Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

incident on rules NOT of Part 2

Aldo Balelli
Hi everyone.
A doubt about validity of a protest when the "incident" is a breach of a rule not of part 2
A protest for breaching of RRS42, or RRS 49, infractions which cannot be cleared by a penalty on the water, do still make sense having as mandatory the hailing and the red flag? Isn't enough informing the protestee at the first occasion, not to declare the protest invalid?
Thanks

Created: 24-Jan-15 20:10

Comments

John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
2
Check out RRS 61.1(a), second sentence (at least in English).  The only time a hail and flag is required is when the protest "will concern an incident in the racing area".  So protests over something like finding out that a boat had illegal sails on board while you are in the parking lot only requires that you "inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity" as specified in the first sentence of RRS 61.1(a).  There a verbal "I'm going to protest because you had non-class sails on board" is sufficient.  The PC's posting of a scheduled hearing does not count as informing the protestee.
Created: 24-Jan-15 20:21
John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
2
With that said, Rule 42 happens in the racing area and yes, a hail and red flag are required. That's a benefit because at minimum, it may cause the boat to stop breaking Rule 42. 

All of that is with the caveat that rule 42 is best enforced with Appendix P, not the standard protest procedure as it is hard to prove. 
Created: 24-Jan-15 20:40
Aldo Balelli
0
Thanks you all.

Created: 24-Jan-16 09:44
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
John Christman wrote: ' The PC's posting of a scheduled hearing does not count as informing the protestee.'

RRS 61.1(b) last sentence says: A notice posted on the official notice board within the appropriate time limit satisfies this requirement'.

In what way is a hearing schedule posted on the ONB not a 'notice'?
Created: 24-Jan-16 10:01
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
1
Gordon re: "61.1(b) ....In what way is a hearing schedule posted on the ONB not a 'notice'?"

John C (and the guts of the thread) was referring to a boat protesting a boat.  61.1(b) has to do with protests from committees.
Created: 24-Jan-16 14:43
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
It's good to hail re: Rule 42 because it allows others to weigh in on the water, watch the potential offender, etc.
Created: 24-Jan-16 15:07
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
 
Gordon Davies
Said Created: Today 10:01 
John Christman wrote: ' The PC's posting of a scheduled hearing does not count as informing the protestee.'

RRS 61.1(b) last sentence says: A notice posted on the official notice board within the appropriate time limit satisfies this requirement'.

In what way is a hearing schedule posted on the ONB not a 'notice'?

Obviously it's a 'notice'.

However a notice scheduling a hearing is a notice given by the protest committee notifying the time and place of the hearing in accordance with  RRS 63.2.  It does not address the intention of a race commitee or other committee to protest a boat. It is not a notice given in accordance with  RRS 61.1(b).

Up to 2021, Appendix L contained a model wording as follows:

16.4 Notices of protests by the race committee, technical committee or protest committee will be posted to inform boats under RRS 61.1(b).

This has been omitted in the 2021 version of Appendix L.

A committee may inform a boat of its intention to protest by a notice on the ONB within the protest time limit, but that's a different sort of notice from a protest committe's notice scheduling a hearing.
Created: 24-Jan-16 20:34
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
I will admit that almost all events at which I officiate use some form of electronic ONB and protest documentation.
So, if a boat has been protested they receive a notification when the protest is lodged. In a big event, this will often be the fastest way to 'inform the other boat'.
The reason for rule 61.1 is to ensure that the respondent has to be made aware that a protest has been lodged against them.

Created: 24-Jan-17 10:58
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Hearing notices posted on the ONB may not meet the requirements of "first reasonable opportunity" in 61.1(a) or "as soon as reasonably possible" in 61.1(b) and 61.1(c).  The timing of the posting on the ONB compared to the protest time limit might be OK, but certainly not if the posting is after the appropriate protest time limit.  And for incidents not in the racing area that is even more dubious.

If a protestor (and to me that includes the PC/RC/TC) says that they didn't even try to notify the protestee in some way but left if up to the PC to post a hearing schedule on the ONB, that is a huge red flag for the validity of the protest.
Created: 24-Jan-17 15:46
John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
@John Christman. I agree, but there could be a world where the ONB is the only reasonable method of notification. I think it's fair to view that as the "last resort." For instance, if the party is keeping their boat remote from a regatta site, didn't come to the site after racing, isn't answering their cell phone, and has no email listed, a notice on the ONB might reasonably be considered notification at the first reasonable opportunity. That said, I agree there are usually other methods available that would make validity a challenge if ONB was the only method used to notify. 
Created: 24-Jan-17 15:59
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
@John Porter - I agree with you.  What I want to see is that an effort was made so that the ONB became the "first reasonable opportunity".  Relying on the ONB alone isn't sufficient as a means of informing the protestee.
Created: 24-Jan-17 16:59
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
John Christman
Said Created: Today 15:46
Hearing notices posted on the ONB may not meet the requirements of "first reasonable opportunity" in 61.1(a)

I don't know how we ever got to even contemplating an notice on the ONB meeting the requirements for a boat to inform the protestee of her intention to protest.

Of course it doesn't.

 or "as soon as reasonably possible" in 61.1(b) and 61.1(c).

For committee protests with notices posted after the protest time limit, I agree with you.

For notices posted within the protest time limit  RRS 61.1(b), last sentence expressly deems them to meet the time requirement.

The timing of the posting on the ONB compared to the protest time limit might be OK, but certainly not if the posting is after the appropriate protest time limit.  And for incidents not in the racing area that is even more dubious.

If a protestor (and to me that includes the PC/RC/TC) says that they didn't even try to notify the protestee in some way but left if up to the PC to post a hearing schedule on the ONB, that is a huge red flag for the validity of the protest.

Agree

John Porter
Said Created: Today 15:59
@John Christman. I agree, but there could be a world where the ONB is the only reasonable method of notification. I think it's fair to view that as the "last resort." For instance, if the party is keeping their boat remote from a regatta site, didn't come to the site after racing, isn't answering their cell phone, and has no email listed, a notice on the ONB might reasonably be considered notification at the first reasonable opportunity.

Quite likely.

But it's the 21st century.  I would be quite happy with a SI that said that a protestee was taken to have been informed at the time, or 20 minutes after the time of the race committee sending an SMS message.

 That said, I agree there are usually other methods available that would make validity a challenge if ONB was the only method used to notify. 

John Christman
Said Created: Today 16:59
@John Porter - I agree with you.  What I want to see is that an effort was made so that the ONB became the "first reasonable opportunity".

Yup.

  Relying on the ONB alone isn't sufficient as a means of informing the protestee.

Can't agree with this as a general statement.  See the reference to  RRS 61.1(b), last sentence above.  If there is a specific RRS that says the ONB, as a mode of informing the protestee is acceptable, then what we are discussing is the timing.
Created: 24-Jan-17 21:50
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more