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).
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)?