above from 64.2 would have been the perfect place to put in your requirement, but it’s not there.
As far a PC’s protesting a boat, that’s for the PC to decide, either on the spot or as part of defined ‘jury policies’ prior to the event.
Of course I should and I would.
Yes, if I’m aware that I broke the rule and am not exonerated.
The “fundamental principle of sportsmanship” statement is a separate statement and sentence from the “expected” sentence before it. It states, “A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when a boat breaks a rule and is not exonerated she will promptly take an appropriate penalty ..”. This sentence ties taking a penalty when a boat breaks a rule directly to Rule 2. They both use “principle of sportsmanship”.
It applies but it is satisfied by the rule itself . It says “when a boat breaks a rule and is not exonerated”. Thus the exonerated boat does not break rule 2 for not taking penalty. Also, though she is expected to enforce the rules on others, that is not specifically stated as a fundamental principle of sportsmanship. The 2 ideas are in separate sentences.
Do we have any Cases or Appeals to back that up? I’m not sure that’s true if the original description of the incident described a 3 boat scenario.
Let’s use the OP for an example.
Where does this break 61.2?
If Green could have tacked to avoid Red can she claim Red *compelled* Green to force Blue to change course?
Does the word "compelled" mean that it applies only if there is no other alternative course that could reasonably have been taken?
Also Blue would have heard Green call "Protest" and relied upon Green's call.
Is the failure to actually protest in this case an breach of Rule 2 Fair Sailing in that calling and not protesting in the circumstances where another boat is closely involved or affected is a failure to " compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play"
Summary: “[…] A protest committee can decide that a boat not a party to the hearing broke a rule, although it cannot penalize her.[…]”
Decision: “[…] The association appeals committee also erred when it concluded that the protest committee acted improperly in deciding that W broke rule 11. A protest committee cannot penalize a boat that has broken a rule if that boat is not a party to a hearing (see rules 63.1, Hearings: Requirement for a Hearing, and 64.2 Decisions: Penalties). However, no rule precludes a protest committee from deciding, based on the facts, that any boat in the incident has broken a rule. In this case, although W was not a party to the hearing, the protest committee was able to find sufficient facts to decide that she broke rule 11.“
In his Appeal, W [OP Red] was not protested, was not a party to the hearing, and was found to have broken a rule which exonerates M [OP Green] under 43.1(a)
The appeal is the same scenario as the OP except W breaks 11 and 19.2(b) instead of Red’s rule 10.
An appeals committee cannot require a protest committee to protest a boat. However, there is nothing in the appeal that prevents a protest committee from protesting a boat during the original hearing and making them a party. The PC would close the original hearing, then hear the original protest and the PC's protest together and start the hearing again. I have done that on several occasions.
Green breaks rule 11. Green is DSQ unless the protest committee find that Red broke rule 10 and forced Green to break 11. Scenarios
1) Red doesn't come to the hearing, and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Red broke rule 10. Green is NOT exonerated.
2) Red comes to the hearing and provides evidence that they did not break rule 10. Green is NOT exonerated.
3) Red comes to the hearing and admits that they broke rule 10 and didn't take a penalty. Green is exonerated. However, Red knowingly broke a rule and did not take the appropriate penalty... rule 2?
Mark do you agree that US84 seems pretty explicit that the PC can still find Red broke a rule and exonerate Green?
1997-2000 edition of the RRS Sportsmanship and the Rules first appears in the RRS on the first page, before the Introduction. In the 2001-2004 RRS, Basic Principles becomes a section with Sportsmanship and the Rules. I have tried to find a study version of those years or the submission that resulted in the Basic Principles to possibly get some insight as to what the rules makers were after. Does anyone have access to the study versions for those quads or the submission?
The Basic Principles are not rules. A “principle” is a fundamental truth or concept that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior motivate people, internally, to do things that seem good or right. A “rule” is an authoritative statement from an external source of what to do or not to do in a specific situation (from the internet).
I have come around to: a boat compelled to break a rule by another boat breaking a rule, need not protest the boat breaking that rule in order for her to be exonerated for being compelled to break a rule. If Green does not protest Red, the PC could protest Red in the subject scenario. No doubt in my mind, the good or right thing would have been for Green to protest Red.
I think the first Study Version came out for the 2017 RRS.
You can find some Submission sets as far
back as 2015 here
Papers from Past World Sailing Meetings
https://www.sailing.org/inside-world-sailing/organisation/governance/conferences/past-conferences/previous-conference-papers/
The 2014 links appear to be broken.
Rules Commentary books such as Elvstrom Explains, and Dave Perry Racing Rules of Sailing through .. usually have a section on 'Changes to the rules'.
I've just posted a somewhat more detailed historical background to Sportsmanship and the Rules here Sportsmanship and the Rules Background History.
See my post immediately preceding.
The very first internet definition of 'rule' I found said:
Rule ... one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.
So maybe, outside the RRS, it depends on what internet you're looking at.
RRS Definition Rule says
Rule
(a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not titles;
BASIC PRINCIPLES appears in the RRS immediately at the foot of INTRODUCTION, just before Part 1 Fundamental Rules.
Although the heading BASIC PRINCIPLES has the same typeface as the heading INTRODUCTION, I'm very loth to argue that BASIC PRINCIPLES doesn't form part of the rules, although it does not impose an obligation (shall/shall not), or confer a right or entitlement (may).
Yes, it is. Green is not obliged to protest Red (60.1, "may"), so Green is not not enforcing the rules by not protesting. Green is "expected to follow and enforce" (the rule), but that does not include protesting when she doesn't have to.
EDIT ADD: Per John Allan below: Right. IF Blue wants Red protested, she ought to do it herself and not wait for anyone else to do so.
What I think you should take away is that it is absolutely a boats own choice whether to protest or not. No rules requires a boat to protest.
It is nobody's business to be deciding whether a boat should or should not protest.
Maybe you could tell people:
If you think another boat has broken a rule on the water and should be penalised:
Maybe.
Paul Hanly
2 The Basic Principle does not state that only competitors have a role in enforcing the rules. Which is why RRS 60 sets out the rules governing protests by race committee, protest committee and technical committee.
Referring to the 'self policing principle' to maintain that is only, or nearly always, the competitor's responsibility to initiate a protest is often a 'cop-out', a reason not to take action. Far better to set out clear guidelines as to when race officials intend to intervene. For instance in WS Jury Policies:
A1: Protests by the Jury for Incidents on the Water
The Jury will not usually protest for a breach of a rule of Part 2 unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2). Examples of breaches where the Jury will consider protesting, include but are not limited to:
• deliberately or knowingly breaking a rule without being exonerated and not taking the appropriate penalty;
• intimidating other boats, often evidenced by unnecessary shouting or foul language directed to other boats;
• team tactics, sailing to benefit another boat to the detriment of your own position; and
• sailing that results in, or is likely to result in, damage or injury or gaining a significant advantage.
I have the pdf 2013 to 2016 study version of the RRS if anyone wants a copy.
2021 Quad US Sailing Judge's Manual (pg 61/62, emphasis added).
Note the qualification that judges not initiate a protest under rule 60.3(a) .. which includes both 60.3(a)(1) and 60.3(a)(2) ... specifically states "a boat on the water". I'm guessing that is to single out that if judges are on the water and witness an incident that USSJC recommends not initiating a protest. In doing so, the recommendation seems to be silent on what do to about what it "learns" under 60.3(a)(2).
Maybe others have a different interpretation of that sentence?
Mark T is there another way we should read that sentence and ".. against a boat on the water ..."?
Gordon Davis posted stated the principles very well. The phrase you referenced ".. against a boat on the water ..." was part of a longer sentence, which appears to be trying to communicate the same principal, that since the primary responsibility for protesting breaches of the rules rests with competitors, the protest committee will not normally protest a boat.
The guidance in the WS Jury Policies is as follows:
Section A: Information to Competitors
1 Protests by the Jury for Incidents on the Water
1.1 The Jury will not usually protest for a breach of a rule of Part 2 unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2). Examples of breaches where the Jury will consider protesting, include but are not limited to:
(a) deliberately or knowingly breaking a rule without justification for exoneration and not taking the appropriate penalty;
(b) intimidating other boats, often evidenced by unnecessary shouting or foul language directed to other boats;
(c) team tactics, sailing to benefit another boat to the detriment of your own position;
(d) sailing that results in, or is likely to result in, damage or injury or gaining a significant advantage.
Section B: Jury Internal Policies
2 Jury Protests and Observation of Incidents on the Water
See also: Information to Competitors in Section A
2.1 The Jury usually will not protest for breaches of a rule of Part 2, unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2), since the primary obligation to enforce the rules is on the competitors, when the boat has a chance to take a voluntary penalty on the water or make a report to the Jury under RRS 64.6.
2.2 Promptly notify the Jury Chairman or Vice-Chairman of any grounds for a jury protest against a boat in order that a decision can be made about whether or not to lodge a protest. The intention to protest must be posted before the protest time limit expires and the protest lodged within this time as well. However, the time limit may be extended if the judge cannot return to shore in time. If the judge is detained afloat, the basic information should be transmitted ashore if possible so the Jury can post the intention to protest
2.3 A judge having information that may make him or her a knowledgeable witness in an incident will take notes and avoid a discussion of the incident with any other judge, except to decide if a protest by the Jury is appropriate. A judge who witnesses an incident on the water that goes to a hearing will notify the Jury Secretary, Jury Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the race number, leg, location, and boats involved.
When I read that section of the USSJM in its entirety, it mainly seems to be concerning PC protests for judge witnessed incidents. Even the policy you quote above seems to as well.
If that isn’t the intent, then I think there is an opportunity to have at least 1 paragraph dedicated to talking about 60.3(a)(2) protests specifically.
The darn rule is there … so it would be helpful to have some guidance and positive and negative examples when USS think it might be more and less appropriate to be used.
Judges (should) not initiate a protest under rule 60.3(a) against a boat on the water except when it is obvious a boat broke a rule and there is no other boat nearby that could protest .
Many judges forget the 'that could protest'.
In order to protest a boat must:
- see the infringement
- identify the boat that broke the rule
This is not always possible. A classic situation is at a crowded windward mark rounding especially in dinghy events (ILCA, Optimist...).
A group of boats round the mark in a tight bunch. Sailors are looking at the boats next to them, trying to get round the mark. It is more than likely that they will not see a boat that touches the mark, or if they do, it might be impossible to read the sail number (ILCA's 6 figure sail number does not help!).
If the jury clearly sees the boat touching the mark, and especially if a boat then gains an advantage, many judges will not consider protesting on the grounds that there were other boats nearby, without considering whether these boats could protest.
Should the judge protest or not.
That said, if I see a boat plow into a mark leaving no doubt in my mind that the sailor had to have known and does not take a penalty, I will protest that boat whether other boats were in the vicinity or not.
I was reading through the “Yellow Pages” that came out of the 2023 WSRC Conference and it appears they are closing that (apparent) hole in 2025. They are adding the identity of the both the protestor and protestee to the incident description for what is required when the protest hearing request is filed.
PS: Here’s what they got so far …
60.3 Delivering a Protest
(a) A protest shall be in writing and identify the [protestor, the protestee, and the] incident when it is delivered.
In addition, it shall identify(1) the protestor and protestee,
(2) where and when the incident occurred,
(3) any rule the protestor believes was broken, and
(4) the name of the protestor’s representative.
Requirement (1) may be met at any time before the hearing, and requirements (2), (3) and (4) may be met before or during the hearing.
From time to time witnesses cannot identify a boat that was part of an incident. This does not prevent the PC from finding facts that include the actions of the unidentified boat. These facts cannot be libellous as they are true, based on the evidence available and on the balance of probabilities, and cannot harm a person's reputation as no person is identified!
If a PC then concludes, on the basis of the facts found, that the unidentified boat broke a rule (including RRS14):
- the PC cannot protest the unidentified boat, precisely because she in not identified;
- the PC cannot penalise the unidentified boat, for the same reason,
- the PC can exonerate another boat under 43.1(a) if she has been compelled to break a rule because of the unidentified boat breaking a rule;
- the PC cannot give redress under RRS 62.1(b) because the PC cannot penalise the unidentified boat. I am struggling to think of circumstances in which a PC could be satisfied that an unidentified boat took a penalty appropriate to a situation in which there has been damage or injury to another boat sufficient to make her score significantly worse.
It is within your ability, as a member of the PC, to plead your case to the other members of the panel to protest the other identified boat. The PC “may” protest a boat …
IMO your reference Case 135 Q1/Q2 is not very applicable. Rule 62.1(b) for redress (which Case 135 addresses) ADDS very specific requirements BEYOND rule 43.1(a) Exoneration.
Note it’s ANY rule above ..
So … what more is required for Redress vs Exoneration?
IMO it’s clear it is these additional burdens for Redress that Case 135 is addressing and thus is not very applicable to questions of exoneration
Furthermore, Redress is a “decision to consider” by the PC. Exoneration is not.
Exoneration is a state of being of the boat if it meets the criteria. The 2017 quad change was clear that exoneration is not “granted” and does not need a PC. 43.1(a) states “the boat is exonerated” … [ and not “A PC may consider a decision granting exoneration to a boat if …”]
Gordon … wouldn’t change a word of your reply.
Another way to think about it.
Power to Direct a Protest Commitee
US Appeal 84 does the following things:
Proper finding that a boat not penalised has broken a rule
US Appeal 84 tells us that where there is a sufficiency of evidence, a protest committee may find facts and conclude that a boat that is not a party, and cannot be penalised has broken a rule.
In other words, it is not a requirement that a boat be a party to a hearing for the protest committee to concludee that she has broken a rule.
Restrictions on a Protest Committee's actions in a reopened hearing
US Appeal 84 says A protest committee complying with rule R5.4 by reopening a hearing to provide additional facts is not entitled to change the decision it made in the original hearing.
The RRS underlying US Appeal 84 have changed somewhat since that appeal was written in 2003.
When US Appeal 84 was originally written in 2003
While this inference on which this Appeal decision is based is reasonable and open to the US Sailing AC, it is not a necessary inference. Another possible inference would be that the discretion of a protest committee as to its actions or procedures should not be trammeled, other than by the express words of the RRS.
B has no ‘right’ to ‘rely’ on anything, least of all that another boat will validly protest.
I think this is mis-applying the principle of natural justice that may be stated as the hearing rule which:
As Gordon said
I agree.
When I hear evidence in a hearing that indicates that a boat that is not represented in the hearing has broken a rule, my first reaction will usually be 'I'd like to hear from that boat about what happened.'
We usually believe that 'there are two sides to every story'.
While I think that we should always start with the assumption that a witness in a hearing is telling the truth, to the best of his or her perception, recollection, and ability to express themself, we may be inclined to give less weight to uncorroborated evidence, from a party, that leads to exoneration for that party. Such evidence might be said to be 'self-serving'.
A judge might take the view that evidence from just one party, if uncorroborated, is unlikely to tip the balance of probability scale.
But you can’t discount evidence given by one party out of hand.
In my opinion, the most convenient way to deal with this is for the protest committee to make the boat alleged to have broken a rule a party to the hearing by protesting that boat in accordance with RRS 63.5.
Sure .. but that’s not really my point. The distinction I’m making is that a PC can’t decide to grant exoneration (which would be more like “special dispensation” granted by an authority), but can decide to grant regress.
Redress does not exist outside the context of the PC. It’s a product of the PC and hearing process.
How I think about at it, Exoneration is on equal footing as breaking a rule. A boat is/is-not in breach of a rule and is/is-not exonerated … both at the time of the incident. Basic Principles underlines this by putting them together …
So, for me, I find it helpful to think about a boat being in breach of a rule, and being exonerated, as joined as a single duality, like a single coin with 2 sides.
For me the process is simple:
A PC can find facts which, under RRS, are the version of events on which the PC will then reach conclusions.
When the facts found establish that one or more of the conditions set out in RRS 43 are met then the PC can conclude that a boat that has broken a rule is exonerated. The PC shall then take account of this exoneration when deciding to penalise or not that boat.
On the water a boat may decide that RRS 43 applies to her, and not take a penalty at the time of the incident, however, if it comes to a hearing the PC may not agree!
In the immortal words of Michael Keaton in “Mr Mom” … “yea .. 220 .. 221 … whatever it takes” :-)
'Grant' can't be the oprerative word.
The word 'grant' never appears in the RRS.
Neither does tomato or potato.
Judges should use the vocabulary of the rules throughout the hearing and when communicating the facts found, conclusion and decisions. This will avoid
misunderstanding
This is especially important at events at which some or all participants do not have English as a first language.
Based on the language of RRS:
On the basis of facts found a PC may conclude that a boat's score has been made significantly worse though no fault of her own by one of 4 causes. Therefore, the requirements for redress in RRS 62.1[(a)] [(b)] [(c)] [(d)] are met.
The PC is then required to make as fair an arrangement as possible (RRS 64.3). The PC then gives redress.
Grant means: agree to give or allow (something requested) to. I see no real difference between saying the PC 'grants' redress and the 'gives' redress. So I recommend using the RRS wording.