Forum: Protest Hearing Procedures
D.P.I. against 63.1
Catalan Benaros
0
Can I be penalized without a protest hearing for an DPI?
a)
Notation:
The notation '[DP]' in a rule means that the penalty for breach of the rule may, at the discretion of the protest committee, be less than disqualification.
Guidelines for discretionary limitations are available on the World Sailing website.
Where is the link ????
yes)
63 HEARINGS
63.1 Requirement for a Hearing A person will not be penalized
boat or competitor without a protest hearing, except as provided in rules 30.2, 30.3, 30.4, 64.3(d), 69, 78.2, A5 and P2.
HAPPY NEW 2020!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¿Puedo ser penalizado sin una audiencia de protesta por un DPI?
a)
Notación:
La notación '[DP]' en una regla significa que la penalidad por el incumplimiento de la regla puede, una discreción del comité de protestas, ser menor que la descalificación.
Las pautas para limitaciones discrecionales están disponibles en el sitio web de World Sailing.
Where is the link ????
b)
63 AUDIENCIAS
63.1 Requisito para una Audiencia No se penalizará a un
bote o competidor sin una audiencia de protesta , excepto lo dispuesto en las reglas 30.2, 30.3, 30.4, 64.3 (d), 69, 78.2, A5 y P2.
¡FELIZ NUEVO 2020!
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
It appears we are looking for the doc titled: 'World Sailing Discretionary Penalties for Support Persons and Boats Policy'
Ang
section C
RRS | Introduction
In other words, can RC's create SI's that penalize a boat without a hearing that are not already part of the 63.1 list?
Having said that, I can see a circumstance where SIs could define something as [DP] but also specify a fixed penalty less than disqualification and change rule 63.1 to allow the penalty to be applied without a hearing. However, I think the correct way to do this is the STP as John mentioned. (I have seen this designed as SP instead of STP.)
I think that this is contradictory:
A person will not be penalized boat or competitor without a protest hearing
against :
A DPI that do not need a protest hearing.
But i´ll keep studying and reading what you think about this.
Thanks you all !!!!
What is the use of 63.1 having a list if the list can be changed? Why doesn't that render the list in 63.1 basically meaningless?
I've looked at every angle I could think of .... direct restrictions, indirect restrictions, restrictions from a 2nd cousin twice removed .. and I can not find any restrictions or limitations in the RRS to changes to 63.1. I hadn't considered this before and I find this really odd.
63.1 doesn't only limit penalizing a boat without a hearing .. it has 3 components.
So, it would be OK for an SI to (after properly changing 63.1):
This seems to cut to the heart of fair process set out in the rules .. so it's striking me as an incorrect conclusion on my part.
Any help and insight would be appreciated.
- The intent behind 63.1 is that there has to be a hearing to change a boats score to something other than her finishing place. However, there are already rules that allow a score to be changed without a hearing, so those rules have to be listed as exceptions in 63.1.
- Rule 86 does not include 63.1 in the list of rules that can't be changed by the SIs, so it can be changed.
- There are good reasons to change 63.1. The USODA has a graded penalty system for things like leaving the harbor early, not having required equipment on board, etc; having those penaltlies in place but not requiring a separate protest hearing for each breach makes regattas run much smoother.
- There is the possibility that an RC could include changes to 63.1 that destroy the fair process set out in the rules. I would hope that the RC, OA, and/or chief judge (if the chief judge reviews the SI) would avoid this. If not, it would be up to the competitors to determine if they are willing to compete under the rules as defined by the SIs.
Obvious next question is 'what rules and what are the arguments are made regarding which are changed and how?'
For DP you need a hearing, for a standard penalty [SP] you would add the following to NOR/SI:
2.9.2 [SP] denotes a rule for which a standard penalty may be applied by the race committee or the technical committee without a hearing or a discretionary penalty applied by the International Jury with a hearing. This changes RRS 63.1 and A5;...
20.7 For breaches of NoR/SI marked [SP], the race committee or the technical committee may apply a standard penalty without a hearing. A list of these breaches and the associated standard penalties will be posted on the Official Notice Board. However, the race committee or the technical committee may protest a boat when they consider the standard penalty to be inappropriate. A boat that has been penalised with a standard penalty can neither be protested for the same incident by another boat nor can another boat request redress for this race committee action. This changes RRS 60.1, 63.1 and Appendix A5.
You can have some inspiration in below links:
https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2020HWCSNORSI12JUNE2019-%5B25132%5D.pdf
https://www.manage2sail.com/en-US/Home/DownloadDocument/030db8e6-f8b4-4b8c-a243-1c2b77297bf8
In regards to an SP which is based on some missing communication or supplying of info ..,, for instance, sending an email to the RC that the boat is not leaving the harbor, and the competitor believes that the RC might have it in “their own records”, should/can the competitor use a Scoring Inquiry or because this is a penalty assessed, the avenue is always a redress request?
If the RC comes to the conclusion on their own they made an error, after an SP penalty has been assessed, can they correct it themselves, or must they request redress for the boat once a penalty is applied?
So, in the case of an incorrect SP, the RC may have "scored the boat correctly" for an applied penalty,
the application for[but it’s the penalty] which was in error [not the score]. When I read 90.3(c) it wasn’t clear that the RC had the authority remove a penalty that had already been applied.So to summarize, an RC can correct an erroneous SP themselves via a Scoring Inq. or of their own accord (without any special SI providing that ability), but a TC originated SP must always go to redress for removal?
The whole of Part 5 Protests etc is excluded from the limitation in rule 86.1b.
If the OA/RC is silly enough they can rewrite the whole Protests mechanism.
What rule 63.1 does is to provide a standard about one particular facet of a dispute resolution process.
Thanks .. after recognizing the lack of modification limitation .. that's a great way to think about it.
I think you are splitting verbal hairs to no good purpose.
Whether the race committee selects the wrong percentage, incorrectly calculates the score, or otherwise stuffs up the score, the score is incorrect and must be corrected.
As to whether an SP should have been applied at all, the race committee has a discretion to apply a SP, so it has an equal discretion to reverse its decision. Committees are not courts of law that are forbidden to change their decisions when they are wrong.
If the TC later hands the RC a slip of paper that says change the score back, is that now sufficiently the RC’s “own record”? If so, I think that would tend to trivialize the meaning of “own” in that rule.
I’m sufficiently convinced that the RC can correct their own error, from reconsideration of their own observations and records, without R4R and reverse the penalty (SP) previously applied.
I’m still uncertain of the TC instance though, unless the SI that authorizes the TC to apply the SP specifically adds the ability to change an erroneous penalty (once applied) from reconsideration their own records and observations.
SP will not work in any case without a SI creating it, empowering committee's to impose it, and validly changing at least rule 63.1.
An administrative decision maker, and that's what a race committee, techncial committee or protest committee is, is not a court of law bound by the doctrine of functus officio, and if it discovers that it has made a wrong decision may, and should unmake that decision and make the correct decision.
Making a decision to impose a SP is not a correction of a boat's score under rule 90.3c, any more than a protest committee's decision to penalise a boat or give redress is: it's a decision in its own right.
Anyway, rule 90.3c tells us when a race committee shall correct a score, it does not limit when a race committee may ro should correct a score.
Communications between committees don't need to be gold embossed on pieces of parchment. Just tell them. A paper trail is nice, but the rules don't require it. SMS works well,.