Forum: Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures
About Redress Requests...
0
The rules regarding redress requests are that under 61.4(a) and 63.2(a) all requests must result in a hearing unless the committee permits the request to be withdrawn. That means that the validity requirement in 61.3 will only be determined at a hearing. So even if the request is received after the time limit, or not in writing, it must still result in a hearing, at a minimum to determine validity.
Correct?
61.4(b) specifies the five (5) circumstances that can entitle a boat to redress.
Let's say that we're at a High School regatta. Most of the 15 or so teams in attendance know more or less how they will fare overall and at the end of the last day, while a protest is still being heard, leave the premises to drive up to several hundred miles home. The protest results in a request for redress that won't meet any of the 5 circumstances in 61.4(b). The protestor was disadvantaged by their encounter with the protestee in a Part 2 incident, but suffered no injury or damage. Or, maybe the request doesn't meet the validity requirements in 61.3. But... they request redress.
I would appreciate any suggestions about how to manage such a circumstance efficiently. I imagine trying to notify all boats in the race and schedule a hearing some time after the event when parties are far apart, to satisfy the US Sailing prescription that all boats may participate. It seems likely that it would be a significant effort for nothing. I suppose, that is, unless some additional information came out indicating that there was indeed injury or damage. Maybe that's the rub. But I still wonder if there are ways to deal with this to make it easier for all.
Thanks for any advice.
-Vince
Correct?
61.4(b) specifies the five (5) circumstances that can entitle a boat to redress.
Let's say that we're at a High School regatta. Most of the 15 or so teams in attendance know more or less how they will fare overall and at the end of the last day, while a protest is still being heard, leave the premises to drive up to several hundred miles home. The protest results in a request for redress that won't meet any of the 5 circumstances in 61.4(b). The protestor was disadvantaged by their encounter with the protestee in a Part 2 incident, but suffered no injury or damage. Or, maybe the request doesn't meet the validity requirements in 61.3. But... they request redress.
I would appreciate any suggestions about how to manage such a circumstance efficiently. I imagine trying to notify all boats in the race and schedule a hearing some time after the event when parties are far apart, to satisfy the US Sailing prescription that all boats may participate. It seems likely that it would be a significant effort for nothing. I suppose, that is, unless some additional information came out indicating that there was indeed injury or damage. Maybe that's the rub. But I still wonder if there are ways to deal with this to make it easier for all.
Thanks for any advice.
-Vince
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
RRS 63.2(a) requires the protest committee to hear all protests and requests that have been 'delivered'.
Requests for redress are different from protests because 'protest' is defined as an allegation made under rule 60, where RRS 60.3 in turn requires that a protest shall be in writing, so that something that is not in writing is not a protest at all, so is not caught by RRS 63.2(a) and is not required to be heard at all, but there is no definition of 'request' or 'request for redress'.
RRS 61.2(b) requires a request for redress to be 'delivered' to the race office (or by such other method as stated in the sailing instructions).
I think that 'delivered' means delivered in a tangible form, that is, in writing (including electronic forms of writing) and that some merely oral statement is not 'delivered' and does not give rise to an obligation to hold a hearing.
Considering Vince's example, where a request for redress has been delivered in writing, say by an SMS.
I'd be happy that that is a request for redress that must be heard.
It will probably be outside the protest time limit, but in the circumstances I think the protest committee should extend the time limit. In any case, a hearing needs to be opened to give the requestor a chance to make their case for an extension of the time limit. You can't base a decision about whether to hold a hearing or validity, on what you think a protest committee would decide.
I think the answer is to arrange to hold the hearing electronically.
Where there is no contest about facts, but the substance of the hearing is about application of the rules, I have had some limited success with conducting 'hearings' by exchange of emails (with the consent of the parties). This is a bit tedious, and needs careful control. Otherwise use an electronic conference app.
In the example of an incident involving the penalised protestee, but no injury of physical damage, it would be pretty unusual for a requestor to state that in their request, so there needs to be evidence about injury or damage, and the only way a protest committee can get evidence is by a hearing.
Vince
Often that US Rx is writen out of the event in the NOR or SI's.
It's just another piece of 'protest bureaucracy' that has to be complied with by including all competitors in the notice of hearing and collecting the replies.
In my experience not that many competitors respond to an all-in notification. If they do, 15 parties are easier to control in a by email hearing than by Teams/Zoom, or face to face, but with preparation and care, a protest chair can herd those cats.
I understand. But the idea that it could be handled promptly on-site and produce final results for the competitors is pretty tempting.
They want the results!
Why can you not have a pre hearing discussion with the applicant, show him the rules, and basically ask if he wishes to continue.
For a single boat requesting redress I do not in these circumstances (in the uk) just have him for a hearing, if it fails no problem.
If you think it may affect others, either just publish the decision and wait, to see if there is another redress hearing, or if it may affect others adjourn and join them.
If we have the hearing, the worst is additional redress cases.
All the more reason to use such as rrs to publish.
If concerned add it to a notice to competitors and post to all so everything is open and gives others the right to respond.
We have to act we cannot be paralysed
Consider the new rule to fix the results after a time, may need to be in the nor or si, needs checking
Because no rule gives a protest committee or a judge a power to 'have a little chat' with a competitor about an incident that is subject to a protest or request for redress, and because there's a fine line between a discussion that influences a competitor to withdraw a protest or request and 'improper influence'. If you're an International Judge of 20 years seniority, maybe you can get away with it, but for a beginning club judge, not so much.
As judges we want to get the message across that if any competitor puts in a protest or request for redress, they will get a fair shake: a 14 year old, trying to jump from second last to third last in their first 'away' regatta, should be treated by the protest committee exactly the same as an Olympic champion. The last thing we want to do is send a message that 'your request doesn't matter'.
If you were absolutely desperate to shut it down, you might somehow or other try to induce a conversation to happen on the coaches network, or through some other discrete 'elder statesman', no part of the protest committee.
Tempting it may be, but there are two rules that limit how for you can go:
Note, neither of these switches off the requirement to hear all protests and requests that are delivered stated in RRS 63.2(a).
No judge or protest committee should ever tell a competitor, after an incident, that they may not or should not protest or request redress.