Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Rule 55 and technical committee
P
Stavros KourisCertifications:
- International Judge
- National Umpire
0
Rule 60.4 indicates that a technical committee shall protest a boat if decides that
- a boat has broken a rule of Part 4, but not rules 41, 42, 44 and 46.
Since rule 55 (Trash disposal) is not one of the rules mentioned in the exceptions above, a technical committee is obliged to protest a boat that has broken this rule, contrary to the other committees, who they may protest a boat under this rule.
Is there any obvious reason for this controversy in the rules?
- a boat has broken a rule of Part 4, but not rules 41, 42, 44 and 46.
Since rule 55 (Trash disposal) is not one of the rules mentioned in the exceptions above, a technical committee is obliged to protest a boat that has broken this rule, contrary to the other committees, who they may protest a boat under this rule.
Is there any obvious reason for this controversy in the rules?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
They simply forgot to delete the "shall", when they made the TC a committee of its own.
To my knowledge, this will be changed in the next edition of the RRS.
This is the draft:
"60.4 A technical committee may
(a) protest a boat, but not as a result of information arising from a request for redress or an invalid protest, or from a report from a person with a conflict of interest other than the representative of the boat herself. However, it shall protest a boat if it decides that a boat or personal equipment does not comply with the class rules or with rule 43;
(1) a boat has broken a rule of Part 4, but not rules 41, 42, 44 and 46, or
(2) a boat or personal equipment does not comply with the class rules;
(b) request redress for a boat; or
(c) report to the protest committee requesting action under rule 69.2(b)."
However, I don´t think that this draft solves all problems, as there is still the "shall".
Think about some class rules, like J 70, J24, as they have changes of RRS 49.2. The TC "shall" protest, and the judges on the water "may" protest?
Some people did not think to the very end, or got advice from the wrong people.
Willii
To your point about the Class Rules, I don't have a problem with how it's written. It seems to me the intent is that a TC can't knowingly look away. If they "decide" that there is an issue with the boat/equipment meeting CR's, they can't act like a jury themselves. If the TC hasn't decided that a CR or 43 is broken, then they are not obligated to protest.
PS .. some CR's allow the Class President or Committee to provide special dispensation for boats/equipment out of CR spec's. We have this at our local level, but those allowances are then out in the open and done through a process, which is different from a TC not following through with issues they have decided on.
The
Seems to me that it should read "shall (or may, either would be fine for me) protest if it believes...etc". That leaves it up to the Protest Committee to have a hearing, find facts and render a decision.
2013 rules, with reference to equipment inspectors and measurers, rule 43.1c used the word 'believes', rule 78.3 used the word 'decides'.
These rules were 'stepping stones' from the individual opinion of an equipment inspector or measurer, to the race committee and then, through 2013 rule 60.2, to a mandatory protest hearing.
Note that rule 43.1c was even softer, it referred to 'When an equipment inspector or measurer ... believes a competitor may have broken ...'
The 2017 rules introduced a Technical Committee with its own power to protest boats, and carried over a mechanism for mandatory protests.
It's difficult to tell when a committee 'believes' something: it's quite easy to tell when it 'decides' something.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think that moving to 'belief' would not be a good idea.
A protest hearing is necessary because rule 63.1 provides that unless the rules otherwise provide a boat shall not be penalised without a protest hearing,
There are special considerations that a protest has to have in respect of measurement protests shown in rule 64.3. These recognise that measurers and equipment inspectors sometimes make mistakes in the interpretation and application of equipment and measurement rules (even teams of measurers at an event can share a common mistake), and that there are certain 'judgement' considerations that are best exercised by a protest committee.
We should be very careful about natural justice or due process considerations arising when boats are penalised without a hearing.
Secondly, measurement or equipment rules breaches often carry an implication of intentional cheating, and it's far safer to start processes that may lead to rule 2 or rule 69 action under the hand of the protest committee.
That hits the nail on the head (along with your other points).
TC’s (we Measurers among them) are not required to protest based on belief, but there is nothing in the rules preventing a TC from doing so (“a TC may protest a boat ...”). A TC would more typically (and more appropriately if possible IMO) initiate an inspection or investigation based upon a belief. Then based upon that info try to determine/decide if a rule is/was broken or not.
If decided broken, TCs are compelled to protest. A TC can not ignore a rule break it has decided exists. If the rule break is still in question, a TC can still protest a boat, but it is not compelled to.
Then in the hands of a PC, the TC makes its case and has an independent body decide if their information is sufficient and their decision correct and then PC decides to penalize or not.
This is still true in the proposed 2021 quad as well.