Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Redress if RC admits to making a mistake?
Matthew Blake
0
Let's say that the RC sees 2 boats over early at the starting signal. But the RC makes a mistake and flies the wrong signal flag, or maybe the RC does not make any signal for over early. So the over early boats do not know they were over, or at least are not sure, and they sail the race without restarting. After the race, the RC admits its mistake.
Question 1) Is there any further action that should/could be taken after the race? Such as discard the race, protest the over-early boats, ask each boat to withdraw, or? Would a possible course of action be for these 2 over early boats to be DSQd (by protest from RC) and then these boats could file for redress based on the RC error in not signaling them as over early?
Now, let's add that a third boat contends that the RC's mistake caused it to have a worse finish than otherwise. This 3rd boat is tied for first place in the series and would otherwise have had a clear air start in the race. As it was, it suspected these 2 boats were over early. It had a poor finish because the over early boats sat on the wind of this 3rd boat following the start which allowed the other series competitors to pull ahead. So, this 3rd boat requests redress because the (in)action of the RC resulted in its finish being worse than expected.
Question 2) Does the 3rd boat have a valid case for redress once the RC admitted it mistakenly did not signal the over-early boats?
Question 1) Is there any further action that should/could be taken after the race? Such as discard the race, protest the over-early boats, ask each boat to withdraw, or? Would a possible course of action be for these 2 over early boats to be DSQd (by protest from RC) and then these boats could file for redress based on the RC error in not signaling them as over early?
Now, let's add that a third boat contends that the RC's mistake caused it to have a worse finish than otherwise. This 3rd boat is tied for first place in the series and would otherwise have had a clear air start in the race. As it was, it suspected these 2 boats were over early. It had a poor finish because the over early boats sat on the wind of this 3rd boat following the start which allowed the other series competitors to pull ahead. So, this 3rd boat requests redress because the (in)action of the RC resulted in its finish being worse than expected.
Question 2) Does the 3rd boat have a valid case for redress once the RC admitted it mistakenly did not signal the over-early boats?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
If the race committee identified them, the race committee was required, by RRS 29.1 to promptly display flag X with one sound. Failure to do so was an improper omission by the race committee.
When a boat has no reason to know that she crossed the starting line early and the race committee fails to promptly signal “Individual recall” and scores her OCS, this is an error that significantly worsens the boat's score through no fault of her own, and therefore entitles her to redress.
Case 31 then says
The race committee, knowing that it has failed to properly signal individual recall should request redress for the boats.
Of course, if the race committee observed some boats over early but did NOT identify them, RRS RRS 29.2 gives the race committee discretion to either signal General Recall or take no action.
I don't think a third boat, claiming to have been tactically disadvantaged by the OCS boats sailing around the course will get redress.
RRS 62.1 sets a high bar to giving redress, in particular redress can only be given for boats breaking rules under (b), injury or physical damage causing detriment or (d) breach of RRS 2 or 69 causing detriment. The only 'redress' the third boat can get is the penalisation of the OCS boats by being scored OCS then reinstated to their 'fair' adjusted positions by their grant of redress.
Consider, had the race committee properly signaled Individual Recall and the OCS boats ignored that signal, and sailed on, interfering with the third boat, then the third boat would have had no claim to redress at all.
Recapping... I take it the RC should unilaterally (re-)score the over-early boats as OCS without convening a protest meeting... this is just the normal part of the scoring process, which includes correcting known errors. But that awarding redress would need a protest meeting (filed either by RC or by the OCS boats) to discuss and award any redress to the OCS boats. Redress points might be determined by the redress-a or -b process, but could also include some added points to account fairly for a presumably later start behind the fleet. The third boat can try for redress, and if it can show the cause is the RC (in)action, it might get redress. But if the cause is just the presence of the OCS boats, it is unlikely to get redress.
The race committee has no power to grant redress or to score boats other than as provided in Appendix A.
Case 31 is based on the assumption that scores will be based on boats finishing times. For one-design racing where no times are recorded, the protest committee might have to do some fancy footwork to get to 'as fair as possible'.
"Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule 2 and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 69.2."
...which relies upon knowledge and intent in the part of Boat 1 or 2.
I agree that once you can get to intentionality, you're getting into the territory of Case 78 ... she breaks rule 2, and possibly rule 69.1(a), if while using those tactics she intentionally breaks a rule.