You have added the incorrect gloss of "flimsy" yourself. Take this away and you have a protest between boats with no witnesses save the parties. This is what judges using there experience are there to decide. It is fine to protest. 

If a party can be proven to have lied i believe it should be a rrs 69. 

Read the ws missconduct manual available on the website. 

I'm not sure I agree that what you describe is in any way a "flimsy" protest. It's actually pretty common that a boat protests another boat, the other boat brings in witnesses and the protest is decided based on the protest committee's belief about what happened -- which could be to disqualify the protested boat despite the witnesses! I certainly don't think any action should be taken against a boat that protests another boat unsuccessfully, unless there is clear evidence that the sole purpose of the protest is to harass the other team. I think you'd need direct evidence of that, as for example, someone overhearing the protestor state that he knew the protest had no merit but he wanted to get into the protestee's head. 

In the case of lying in the protest hearing, in my opinion that clearly rises to the level of rule 69. However, that would require clear evidence of the lie, not just the opinion of the protest committee that they were being lied to. Outright lies are uncommon in protest hearings, if for no other reason than that there is someone else in the room who knows the statement is a lie -- the other party.  On the other hand, it is very common for the parties to make factual statements that are in total disagreement with each other. That doesn't mean either party is lying, they just remember the situation differently.

I'll just concur with what Michael and Rob have said. Protests should happen when one skipper believes they have been fouled--whether or not it changes the outcome of the race or regatta (yes, it's fine to work it out through discussion without formal protest). Fouls change the experience of racing for the worse and discouraging them is reason enough to protest someone. 
A rule 69 hearing is a big deal because of concerns of damaging someone's reputation and should only be undertaken with clear reasons backed by evidence gathered. 

Michael- Thank you for pointing me to the manual, it is very helpful!

Rob- Thank you for the response! Would it count as harassment if the purpose of the protest was to make the protestee's team's score worse as supposed to making the protestor's team's score better? And if the protestor is aware that the protest they are filing and their story may not be a lie, but rather they know it is incomplete and that it may be subject to nuance in the eyes of a protest committee. Meaning that the contrasting stories are a true neutral and a fully aware PC may truly decide it in either way, would it be unsportsmanlike if they go through with it?
Also- another question I've just had building off this: There is no perfect world in that a judge is fully and completely objective. As such, is there any specific thought process or something for a judge to be aware of/ruminate on when going into a protest like this (or any other) besides the concept of innocent until proven guilty, that could assist them in remaining as a true neutral in the hearing?

If you think someone fouled you, it is not unsportsmanlike in ANY universe to protest. Your statement about making a score worse vs your score better has NOTHING to do with whether a protest is valid, sportsmanlike, or otherwise. It is a somewhat common thought that if you beat a boat, you shouldn't protest them, even if they fouled you. To quote the Basic Principles - 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..." This doesn't mean you only enforce the rules if they beat you to the finish line. There's no prohibition on bringing a 50/50 protest. If a foul may have occurred, a protest is not inappropriate.

Finally, your "innocent until proven guilty" is contrary to the rules. Rule 63.5(a) states, "The protest committee shall consider the evidence and decide what weight to give it. It shall then find the facts based on the balance of probabilities (unless an applicable rule requires otherwise), and then apply the rules to those facts to make its conclusions and decision."

One way of looking at the balance of probabilities is 50.0000000001% likely. There is no "onus" on either party. There is no innocence until proven guilty. There's simply "what was most likely to have happened" then applying the rules to that. This wording was changed for this quad to say that the balance of probabilities test applies to facts. As such, you start with what you think happened, then the penalty goes where those facts take you. Your job as a judge is to be objective. If you think you aren't able to be objective and apply the rules as written, you should recuse yourself. 

Edit: Also of note here, Rule 2 and 69 are rare, but should be used with the utmost care when appropriate. It is unlikely that as a club judge you should chair this type of hearing. Engage with your RAJ if this comes up and be sure to talk with senior judges before taking action, especially under RRS 69. 

Hi Zev,

Here are a few things to 'ponder on'.

RRS Basic Principles 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.

The way competitors enforce the rules is by protesting.

A protest committee should be very careful about doing something that would punish a boat for doing exactly what it is expected to do.
 

In the case of a 'flimsy' protest:

In summary, it is not unsportsmanlike to use tactics, or the rules so as to gain an advantage in a race or event.

RRS Appendix M first paragraph (emphasis added)

In a hearing, the protest committee should weigh all testimony with equal care; should recognize that honest testimony can vary, and even be in conflict, as a result of different observations and recollections; should resolve such differences as best it can; should recognize that no boat or competitor is guilty until a breach of a rule has been established to the satisfaction of the protest committee; and should keep an open mind until all the evidence has been heard as to whether a boat or competitor has broken a rule.

Lying to a protest committee

Lying to a protest committee is out and out a breach of RRS 69.

However a merely untruthful statement is not a lie unless it can be proved that the party knew it was untruthful and intended to mislead.  And the standard for proving this in RRS 69 is comfortable satisfaction, which is a good deal more stringent than balance of probabilities.

One of the problems in our sport is that there is too much non-adherence to the rules. Protesting is seen as unsporting, whereas 'mild' cheating or 'it's what everyone here always does' is not seen as such.  We have to educate all to get away from this mindset, else there'll be no sport left in a few years.  For those os us self-selecting to be on here, obviously the rules are important. butter too many club racers they are not.  I get that it's fine to chat in the bar after a race and gently remonstrate that you had to dip a port boat when you were on starboard, and encourage them not to do it again.  I'm happy with  that. As long as they don't do it again.  But too many people just keep doing what they get away with, and the standards spiral down.  It's evident in youth racing - they are taught to follow the rules, then see others getting away with it, and so join in....

One of the things I learned early on in the protest room is that almost always, both parties are telling their truth.  It may not be the same truth, but it is what happened as they saw it.  Rarely do people lie, omitt things or overly embellish.  It's our job to weigh their evidence and give a balance of probabilities decision - which hos not about believing one more than the other, it's about understanding their views and working out what is the most likely explanation for their views that is internal consistent and feasible given the conditions.  Then we apply the rules.  Most situations are one boat versus another with no witnesses.

I'd therefore encourage Zev to move from the mindset of a "flimsy" accusation and towards one that supports people resolving different perspectives on the water in the adjudication area or protest room. It's vital for our sport that we encourage rule observance.  For example, I think one of the useful things we can do is make sure it's known we're judges of any level and be available to discuss scenarios with colleagues, in the bar, on the dock, whatever.  Help them understand the rules, help them realise they are not only racing, they are also refereeing, and they need to do both roles.

On motivation, it's actually impossible for us to tell what the rmotivation is - making their score better, another score worse - it's also not really relevant.  If someone considers someone has broken a rule then they have a duty to protest.  And on lying, if it was deliberate, then I'd be (and instigating a rule 69.  And have done so.

Good luck with your judging career - it's fun.

John P: re: "It is a somewhat common thought that if you beat a boat, you shouldn't protest them, even if they fouled you."

Yes.  It's a mindset which reduces a 'Fleet' race to a 'Match" race.  When we are fleet-racing, and doing what is "expected" of us by "enforcing the rules", we are not doing that for only ourselves, but also for the boats on the other side of the race course who are in no position to protest themselves.

The aha-moment I try to get across is not the question of "was I effected?" .. but rather an understanding that the fouling-boat likely gained some advantage, however small, against the boat they fouled and other boats in the fleet.  That advantage might make the difference between crossing another boat 5 min's later.

I covered this topic in a larger context in a post many moons ago: here .

Everyone, thank you all for the very insightful feedback-

John A.: In a WS document titled 2017WorldSailingMisconductGuidance (LMK if there is a updated version!), Appendix A lists out examples of Misconduct for 69 while Appendix F lists out the Principles of Sportsmanship. In F, it lists out "Respect for the rules" and "Respect for other competitors" as recognized principles. It goes further listing reasons. Some advised breaches that I believe that may apply in the total discussion here are:
55.1.5 Gamesmanship, defined as behaviour of questionable fairness but not strictly illegal tactics
56.1.3 Ungracious acceptance of defeat 
And also in the examples of misconduct:
45.11 Not telling the truth or the whole truth in a hearing

With these guiding a Rule 2 interpretation, I would assume that knowingly not telling the whole truth in a hearing would qualify as a breach. Do you think that knowingly moving forwards with a protest that in the protestors eyes may not be legitimate (maybe you are not sure if there was minor contact and you have ROW, but they got close enough so you protest) would count as a breach of 55.1.5 or 56.1.3? If the protestor knowingly is using the ambiguity in the protest room, along with this type of protest, to not effect placement for any teams and just affect the raw score (not in a series, doesn't change qualifications or rankings), I would think it may be an example of 56.1.3 or 55.1.5.

That all being said, I am of the belief, along with I think some of the people here, that the rules at times need to be more stringently followed on the water, and that there are problems with some competitors views of their role in enforcing them. I don't think that a competitor should be punished just for protesting. However it seems to me like some of the example breaches of the Rule from WS may overlap here some?

John P.: The clarification on the new wording with the balance of probabilities makes a lot of sense, thank you for clarifying!

Edit to my comment: I found one from 2021 but the wording/numbers are mostly the same. 2021 Version

John P-thanks for expressing clearly the competitors’ responsibility with respect to protesting.  

And Angelo for pointing out where a protest may be between two boats, it might impact other members of the fleet.  

I may quote either or both of you in future rules seminars 

Paul .. re: "And Angelo for pointing out where a protest may be between two boats, it might impact other members of the fleet."

I've got an entire elevator-pitch.  :-)

In  my old post, I have a section on "I owe you one", which touches on the same concept we are discussing, being we can (and should) assume that a boat which breaks a rule (and is not exonerated) gains an advantage against other boats in the fleet. 

Doing so, puts this entire topic into a firm frame.

Here is a little diagram that I use to help make the point.  Blue, Yellow, Green and Red are basically even in the same race.  Blue, Yellow and Red each have 1 duck each .. so in our perfect sailing imagination, they are even at position 10.  By Yellow & Blue's unsportsmanlike "I owe you one" compact on the course, they both gain an advantage against BOTH Red and Green on the opposite side of the course, because both Blue and Yellow should be where Green is.

Of course .. Blue and Yellow wouldn't have had the 2nd close-cross at #8 if Yellow protested and Blue did her turns after #4  .. that's true so the diagram isn't perfect ... but I think it still helps makes it's point.

Now .. anytime I put this drawing up, people immediately start-in with .. "How about if Yellow waived Blue through a #4?  Huh??  How about that?".  Well .. that's not the scenario I'm proposing.  For the drawing below, assume both Yellow and Red want their port-boats to either duck them or tack.