Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

The new Part 5

P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
OK .. I've been spending time in the new Part 5.  Is there anyone here that feels this is an improvement or makes things easier to understand or navigate?

Seriously, I'd love to hear some positive POV's.

Maybe it's just me and I'm just being incalcitrant or looking at it the wrong way .. but it's giving me "shpilkes in my connectiazoid" (for the SNL/Mike Myers/'Coffee Talk' fans out there).
Created: Sun 16:19

Comments

Jim Dinger
Nationality: Australia
0
I am unable to view your Part 5.  Did you download (submit) it to the web page?
Created: Sun 18:40
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
2
Jim, I'm talking about the complete rewrite of Part 5 in the 2025-2028 RRS. - Ang
Created: Sun 19:08
Rob Overton
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • International Umpire
5
Ang,  

Before I answer your question, I need to say that I was in no way involved with that massive rewrite other than to review it before publication.  Overall, I was not in favor of a number of organizational changes.  (The US RRC, of which I am a member, also proposed some small wording changes but was not involved in the reorganization.)  Having said that, I can easily find several improvements: 

  1. There used to be five separate rules about who could protest and under what conditions each could do so, and three of them (regarding committees protesting) said more or less the same thing.  There is now one simple rule 60.1: A boat or a committee may protest a boat.  Conditions for when such protest are valid are in two rules, one for boats (60.4(a)) and one for committees (60.4(b)).
  2.  We really don't want a system where officials other than protest committees decide who can protest or file for redress, but both old rules 60.1 about boats protesting and 62.1 about requesting redress invited race officials, such as race committee chairs or even protest secretaries, to turn away protests and requests for redress when the official deemed the document not to live up to the standards in rule 60.1 or 62.1.  Now the corresponding rules, 60.1 and 61.1, simply state the right to protest or request redress.  Decisions about whether protests or requests for redress meet the criteria at left to the validity part of the protest hearing, where they belong.   
  3. Something we've known to be wrong for at lease 30 years has been fixed: There used to be a rule (62.1) listing what kinds of claim a request for redress must be based on (e.g., an improper action or inaction of a race committee), but there's never been a rule listing the basis for a protest committee to decide a request for redress.  We've always acted as if those were the same, but why would that be?  Technically, a boat could have requested redress based on, say, an action by the race committee, and the protest committee could have decided that although the RC did nothing improper, the situation "wasn't fair" and they could have granted the redress anyway.  New Part 5 fixes that problem -- a boat can file for redress for any old reason, but redress will only be granted if one of the conditions has been met.  (BTW, the conditions are the same as in previous rulebooks.)
  4. The pre-2025 rule on protest contents (rule 61.2) required the protest to have five separate elements, but then negated three of those requirements by stating that certain elements could be changed at any time up to the beginning of the hearing, or even during the hearing.  If you think about it, that's worse than not requiring that content in the first place, because the original protest content was misleading.  Also, saying that the identity of the protestee could be changed after the protest is filed is clearly wrong -- if you don't know whom you are protesting, surely you should not be allowed to fill in an arbitrary protestee.  New rule 60.3 corrects these problems by only requiring the protest to identify the protestor and protestee, and the incident.

There are a number of things I don't like about new Part 5.  Principal among these are:

  1. The reorganization itself.  The old organization was in time order: First, rules about what happens on the water, then rules about what happens after boats come ashore, then a rule about the hearing, then a rule about decisions, and finally, rules about misconduct (though I admit that's not in tie order) and appeals.  I think time order is intuitive for the naive reader, whereas the new order is logical: First, rules about protests, then rules about redress, etc.  Not only is the new order less intuitive, but the mere fact that it's different means that literally thousands of sailors will have to relearn where the rules are and how they fit together.  To my mind, that downside is not offset by the (arguably) more logical ordering.
  2. The process.  The whole Part 5 rewrite was submitted to the World Sailing Racing Rules Committee in a single submission document with a "Reason" that gives a general rationale -- Part 5 had become more complicated over time -- and the history of the revision process.   There was no justification for individual changes.  As a result, the RRC was unable to separate the wheat from the chaff, so we got both.
Created: Sun 23:50
Clark Chapin
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
Rob: Thanks for your clarification.
For 2024, the discussion question that I posed to other judges at several events was: "Can an action or omission by a race committee be 'improper' if it breaks no rule?"
In most cases, the initial reaction was "no", but it was easy to construct or find a counterexample, especially in the RYA Appeals.
Created: Yesterday 02:42
Doc Sullivan
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
1
Well put Rob. I think that change is always hard but we will get through it
Doc
Created: Yesterday 02:43
Andrew Alberti
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
I should start with similar disclaimers to Rob's.  Neither I, nor any of the committees that I am on at Sail Canada submitted any of the changes.  I have found dealing with the massive amount of change to be a huge workload.  Many appeals have to be changed just because the rules numbers and titles have changed (with no substantive change).  Judges courses have to be changed etc.

Putting all of that aside, I think it is actually very difficult for many of us to see the proposed advantage and whether it has achieved it.  I believe that the goal was to make it simpler and more organized to read.  This, if true will be a benefit to the new reader.  A new better organized version will always be more difficult for a reader who is very familiar with the old and most readers of this forum fall in that category.  I think we will only have an idea of its success when we have used it in real work for a year or two (those cases where we have to go and look things up) and when we see new developing judges try to use it for the first time.
Created: Yesterday 03:03
Clark Chapin
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
Certain aspects of this, as Rob says, remind me of the metaphor about corporate restructuring:
"At the zoo, the zookeeper whacks the trunk of the tree with a baseball bat and all of the monkeys change branches."
Still, the improvement in logical flow will, in the future, benefit us all...if we live long enough.
Created: Yesterday 03:07
John Christman
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
My biggest concern with the changes lies with the requirement to identify the protestee at the time the protest is filed and that it cannot be fixed/corrected before the hearing.  If a protesting boat realizes it before the time limit, their only option is to file another hearing request, they are not allowed to change the original.  Think of what the response of the sailor will be to making a simple change in the request.  Now think what their response will be when they are told that the new hearing request was filed too late.  Will that be considered a good reason to extend the time limit or will it be invalid?  Why didn't they know what the right sail number or boat name and which will take precedence?.  Will a protest committee be allowed to start a hearing without a protestee because no boat with that sail number exists or with the wrong protestee because the sail number exists but is for the wrong boat?  If they do start the hearing can they then bring the right boat in as a third boat involved in the incident that may have broken a rule?  To do that they would have to stop the hearing and they reschedule it.  This seems a very inefficient way to fix a simple problem up front.
Created: Yesterday 03:37
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
0
Rob ... thank you for that excellent post.  That's exactly what I was hoping for.  

Patching old holes (your first 1/2) is the no-brainer. Absolutely do that.   It's very helpful to read what you think the important fixes were. 

My concerns are with the work flow aspects and the occasional double-negative logic structure make it difficult to understand the rules. 

My personal view is that humans are storytellers. Yes, the old structure had repetitive structures, but it told a story. 

Most racers do not spend a lot of time in Part 5 until they have a need.  We judges, RO's, TC's, we will live in it and learn where things are ... put our colored tabs on the edges of our pages and we'll be able to find things. 

We'll just have to see if racers jumping into Part 5 on an as needed basis will find what they need and understand it if/when they do. 
Created: Yesterday 13:38
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
0
John C re: "If they do start the hearing can they then bring the right boat in as a third boat involved in the incident that may have broken a rule?"

I don't think so .. as it seems they'd be in a validity Catch-22. 
Created: Yesterday 15:02
Doc Sullivan
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
As we are there to support our customers I think we can have a workaround For instance the Jury secretary can have a list of competitors and before accepting a protest have the protestor confirm they have the correct boat/sail number noted before accepting a protest as well as having signage to that effect at the protest desk. We all agree that sailors do not live in Part 5 rules. I think it is our duty to educate them before they are told their protest is invalid
Created: Yesterday 17:21
John Christman
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Ang -
I think this may be a grey area that needs official clarification.  The rule requires the protestor to "identify ... the protestee".  The rule doesn't require the protestor to identify the correct protestee, just a protestee.  As long as the protest meets the requirement then it could be valid.  I think there are three paths here.  The protestee exists and comes to the hearing or does not come, or does not exist.

(Let's assume all other validity requirements were met.)

The protestee exists and comes to the hearing:
I think the protest is probably valid and you are into fact finding.  The protestee says they weren't involved in the incident, but between everyone they identify the boat that actually was involved in the incident.  Now the requirements of 60.4(c)(2) are met and the PC can bring in the right boat.  The original protestee is still a party to the hearing, but is in no risk of breaking a rule in that incident.

The protestee exists and doesn't come to the hearing:
I think this is really a combination of the other two possibilities.

The protestee doesn't exist and thus can't come to the hearing:
Again, looking at the black and white of the rules, the protest is probably still valid.  A protestee has been named which fulfills the requirement.  The protest is found to be valid and during the fact finding process the protestor is able to identify the correct boat.  Again the requirements of 60.4(c)(2) are met and the PC can bring in the right boat.  A simple scenario where this could happen is that Boat A protests Boat B but gets the sail number wrong on the protest because they transpose some numbers.  Boat B knows they are being protested but they don't appear on the hearing schedule because their sail number isn't listed.  Boat A goes into the hearing and says they were protesting Boat B.  Should we be forced to decide the protest is invalid because of a clerical error?

So, to me, in the absence of better instruction about a requirement to identify the correct protestee, which is not in the rule, it seems that you can get to the right place.  But this is an overly complicated procedure that will simply take more time when it would be simple enough to allow the protestee to be fixed before the hearing and then allowing the protestee the time they need to prepare.
Created: Yesterday 17:23
John Christman
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
I agree with Doc.  When possible we should be doing all we can to help our customers.  The last thing we want is sailors thinking we are doing everything we can to avoid hearing protests through technicalities.
Created: Yesterday 17:26
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
0
John C re: " The rule requires the protestor to "identify ... the protestee".  The rule doesn't require the protestor to identify the correct protestee, just a protestee." (I added bold emphasis)

IMO, swapping "a" for "the" is doing a lot of the work in your assertion.  The rule says "the".

60.3 Delivering a Protest (a) When delivered, a protest shall be in writing and identify the protestor, the protestee, and the incident.

The word "the" is also used in "the incident".  Would we accept a change in "the incident" as well as long as they described "an incident"?  I don't think so.

RRS 60.3 is changeable by an SI.  Maybe just change it to be more accommodating .. 

SI #.#  60.3(a) is replaced by, "When delivered, a protest shall be in writing and identify the protestor and the incident, and identify or uniquely describe the protestee."

With above, you could declare the protest valid if they have something to hang their hat on.  For instance .. "a J22 with a yellow spin" or "the j22 with the helmsman wearing a red coat".  Once valid, you have options .. ID the protestee in the hearing, close the hearing, notify the protestee and restart with them .. or close the hearing and have the PC protest the boat and combine the 2 protests.

Ang

PS: I agree we want to be helpful and that racers are our customers. But I also think we need to be consistent in how we read things.  If we are going to vary something and it's an allowable change, put it in an NOR/SI.
Created: Yesterday 17:48
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
 'Is there anyone here that feels this is an improvement or makes things easier to understand or navigate?'

I think it's a matter of getting used to the rearrangements.  Experienced judges are used to finding certain things in certain places, and now when we want to look at the exact words of a rule we have to go searching for it in a different place.  At the moment that's annoying.

But consider it from the POV of someone that is not used to the old Part 5.  The new structure is more logical and consistent and they will probably find it better.
Created: Yesterday 22:18
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
1
 John Christman said Created: Today 03:37
 
My biggest concern with the changes lies with the requirement to identify the protestee at the time the protest is filed and that it cannot be fixed/corrected before the hearing.  If a protesting boat realizes it before the time limit, their only option is to file another hearing request, they are not allowed to change the original.  Think of what the response of the sailor will be to making a simple change in the request.  Now think what their response will be when they are told that the new hearing request was filed too late.

The old system allowed a boat to deliver a 'pro forma' protest within the time limit:  that is one that they knew did not comply with all the requirements, but which did comply with the time limit requirement.  This meant that the protestor would not need to present evidence and argument in the hearing about good reasons for the protest committee to extend the time limit.  Arguably this was of benefit to the protest committee because it encouraged protestors to give the committee early notice of a protest.

When the defect in the protest was failure to identify the protestee, which could be done up to the beginning of the hearing, this threw the system into an endless loop:
  • the protestor had up until the start of the hearing to identify the protestee but ,
  • the hearing could not begin until the parties, including the protestee had been given notice of time and place and protest information, but
  • the protestee could not be identified, so notice could not be given to them, so
  • the hearing could be held up for an indefinite period, perhaps forever, until the protestor identified the protestee.

The new system no longer allows this.

Where a protestor wants to change some required element of a protest, you are quite right that the way to do this is to deliver a new protest.  In the pencil and paper days, it was quite easy for the protestor to front up at the protest desk and ask to get his protest form back and change it (but problems might arise when some well meaning person in the race office, or some other not so well meaning person 'corrected' the protest form on the protestor's behalf).  Using computerised systems like rrs.org this would require somewhat elaborate coding and structures.

While none of us will much like the 'Computer says no' response, I think that the requirement to deliver a new protest is not too unreasonable.  It certainly makes the processes of the protest commitee more orderly.

Will that be considered a good reason to extend the time limit or will it be invalid?  Why didn't they know what the right sail number or boat name and which will take precedence?.

Where a protestor has genuine difficulty in identifying the protestee, then I would certainly consider this a good reason to extend the time limit.  What John C has listed are factors that the protest committee would consider.

Will a protest committee be allowed to start a hearing without a protestee because no boat with that sail number exists

Maybe not.  If the identified 'protestee' does not exist, then notification of the hearing cannot be given.  OTOH, opening the hearing in the absence of the non-existent party and declaring the protest invalid might be the quickest way to finalise the protest.

 or with the wrong protestee because the sail number exists but is for the wrong boat?

John C dealt with this in his post of  Created: Today 17:23.

You can't have a 'wrong protestee'.  The protestee is the boat identified in the protest.  If the protestor has identified the wrong boat in their protest they are bound by that:  the protest committee would find that the protestee that had been identified broke no rule and dismiss the protest.

If the protestee in this scenario does not come to the hearing there may be a bit of a problem.  The protest committee might decide to continue the hearing and accept the evidence of the protestor and penalise the protestee.  After that she could go for a rehearing, which she might or might not win.

If they do start the hearing can they then bring the right boat in as a third boat involved in the incident that may have broken a rule?

 
Angelo Guarino said  Created: Today 15:02 

I don't think so .. as it seems they'd be in a validity Catch-22. 

I disagree.  I think they can.

 The protest with the wrongly identified protestee will be valid as far as it goes.

RRS 60.4(c)(2) allows a protest committee to protest a boat, even if the protest is based on information from a report from a person with a conflict of interest (that is the protestor) if it learns that information during the hearing of a valid protest.

The protest committee has a discretion whether or not they do this (RRS 60.1:  a committee may protest a boat.)

To do that they would have to stop the hearing and they reschedule it.  This seems a very inefficient way to fix a simple problem up front.

That's what a protest committee has always had to do when they want to protest a boat in these circumstances.
Created: Yesterday 23:26
Rob Overton
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • International Umpire
1
I'd like to address a comment above from Clark.  He says, " For 2024, the discussion question that I posed to other judges at several events was: "Can an action or omission by a race committee be 'improper' if it breaks no rule?" In most cases, the initial reaction was "no", but it was easy to construct or find a counterexample, especially in the RYA Appeals. "

I just happen to have written about this in my blog, more than ten years ago.  Here's what I said then, and I'm sticking to it:

'“Improper” is a very strong term.  To me, this word means redress for an action or inaction by the race committee can be granted in only two cases:  either the race committee broke a rule, or they made a decision that was patently and intentionally unfair to certain boats.  A race committee decision that was within the rules and made without bias might be wrong, but it’s not “improper”.
 
'Suppose for example there’s very light wind.  The leaders are at a dead stop, a few hundred meters from the finishing line, when the race committee decides it’s unlikely that any boat will finish within the time limit for that race, so they abandon the race in accordance with rule 32.2.  Just after the abandonment signal a breeze fills in and it is clear that the first boat would have finished within the time limit if the race hadn’t been abandoned.  If the lead boat were to apply for redress because of the committee’s decision, they should not receive it because the race committee broke no rule and did not intentionally favor any boat, so therefore their action was not “improper” – just wrong.
 
'Suppose, on the other hand, that the race committee, seeing a local sailor leading the race, decides to shorten the race at the next mark, claiming it was unlikely that any boat would finish in time but actually because they wanted that local sailor to win and it was unlikely she would do so if the race continued.  That decision would be "improper" because it was made with the intent of favoring a particular sailor.  It's not enough, in my mind, that the decision is unfair; to be "improper" it has to be intentionally unfair.  
 
'As another example, the RC signals an individual recall, then a few seconds later removes that signal even though one of the boats over early has not returned.  That action is “improper” because rule 29.1 says, “[the] flag shall be displayed until all such boats have sailed completely to the pre-start side of the starting line …” and the RC broke that rule.  If a boat was over early then decided not to return to the start based on the RC’s action, and she gets scored OCS, redress should be considered.'

This opinion was part of a blog on why I don't like redress at all.  The whole post is at https://tinyurl.com/v9jyn9rx.
Created: Yesterday 23:52
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
1
Identifying the 'correct' protestee

Firstly, I don't think it is necessary to amplify 'identified' in the rule in any way.  Of course 'identified' means uniquely identified.  The purpose of the protestee being identified is so that the protest hearing can take place: that clearly requires that a unique protestee be identified.

IMHO, if the protestor identifies a boat that exists as the protestee, then that is the protestee, and if it is not the boat that the protestor meant to protest against, then tough luck for the protestor:  they are bound by what they have said.

If, on the other hand, the protestee that has been identifed (usually by a sail number) does not exist, then John C began a discussion about this at  Created: Yesterday 17:23

The protestee doesn't exist and thus can't come to the hearing:

Again, looking at the black and white of the rules, the protest is probably still valid.

While minds may differ, I tend to disagree.  Something that does not exist can't be 'identified', so a protest with a non-existent sail number has not identified a protestee and is invalid, and as I have argued elsewhere does not comply with the definition of protest and is not a protest at all.

Furthermore if no existing protestee is identified then no existing protestee can be notified of the time place and protest details of a hearing, so no hearing can take place.

A protestee has been named which fulfills the requirement.

The requirement is not that the protestor 'provide the name of a protestee'.  It is that the protest shall 'identify the protestee'.

I argue that you can't identify something that does not exist.

The protest is found to be valid

I think that in a well run event, the non-existence will be picked up much earlier. As Doc has mentioned earlier, I would expect the race office where the protest was delivered to have a list of entrants and contact details, and quite soon check that list and see that the 'protestee' wasn't on it and do something to resolve that, like tell the protestor, and inform the protest committee chair.

You're not going to blindly put a notice on the ONB scheduling a protest against a non-existent sail number.

And hopefully, you are going to have given the protestor early warning that their protest is wrong and that they need to go and find an actual boat to protest against.

 and during the fact finding process the protestor is able to identify the correct boat.  Again the requirements of 60.4(c)(2) are met and the PC can bring in the right boat.

I don't think those requirements are met because I don't think the protest is valid.

The protest committee could protest a boat if:
  • somehow or other they had heard evidence from a witness who did not have a conflict of interest (RRS 60.3(b)(3), or
  • they learnt that the incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage. (RRS 60.4(c)(1).

A simple scenario where this could happen is that Boat A protests Boat B but gets the sail number wrong on the protest because they transpose some numbers.  Boat B knows they are being protested but they don't appear on the hearing schedule because their sail number isn't listed.  Boat A goes into the hearing and says they were protesting Boat B.  Should we be forced to decide the protest is invalid because of a clerical error? 

Yes:  the error is highly material and the protestor should be bound by what they wrote.

It would be nice if an electronic system, or some race office person checked the sail number against the LOE but that's a bonus.
Created: Today 00:42
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Judge
  • Club Judge
  • Judge In Training
0
Generally agree with John Allen on all of this.

I have mountains of educational material which needs updating, but on the whole I think the rewrite is more fluid. 

B
Created: Today 01:17
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
0
John A re: "Something that does not exist can't be 'identified', so a protest with a non-existent sail number has not identified a protestee and is invalid, and as I have argued elsewhere does not comply with the definition of protest and is not a protest at all"

That was what I meant by a validity Catch-22.  I don't think you can go forward with an un-uniquely ID'd protestee .. call it valid and then use info from that hearing to figure out who the protestee is supposed to be. 
Created: Today 03:57
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Ang,  see above

 I think the protest committee could protest a boat if:
  • somehow or other they had heard evidence from a witness who did not have a conflict of interest (RRS 60.3(b)(3), or
  • they learnt that the incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage. (RRS 60.4(c)(1).
Created: Today 06:17
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more