Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
One Incident or Two
Michael Lipari
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
Club Race Officer
0
Approximately 30 -35 seconds before the start, both Orange, the Leeward Boat (L) and Blue, the Windward Boat (W) are approaching the RC boat. At position 0, L is on a course that will take them past the stern of the RC boat leaving approximately 1-2 feet between L and the RC boat. W is on a collision course with the RC boat but has room to tack without hitting the RC boat. L hails no room don't come in there. At position 1, W turns down and barges. L turns down to avoid contact.
At position 2, both boats are running down the line with about 6 - 8 feet separating them. At position 3, L luffs up to force W over the line. W holds course and L is again forced to change course to avoid a collision with W. At Position 1, W breaks rule 11 and again at position 3 W breaks rule 11. My question is whether this is considered a single incident since the same rule was broken twice within about 15-20 seconds of each other or is this considered two incidents and the W would need to do exonerate themselves twice under rule 44.1.
L hailed protest and the sail number and flew a red flag at both the times they had to turn down to avoid contact.
Created: 19-Dec-16 18:35
Comments
Thomas Armstrong
Nationality: Chile
Certifications:
Club Judge
2
This are two incidents. First one ends then L decides (correctly) to avoid contact at position 1. At position 2 the first incident is already over, and L/orange could have hailed a protest.
Then at position 3 L/orange decides to luff again, and a second incident takes place. Maybe this time L/orange is at fault if no time/space was given to W/Blue to avoid contact.
Created: 19-Dec-16 19:15
Michael Lipari
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
Club Race Officer
0
No contact was made at any time. At position 2, the boats are about 6 feet apart and after the luff at position 3 the boats get within a foot of each other before L/orange turns down to avoid a collision.
Created: 19-Dec-16 19:24
Don Becker
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Judge
International Umpire
3
Two incidents, and it can be argued that blue deliberately violated a rule in both incidents, or each case he has gained an advantage, so he would be in jeopardy of being in violation of RRS 2.
In a match race blue would get a double penalty for the first incident and if he did not keep clear in the second to keep from being OCS, then a double for the second incident as well. In any event blue would earn a black flag.
Created: 19-Dec-16 19:34
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
I agree two incidents. But any reason not to hear them together?
Created: 19-Dec-16 19:41
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Tim, I think it’s pretty clear that they are separate incidents ... though they are “related” as both W and L’s paths are a continuum of action/reaction .. but I don’t think they are “closely related” being 15-20sec apart.
I think I’d lean toward keeping them separate, If the witnesses and surrounding boats that contribute to each incident were significantly different.
Created: 19-Dec-16 20:01
Don Becker
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Judge
International Umpire
0
Would you need a second hearing if blue was DSQ in the first hearing?
Created: 19-Dec-16 20:04
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Don, I think so if as you pointed out in your first reply, RRS 2 is being considered.
If the witnesses and parties are the same in both incidents, I’m not sure there is a compelling reason not to hear them together.
Created: 19-Dec-16 20:11
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Don, I think so. For one thing if both are filed both need to be heard. PC might determine that Red broke a rule in the second incident, or as you noted there could be a rule 2 violation that might merit further penalty on Blue.
But if Red won the first protest, seems like they might request to withdraw the second.
Created: 19-Dec-16 20:14
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Michael, to the 2nd part of your original question (assuming this is not an umpired match, but a fleet race).
is this considered two incidents and the W would need to do exonerate themselves twice under rule 44.1.
After the first incident, it doesn’t appear that Blue has made any attempt to “... get[ting] well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible ...”, therefore IMO the opportunity for doing turns for the first incident has passed by the time of the 2nd.
Created: 19-Dec-16 20:25
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Did Red file one protest form, or two? If they filed both incidents on the same form (which I could easily see a competitor doing), how would the PC bifurcate into two incidents (which is to say, two separate protests)?
Rule R5, Procedures for Appeals and Requests: Inadequate Facts; Reopening
If there is a causal link between a series of collisions, they may be regarded as a single incident for the purposes of rule 60.3(a)(1) When a protest committee uses rule 60.3(a)(1) to protest a boat, and the boat then is found to have been involved in an incident that resulted in serious damage or serious injury, and to have broken a rule, she is to be penalized under the appropriate rule, even if it were not she that caused the serious damage or serious injury.
Rule 61.1(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee
Flying Scot 80 vs. Flying Scot 112 The test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occurrence was the inevitable result of the first. A boat intending to protest another boat for two incidents during a race, no matter how close in time, must inform the protested boat that two protests will be lodged.
Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
When two protests arise from the same incident, or from very closely connected incidents, they should be heard together in the presence of representatives of all the boats involved.
Created: 19-Dec-16 21:19
Michael Lipari
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
Club Race Officer
0
John - thanks for adding the appeals - this is really helpful. You always have great insights.
Created: 19-Dec-16 21:29
Michael Lipari
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
Club Race Officer
0
Angelo - This was a fleet race and I don't think that they would have been DSQed for the first incident for not doing turns within the first 15-20 seconds. If they would have tried to do turns they would have been doing them on the start line with a fleet of 6 boats bearing down on them, I think the earliest they could have done their turns was after the start in order to stay clear of all other boats racing
Created: 19-Dec-16 21:41
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Michael, you don't show where other boats are (so hard to be certain), but Blue could have ..
headed-up and sailed across the starting line 'over-early' and then tacked to port (once clear of the RC) sailed to the starboard-side of the RC and done her turns, or
eased sails at #2, taken Red's stern, dropped below the other boats and done her turns.
IMO it's overly generous to allow Blue to sail parallel to and below the starting-line waiting for the gun without any demonstrated attempt to get clear "as soon after the incident as possible".
What say the others?
Created: 19-Dec-16 21:50
Steve Schupak
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
International Judge
National Umpire
0
I agree with Don, and if we were in a team race, I'd keep spinning W until I got dizzy, then black flag for a RRS 2 hearing...when the nausea subsided after the race.
Created: 19-Dec-16 21:58
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
There is also the question as to if a two-turns penalty is the appropriate penalty for Blue’s breaches. 44.1(b) if Blue “despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty shall be to retire.” In both incidents there should be some discussion by the protest committee regarding what advantage Blue gained.
Created: 19-Dec-16 21:59
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
I would have thought that fleet racing rules would require a boat to wait until after starting to take a penalty for a pre-start incident but apparently not.
So I think Blue's opportunity to promptly sail well clear and take her penalty would entirely depend on other starting traffic and I don't think we have enough information to decide.
Created: 19-Dec-16 22:03
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
said Created: Today 21:17
Did Red file one protest form, or two? If they filed both incidents on the same form (which I could easily see a competitor doing), how would the PC bifurcate into two incidents (which is to say, two separate protests)?
A protest form is just a piece of paper.
A protest committee armed with knowledge of the USA and RYA Appeals, should be aware that there are two separate incidents, so should be looking for two separate valid protests.
The first test of validity will be did the protesting boat hail 'protest' at the first reasonable opportunity after the relevant incident.
If there weren't two hails of 'protest', then there aren't two valid protests and the protest committee should decide which protest is valid, and declare the other invalid.
Created: 19-Dec-16 22:26
P
Grant Baldwin
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Judge
National Umpire
0
In addition to Becker's M/R parallel and Allan's citations, the other compelling reason to capture the two incidents in a single decision in that there is a continuum of behavior here that the PC/Jury may wish to consider under RRS 2. In such cases, it is not uncommon for the PC to initiate a protest to help pull things together. Though some panels might have difficulty getting to the RRS 2 infraction when looking at each incident in isolation, processing (and linking) these "closely connected" incidents a single hearing would seem to me to be the preferred course.
Created: 19-Dec-16 22:30
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
These are two separate and independent incidents, even though there is a relatively close link in time. Blue would have to take a penalty for each incident.
An interesting question: if Orange only submits one protest covering both incidents can the PC break them into two separate protests/hearings? I don't recall ever seeing anything about that. Usually the conversation is about combining hearings for a single incident not breaking up a single protest into two hearings.
Created: 19-Dec-16 22:31
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John, OP states 2 hails
Created: 19-Dec-16 22:32
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
John Allan, I agree but - that would depend on the incident being described on the written protest filing in sufficient detail for the PC to make that determination. The two separate incidents might not become apparent until a hearing was in progress and some evidence had been taken.
In that case, would the PC determine that they were hearing only of the incidents and that a separate hearing would be convened for the other?
Determining validity for either or both would also require opening a hearing and taking evidence as to validity from the parties. According to this scenario Red hailed "protest" for both incidents separately as they occurred.
Created: 19-Dec-16 22:35
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim,
Two incidents between the same two boats, only seconds apart are clearly 'very closely connected'. Case 49 tells us that these should be heard together, so there's no reason to be trying to hold separate hearings.
Suppose the protest committee had decided that the requirements for a valid protest had been met and continued the hear the protest, then realised or suspected that there were two incidents and there doubts as to validity with respect to one of those incidents, the protest committee could clear the protest room and deliberate. It might decide:
that one of the incidents was not subject to valid protest, then declare the protest with respect to that incident invalid and close the hearing with respect to that incident, disregarding previous evidence only relevant to that incident, and stating no conclusions with respect to that incident, then continue the hearing with respect to the other incident;
that both incidents were subject of valid protests and continue the hearing, eventually reaching conclusions with respect to both incidents;
that further evidence was required to determine validity and reopen the hearing to ascertain that relevant evidence, then decide on validity and proceed as appropriate.
Created: 19-Dec-16 23:06
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Two incidents between the same two boats, only seconds apart are clearly 'very closely connected'. Case 49 tells us that these should be heard together, so there's no reason to be trying to hold separate hearings.
I agree, but I think there was another opinion that if they're separate incidents they should be heard separately.
Created: 19-Dec-16 23:15
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Grant re: "In such cases, it is not uncommon for the PC to initiate a protest to help pull things together."
Can you elaborate on the mechanics in relation to Rule 2? How can a PC initiate a protest from the information on the protest forms before validity of each protest is heard? ... or are you talking about something else? - Ang
Created: 19-Dec-16 23:23
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
said Created: Today 23:15
I agree, but I think there was another opinion that if they're separate incidents they should be heard separately.
That's quite contrary to Case 49 which is authoritative.
Created: 19-Dec-16 23:56
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
That's quite contrary to Case 49 which is authoritative.
Again personally I agree, but I think it depends on how you assess "very closely connected".
It's pretty clear that these are separate incidents since the second breach is not an inevitable consequence of the first. They involve the same boats and the same rule, but there's a 15-20 second interlude between where no rule is being broken. So what's the test for "very closely connected"?
Created: 19-Dec-17 00:03
Catalan Benaros
0
Hi friends !!! What do you think about this ? If we go a step back.
Cheers !!
Created: 19-Dec-17 02:41
Catalan Benaros
0
Or..................
Created: 19-Dec-17 02:45
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Blue is in big trouble. She is quoting a rule that doesn't apply.
Preamble to Section C (At Marks and Obstructions)
Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them.
Created: 19-Dec-17 03:00
P
Grant Baldwin
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Judge
National Umpire
0
Re: Angelo’s question of me...Angelo, my comments made the assumption that the scenario featured at least one valid protest and that no penalties had been taken. I view them a two separate incidents “closely connected”, and subject to the language and guidance provided by Case 49. My point was that, PCs need often be prepared to file additional protests in these situations. Though Umpires will view each of these incidents as egregious and deliberate (warranting a “double”), not all PCs will arrive at the same conclusion, hence my suggestion. GB
Created: 19-Dec-17 05:03
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Grant,
I think the point of Angelo's question about 'mechanics' was why, in the course of a hearing covering two protests and two incidents, a protest committee would need to initiate a further protest in order to reach conclusions about rule 2?
Created: 19-Dec-17 05:46
P
Grant Baldwin
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Judge
National Umpire
0
Hi John:
What I was trying to say (and probably failed) is you often don’t get two protests in this situation, you get but one. If the protestor has not provided the “linkage”, an agile PC may elect to do so. Becker is right, blue buys it either way, but I see a lot of PCs take a pass on application of RRS 2. Hard to miss when you look at these incidents together.
Created: 19-Dec-17 06:06
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Grant,
I strongly disagree that a rule 2 breach is obvious.
I note that the MR Umpire Manual Section B4 discussion of double penalties, addressing breaking a rule to avoid being OCS, clearly distinguishes between this breach and a breach of sportsmanship.(empahsis added).
The additional, umpire initiated penalty is meant to take away an advantage gained by a boat that broke a rule, especially if that advantage was gained through a deliberate breach of a rule at a critical time e.g. breaking a rule to avoid being OCS, barging at the start and denying an inside boat room at the mark. It may also be given to a boat that commits a breach of sportsmanship, and in such a case, the umpires may initiate the penalty without any flag Y from a competitor. (rule C8.3 and MR CALL M2)
Further, I don't agree that being a 'serial offender' makes a competitor break rule 2.
Dare I say it, perhaps match racers are expected to have a better appreciation of the rules (and better presence of mind and reactions) than average fleet racers.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that B just got flustered and hot and bothered by her obvious barging breach and just wasn't thinking clearly when O luffed her again.
IME, it's fairly common for a protestee in that situation to say 'I didn't come up because if I had done so I would have been OCS'.
It's not unsporting to not know or misunderstand a rule.
Created: 19-Dec-17 06:36
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
said Created: Today 00:03
That's quite contrary to Case 49 which is authoritative.
Again personally I agree, but I think it depends on how you assess "very closely connected".
It's pretty clear that these are separate incidents since the second breach is not an inevitable consequence of the first. They involve the same boats and the same rule, but there's a 15-20 second interlude between where no rule is being broken. So what's the test for "very closely connected"?
Tim,
If you have doubts about the application of Case 49, would you care to spell out the reasons why you think holding two separate hearings would be a good idea?
Created: 19-Dec-17 06:44
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
If you have doubts about the application of Case 49, would you care to spell out the reasons why you think holding two separate hearings would be a good idea?
I don't. I think they should be heard together.
But others have expressed the opinion that they should be heard separately and, playing devil's advocate, I don't think there's an objective standard for "closely connected" incidents. So there's an argument to be made (not one I would make) that these two in incidents are not closely connected and Case 49 doesn't apply here.
Created: 19-Dec-17 07:26
Catalan Benaros
0
John , yes, i know that:
"Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them.
But 30/35 sec is too much time !!!! ...you can not keep sailing from te RC to the pin, you must sail DIRECTLY to the start line.
In this drawing Section "C" does not applies, boats are approaching them to start. .
Created: 19-Dec-17 11:18
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Grant and John, .. John was onto the angle of my question. As initially phrased Grant, it wasn’t clear when you were suggesting such a separate protest would be filed by the PC.
I was just giving the opportunity to clarify that this separate protest by the PC would necessarily have to follow at least the validity phase of one of the protests, unless the PC received direct info from the boat itself outside of the filing (or other conditions which aren’t part of the OP).
Created: 19-Dec-17 11:58
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
PS .. have to say that I’m surprised that nobody else seems to have a problem (as I do) with Blue’s apparent lack of attempt to get clear after the first infraction (assuming this isn’t a match race).
Created: 19-Dec-17 12:19
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo,
What do you mean by 'attempt to get clear'?
Once O bears away to avoid contact between @1 and @2, B is keeping clear until O comes up again @3.
Created: 19-Dec-17 13:44
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Catalan,
I understand your argument, but I don't agree that they are too early.
They are well within the last minute, and they are not going to carry out any further manoeuvres, such as circling the RC vessel before they start.
Created: 19-Dec-17 13:46
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John re: "What do you mean by 'attempt to get clear' "
In the OP, the idea was presented that Blue could 'exonerate' herself after the 2nd incident for both (take 4 turns).
From the OP ..
".. or is this considered two incidents and the W would need to do exonerate themselves twice under rule 44.1[?]"
My point is that given the scenario as described, there were no boats to windward of Blue after she passes the RC, no boats to leeward of Red, and no boats between them (as the presence of any such boats could be significant), and it does not appear Blue made any attempt to get clear and do her turns for the first incident at the RC.
In an earlier post, I suggested Blue could have hardened immediately after clearing the RC, crossed the line early, tacked to the other side of the RC and spun.. or eased sails, dropped behind/below Red found open space and spun.
For the 1st incident, I don't see Blue sailing along below the line waiting 15-20+ secs for the gun to go off (as Blue is shown & OP desc.) as satisfying ...
RRS 44.2's “... get[ting] well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible ...”
.. and therefore (based on the info provided) IMO taking turns for the first incident is no longer available to Blue after the 2nd incident.
Created: 19-Dec-17 14:29
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
John , yes, i know that:
"Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them.
But 30/35 sec is too much time !!!! ...you can not keep sailing from te RC to the pin, you must sail DIRECTLY to the start line.
In this drawing Section "C" does not applies, boats are approaching them to start.
In this scenario I think it's reasonable to say that for the first incident the boats were approaching the RC boat to start and in the second they were approaching the pin to start. Seems entirely reasonable if position 0 is at 30-35 seconds to start.
In a broader sense, I'm not wild about the idea that RRS 18 is on (or more likely, continuously switching on and off) during pre-start maneuvering until boats are on their final approach to the start line. Is that really how we're to interpret Section C preamble?
Created: 19-Dec-17 18:55
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Catalan re: “30/35 sec is too much time ...boats are approaching them to start.”
Try looking at it this way ... let’s break up the pre-start into time slices.
Before the prep signal (not racing)
After the prep signal ( now Racing ) but before approaching the line to Start
Approaching the line to start
1) Before the prep signal boats are not Racing , therefore sailing the course ( 28.1) is not yet relevant thus the marks are only objects to avoid contact with.
2) After the prep signal but before approaching the line to start, there is no proper side to the starting marks as 28.2 (aka "the string rule") does not apply until a boat is approaching the line to start. A boat can spin around the RC or pin in any direction and it does not matter. Therefore without a required side, 18.1 states that 18 does not apply.
3) When approaching the line to start, now the starting marks have a side, because now the ‘string rule’ ( 28.2) is coming into play. Now the Section C preamble rides-in to save the day.
So, it doesn’t matter if it is early, 18 does not apply at starting marks surrounded by navigable water.
Created: 19-Dec-18 01:20
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
2) After the prep signal but before approaching the line to start, there is no proper side to the starting marks. A boat can spin around the RC or pin in any direction and it doesn’t matter (it’s an interesting question if that’s true with any other flag but P-flag in the last min... yea! a good topic for another thread!). Therefore, one could argue that 18.1 states that 18 does not apply.
Thanks, Angelo, now I feel better :-)
Created: 19-Dec-18 01:59
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo,
Neat!
Created: 19-Dec-18 11:19
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo,
First, just a reminder that rule 44 Penalties have nothing to do with exoneration,
I agree that B's opportunity to take a rule 44 penalty for the barging incident is long gone.
But why would a judge be in the least interested in rule 44 compliance until B claims that she took an applicable penalty?
Created: 19-Dec-18 11:23
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Grant Baldwin
said Created: Yesterday 06:06
What I was trying to say (and probably failed) is you often don’t get two protests in this situation, you get but one. If the protestor has not provided the “linkage”, an agile PC may elect to do so. Becker is right, blue buys it either way, but I see a lot of PCs take a pass on application of RRS 2. Hard to miss when you look at these incidents together.
OK, so there is one protest form, describing both incidents, but only one hail of 'protest' and only one valid protest.
What Angelo and I are asking are what are the mechanics of a protest committee protest for breach of rule 2?
What authority does the protest committee have to initiate such a protest?
Created: 19-Dec-18 11:38
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John re: “But why would a judge be in the least interested in rule 44 compliance until B claims that she took an applicable penalty?”
They wouldn’t. It just seemed part of the underlying question in the OP, and later Michael made the case that the window is still open.
OP: " ... is this considered two incidents and the W would need to do exonerate themselves twice under rule 44.1. "
As far as the PC initiated RRS 2 protest, my only point was that in this scenario it would necessarily only happen after the PC was well within one or both valid protest hearing(s).
PS: The use of the word 'exoneration' when referring to 44 Penalties was in the OP, that's why I put it in single-quotes. Roger that taking an OTW penalty and "exoneration" are 2 distinct and separate concepts in the Rules.
Created: 19-Dec-18 12:48
Catalan Benaros
0
Angelo re: Try looking at it this way ... let’s break up the pre-start into time slices.
BRILLANT !!!! Thanks Angelo !!!!
Created: 19-Dec-19 11:11
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
IMHO the mechanics of a protest committee protest for breach of rule 2 are finding facts that lead you to the following conclusion.
By knowingly breaking a rule and not taking the appropriate penalty, Blue failed to compete in compliance with the principles of sportsmanship and fair play, and broke RRS 2.
Having reached that conclusion you can make a decision to DNE Blue under RRS 2.
Created: 19-Dec-19 14:25
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Mark, re: " By knowingly breaking a rule and not taking the appropriate penalty " ... I was wondering if you would expand on that a bit.
In your experience, how have you and the jury garnered the information to come to the conclusion of both 'knowingly breaking a rule' and the purposeful action of 'not taking the appropriate penalty'? You can't come out and ask Blue, "Did you know you were breaking a rule between position 1-2?", as that conclusion hasn't been reached until after the decision is reached.
Maybe this circles back to Grant's separate PC-protest to hear the Rule 2. Once the decision is reached, concluding a rule was broken, then one can delve into knowledge and state-of-mind? .. where that wouldn't be possible or appropriate before a decision on the facts and conclusions relative to rules-broken are reached?
Created: 19-Dec-19 17:16
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
The issue, in the event that there is only one protest about one incident by a competitor, I think, is:
How does the protest committee then make a valid protest which will inevitably involve the other incident?
Created: 19-Dec-19 20:45
Jim Clark-Dawe
Nationality: United States
0
John, re "How does the protest committee then make a valid protest which will inevitably involve the other incident?"
When SailX existed (a computer-generated sailboat racing game where the RRS were enforced), the moderators were frequently faced with this situation. The road from here to there is rather complex, but the result is amazingly simple.
If the first incident is the protested incident, and then a separate incident occurred, that implies the sailor who broke a rule in the first incident had sufficient time and room to begin attempting to take the alternate penalty of spinning. If the offending sailor had made no attempt to get clear and spin before the second incident, then the sailor was no longer able to take the alternative penalty of spinning and should be disqualified.
If the second incident is the protested incident, then the previous logic applies and further there is the beginning of evidence the offending sailor may have intentionally ignored the first incident and could be subject to a Rule 2 violation for ignoring the first incident. Usually when this logic was pointed out, the offending sailor would ask to be retired.
Basically the stronger the argument that there is sufficient time and room for there to be two incidences, the stronger the argument that the sailor did not meet Rule 44.2's requirement of "getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible."
Remember that under Rule 2, a sailor knowing that they broke a rule should retire, regardless of when and how the sailor acquired this knowledge, or face consequences of unsportsmanlike behavior.
Jim Clark-Dawe
Created: 19-Dec-20 00:57
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
If the second incident is the protested incident, then the previous logic applies and further there is the beginning of evidence the offending sailor may have intentionally ignored the first incident and could be subject to a Rule 2 violation for ignoring the first incident. Usually when this logic was pointed out, the offending sailor would ask to be retired.
I think you've got to be a little careful about this one. I'm not in favor of a "no protest, no foul"" paradigm but protestee might have a reasonable claim that since they weren't protested in the first incident they didn't believe they'd broken a rule. For example a port-starboard where starboard turns down slightly to allow the cross - if she does so voluntarily (maybe because she wants to keep going left and doesn't want to encourage port to lee-bow her) then port hasn't broken rule 10 and doesn't need to take a penalty. Only if starboard protests does port know for sure that she broke a rule.
But it's at least a good discussion point in a hearing.
Created: 19-Dec-20 01:41
Jim Clark-Dawe
Nationality: United States
0
I think you've got to be a lot of careful here. But a protest committee should attempt to outline the full parameters of what the committee could decide in a particular situation.
Then at position 3 L/orange decides to luff again, and a second incident takes place. Maybe this time L/orange is at fault if no time/space was given to W/Blue to avoid contact.
In a match race blue would get a double penalty for the first incident and if he did not keep clear in the second to keep from being OCS, then a double for the second incident as well. In any event blue would earn a black flag.
I think I’d lean toward keeping them separate, If the witnesses and surrounding boats that contribute to each incident were significantly different.
If the witnesses and parties are the same in both incidents, I’m not sure there is a compelling reason not to hear them together.
But if Red won the first protest, seems like they might request to withdraw the second.
After the first incident, it doesn’t appear that Blue has made any attempt to “... get[ting] well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible ...”, therefore IMO the opportunity for doing turns for the first incident has passed by the time of the 2nd.
USA Appeal US65
The test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occurrence was the inevitable result of the first. A boat intending to protest another boat for two incidents during a race, no matter how close in time, must inform the protested boat that two protests will be lodged.
Case 49
IMO it's overly generous to allow Blue to sail parallel to and below the starting-line waiting for the gun without any demonstrated attempt to get clear "as soon after the incident as possible".
What say the others?
There is also the question as to if a two-turns penalty is the appropriate penalty for Blue’s breaches. 44.1(b) if Blue “despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty shall be to retire.” In both incidents there should be some discussion by the protest committee regarding what advantage Blue gained.
So I think Blue's opportunity to promptly sail well clear and take her penalty would entirely depend on other starting traffic and I don't think we have enough information to decide.
A protest form is just a piece of paper.
A protest committee armed with knowledge of the USA and RYA Appeals, should be aware that there are two separate incidents, so should be looking for two separate valid protests.
The first test of validity will be did the protesting boat hail 'protest' at the first reasonable opportunity after the relevant incident.
If there weren't two hails of 'protest', then there aren't two valid protests and the protest committee should decide which protest is valid, and declare the other invalid.
An interesting question: if Orange only submits one protest covering both incidents can the PC break them into two separate protests/hearings? I don't recall ever seeing anything about that. Usually the conversation is about combining hearings for a single incident not breaking up a single protest into two hearings.
In that case, would the PC determine that they were hearing only of the incidents and that a separate hearing would be convened for the other?
Determining validity for either or both would also require opening a hearing and taking evidence as to validity from the parties. According to this scenario Red hailed "protest" for both incidents separately as they occurred.
Two incidents between the same two boats, only seconds apart are clearly 'very closely connected'. Case 49 tells us that these should be heard together, so there's no reason to be trying to hold separate hearings.
Suppose the protest committee had decided that the requirements for a valid protest had been met and continued the hear the protest, then realised or suspected that there were two incidents and there doubts as to validity with respect to one of those incidents, the protest committee could clear the protest room and deliberate. It might decide:
I agree, but I think there was another opinion that if they're separate incidents they should be heard separately.
Can you elaborate on the mechanics in relation to Rule 2? How can a PC initiate a protest from the information on the protest forms before validity of each protest is heard? ... or are you talking about something else? - Ang
That's quite contrary to Case 49 which is authoritative.
Again personally I agree, but I think it depends on how you assess "very closely connected".
It's pretty clear that these are separate incidents since the second breach is not an inevitable consequence of the first. They involve the same boats and the same rule, but there's a 15-20 second interlude between where no rule is being broken. So what's the test for "very closely connected"?
What do you think about this ?
If we go a step back.
Cheers !!
Or..................
Preamble to Section C (At Marks and Obstructions)
Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them.
I think the point of Angelo's question about 'mechanics' was why, in the course of a hearing covering two protests and two incidents, a protest committee would need to initiate a further protest in order to reach conclusions about rule 2?
I strongly disagree that a rule 2 breach is obvious.
I note that the MR Umpire Manual Section B4 discussion of double penalties, addressing breaking a rule to avoid being OCS, clearly distinguishes between this breach and a breach of sportsmanship.(empahsis added).
Further, I don't agree that being a 'serial offender' makes a competitor break rule 2.
Dare I say it, perhaps match racers are expected to have a better appreciation of the rules (and better presence of mind and reactions) than average fleet racers.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that B just got flustered and hot and bothered by her obvious barging breach and just wasn't thinking clearly when O luffed her again.
IME, it's fairly common for a protestee in that situation to say 'I didn't come up because if I had done so I would have been OCS'.
It's not unsporting to not know or misunderstand a rule.
Tim,
If you have doubts about the application of Case 49, would you care to spell out the reasons why you think holding two separate hearings would be a good idea?
I don't. I think they should be heard together.
But others have expressed the opinion that they should be heard separately and, playing devil's advocate, I don't think there's an objective standard for "closely connected" incidents. So there's an argument to be made (not one I would make) that these two in incidents are not closely connected and Case 49 doesn't apply here.
"Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them.
But 30/35 sec is too much time !!!!
...you can not keep sailing from te RC to the pin, you must sail DIRECTLY to the start line.
In this drawing Section "C" does not applies, boats are approaching them to start.
.
I was just giving the opportunity to clarify that this separate protest by the PC would necessarily have to follow at least the validity phase of one of the protests, unless the PC received direct info from the boat itself outside of the filing (or other conditions which aren’t part of the OP).
What do you mean by 'attempt to get clear'?
Once O bears away to avoid contact between @1 and @2, B is keeping clear until O comes up again @3.
I understand your argument, but I don't agree that they are too early.
They are well within the last minute, and they are not going to carry out any further manoeuvres, such as circling the RC vessel before they start.
In the OP, the idea was presented that Blue could 'exonerate' herself after the 2nd incident for both (take 4 turns).
From the OP ..
My point is that given the scenario as described, there were no boats to windward of Blue after she passes the RC, no boats to leeward of Red, and no boats between them (as the presence of any such boats could be significant), and it does not appear Blue made any attempt to get clear and do her turns for the first incident at the RC.
In an earlier post, I suggested Blue could have hardened immediately after clearing the RC, crossed the line early, tacked to the other side of the RC and spun.. or eased sails, dropped behind/below Red found open space and spun.
For the 1st incident, I don't see Blue sailing along below the line waiting 15-20+ secs for the gun to go off (as Blue is shown & OP desc.) as satisfying ...
.. and therefore (based on the info provided) IMO taking turns for the first incident is no longer available to Blue after the 2nd incident.
In this scenario I think it's reasonable to say that for the first incident the boats were approaching the RC boat to start and in the second they were approaching the pin to start. Seems entirely reasonable if position 0 is at 30-35 seconds to start.
In a broader sense, I'm not wild about the idea that RRS 18 is on (or more likely, continuously switching on and off) during pre-start maneuvering until boats are on their final approach to the start line. Is that really how we're to interpret Section C preamble?
Try looking at it this way ... let’s break up the pre-start into time slices.
1) Before the prep signal boats are not Racing , therefore sailing the course ( 28.1) is not yet relevant thus the marks are only objects to avoid contact with.
2) After the prep signal but before approaching the line to start, there is no proper side to the starting marks as 28.2 (aka "the string rule") does not apply until a boat is approaching the line to start. A boat can spin around the RC or pin in any direction and it does not matter. Therefore without a required side, 18.1 states that 18 does not apply.
3) When approaching the line to start, now the starting marks have a side, because now the ‘string rule’ ( 28.2) is coming into play. Now the Section C preamble rides-in to save the day.
So, it doesn’t matter if it is early, 18 does not apply at starting marks surrounded by navigable water.
Thanks, Angelo, now I feel better :-)
Neat!
First, just a reminder that rule 44 Penalties have nothing to do with exoneration,
I agree that B's opportunity to take a rule 44 penalty for the barging incident is long gone.
But why would a judge be in the least interested in rule 44 compliance until B claims that she took an applicable penalty?
What Angelo and I are asking are what are the mechanics of a protest committee protest for breach of rule 2?
What authority does the protest committee have to initiate such a protest?
They wouldn’t. It just seemed part of the underlying question in the OP, and later Michael made the case that the window is still open.
As far as the PC initiated RRS 2 protest, my only point was that in this scenario it would necessarily only happen after the PC was well within one or both valid protest hearing(s).
PS: The use of the word 'exoneration' when referring to 44 Penalties was in the OP, that's why I put it in single-quotes. Roger that taking an OTW penalty and "exoneration" are 2 distinct and separate concepts in the Rules.
BRILLANT !!!!
Thanks Angelo !!!!
IMHO the mechanics of a protest committee protest for breach of rule 2 are finding facts that lead you to the following conclusion.
By knowingly breaking a rule and not taking the appropriate penalty, Blue failed to compete in compliance with the principles of sportsmanship and fair play, and broke RRS 2.
Having reached that conclusion you can make a decision to DNE Blue under RRS 2.
In your experience, how have you and the jury garnered the information to come to the conclusion of both 'knowingly breaking a rule' and the purposeful action of 'not taking the appropriate penalty'? You can't come out and ask Blue, "Did you know you were breaking a rule between position 1-2?", as that conclusion hasn't been reached until after the decision is reached.
Maybe this circles back to Grant's separate PC-protest to hear the Rule 2. Once the decision is reached, concluding a rule was broken, then one can delve into knowledge and state-of-mind? .. where that wouldn't be possible or appropriate before a decision on the facts and conclusions relative to rules-broken are reached?
How does the protest committee then make a valid protest which will inevitably involve the other incident?
When SailX existed (a computer-generated sailboat racing game where the RRS were enforced), the moderators were frequently faced with this situation. The road from here to there is rather complex, but the result is amazingly simple.
If the first incident is the protested incident, and then a separate incident occurred, that implies the sailor who broke a rule in the first incident had sufficient time and room to begin attempting to take the alternate penalty of spinning. If the offending sailor had made no attempt to get clear and spin before the second incident, then the sailor was no longer able to take the alternative penalty of spinning and should be disqualified.
If the second incident is the protested incident, then the previous logic applies and further there is the beginning of evidence the offending sailor may have intentionally ignored the first incident and could be subject to a Rule 2 violation for ignoring the first incident. Usually when this logic was pointed out, the offending sailor would ask to be retired.
Basically the stronger the argument that there is sufficient time and room for there to be two incidences, the stronger the argument that the sailor did not meet Rule 44.2's requirement of "getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible."
Remember that under Rule 2, a sailor knowing that they broke a rule should retire, regardless of when and how the sailor acquired this knowledge, or face consequences of unsportsmanlike behavior.
Jim Clark-Dawe
I think you've got to be a little careful about this one. I'm not in favor of a "no protest, no foul"" paradigm but protestee might have a reasonable claim that since they weren't protested in the first incident they didn't believe they'd broken a rule. For example a port-starboard where starboard turns down slightly to allow the cross - if she does so voluntarily (maybe because she wants to keep going left and doesn't want to encourage port to lee-bow her) then port hasn't broken rule 10 and doesn't need to take a penalty. Only if starboard protests does port know for sure that she broke a rule.
But it's at least a good discussion point in a hearing.
Jim Clark-Dawe