The software doesn't impose a time limit on scoring inquiries.

Just found the answer to my own question ….. 90.3(E). 
24hours after results posted.  

I was personally involved in a scoring enquiry a few years back at a major event. I woke up at about 4am as it had dawned on me that the RC may have made an error. I filed the inquiry as soon as the YC opened, following up on an email describing the problem from 4:30am. The Chief Judge asked me how long after I knew there was an error did I notify the RC, and made it clear that my action of filing as soon as they were open was key for that Jury. Sadly, the trophies had all be handed out, and this scoring enquiry swapped 1st and 2nd place. I do wish it had occurred to me immediately after racing, but I was off to the trophy presentation and party and didn't sit down and do the math until the middle of the night. 

Some language about a filing being prompt would be nice as a guideline.

Mike, 90.3(e) must be invoked by the Notice of Race.

Looks to me per RRS 90.3 ( e ) only if stated in the NOR. Else RRS 90.3 (c) 

I just finished serving at a major regatta that placed a time limit on scoring inquiries for Race Committee actions, OCS, NSC, UFD, and BFD. The time limit, stated in the SIs, was 30 minutes after the Race Committee actions were posted on the official notice board.

If the scores are posted or updated late in the evening, it is reasonable to accept scoring inquiries the next morning before racing.

is there any such thing as a scoring enquiry in RRS? A boat that feels they have been mis-scored may request redress, with the normal time limits and exceptions, but beyond that I only see in 90.3c "[RC] determines from its OWN records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly" which on first sight suggests that there is no vehicle other than redress for a competitor to formally query a score.  Presumably, though, if a competitor were to informally alert the RC to the possibility of an error, a diligent RC would then double check its own records or observations and act accordingly.

Jim, that's an interesting point. After reading a bit, I agree that a request for redress is the only formal way to point out an error. However, there is nothing that inhibits a communication from a competitor to the RC point out that they may have made an error and to check their records. In my post above, that is basically what I did. Speaking as an semi-retired PRO, I'd be astounded if the RC didn't review the evidence in its own records based on a formal communications from a competitor, regardless of the status of that communication.

This thread and Beau's & Jim's observations had me thinking (... yes a dangerous thing).

Question:
Does an SI that puts a TL on Scoring Inquiries break 90.3(c)? 

RRS 90.3(c) is in Part 7, therefore ineligible for change by NOR/SI.  I'm looking at and thinking of 90.3(c)'s "shall".  With such a mandate to correct errors from its own records, is it appropriate to limit communication to the RC outside of enabling 90.3(e)?

(A Scoring Inquiry being a request to the RC to review their own records on a particular score)

I was thinking about this too. Is there any formally defined communication to a race committee after the race? Unless I've badly missed something in the rules I don't believe a scoring enquiry has any status in the RRS. Whist obviously unofficial communication can (and quite possibly should) take place, it seems to me that a score can only be changed if the RC finds an error from its own information (even if unofficially pointed out), or under direction from the protest committee. And also that the only communication for the competitor that has any weight in the rules is a request for redress, which goes to the PC, and the PC deliberates the redress request and if appropriate instructs the RC to change the score. So as an enquiry to the RC has no rules status, is there any point in putting it in the SIs? 

I look to the various Race Management Handbooks of MNAs when thinking about an issue that may not be very clear in the RRS:

RYA Race Management Handbook

Q3 Redress Hearings 

In the event of a competitor questioning the scoring (when it is believed to be incorrect) the Race Committee must check the records and if there is a mistake the results must be corrected. This can be done without a hearing - Rule 90.3(c).

 

If it is possible, try to correct the reason for the redress hearing before you reach the protest room. Allow competitors to listen to your tapes at any time during the regatta - many will be entirely satisfied that they are wrong if that is what your tape(s) demonstrate. If they are correct, then you should score them appropriately without the need to for a sailor to continue with their submission requesting redress.

 

8.5 Competitors who have been scored OCS, UFD or BFD, and their support persons, may review the recordings of the applicable start(s).

 

14.12 Competitors and support persons may listen to the voice recording(s) and review the written records of their finishes.

 

 

New Zealand Race Management Guidelines (Same as the above WS policies)

12.15 Competitors who have been scored OCS, UFD or BFD, and their coaches may listen to the voice recording(s) or view the video of the applicable start(s) at the race office.

 

22.13 Competitors and coaches may listen to the voice recording(s) and review the written records of the finishes.

 

 

RRS 90.3(c) When the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly, it shall correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors.

 

In practice, the jury secretary should accept scoring inquiries, maintain a log, and pass the inquiry along to the PRO for resolution.  This facilitates a competitor’s request for redress if not satisfied by the scoring inquiry.

 
//////////
So I believe that anytime a competitor asks the RC to check a score, it is valid unless 90.3(e) is invoked.  I think the Scoring Inquiry has evolved to help keep track of such inquiries. 

Ang, you make a very good point especially since 90.3(c) is in Part 7 which cannot be changed. 

Scoring inquiries are competitor friendly and may reduce the number of redress hearings.

Jerry -- Thank you. The incident I was describing was dealt with in the way that the RYC recommends. I'm convinced that a SI doesn't satisfy Rule 90.3(c) which direct this to be place in the NoR. This makes sense. All sorts of folks, well beyond the competitors, need to know if the time limit of "24 hours" or an action by the RC "the results are published" has frozen those results. In the case I described above, my records show that 90.3(e) was not invoked by the NoR. I will revert to the OA to point this out to them. Thanks again. Beau

Beau ... that's 90.3(e), not (c). 

Also, it depends on how many "years back" this was.  90.3(e) only joined the RRS in the 2021 quad.   

Ang -- Thanks, I've edited my post to correct it. (This semi-retired PRO needs to put his glasses on when typing). The event I was taking about was post 2021. -- Beau

In my response above I cited WS Jury Policies dated 2021. I was one update behind. Here is what the 2023 Jury Policy has to say about Scoring Inquiries:

A4: Requests for Redress, Claiming RC Error in Scoring a Boat
Competitors sometimes want to question how the race committee has scored them. In that case, they
may complete and deliver a scoring inquiry to the race office within the time limit of RRS 62.2. The
race committee may arrange to share its evidence with the competitor before responding to the
inquiry. If the competitor is not satisfied with the race committee’s answer to the scoring inquiry, the
competitor may deliver a request for redress within the time limit of RRS 62.2.
If an event does not provide a scoring inquiry system, competitors may deliver a request for redress
within the protest time limit or as soon as reasonably possible after the results have been published.

So it seems there is indeed a time limit on scoring inquiries which is the Protest Time Limit.

Jerry,

How is a Jury Policy a rule that establishes a time limit?

Anyone,

How could it be that a written Scoring Enquiry did not meet the requirements of 2025 RRS 61.2(a) for a request for redress?

How could the words 'Scoring Enquiry' written on the top of a form change this?

John .. I'll take bite at the "anyone". 

As stated in the Jury Policy, a "Scoring Inquiry" implies that there has been put in place a "Scoring Inquiry System" which was likely defined in the SI's.  Without such a system being established, such a submission should be treated as an R4R.

If a ScInq-system exists, by putting "scoring inquiry" on top, the submitting party is indicating that this written-information is to be processed within that defined system.  Typically, this is not a request to the PC for a hearing, but rather is typically defined to route directly to the RC to review their own records and make corrections based on that review. 

How that inquiry is submitted and how the response is delivered is highly customizable. 

But again, if no ScInq-system is defined for the event in the SI's, then I agree it can meet the requirements of an R4R if the elements are there. 

John, A jury policy is of course not a rule. The jury policy makes clear that if one uses a scoring inquiry system to expedite redress hearings, the time limits for redress hearings apply to that expedited system.

Jerry re:"the time limits for redress hearings apply to that expedited system."

I guess my POV is that, if the event is at such a level that the jury has adopted a Jury Policy, then an SI that describes a Scoring Inquiry System should be robust enough to include: 

It shouldn't be buried in a Jury Policy that sailors would have no reason to know exists. 

Angelo -- Is this inching towards two sets of NoR and SIs, the one in the RRS Appendix J and a more complete/complex version? Around the SF Bay we have evolved to something that looks like three levels, on a de facto basis: 1) Beer Can Races, 2) Bulge Bracket SIs for most races, 3) National, Continental, and International championships. Would a more formal/thoughtful path be to standardize all this, or is this a case of what my good friend says: "The juice isn't worth the squeeze." ??

Beau, I doesn't have to be spellout as a separate section of the SI's ...  it can be mentioned inline with other time limits.

If a scoring inquiry will not be processed as a R4R on a negative result, and if the scoring inquiry TL is the same as the PTL ... then there should be some time and method stated by which a competitor should expect an answer .. and then a reasonable time after that to file an R4R.

John's point (and I've heard this argument made by some local judges here in Annapolis too) is that the Scoring Inquiry naturally meets the requirements for an R4R. The simple solution is to have the Scoring Inquiry and PTL be the same time, and automatically process all Scoring Inquiries that are determined by the RC against the competitors error claim to be automatically sent to the PC as an R4R with a filing time of the original Scoring Inquiry.

Ang stated:
"I guess my POV is that, if the event is at such a level that the jury has adopted a Jury Policy, then an SI that describes a Scoring Inquiry System should be robust enough to include:" and "It shouldn't be buried in a Jury Policy that sailors would have no reason to know it exists. "

I totally agree. Here is a shot at SIs that address scoring inquiries:

X.1  After the scores are posted, competitors who do agree with the posted score may submit a Scoring Inquiry. Scoring Inquiry forms will be available at the Protest Desk. Scoring Inquiries shall be submitted to the Protest Desk no later than the end of the protest time limit or XX minutes after the scores are posted, whichever is later.

 

X.2  After the race committee posts a list of boats scored OCS, NSC, UFD, or BFD on the Official Notice Board, a Scoring Inquiry based on such a posted score may be submitted to the Protest Desk no later than the end of the protest time limit or XX minutes after posting, whichever is later.  

 

X.3  Scoring Inquiries not resolved by the Race Committee will be considered Requests for Redress per RRS 61.2 if desired by the competitor.

 

 Fire away.

I woke up thinking about X.3 and have changed it:

X.3 A Request for Redress based on a Scoring Inquiry must be submitted no later than 30 minutes after the Scoring Inquiry has been answered. This changes RRS 61.2.

And I found a typo (correction in BOLD) in X.1, here is the corrected:
X.1  After the scores are posted, competitors who disagree with the posted score may submit a Scoring Inquiry. Scoring Inquiry forms will be available at the Protest Desk. Scoring Inquiries shall be submitted to the Protest Desk no later than the end of the protest time limit or XX minutes after the scores are posted, whichever is later.

Jerry ... that's all consistent within itself ... so that looks like a complete option. 

Here is another approach?

PS:  above is what one might call a "user/sailor friendly" version .. in not making the boat submit more than once or continuously monitor for replies with additional TL's

This will be very helpful, providing sample SIs is great!

One suggestion with respect to time limits: (I maybe stating the obvious here, apologies in advance) While one-design racing has a rather straightforward way to check the finishing order based on one's observations, that is much more difficult in handicap racing. I'd suggest that the OA utilizing these proposed SIs be made aware that it might take well over 60 minutes for a crew to discover that the correction-factors were not applied correctly. On top-flight race boats, the tactician and navigator will track every competitor (within reason) to know "who to beat", in near real time, but for the vast majority of racers that is not the case. Given the typical sailor pattern after a long handicap race, it maybe a few hours before all the numbers get crunched.