1.) The regatta uses the following language in the Sis and NORs “five races scheduled for the regatta”. 2.) The regatta includes one throw out if 5 races are run. 3.) The protest time limit was 30 minutes after the committee boat signaled they were ashore. 4.) The winds are high during the regatta with all other fleets deciding not to race after the 4th race.
At the end of race 4, Boat C decided to go in for the day with the knowledge that 5th race would be their throw out and their position in the regatta could not change. At the end of 5 races the scores for the top 4 boats are as follows (I did not include boats 5-7 because places did not change):
Boat A moved into first place winning the tie breaker under rule A8.2 and Boat C moved from 3rd to 4th.
The scores were posted about 45 minutes after the committee boat was ashore or 15 minutes after the protest time limit. The skipper of boat C did not even know a 6th race was run until the scores were posted.
The skippers of boat A and C talked and the Skipper of boat A decided to ask for redress about 5 minutes after scores were posted. The organizing authority told him not to bother filling out a form because the time limit had expired.
Questions:
1.) Should race 6 have been scored? 2.) For redress, when you do not know if it is needed until after scores are posted, is the protest time limit the correct limit to use for filing. 3.) Is the time limit different if boat A or Boat C requests redress. Boat A knew a 6th race was run before the scores were posted, boat C did not. 4.) How would a redress hearing find for the competitors.
Thanks - that is what I thought, but was not sure on number 3 because A could argue they did not know race 6 would be scored until scores posted. But they did know the race was run and should have filed immediately.
I think that can reasonably be interpreted to say that they won't be running 6.
To your other point above though, I don't think it's incumbent on boat A to file a request for redress until he sees the scoring. His filing 5 minutes later meets 61.2 (b) (3). With this committee you don't know what they're up to. Maybe they offered to run an extra race that wasn't expected to count? But when we see the scores ... !
> I think that can reasonably be interpreted to say that they won't be running 6. I'm not sure about that. The ordinary dictionary meaning of scheduled is "planned to happen at a particular time"
Five races were scheduled. Five scheduled races were run. One unscheduled race was run. I don't think that what we have seen of the NOR specifically precludes running an unscheduled race. I have known an event in champagne sailing conditions where the RC twiced asked the competitors if they wanted an extra race, and they ended up with two more than the original schedule.
On redress, I can see redress of average points for a boat that doesn't sail an unscheduled race, but throwing the race out completely doesn't feel fair to the other competitors. My inclination would be to give C average points for R6 on the grounds that, having sailed in, there was no way she could know there was going to be an unscheduled race, but OTOH if running an unscheduled race was not an improper action, what are the grounds for redress?
At our local dinghy club, our race days consist of three 'counter' races, which are always the first three races of the day. Then the RC will run as many additional races as the competitors would like. Usually this is two more races. The extra races get scored but are not included in the series totals.
The question of exceeding the number of races intended is of practical interest to me. In our conditions there are very plausible scenarios in which the right thing to do is to run more races than initially targeted.
The easy "fix", is to schedule more races than really intended, then stop short. (It isn't thought to be improper to run fewer races than scheduled.) Personally, I don't really like that because I feel there is value in communicating a target number of races. It just seems like a kludge.
Do we think that the word "schedule", in the context of race documents, means:
1. "Not more than" 2. "A target that we will try to hit, understanding that circumstances may require changes." 3. "Not less than." (Not this one!)
Meaning 1 seems to be generally accepted, but I'm not exactly sure why. (I could simply be ignorant of some official guidance, so please point me to it if that's the case)
I reckon that in normal use, a "schedule" is much closer to meaning 2.
In race documents I am inclined to write something like:
7 races are scheduled 1 race makes a regatta No more than 9 races shall be sailed.
To me, that conveys the plan, it bounds what's proper, and gives RC some flexibility to put on the best racing they can.
As far as RRS is concerned, the particular regatta is planned for five races and should be scored accordingly. All other permutations and combinations of extra races at the convenience or preferences of participants or club level activity cannot be part of a regatta under the published NoR and SI.
No
2.) For redress, when you do not know if it is needed until after scores are posted, is the protest time limit the correct limit to use for filing.
No. as soon as reasonably possible after the relevant information is available.
3.) Is the time limit different if boat A or Boat C requests redress. Boat A knew a 6th race was run before the scores were posted, boat C did not.
Yes
4.) How would a redress hearing find for the competitors.
Instruct race committee to not score race 6.
To your other point above though, I don't think it's incumbent on boat A to file a request for redress until he sees the scoring. His filing 5 minutes later meets 61.2 (b) (3). With this committee you don't know what they're up to. Maybe they offered to run an extra race that wasn't expected to count? But when we see the scores ... !
I'm not sure about that.
The ordinary dictionary meaning of scheduled is "planned to happen at a particular time"
Five races were scheduled. Five scheduled races were run. One unscheduled race was run. I don't think that what we have seen of the NOR specifically precludes running an unscheduled race.
I have known an event in champagne sailing conditions where the RC twiced asked the competitors if they wanted an extra race, and they ended up with two more than the original schedule.
On redress, I can see redress of average points for a boat that doesn't sail an unscheduled race, but throwing the race out completely doesn't feel fair to the other competitors. My inclination would be to give C average points for R6 on the grounds that, having sailed in, there was no way she could know there was going to be an unscheduled race, but OTOH if running an unscheduled race was not an improper action, what are the grounds for redress?
The question of exceeding the number of races intended is of practical interest to me. In our conditions there are very plausible scenarios in which the right thing to do is to run more races than initially targeted.
The easy "fix", is to schedule more races than really intended, then stop short. (It isn't thought to be improper to run fewer races than scheduled.) Personally, I don't really like that because I feel there is value in communicating a target number of races. It just seems like a kludge.
Do we think that the word "schedule", in the context of race documents, means:
1. "Not more than"
2. "A target that we will try to hit, understanding that circumstances may require changes."
3. "Not less than." (Not this one!)
Meaning 1 seems to be generally accepted, but I'm not exactly sure why. (I could simply be ignorant of some official guidance, so please point me to it if that's the case)
I reckon that in normal use, a "schedule" is much closer to meaning 2.
In race documents I am inclined to write something like:
7 races are scheduled
1 race makes a regatta
No more than 9 races shall be sailed.
To me, that conveys the plan, it bounds what's proper, and gives RC some flexibility to put on the best racing they can.
Comments?
Thanks
Doug
All other permutations and combinations of extra races at the convenience or preferences of participants or club level activity cannot be part of a regatta under the published NoR and SI.
I agree with Mark on all counts