Forum: Protest Hearing Procedures

D.P.I. against 63.1

Catalan Benaros
Nationality: Argentina

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!
Created: 20-Jan-06 16:24

Comments

P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
1
I thought I had found the doc you were looking for, but it was something else.  If we get a good link, I'll update the website under Rules/Introduction.

It appears we are looking for the doc titled: 'World Sailing Discretionary Penalties for Support Persons and Boats Policy'

  • If someone finds the link, please post here in a comment.
  • If we can't find a link, but someone has the pdf itself, please email it to me at my email address above and we'll figure a way to make the doc available to everyone on the site.

Ang
Created: 20-Jan-06 16:53
P
John Porter
Nationality: United States of America
1
Created: 20-Jan-06 17:52
Dusan Vanicky
Nationality: Slovakia
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
  • National Race Officer
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
1
John .. that's what I found first, but that doc is specifically for the World Cup.  Duscan has what we are looking for.  Thanks to both of you!  I'll get the link on the site. - Ang
Created: 20-Jan-06 18:01
P
Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Umpire
  • International Judge
  • National Judge
1
This document is commonly used at events.  I believe the most recent is the 2018 version.  I'm not sure why it's so hard to find on the WS website, but there is usually the most recent version on RRS.org as it is used as a common document for events.
Created: 20-Jan-06 18:33
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
2
OK .. I updated the link in the rules section to that doc. - Ang

RRS | Introduction
Created: 20-Jan-06 18:43
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
1
Catalan, is the question you are asking this? ....

Do the rules allow the RC to publish an SI [which is not a modification of a rule listed in 63.1] designated as a [DP] and that the penalty shall be applied "without hearing"?
Created: 20-Jan-06 21:31
P
John Porter
Nationality: United States of America
1
I've generally seen the SI's designate standard penalties as STP and without a hearing. An example of this might be failure to follow check in/check out procedures. [DP] is for things that are taken to a hearing, but might not be full DSQ. For instance, if we look at the manual, it might be a you "shall follow any reasonable request from a race official [DP]." If you ignored the race official's request to move off of their designated parking spot at the dock....the Jury might decide that was worth a 20% penalty not a DSQ. That needs a hearing, but can result in DPI on the score sheet. 
Created: 20-Jan-06 21:47
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
OK John, that's a good refinement of the question.

Q-r2: Do the rules allow the RC to publish an SI which is not a modification of a rule listed in 63.1, designated with a defined penalty or as a [DP], and that the penalty shall be applied "without hearing"?

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?
Created: 20-Jan-06 22:06
Steve Comen
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
I think the strict answer to Catalan's question is 'No'. As noted in his original post,  "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." There is no mechanism to determine what penalty should be applied without having a hearing; if there is a single penalty specified then it is no longer discretionary and by definition is not [DP].

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.)
Created: 20-Jan-06 22:07
Catalan Benaros
Nationality: Argentina
0
Angelo:

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 !!!!

Created: 20-Jan-06 22:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Steve: re "change rule 63.1 to allow the penalty to be applied without a hearing"

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?
Created: 20-Jan-06 23:58
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
OK .. so I could use some help from my friends here .. 

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.
  1. A boat or competitor shall not be penalized without a protest hearing, (except as provided in rules 30.3, 30.4, 64.3(d), 64.4(b), 78.2, A5 and P2). 
  2. A decision on redress shall not be made without a hearing. 
  3. The protest committee shall hear all protests and requests for redress that have been delivered to the race office unless it allows a protest or request to be withdrawn.

So, it would be OK for an SI to (after properly changing 63.1):
  • DSQ a boat for hitting a mark if witnessed and identified by the RC?
  • allow redress without a hearing?  ..
  • to put limits on protests and R4R's that will be heard?

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.
Created: 20-Jan-07 17:02
Steve Comen
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
My opinion on this:
- 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.
Created: 20-Jan-07 17:38
P
Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Umpire
  • International Judge
  • National Judge
0
RRS A5  Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat’s score.  RRS 86.1(b)  The notice of race or sailing instructions may change a racing rule, but not ... a rule listed in rule 86.1(a).   There is some argument that RRS A5 changes a significant number of rules, such that RRS 86.1(a) applies, and thus, you can change RRS 63.1, but you can't change A5.
Created: 20-Jan-07 18:06
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Paul, just to get what you are saying straight .. the logic is that A5 falls under 86.1(a)'s " ... a rule of an appendix that changes one of these rules;.." .. the list of possible rules that were changed by A5 being ..
  1. Definitions; 
  2. the Basic Principals; 
  3. a rule in the Introduction; 
  4. Part 1, 2 or 7; 
  5. rule 42, 43, 63.4 , 70, 75, 79 or 80

Obvious next question is 'what rules and what are the arguments are made regarding which are changed and how?'
Created: 20-Jan-07 18:45
P
Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Umpire
  • International Judge
  • National Judge
0
Actually, you can pick pretty much any of the rules in 86.1(a).  Let's just use RRS 2 for example.  The argument is that A5 modifies RRS 2 in that only the protest committee can take a scoring action that worsens a boat's score under RRS 2.  Thus RRS 86.1(b) applies such that A5 cannot be modified by the SI's. 
Created: 20-Jan-07 19:08
Jacob Andersen
Nationality: Denmark
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
1

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
Created: 20-Jan-07 22:38
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Jacob, I have a process question for you. 

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?
Created: 20-Jan-08 04:47
Peter van Muyden
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
0
Angelo,  as per RRS 90.3(c) the RC shall correct the error.   There is no need to request redress for the boat.
Created: 20-Jan-08 21:51
Jacob Andersen
Nationality: Denmark
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Agree with Peter van Muyden, and if the scoring inquiry is not successful and you think you got a case you can request redress at that point.
Created: 20-Jan-08 21:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Jacob and Peter .. thanks for that.  

90.3(c) When the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly, it shall correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors. 

The reason I asked was, when thinking about the steps embedded in application of an SP and the RC applying the penalty to the score, there seem to be 3 distinct steps. 
 
  1. Step 1, the RC determines that from its "records or observations" an SP is warranted
  2. Step 2, the RC applies a penalty for an SP to a boat
  3. Step 3, the RC adjusts the score of the penalized boat

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.
Created: 20-Jan-08 22:42
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Jacob and Peter .. in the same vein, if the SP comes from the TC and the competitor believes there is a likewise error, that must always go to a redress as the pertinent "records and observations" that would rectify the error are not the RC's?

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?
Created: 20-Jan-09 15:15
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo Guarino
said Created: 20-Jan-06 23:58
Steve: re "change rule 63.1 to allow the penalty to be applied without a hearing"

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?

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.
Created: 20-Jan-16 11:29
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
"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.


Created: 20-Jan-16 12:33
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo Guarino
said Created: 20-Jan-08 22:42

90.3(c) When the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly, it shall correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors. 

The reason I asked was, when thinking about the steps embedded in application of an SP and the RC applying the penalty to the score, there seem to be 3 distinct steps. 
 
  1. Step 1, the RC determines that from its "records or observations" an SP is warranted
  2. Step 2, the RC applies a penalty for an SP to a boat
  3. Step 3, the RC adjusts the score of the penalized boat

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.

Angelo,

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.


 Angelo Guarino
saud Created: 20-Jan-09 15:15
Jacob and Peter .. in the same vein, if the SP comes from the TC and the competitor believes there is a likewise error, that must always go to a redress as the pertinent "records and observations" that would rectify the error are not the RC's?

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?

Only the RC may correct a boat's score in accordance with rule 90.2c, but a TC that awarded a SP to a boat could, as a result of a scoring review request or otherwise, decide that they had made a mistake in their decision and change or cancel their decision, then advise the race committee, who should correct the published score.
Created: 20-Jan-17 05:47
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Thanks John. It’s not as clear to me as it is to you that the TC instance is the case without an SI providing that ability. . In my mind (in both the RC and TC) it comes down to what are the boundaries to what constitutes the RC’s “own observations and records”.   

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. 
Created: 20-Jan-17 12:49
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo,

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,.


Created: 20-Jan-17 21:06
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more