Forum: Protest Hearing Procedures
WS Judges' Manual question
Vince Harris
Certifications:
- Club Judge
0
I may be certified as a Club Judge soon. So I've been reading manuals in some detail, including the WS Judges' Manual.
I'm having trouble with this:
F.9.1, the first paragraph ends with:
The protest committee may not decide, ‘the rule requires a hail - it does not require that it be heard’.
I can't make sense of that. I can't help but to try to parse it in detail. Even though it uses may, with the negative (not) it typically is interpreted as shall, I think. So, "may not" means the same thing as "shall not". Otherwise, this sentence that seems like a directive means nothing I believe. "may not" could mean the same as "maybe", right?
And what's that comma doing there after the word 'decide'? And what are the single quotes trying to do? I don't understand.
But let's say they're telling us that the PC shall not decide "the rule requires a hail - it does not require that it be heard".
What do they mean by that? It wouldn't be a decision. It's just a fact. The rule (61.1) does indeed require a hail. And the rule does not require that it be heard.
I hope I'm being halfway clear, but I just don't get it. What are they trying to tell us?
I'm having trouble with this:
F.9.1, the first paragraph ends with:
The protest committee may not decide, ‘the rule requires a hail - it does not require that it be heard’.
I can't make sense of that. I can't help but to try to parse it in detail. Even though it uses may, with the negative (not) it typically is interpreted as shall, I think. So, "may not" means the same thing as "shall not". Otherwise, this sentence that seems like a directive means nothing I believe. "may not" could mean the same as "maybe", right?
And what's that comma doing there after the word 'decide'? And what are the single quotes trying to do? I don't understand.
But let's say they're telling us that the PC shall not decide "the rule requires a hail - it does not require that it be heard".
What do they mean by that? It wouldn't be a decision. It's just a fact. The rule (61.1) does indeed require a hail. And the rule does not require that it be heard.
I hope I'm being halfway clear, but I just don't get it. What are they trying to tell us?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
What it is saying is that a protest committee must not or should not write those words in a written decision.
What it is implying is that protest committees, faced with evidence from the protesting boat that she hailed, and evidence from the protestee that she did not hear any hail, should not immediately conclude that the hail was made, but should consider and weigh relevant evidence.
Case 54 says about hails:
The hail must be directed towards [the boat being hailed] and be as loud as is required in the prevailing conditions to be capable of being heard by [that boat].
I think their punctuation is problematical. Both the comma and the single quotes foul it up, I think.
I've got it now though!