If, after the arbitration meeting (T2) the arbitrator's opinion is that a boat or boats is likely to have broken a rule [T3(c)], may a boat decline all of the meeting outcomes [T4] and request a hearing or does she need to accept T4(a) and then file an appeal?
“Unless all protests involving the incident are withdrawn, a protest hearing will be held.”
"Unless all protests involving the incident are withdrawn, a protest hearing will be held."
If a boat declines to take the penalty recommended, it goes to a full hearing. If the boat takes the penalty, but the protestor doesn't withdraw, it goes to a hearing. Now, if the protestor doesn't want the lesser penalty, you can point out that a permitted outcome is that the arbitration penalty was an appropriate penalty and you cannot "force" a DSQ because you don't like it, most of these will be withdrawn.
Of course, if things are on the border of damage or serious damage, the full committee could determine it was serious damage and the post-race penalty does not apply.
You may always refuse the arbitrators decision and ask for a hearing.
Indeed you can accept a post race penalty, and still ask for a hearing
That's not the correct way for an arbitrator to express their opinion. The Arbitrator's opinion can be:
'[Based on what you have told me] I think a protest committee hearing the protest is likely to:
In my experience, when the opinion is other than to penalise a boat, it is still useful to ask the parties if either party wants to take a PRP, and (except in the case of serious damage or sportsmanship concerns) ask the protestor if they want to withdraw the protest. Having heard the other party's description of the incident a party may re-assess the strength of their case and make that decision.
In my experience, there is unclear and inconsistent guidance on your point above. I've heard well respected experienced judges suggest that the arbitrator can/should state at least 1 unexonerated rule which they believe was broken for which the boat is likely to be penalized for... but to be careful not to go beyond that with any explanation or analysis.
Scanning through the current WS and US Judges Manual on the topic, they do not strike your cautionary note above.
I stand by the logic of my advice.
If you identify, for example, RRS 16.1 or 14 (both boats) its all too easy for a boat to tailor their evidence in a subsequent hearing.
Once the protest is withdrawn and the Arbitration Meeting closed it might be ok to discuss the relevant rules, but i generally think the parties haven't 'cooled down enough for this to be a good idea.
I helped write the US Judge Manual section on arbitration. For what it's worth, the lack of caution on giving the reasoning with the opinion was an oversight on my part. In the interest of brevity, we condensed the results into a table. While I could write 20 pages on arbitration, this needs to fit into a succinct section in the document. I think we on the judges committee are aligned on it being poor practice to explain which rules you believe are broken.
Now, this is where judgment comes in with judges. If I recommend both people take a penalty and it's inexperienced Opti kids, I'm far more likely to explain that one boat broke a rule, but neither boat avoided contact, so my opinion is both boats will be penalized. If I'm at a Melges 24 continental championship dealing with top-tier pros, I'm far less likely to explain what rules are in play. I'm also far more likely to have the arbitrator observe the hearing to discourage the changing of testimony. Judges are at their best when they understand the event, the class, and have a relationship with the competitors to make these judgements in how they tailor the process to the event and the people in front of them.
John
For instance ...
"If this were to proceed to a hearing, in my opinion it is likely that the PC will find Boat B broke rule 14 and will be disqualified." (End of statement).
PS: If the USS-JC is in agreement that the example I wrote above is ill-advised, then I think it's worth going back and inserting a word-efficient sentence (as you did above) stating that.
Top of page 75 ...