Forum: Share Your SI/NOR Language
RRS 2025 References for Scoring without a Hearing, [NP] and No Redress
P
John AllanCertifications:
- National Race Officer
- National Judge
0
I've just reviewed some NOR/SI for 2025, and updated the relevant references to the 2025 RRS.
This may save people some effort.
To score a boat DNS/DNF/etc without a hearing: This changes RRS A5.
Note: RRS 60.5(b)(3) expressly allows for penalties allowed without a hearing.
To implement [NP]: This changes RRS 60.1
To switch off redress for an action: This changes RRS 61.4(b).
This may save people some effort.
To score a boat DNS/DNF/etc without a hearing: This changes RRS A5.
Note: RRS 60.5(b)(3) expressly allows for penalties allowed without a hearing.
To implement [NP]: This changes RRS 60.1
To switch off redress for an action: This changes RRS 61.4(b).
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying but I don't agree it is necessary to change 60.5(c) when scoring a boat DNS/DNF etc without a hearing. These scores are allowed by 60.5(b)(3) providing a rule has been placed in the NoR or SI's. We still need to change A 5 though.
I read .60.5(c) to relate to protest committee decisions which would not be made if there was no hearing.
Also do we not need to only change 61.1(a) if denying a boat the opportunity to request redress? I think the reasons for redress listed in 61.4(b) only apply if there is a redress hearing.
A DNS boat doesn't meet Sail the Course (a) and a DNF boat doesn't meet Sail the Course (c).
I agree. Please ignore reference to DNS/DNF in my response to John A. I should have referred to SP's.
Peter, I think you're talking about where a boat actually does not start or not finish. What I had in mind was where SI impose a penalty on a boat that may well sail the course (in 2025 terms), but breaks some other Si, such as failing to sign on/off or starting outside the starting window.
I wouldn't want to deny a boat's right to request redress. I just want to bar some action or inaction by a committee or OA as grounds for redress.
Currently Appendix LG, 12.5, 12.6, and 16.4 use the words '... will not be grounds for a request for redress. This changes RRS 62.1(a).'
The corresponding 2025 RRS is RRS 61(4)(b).
To elaborate, when denying redress some SIs use the wording “…. xyz will not be grounds for redress” while others use “…. xyz will not be grounds for a request for redress”.
RRS 60.1(b) as it stands (or 61.1(a) in the incoming rules) gives a boat the unconditional right to request redress. This SI effectively changes RRS 60.1(b)/61.1(a) in that a boat may not request redress on the grounds of the race committee’s failure to make a broadcast or to time it accurately.
Another option could be that using the phrase "request for redress" instead of "redress" as otherwise referenced was an oversight/mistake by the writers of the rule, as evidenced by their reference of 62.1(a). - Ang
PS: to my mind, it's more likely a mistake/typo, as hearing all requests for a hearing is a fundamental value/principle IMO.
It is true that “The protest committee shall hear each protest or request delivered unless it allows it to be withdrawn.”
(RRS 63.2(a) in the 2025-2028 rules, and worded very slightly differently in RRS 63.1 in the 2021-2024 rules.)
However, it is not unusual to restrict a boat’s right to protest or right to request redress in the first place by changing RRS 60.1(a) or 60.1(b). (current rules, which will become RRS 60.1 or 61.1(a) in the 2025-2028 rules.)
For example, in the case of a boat’s right to protest, the standard [NP] provision in Appendix LG does precisely this: “The notation ‘[NP]’ in a rule of the sailing instructions (SIs) means that a boat may not protest another boat for breaking that rule. This changes RRS 60.1(a).”
So, looking forward, it seems that if we wish to restrict a boat’s right to request redress we have the option of:
1. “xyz will not be grounds for a request for redress. This changes RRS 60.1(a).”
or
2. “xyz will not be grounds for redress. This changes RRS 61.4(b).”
Surely it’s more efficient simply to use option 1.?
Speaking of [NP]/[DP] ... was that Paris SI you shared designated such?
What was the penalty if a boat filed an R4R and broke SI 17.2 (or SI E1.1)?
I am a bit late to the discussion. In my opinion NP does no longer work with the standard NoR preamble wording.
The 25 RRS structures the protest process as follows:
And you no longer need to say for which rule you are making an protest. The race office cant even easily check if it is an NoR or SI NP rule.
By declaring that alleged breaches of NP rules are not protests, will be voiding the above process. Those allegations cannot be deemed invalid and thus the will not trigger 60.4b(2). Subsequently an committee can file a valid protest.
My solution would be this wording:
The notation ‘[NP]’ in a rule in the NoR or SI means that a protest from a boat is invalid for an alleged breach of this rule. This changes RRS 60.4(a).
It will generate hearing slots, but that is also the case with any other invalid protests. Are there any unwanted interactions with my wording?
I think yours is a good start. Maybe it's worth sending a note to MNA's who have their own templates to give them a heads-up in case they miss it or before they roll-out the new docs.
Let's all play with your language a little first ....
V2
V3
PS .. since this note will be in the NOR or SI itself, I don't think "in the SI or NOR" is necessary as it will be self-evident.
If competitors are no longer able to enforce rules notated [NP], doesn't [NP] also change Sportsmanship and the Rules?
BASIC PRINCIPLES
The Basic Principles shall not be changed.
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. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when a boat breaks a rule and is not exonerated, she will promptly take an appropriate penalty or action, which may be to retire.
Does that get us out of the briar patch?
Basic Principles are not rules.
Rule
(a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals,
Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not
the Basic Principles or titles;
I agree Basic Principles are not "rules", they are basic principles. "Basic principles" refer to fundamental concepts that form the foundation of a subject, field, or system. If the "Basic principles" are fundamental concepts and cannot be changed is the organizing authority or race committee allowed to write a rule that is counter to those principles?
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. The organizing authority or race committee by notating a rule [NP] takes away the ability of the competitor to "enforce" those rules.
What are the consequences?
Competitors are expected to follow and enforce....
So, if an event decides to identify some rules as NP then the competitors are expected to follow that rule and make sure that the rule is enforced - in this case by not protesting.
I am not really seeing any problem here.
The notation ‘[NP]’ in a rule in this Notice of Race (NOR) means that a boat may not protest another boat for breaking that rule. This changes RRS 60.1.
This does not, to me, void the whole protest system, it just means boats cannot initiate it.
.... and not violate rule 86.
Not much enforcement left after that, except for misconduct.
Yes, it could and needs to when alternative systems are in place e.g. fleet race umpiring.
The sailors have a choice as to whether or not they wish to enter a regatta or race under such conditions but, if they do enter, the basic principles advise that they are expected to follow the rules they have signed up to.