I would like others' opinions on a recently seen protest form.
This is from a recent protest, but it is not subject to any appeal.
When the form was submitted it included details of the protestor in the appropriate place on the form.
The area on the form where details of the protestee should be entered was left blank.
The description of incident included the sail number of a boat that the protestor considerd had broken a rule.
Does the inclusion of a sail number in the description of incident meet the requirements of 60.3(a)?
Presumably, the RC has made an effort to provide unique sail numbers on the water, too. Not always successful....
Yes, it does, in my view. I probably see more forms like this than not. It's fine (Edit: I would confirm with the protestor that the boat mentioned in the incident description is the protestee. If not, then there's a 60.3(a) problem.).
As described the hearing request seems to conform with the rule.
However, it could lead to an invalid hearing being commenced if the incorrect sail number was put in the incident description.
I suppose this is the same as the wrong sail number being provided in the respondent's box and when this is established the hearing request should then be declared invalid.
The electronic system used at my club will not allow a protest to be submitted unless there is an entry in the respective fields of Initiator, respondent and incident description so people are prompted to ensure all necessary info is provided.
This of course would be user-friendly. Unfortunately being user-friendly does not seem to be on the agenda of many of those who write the systems we are obliged to use.
Each system seems to be good at one aspect of event management and poor at others. As a result, a major multi-class event I am attending is intending to use M2S for entries, Halsail for results and RRS for the protest committee!
A supplementary question:
A competitor delivers a protest identifying the boat as, for instance 'the sailor from XXX (country) who always wears a pink life jacket. After the protest time limit, the competitor discovers the correct sail number. Rule 60.3 does not allow for information to be corrected or updated.
What should the competitor do?
If the competitor delivers a second protest with the protestee's sail number, should the PC extend the time limit.
Though the new Part 5 doesn't specifically state that protest information can be updated, it doesn't say that it can't either.
I think information can be updated with more specificity as long as the min at filing is submitted. They could submit a drawing after the PTL for instance if the min's are met.
So in your example, as long as there is only one pink PFD out there and then later they supply the sail #, that seems fine to me. I think the PC should determine at the beginning of the hearing during validity if in fact the sailor wore a pink PFD.
So what if they give you a sail # that is not even registered in the event? (They indicated they were unsure of the number prior to giving us the form.) Do you go ahead and tell them so they understand that it’ll be invalid if they file it? We did.
I'm still waiting for a protest to be filed this way. I have strange things on my judge's bingo card. :)
Please post if you do.
Is the PC or jury sec. able to identify the boat?
If the form and hearing advice was displayed on the noticeboard and the protestee is listed as 'the guy with the pink shirt and orange hat' and no one turns up at the hearing and I would not know where to find them I would have some difficulty is saying the protestor had properly advised who the protestee was.
There you go Ang!
It's a key part of my judge training materials. Always generates a good conversation.
Though the new Part 5 doesn't specifically state that protest information can be updated, it doesn't say that it can't either.
RRS 60.3 clearly states: WHEN DELIVERED...
When is a protest delivered? I would argue that it is delivered when it is handed over to the race office, or entered by the protestor into the electronic system.
I see no provision for changing in any way the required information after the protest has been delivered.
I agree. However, there is nothing to prevent a protestor from submitting a further protest with the necessary information if it is within the time limit.
I would not consider it good reason to extend the time limit if the revised protest came in too late.
I would listen to the reasons for the late delivery. It can be difficult to find a sail number. A particular case is the Optimist class where there are large fleets with sail numbers that may only be differentiated by the national letters.
I agree to the extent that the further information provided CHANGES fundamentally the required info. But not if the information enhances it without fundamentally changing it.
So, absolutely ... you provide info and it changes the which incident the protest is about ... or who the protestee is, then that I agree that would not be a valid amendment. The hearing would need to proceed based on the initial info.
However, if you amend the protest in a way which adds information ... and that information does not change who the protestee is, or which incident the protest is about, then I don't see a problem.
That said, there is nothing in the rules which states that the PC must provide extra time for this info and completely within the lines to do what John said and post the notice as "Boat A vs boat with skipper in pink pfd".
Ok ... let's play that out.
You are someone who wears a pink PFD. You see on the ONB a protest against a boat whose skipper wears a pink PFD. What are you going to do?
Now ... maybe you know you are the only one out there wearing pink. Wouldn't you go the room or at least go to the PC secretary to see if the protestee was you? Let's say you are #123.
In the meantime, between the PTL and the posting, the protestor figures out it's #123. She runs to the PC desk and provides an amendment to the filing.
You reach the PC desk and ask about hearing #3.
Or .... no sail # update.
"Black boat" vs "pink pfd" ... is there a significant difference?
Under the previous quads, only identifying the incident was required at filing prior to the PTL, so we'd assume that prior to the hearing the additional info was amended.
John S ... given it's your OP ... what do you think about the famous cocktail napkin under the current quad?
But to be more serious I think I might be having a bit of a problem.
I believe it is the protestors responsibility to clearly identify the protestee and the new rules require this to be done before the protest is submitted.
As stated in the initial posts above if there was only black boat then this may be OK but again if there is only one black boat then the protestor should easily be able to establish the name or sail number of the boat.
If I, as a PC member who is called to the club at the end of the day to take part in a hearing, (as opposed to a jury member who has been on the water observing the racing) cannot identify who the parties are and what the incident is, then I think I might be struggling to find the protest met the requirements of 60.3(a) when it was delivered.
I am now going to sell my pink PFD!!
The PC decides the protest is valid as all agree there was only one pink pfd.
However no one with a pink pfd turns up at the race office or the hearing.
The PC, having placed the appropriate notices proceeds with the hearing under 63.1(b) and finds the boat with the pink pfd has broken a rule and the decision is to DSQ the pink pfd.
No one is completely certain who the pink pfd wearer was.
The PC advises the scorer to score 'the boat with the pink pfd' as DSQ.
The pink pfd is not seen for the rest of the event.
Which boat does the scorer apply the penalty against?
Re 'In the meantime, between the PTL and the posting, the protestor figures out it's #123. She runs to the PC desk and provides an amendment to the filing.'
I maintain that the initial protest cannot be changed in relation to the requirements of 60.3(a) after it has been submitted. Protestor's only option is to submit a new protest within the time limit.
------------------------
Perhaps we should wind back a little and review exactly what 'identify' means and what's it necessity/purpose is.
Describing and Identifying are different things.
'Identifying' includes elements of unambiguity, pinpointing and distinguishing, uniqueness and very importantly, 'specification' (enables the boat to be specified)
If 'She wore a pink PFD' meets the above, then it's an identification. Otherwise its just a description.
Since the rules apply to single boats, in order to hold a boat accountable under the rules, she needs to be identified.
Identifying the protestee achieves two goals.
1. It locks-in the boat as a party to the hearing by making an allegation against her (a specific boat), invoking their right to be present (via notifications and scheduling) and the other rights generally included in RRS63.1.
2. It specifies which boat should be answerable and perhaps held accountable if found to have broken a rule. (The scorer may need this.)
Since the rights of the parties become effective well before the hearing, the 'identification' should come before the hearing. (The rules say, in the hearing request.)
If the hearing request fails in 'identification' (particularly, the specification bit) then it should be considered 'invalid'. A PC shouldn't start the hearing if either of the goals is not met.
I disagree.
There is a protest between the identified protesting boat and the protestee identified in the written protest.
If it so happens that that boat is not the boat involved in the identified incide, then the protestee has broken no rule and the protest is dismissed.
I don't think there's a validity problem with hail and flag: presumably the protesting boat will give evidence that she hailed protest and displayed a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity: if the identified protestee was not involved in the incident she has no evidence to give about hail and flag and the protest committee should accept the uncontradicted evidence of the protesting boat and continue the hearing.
That set of evidence is going to raise some red flags for the protest committee and it might be a pretty short hearing after that.
I think protest dismissed is a far better look than protest invalid.
Strongly disagree.
Canon of construction is that with a superseding document, any intentionL deletion of a provision means that provision can no longer be applied.
2025 RRS very clearly set out to remove the opportunity to make good a defective protest once it had been delivered.
If the protesting boat has something they wish to add to the delivered protest, they can bring it along to the hearing.
I agree with John S and Gordon, the neatest way to deal with new information that completes otherwise insufficien protest contents is to treat it as a new protest. If it comes along after the PTL, the protest committee can consider any good reasons and extend the PTL, or not.
I am not saying that a boat can change what they already submitted, but I think it's open to interpretation if a boat can supplement the information in the filing . .and whether or not any additional information (that does not change what is originally submitted) necessarily constitutes a new submission.
All that said, I'd be happy to follow a case that gave guidance either way
Secondlhy I'd go back to the point Gordon made:
If a written document meets the contents requirements of RRS 60.3(a) when it's delivered, it's a protest and must be heard and it's validity tested etc.
In that case, any further information is superfluous: the protesting boat can present it in the hearing if it will help.
If a written document does not meet the contents requirements when delivered, it's not a protest, and if 'heard' by the protest committee will be declared invalid in accordance with RRS 60.4(a)(1).
In this second case, if the protesting boat has more information that will now fulfil the contents requirements, as discussed above, this should be treated as a new protest, and if it's delivered after the PTL, the protest committee can consider good reasons for the lateness, and extend the PTL, or not.
Functionally, this new rule structure:
There's nothing wrong with a protest committee applying 'common knowledge' or what a lawyer would call notorious facts.
If the protest committee, perhaps advised by the RO or race administrator knows who Pink Pfd guy and his boat are, and there's no other Pink Pfd around, they Pink Pfd guy and his boat are [uniquely] identified.
I think the protest committee saying 'Pink Pfd guy' on a protest notice would be silly. I think the protest committee should translate the Pink Pfd identification into the sail number or other identifier used in the LOE and score sheets. The protest committee should act reasonably to make the connection. I'd agree that the minute another Pink Pfd pops up, the identity fails and we've got an unprotest. If the protestee can't be identified, the protestee can't be notified and a hearing can't be opened.
The first fact found would be to identify which pink PDF was involved in the incident.
If the incident was without contact, or only contact without damage, I would not do this.
You betcha.
RRS 60.1 A boat may protest a boat.
No rule says a boat may protest a pfd.
So, trying not to be silly, the protest is against the boat sailed by the guy wearing the pink pfd.
This all supposes that 'everyone knows' who the Pink Pfd guy is, and what his or her boat is. If the protest committee doesn't know and they can immediately find out by asking the RO or the race admin, that's fine. Once they know that, they should be using the boat's sail number or name in their protest notification and decision.
If the 'everyone knows' proposition falls down or another Pink Pfd pops up, then the identity has failed and you don't have a protest.
In any case… I’d find it easier to identify a boat by something descriptive of the vessel rather than someone on the boat.
For giggles… if I couldn’t identify the sail number (these darned boats with dark sail numbers on dark sails for example), but I could identify the type of boat and color of the hull, am I better off shotgunning the protestee if there’s more than one boat that meets the criteria? Assuming one of those boats was involved in the incident, does that meet 60.3?
Basic Principles doesn't come into this. RRS Introduction - Terminology (Definitions that aren't in the Definitions) is the first clause of RRS Introduction
RRS Introduction does form part of the rules ( Definition Rule)
Basic Principles comes after the rest of the Introduction and the Definitions, immediately before the beginning of the numbered RRS.
If there are more than one boat that comply your description, you haven't identified one boat and haven't complied with RRS 60.3(a).
'Identify' is quite clear and simple - let's not overthink it or try to conjure up work-arounds.
"unambiguity, pinpointing and distinguishing, uniqueness and 'specification'"
If a hearing request does not meet that requirement, its invalid. End of.
Same goes for 'identifying the incident'. (But that's for another thread.)
Oh, and no amending a request to meet those specifications after it's been submitted. Submit a new one (preferably within the PTL), and withdraw the first one.
Bye!