Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
My project since the beginning of the year has been creating US Sailing Hearing Decision Forms. With lots of feedback so far, they are released as the official forms for the US, and I am including the forms and supporting documentation here for your reference.
Documents included:
Instructions - Please read this document to understand a bunch of tips and tricks for efficient use of the forms
Standard Wording in Microsoft Word
Standard Wording in PDF
Hearing Decision Template in Microsoft Word
Hearing Decision Template in Fillable PDF
Hearing Decision Template in Printable PDF
In the instructions you'll find a link for feedback as we use the form. This will inevitably have updates, so please read the instructions and when you find issues or areas for improvement, fill out the form in the instructions area.
I'm sure you'll understand this was a monumental effort and there will inevitably be errors found throughout the use of the forms. The standard wording was my take and I'm sure there are areas where wording can be improved. This was all done prior to World Sailing releasing their wording, so there will inevitably be differences. Using the form in the instructions sheet for feedback is the right avenue for suggesting improvements. I'll keep an eye on this thread, but submitting the form is where I'll be able to track suggestions and issue new versions of these documents in the future.
A great deal of effort put into these John. Well polished products.
Personally, I'm not totally in favour of the approach US Sailing has taken (in the decision form and standard wordings), but I'm not bound by US Sailing (MNA) so my opinion is not really relevant.
Benjamin, these documents clearly incorporate lots of compromise. This is what we think works for the bulk of protest hearings in our country. Many appeals reveal things like committees completely skipping validity. There is plenty of effort here to attempt to lead people down the path of proper procedure, even when they have minimal or no training. I certainly work events where we use the WS form or make a form specific to the event that mimics the WS form. These events usually have very good judges who are experts at procedure.
I very much like the "Valid Yes/No" approach taken in th WS Hearing Decision Form, but I understand that it might be a bit cryptic for inexperienced judges.
John P, when you say Many appeals reveal things like committees completely skipping validity, do you mean many appeals are upheld because of validity/invalidity because protest committees failed to consider it, or just that they failed to document their consideration.
When I first trained as a judge we never used to write up validity for valid protests, because the crusty old judges used to say "If the protest wasn't valid we wouldn't be holding this hearing."
John A - I've seen multiple appeals that were sent for reopening with a new committee where the original committee didn't consider validity. I don't expect this form is the best form for the NJ/IJ crowd, but we try hard to help our large country where many hearings are simply run by sailors or RC with great intentions but little formal training. It also tries to mimic the hearing procedure cards available from our MNA that walk people through the process. Finally, it gives new judges lots of tools to ensure a hearing is documented well with easy integration of standard wording conclusions and decisions.
I think not documenting a clearly valid protest is generally ok, but if a "sea lawyer" appeals on the basis that "I never heard him say protest, therefore it should have been invalid," having a fact in the form that the protestor hailed protest 3 seconds after the incident makes quick work for an appeals committee. Without that, the appeals committee would send a question to the original committee asking for a fact about whether 'protest' was hailed and if so, when. Having the text on page 1 lets you not clog the general facts/conclusion/decision with non-part 2 items and makes it more likely you have the relevant fact at appeal.
I can see the approach you're going for, and I think you have done a sterling job at achieving those goals. If that is what a huge MNA like US Sailing decides, then fine.
I personally prefer the Decision Form to be only that - a decision write-up. Concise and to the point, rather than a functional checklist which I think is what you are aiming for. Don't get me wrong, I promote the use of checklists as part of the hearing process, and I always use a checklist myself.
Similarly, the standard wording document is amazing (most scenarios we are likely to ever come across are covered, all correctly referenced to RRS etc.). As a training tool, it's second-to-none - Anyone can learn from that document.
But I am wary of such detailed prescription in both for two reasons.
Standard Wording documents can become a crux for some people, where the compilation of Facts Found and Decisions and Conclusions are swayed by the standard wordings available in the document rather than the other way round as it should be.
The need for skills such as decision writing is undermined, sometimes with cases where reduced understanding of how conclusions and decisions are derived from the facts is masked by the superb decision writing tools available. The skills of cut 'n' paste are on the rise, though. This is all fine, until a scenario crops up which doesn't fit a standard wording.
Interestingly, you mentioned many appeals with key steps missed by less well-trained (not-trained) protest committees.
Sailing is one of the few sports which takes into account, with the appeal system, non-expert officiating. While slightly cumbersome, the appeals system provides a disgruntled competitor with a chance to challenge the results. It also provides a filter ensuring a certain threshold of disgruntlement before it is activated. (In a game of soccer, decisions are made on-the-spot and there is no recourse for poor decisions. Once a penalty is awarded and scored, that's it.)
So I don't see appeals as a bad thing. It's an added layer of 'cushioning' for the range of pc chair abilities out there.
So all-in-all, I aim to maintain the standards of hearings through good training of principals and procedures - at least of our NJs. But like you said, your forms are there to assist Joe-Average PC chair who has little or no training. I can totally see that too.
Good job.
------------- Just an observation on the form design:
While I like the clever 'auto fill' of the 2nd page header info, I think the real-estate it takes up on Pg. 2 is costly. If the decision form is a 2-page form, perhaps the only thing which needs repeating is the Filing number (and perhaps some names). That real-estate could then be given back to boxes such as Procedural Matters and Facts Found, which have potential to need more room.
I don't think the 'Scribe' needs to be mentioned. The assignment of roles is part of the 'behind the scenes/deliberation' side of things, which need not be disclosed to anyone.
Personally, I'm not totally in favour of the approach US Sailing has taken (in the decision form and standard wordings), but I'm not bound by US Sailing (MNA) so my opinion is not really relevant.
Well done.
John P, when you say Many appeals reveal things like committees completely skipping validity, do you mean many appeals are upheld because of validity/invalidity because protest committees failed to consider it, or just that they failed to document their consideration.
When I first trained as a judge we never used to write up validity for valid protests, because the crusty old judges used to say "If the protest wasn't valid we wouldn't be holding this hearing."
I think not documenting a clearly valid protest is generally ok, but if a "sea lawyer" appeals on the basis that "I never heard him say protest, therefore it should have been invalid," having a fact in the form that the protestor hailed protest 3 seconds after the incident makes quick work for an appeals committee. Without that, the appeals committee would send a question to the original committee asking for a fact about whether 'protest' was hailed and if so, when. Having the text on page 1 lets you not clog the general facts/conclusion/decision with non-part 2 items and makes it more likely you have the relevant fact at appeal.
I can see the approach you're going for, and I think you have done a sterling job at achieving those goals. If that is what a huge MNA like US Sailing decides, then fine.
I personally prefer the Decision Form to be only that - a decision write-up. Concise and to the point, rather than a functional checklist which I think is what you are aiming for. Don't get me wrong, I promote the use of checklists as part of the hearing process, and I always use a checklist myself.
Similarly, the standard wording document is amazing (most scenarios we are likely to ever come across are covered, all correctly referenced to RRS etc.). As a training tool, it's second-to-none - Anyone can learn from that document.
But I am wary of such detailed prescription in both for two reasons.
Interestingly, you mentioned many appeals with key steps missed by less well-trained (not-trained) protest committees.
Sailing is one of the few sports which takes into account, with the appeal system, non-expert officiating. While slightly cumbersome, the appeals system provides a disgruntled competitor with a chance to challenge the results. It also provides a filter ensuring a certain threshold of disgruntlement before it is activated. (In a game of soccer, decisions are made on-the-spot and there is no recourse for poor decisions. Once a penalty is awarded and scored, that's it.)
So I don't see appeals as a bad thing. It's an added layer of 'cushioning' for the range of pc chair abilities out there.
So all-in-all, I aim to maintain the standards of hearings through good training of principals and procedures - at least of our NJs. But like you said, your forms are there to assist Joe-Average PC chair who has little or no training. I can totally see that too.
Good job.
-------------
Just an observation on the form design:
That's all.
Cheers.