Hi,

My view (been there!) is that the protest is invalid under RRS 60.4(b)(3).

In the past I have put a warning on the event messaging system / Notice to Competitors that the behaviour is unacceptable and I will get the PC to check that the behaviour is not repeated.

I'll take a whack (nice one Ben!)

I see this as a report by a racecomittee member on behalf of the committee. To me this is not a "person" who i see as someone outside the committee. 

I believe the protest should proceed. 

It is not our fault "race committee" is defined so widley, and we suffer from it when competitors speak to check in of safety boats and they say or do something. 

Angelo,
Your points 1.1 and 3.
There is no doubt that the parent is a member of the RC, but I don't think that this single person is the Committee who is able to submit a protest under 60.1. So I would say No, invalid.

If I were the RC leader I would be disturbed by a volunteer submitting a protest without agreement from the RC heirarchy. Clearly this is not really an RC protest. So I would seriously consider withdrawing the protest unless the RC as a whole considered it desirable. But this is internal RC admin, not RRS. Presumably as an RC protest it need not, maybe ought not be led by the volunteer, so it would be easy to cancel. I might, indeed, as RC chair, consider that a withdrawn protest was quite enough to make the point. So I think Angelo's 4.1 and 4.2 are crucial.

As a parent who does volunteer work like launching or checking in/out boats all the time, I would absolutely not consider myself a part of the RC.  The criterion I would use is, would I enter this into my SOARS? (The US Sailing RC/PC activity tracker) I’m no different from the parent that provides snacks for the coach boat. From another perspective, if I were PRO, would I consider some random parent part of my team? Probably not

1. A protest  has been “submitted”. Just because it was in the time limit does not make it “valid”. But it should be heard.
2. The hearing will decide whether it meets criteria of being valid proceed.
3. If it does, the  protest will be heard according to the formal process. Each side will state their case. Witnesses for either side may be called by the “litigants” if they choose to do so.
4. The jury will convene “in camera” and decide the outcome.

Now to my opinion as a  club certified judge.

We can assume that that child is there because he/she is contending that the fact that they broke a rule and that rule is pretty unambiguous. The life belt was either removed or it was not. The determination of the outcome will depend, as it often does, on the credibility of the parties and their witnesses outcome. 

The burden rests on the protestor to make their case. Because they will benefit (indirectly) from the outcome I would focus on the credibility of their witnesses.

If the protester has no witnesses and the child is credible, with or without witnesses, I would dismiss the protest.

If the protester’s case was rock solid I would ask my fellow jury members consider whether there is Rule 69 sanction that comes into play.

Let’s just say that the adult is determined to be eligible to submit the protest and, by the letter of the rules, the sailor did violate the rule. I think in any set of rules there is always the unwritten intent behind those rules. We see this time and time again in cases that are put into the case books in order to set precedent for situations just like this where there are vagaries or people attempting to gain an advantage by using the rules as a weapon. In this case, we don’t know why the sailor removed the pfd early. For a sailor still sailing it seems an unusual action so close to shore. Was it chafing? Was it defective and causing issues that might make coming ashore less safe than leaving it on? And why is the adult calling them on it. Did the sailor truly endanger themselves by doing so? That’s the intent of the rule, right? Can the adult definitively say they did this because they truly had the best interests of that sailor in mind? How many adult sailors doff their pfd when the last race concludes on a hot day for a comfortable sail back to the beach? Would I turn them in because I was concerned for them or because they broke a rule deserving of their disqualification of the performance they put in on the water. Intent matters. The intent of the rule, intent of the sailor, intent of the RC 

As a veteran of youth events as a parent, PRO and CJ I offer this. 

Safety first, last, always. 

As a matter of protocol,  RC volunteers to let the PRO know of any incident which might be contrary to the rules and let the PRO decide whether a protest is warranted. 

Requiring PFDs is a no brainer and should be a rule and in my opinion be subject to a DP. 

Such arrangements provide for safety, avoiding conflict of interest and a dose of doing the right thing. 

> 3.  Has the parent volunteer acted incorrectly in any way?
I submit that its always wrong to present an individual action as having been made by a committee. A committee is about collective responsibility.That's not RRS, that's "the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use."

The "facts" state that was a hot day and that the life jacket was removed a few hundred meters away..  How far away is this?  Is this sailor the only one who removed their PFD early.  How many races were sailed that day before returning to shore?  What is maximum penalty  possible?  What is the level of the regatta and the ages of the competitors?  All of these pieces of information are missing.

These decisions are not cut and dry.  There are huge grey areas.

If filing a protest is the only means to bring this situation to the PRO and RC's attention, such is a reasonable course of action.

Let's assume it is a U10 opti sailor who has been on the water for 5+ hours having sailed 5 races.  What would be an appropriate handling of the situation?  In the cases that I could envision, we would chat with the youngster and his coach, remind them of the importance of PFD's and staying safe.  If this was the first day of a regatta, we would make sure to emphasize that PFD's must be worn at all times when on the water including on floats and walkways.

What are the possible penalties for a competitor?

Why cannot any person who undertakes a rc function not protest.

The rules give no guidance, no heiararchy for the  ro or pro. There is a void in the rules here.

The race committe definition appears to be designed to help redress applications with its wide view.

This is just the other side of the coin.

Ordinarily, an individual cannot act as an agent to perform an act on behalf of a corporate entity such as a committee unless the committee authorises them to do so, or later, endorses or adopts that action.

RRS Introduction, Terminology, Race Committee and Technical Committee overturns that principle by saying

The ... committee appointed ...  and any other person or committee performing a race/technical committee function.

The purpose of this is to make any action that is a function of a committee, which may be an improper action, into an improper action of the committee so as to give grounds for redress.

I think the wording is unfortunate.  It would be better to address the action, rather than the person and say

An action of an individual performing a ... committee function is an action of the committee.

That wouldn't help the present case.

I can't dispute that the individual's action of delivering a protest purporting to be by the race committee is an action of the race committee.

Let me come at the issue from a different direction.

If I saw a protest that wasn't authorised by someone I knew was authoritative on the race committee, I'd ask the race committee if it was a race committee protest, (and who their representative was going to be).

If the race committee as a whole wasn't happy with the protest, then I might suggest that the race committee could withdraw the protest.

That doesn't make any difference to the fact that the protest is based on a report from a person with a Conflict of Interest, and is invalid

Thanks, Ang, you got to the solution first.

The above makes intuitive sense — absent some indication that this individual was authorized by the PRO to speak for the committee, the protest seems invalid.

I have volunteered to make lunch, to stock and launch all of the safety boats, lots of things like that. It never occurred to me that by operation of my holding a clipboard, I was now a race committee member empowered to speak for the race committee, to lodge a protest on behalf of the committee, etc.

Alright… Thanks for all the input! Some really valuable comments on all sides.

Remarkably, Ang’s first post in this thread aligns with my thoughts in most aspects.

I will delve slightly deeper into a couple of areas.

---

60.4(b)(3)

2001–2004 – but not as a result of a report by a competitor from another boat or other interested party or of information in an invalid protest;

2005–2008 – protest a boat, but not as a result of a report from an interested party or information in an invalid protest or in a request for redress;

2025–2028 – a report from a person with a conflict of interest (other than a representative of the boat herself).

We can see that the rule we have today stems from the 2001–2004 version, which sought to restrict other boats and people not in the race committee from making reports to the race committee.

I too have always thought (and still think) the restriction is against people outside the race committee reporting to the race committee. In other words, a report to the race committee cannot originate from within the race committee.

In which case, to me, RRS 60.4(b)(3) does not invalidate this protest.

(I do accept, though, that the wording is a little ambiguous and I may be wrong!)

---

Did the parent volunteer act incorrectly?

A number of people have jumped on the parent here, hinting at poor sportsmanship/fair play/possible misconduct/malice.

I don’t think necessarily so.

The parent saw a rule breach (in this case, a safety issue) and enforced the rules as they thought was their duty and as they knew how. This isn’t unfair.

Of course, my scenario is deliberately posed to raise the issue of the “conflict of interest” question.

I don’t think it is a problem that the parent has a conflict of interest and that they may even have protested the competitor with a secret underlying goal to advance their own child. If a possible rule breach is tabled before the protest committee, it is fair game.  Would they have protested their own kid in the same situation? - - we will never know - - but it's irrelevant.

---

The Race Committee – and any person performing the functions of…

Here’s an interesting one. In another recent thread, we are discussing “language, language, language!”. Perhaps this case illustrates some important points.

Some people here have applied their own understanding of the word “committee,” asserting that in general use, the word *committee* implies a group.  True.  Other volunteer people have said they don’t feel they are “the race committee” as parent volunteers—again, applying their understanding that the race committee is limited to those members of the management with special roles.  They are just small-fry.

Yet, in that other language thread I said this: “If a phrase is defined in RRS then we must use it as defined.”

In racing sailing, a committee may be a single person (PC, TC or RC may all be one person). The RRS Introduction essentially defines the term for use in RRS. So we need to put the “general use” meaning (a group) out of our minds and look at the term “Race Committee” as the Introduction says.  It's the name given to the job:

 “The race committee appointed under rule 89.2(c) and any other person or committee performing a race committee function.”

The parent volunteer is inarguably a member of the race committee.

Why is this important? There needs to be a pathway back to the race committee for an improper action claim against any person performing a race committee function. If a parent volunteer at the launch ramp misidentifies a boat failing to sign in, that would be an improper action and subject to redress. But “improper action of a volunteer parent”, quite rightly, isn't grounds for redress, is it?!

In short, any function which may result in a penalty (linked to a rule), could be said to be a 'race committee function'.  Perhaps giving out lunchboxes and free t-shirts...no.  Sign-in/sign-out, absolutely.

---

In summary, then, I think that this scenario, while not ideal for all the reasons mentioned, is technically viable. The protest could well stand as valid and actionable.

Jim Champ has already said this is an internal RC management issue, rather than RRS.  I tend to agree.

In the RC team briefing at the beginning of the event, the PRO should be clear that all penalty actions / protests should go through the PRO or that only certain protests may bypass. This would make it clear what can come from a conflicted volunteer and what cannot.

Good chat.

Does the restriction of RRS 60.4(b)(3) apply?

I think the parent of the protested boat would say yes. The parent volunteer who protested is a member of the race committee, who is a support person with a conflict of interest who reported in a hearing request an incident they had observed. The incident was not part of their official race committee duties and they have a close personal interest in the decision.

 

How would I decide if presented with that argument... If you follow the rules, I think you have to say the hearing request is invalid. The report was from a person with a conflict of interest, who was not a representative of the boat herself. If the exclusion of a report from a person with a conflict of interest included race committee members wouldn't the rule say (other than a representative of the boat herself, and a member of the committee.)

60.4 Protest Validity
(b) A protest is invalid also if it is from a committee and is based on information from

(3) a report from a person with a conflict of interest (other than a representative of the boat herself).

Race Committee The race committee appointed under rule 89.2(c) and any other person or committee performing a race committee function.

Report  An account of a situation, event, etc. brought by one person to another, esp, as the result of an investigation, a piece of information or intelligence provided by an emissary, official investigator, etc.; a notification of something observed.

Support Person  Any person who
(b) is the parent or guardian of a competitor.

Conflict of Interest  A conflict of interest exists if a person
(c) has a close personal interest in a decision.

How long would the hearing be?

Not long at all.

OP: The parent volunteer (having recently read the RRS Introduction and RRS 60.1) eagerly enters the online hearing request form and, within the time limit, submits a protest against that competitor, marking the request as a 'Race Committee Protest'.  The online system automatically posts the protest on the Official Notice Board. 

Rule and Definitions that apply:

 An allegation made under rule 60 by a boat or a committee that a boat has broken a rule. 

The protest committee, the race committee or the technical committee.

RRS: 60.1

 A boat or committee may protest a boat.

60.2  Intention to Protest

(d)   A committee may inform a boat of its intention to protest by posting a notice on the official notice board.

60.4 Protest Validity
(a)  A protest is invalid
(1)  if it does not comply with the definition Protest or rule 60.2 or 60.3,
(b)  A protest is invalid also if it is from a committee and is based on information from

      (2) an invalid protest, or

      (3) a report from a person with a conflict of interest (other than a representative of the boat herself).

The rest would be repeating Mark’s answer, which in part this already is.

One person that may be on the RC team does not constitute a race committee. Since it was a person that posted the request, it does not satisfy the requirements of the Definition or the Rule.

 

Kim

 

 

 

The volunteer is indeed a person with a conflict of interest, support person, close personal interest etc.  That is not disputed. (Actually an intended aspect of the scenario.)

The crux here is whether a 'report' can be made to oneself.  Does the use of that word imply only a restriction on outside information which is passed to the RC?

Can I report to myself?  Can the RC report to the RC?  The meaning supplied above suggests no.  A report is a directional flow of information.  From and to.

What would we think if we took the CoI out of the equation for a moment?  A protest is invalid also if it is from a committee and is based on information from a report from a person.

This would only make sense to apply to a report from outside the RC. 

In which case it could be argued that, 60.4(b)(3), by use of that word, applies to the passing of information from outside the committee to the committee.  The parent volunteer as part of the committee is not restricted by virtue of the definition of the word 'report'.  (In which case, the suggested additional words 'and a member of the committee' are not required.)

(I don't think it's relevant that the volunteer was not assigned directly to check PFD use.  Safety is probably everyone's job.)

-----------------
I think we have hit upon another instance where either can be right.  The rule isn't 100% solid one way or another.  At least, I would happily accept either interpretation.

Hence my post!

From a practical stance, we are bound to have Conflict of Interest in the RC at some events.  It is unavoidable and un-policeable.  If we apply 60.4(b)(3) to a 'report' originating from within the RC itself, do we invalidate many important RC protests at those events which use parent volunteers?

I agree with Ben's deduction. If you reduce the RC down to one person, and that person is a parent of a child, then all information and records are nullified as being a "report" from a support-person with a COI.  

That doesn't seem to be the point of the rule and I submit that it's an unworkable outcome. 

Also, I don't see this parent acting in their capacity as a "support person" to their child as they stand on the shore tagging kids in/out of the water as a member of the RC and watching for PFDs for all their safety.  

Many of us wear many hats. 

I saw the information I generated in those capacities as the information and record of the RC/TC, and not a report to myself from a person/competitor with a COI.  

I'd suggest... no we are not. Those are classified as the RC's "own observations and records" (see RRS 90.3(c)).

Also note that RRS 60.4(b)(3) applies to "committee" not just "race committee". It has to work for tech comms as well.

For instance, if as the TC/Measurer I received a report from a competitor that a boat is breaking a class rule, I would not use the information in that report as the basis of a TC protest. I would investigate the issue myself and generate the TC's "own observation and record" and decide how to proceed.

Here again, I want to underline, the bylaws of both the J105 class and our local fleet require that the Fleet Measurer be a member of the J105 class and member of the fleet.  The fleet bylaws make the Measurer the TechComm. This is true for many of the OD classes out there.  Those TC's/Measurers are all persons with competitor COI.

Therefore, we must be able to distinguish between a committee's self-generated observations/information/record, by people acting as a member of that committee, and reports received from outside-persons. 

I think the analogy here is if another parent was out in a rib (not a volunteer) and gave a report to the this same RC-parent ... then that would be definitely invalid. .. as based on a report from a person with a COI. 

RYA Case is interesting.

RYA 2025/1

I also believe any such protest is valid, but a fuller committee may decide to withdraw. 

Sorry.

I was in a rush last night so missed attaching the link. 

(Stumbled on that appeal case looking for something completely different!  Will take some time to digest it.)

I think I'm with Mike, though now I wonder what the repercussions of withdrawing it would be. Might cause even more issues! 

Of course the issue of conflict of interest is not addressed in the RYA Appeal. That's another matter.
 
Haha. It's never-ending. 

Interesting find though... 

I think moving a mark is a difficult one. They have no authority, but it is a race committee function. I think redress may be avaliable. Isaparent a rrs 69 may be appropriate.

For the black flag, the competior is they stop racing has affected there own position so no redress.

This shows the rules inadequate definition to widen theredress net. When do race officials get supported?

Just to offer up another rabbit hole. AIUI at the moment if a third party, say a motor boat, were to damage a competitor in a collision caused by the 3rd party ignoring IRCPAS the competitor would not be entitled to redress. Do we consider this appropriate? If yes, would you still think so if the 3rd party were convicted of the breach of IRPCAS by the authorities? 

I must have been referring to the right subparagraph:  Jim understood.

Fixed.