Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures
PC modifying SIs after a race is completed
Is there any precedent for or Appeal/Case related to doing so?
Created: 25-Jul-12 19:28
Comments
Format:
You must be signed in to add a comment.
Although any suggestion that it could ever be possible after the race completed seems very wierd.
I suppose changing a mark rounding or time limit where the entire fleet did something wrong in a "less formal" race (club racing rather than a national championship) might occasionally be ignored and so you could argue was amending the SIs, but I doubt they are amended as such, more ignored.
Maybe we need some context? Is this changing the way the race functions or changing some detail like adding [NP, DP]? Even then, I'd have thought if take to appeal it won't have a leg to stand on...
RRS 63.5(c) tells us (the PC) to resolve conflicts between rules. If those rules are in the SI, NOR or any other documents governing the race, then we resolve that by applying the rule which results in the fairest outcome.
If enforcing the SI was not the fairest outcome .. then that SI is
deleted[invalidated] in favor of the more fair-outcome rule.I think that qualifies as a change. That's one way it could be done retroactively.
Again in redress this is very special, the si can be changed but it and the reasons are obvious.. Boats may should be parties to the redress and have a say.
I think that Mike is making a rather elegant point about RRS 63.5(c).
The condition for RRS 63.5(c) to apply at all is that 'there is a conflict between ... two or more rules that must be resolved before a decision can be made'/
If that trigger works, then 'the protest committee shall apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected'
If there is another redress hearing where similar circumstances apply, then the protest committee is likely to make the same decision as before, but in different circumstances, even concerning the same NOR/SI, the trigger may not work, or the fairest result for all boats affected may be different, so the decision will be different.
I was once chief judge at a Masters Regatta, a ten race regatta in So Cal that was umpired. The SIs called for the then current Addendum Q for umpired fleet racing that bared redress for damage caused by another boat breaking a rule. There was an incident that caused damage to three of the J 105’s at a weather mark. The right of way, clear ahead boat could not finish the race and requested redress. The PC heard the request and ruled that because of the restrictions in Addendum Q that the PC could not award redress.
I reported this to the OA and they asked what could be done. After some discussion, the next morning the OA gathered up the ten skippers and polled them to agree to allow the OA to change the SIs retroactively. The skippers voted unanimously to allow the change and the two damaged right of way boats were granted redress.
Highly unorthodox. And educational on the restrictions in the original Addendum Q.
Modifying the SIs after a race is completed happens all the time and is not prohibited by 90.2(c). The requirement that the change is communicated prior to the warning signal only applies when the change is made on the water. Consider the case where a change is made prior to the second day's racing and applies going forward in the event.
The PC cannot change the SIs, or the NoR or any of the other documents that govern the event for that matter. The RC is the responsible party for the SIs and only they can change the document. The PC's job is to interpret and apply all the rules in the documents as written, provided that each rule conforms to the rules, e.g. properly changes a rule, etc. If an individual SI (or NoR) does not conform to the rules then it cannot be enforced, effectively deleting it. But the PC cannot change a rule to make it conform to the rules.
63.5(c) handles when there is a conflict between some specific rules, those in the SI, NoR, & documents from item (g) in the definition of rule, then the PC must select which of those rules will provide the fairest result for all boats effected. But the PC cannot change the rule or create a new rule. It must pick one of the rules to use. This also effectively deletes the rules not selected.
The race committee is the only entity authorised by the RRS to publish SI.
The RRS do not recognise individuals such as Race Officers, or Technical Delegates. The only entities recognised are the Organising Authority, the Race Committee, the Technical Committee, and the Protest Committee/Jury.
I would suggest that the TD should be seen as the delegate of the OA, sometimes exercising the power of the OA to direct the Race Committee in accordance with RRS 90.1.
Whoever may sign a Notice to Competitors announcing a change to the SI, it is the Race Committee that is responsible.