Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
"Hey, you missed the offset-mark!" vs "Protest! You missed the offset-mark!"
P
Angelo GuarinoCertifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
In a fleet race of OD boats 16 feet long, course LA2, Boat A witnesses Boat B miss the offset mark at the first windward rounding.
Scenario #1: Boat A calls to Boat B, "Hey Joe, you missed the offset mark!" Boat B corrects her rule 28 error.
Scenario #2: Boat A hails to Boat B, "Protest Boat B, you missed the offset mark!" Boat B corrects her rule 28 error.
Scenario #1: Boat A calls to Boat B, "Hey Joe, you missed the offset mark!" Boat B corrects her rule 28 error.
Scenario #2: Boat A hails to Boat B, "Protest Boat B, you missed the offset mark!" Boat B corrects her rule 28 error.
- In Scenario #1, Boat C who witnesses both the hail and course correction,
properly[timely] protests Boat B on the water and files to protest B for breaking Rule 41. Did Boat B break Rule 41? - Is Rule 61.1(a)3's allowance to "... inform the other boat either before or at the first reasonable opportunity after the other boat finishes." .. only limited to informing the boat of their intent to protest?
- Is there a significant difference between Scenario #1 and #2?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Note: Rule 61.1's numbering fixed now on RRoS.org. - AG
There's no real difference in scenario 1 or 2 - the boat that missed the offset mark received outside assistance from another boat and corrected her error before finishing. Because the assistance was unsolicited from another boat in the race, there was no breach of RRS 41 (per RRS 41(d)).
If so,
PS .. what if in the hearing Boat C points out that Boat A's finish in the top 3 relied upon Boat B placing in the top 1/2 .. and A,B and C were in the top 1/4 of the fleet at the time of the incident?
The boat in second to last (60-something years old) got passed later and protested under rule 41, stating the coach was an interested party because of their relationship outside the event. Both the coach and the student got DSQ'd.
But...suppose A's series score depends on B not being disqualified, and A knows that other boats have observed B's error. Is A disinterested? Does this mean B breaks 41 (how is that fair to B, who didn't solicit the assistance?)
Does A break a rule by offering "interested" but unsolicited assistance to B?
So, back to my original Scenario #1 and #2 and why I think there might be a difference that is worth exploring here ..
61.1.a.3 clearly gives a boat the right to protest another boat for Rule 28 at any time after witnessing the error and before they finish. Therefore, in the context of a protest, a boat has the right to be informed and the protesting boat has the obligation to inform.
Just providing information without the context of a protest, I think it may open it up to the necessity to investigate and determine interest/disinterest of the informing party.
Depending on the circumstances I could see the offering boat, if not "disinterested", breaking rule 2.
Depending on the circumstances I could see the offering boat, if not "disinterested", breaking rule 2.
If it's Jimmy's dad then it's a support person providing the advice and I could see it being both 41 and 2, and the boat being penalized for the actions of a support person. So that would be the line.
But suppose it's a spectator who yells, or someone else's parent, or another competitor? And suppose Jimmy had already decided to go left on his own? Can he not now go left because it would mean he took outside assistance?
While rules 28 and 41 may arguably seem odd, rule 61.1(a)(3) is pretty straight forward.
It applies to incidents were a boat made an error in sailing the course; thus it definitely applies to the situation described here, where boat B missed the mark.
As per 61.1(a)(3), boat A need not hail or display a red flag, [... but nothing prevents her to do so].
Still per 61.1(a)(3), boat A _shall_ inform boat B [... of her error]. It is not an option: she must do it. Hence, rule 41(d) does not apply.
With regard to boat C, she protests, but I wouldn't say "properly" as it may imply that the action undertaken by boat A is not proper. Both boats (A and C) act properly according to rule 61.1(a)(3)
Shifting gears, to me, the situation depicted by John is totally different.
The kid has, yes, infringed rule 41, if the external help has provided him a "significant advantage".
We may discuss about the opportunity by the 60yo competitor to protest, though.
I'm not 60, but very very close... I wouldn't have protested - may be - but can understand that sometimes we, old men, tend to act for educational purposes...
(Please be patient, and consider that I am still in my learning phase, and that English is not my first language - actually, it is my third one...)
So unless the PC found that the boat (not the support person) had broken 2 or 69, I don't think the action of a support person (even if they broke 2 or 69) would be grounds for redress.
In your quotation, you inserted some elements in "()" ... (just as aside, in English when inserting missing or implied language, I believe using "[ ]" is more standard).
When I put together 61.1(a)3, I get ..
This goes to the heart of the 2nd question I think is worth examination and that is what does "inform" refer to in 61.1(a)3?
IMO, how I read it, 61.1(a) starts with, "A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat .. ". Therefore, the act of "informing" is informing the other boat of their intent to protest. Yes, you don't have to hail "Protest" or fly a flag at the incident because of the special nature of rule 28, but you are not informing "of their error" as you point out, you are informing them of your intent to protest.
That's how I read it. If you are only informing of their error without the intent to protest, then I do not believe it falls within 61.1 .. and thus the communication is not covered by 61.1 and reverts to consideration under 41.
This gets to the heart of the difference between Scenario #1 and #2.
PS: An interesting argument could be made that by saying, "Joe, you missed the mark", that there is embedded within that statement an implied notification that Joe will be protested if he does not correct his error.
So Ang, I think your question is, in Scenario #2, ("Protest Boat B, you missed the offset mark!") is "you missed the offset mark" part of the notification of intent to protest covered by rule 61.1, or is it tacked on information? And if it's additional information, might accepting it run afoul of rule 41?
I fixed it
(It just slipped without me noticing... )
====
Now (two hours later) I also had time to read your reply carefully and fully understand your point. Thank you.
What I'm saying is that it's perfectly natural that, when informing another boat that you intend to protest them for a Rule 28, that you indicate along with "I intend to protest you" .. the 'why'. The result of allowing notification before a boat finishes is to provide the boat the opportunity to correct the error.
What I'm saying is that, in Scenario #1, there is no informing of an intent to protest, only informing of an error made. 61.1 is about informing a boat of the intent to protest.
The question still is open as whether or not one boat telling another boat that they missed a mark has within it an implied notice of intent to protest if the error is not remedied. I could make a good argument for that I think.
I'm also exploring the "may be a [....] disinterested source" aspect of it when it comes to competitors.
In the end, I think the safest bet is for Boat A to inform Boat B of their intent to protest along with why (missing the offset mark). Even if Boat A is determined NOT to be a disinterested source, her communication would fall squarely under 61.1(a)3 I think .. even if it was Dad protesting his child.
That being said, there are times when the rules give you crappy situations that give judges fits trying to create justice.
I don’t think one competitor telling another that they have an issue is in itself outside assistance. Penalizing a competitor for a imply hearing a statement seems wrong to me.
Hello guys,
Considering Rule 41, in particular case you might also consider:
(c) help in the form of information freely available to all boats;
Course to be sailed is described in the sailing instruction and as such is the information freely available to all the boats.
So pointing to someone that they did or did not sail the course as described in the SI or for that matter give the information what course is to be sailed should not be considered as outside help prohibited as per rule 41.
Question 1: In scenario 1, I would suggest there is no case for boat C against boat B.
Question 2: Yes.
Question 3: Yes. In scenario 2 boat A would have met the requirement for informing boat B of her intention to protest. So, to that extent a protest would be valid. However, on hearing that boat B had corrected her error, the protest would be dismissed.
That is an interesting angle. What about other freely available info?
Looking at both cases that, Boat A’s score (in race, series, standing):
Definitely not team racing, but later in the thread we did add the question of Boat A’s score/standing benefiting from B doing better than DSQ.
I proposed this point later in the thread, that A can protest B before she finishes under 61.1a.3 even as an interested party and thus would be shielded from Rule 2 claims. This is one of the reasons I had both scenario wording.
What do you think about the idea that, given rule 28’s particulars, that one boat informing another before she finishes that she missed a mark, has imbedded within it, an implied notice of intent to protest if the error is not corrected?
PS: Ant, rereading your post, how can C protest A under 41? Rule 41’s rule-action is limited to receiving info, not giving info. “ A boat shall not receive ....”. ?
Sorry I missed your additional points part way through. I get distracted when there are too many posts to read in detail, especially when some wander off at tangents, or add new scenarios to the original post.
I don't think the there is an implicit notice of intent to protest in giving information about not having complied with 28. The validity part of the opening of a hearing has always been very clear on the juries I've been on. The first word used must be Protest, and it has to be timely, except in the case of 28 when she may wait until after finishing.
As regards the protest by C on A for rule 41 - I didn't say the rule cited was correct, and a jury won't dismiss a hearing just because the competitor hasn't filled that part of the form correctly ;) My point was more that it wasn't 41 that was infringed so much as - possibly - rule 2 because of the effect it might have had on C's score or standing in the race or series (particularly at, say, a selection event).
A sportsmanlike hail averting danger or error trumps 41 and 60 any day.
properly[timely] protests Boat B on the water and files to protest B for breaking Rule 41. Did Boat B break Rule 41? . NO. The advice was unsolicited. A appears to be a disinterested source. Unless Boat A was the coach to B or something similar, then A was a disinterested source. A is not an interested source if A's result is improved....A is only an interested source if they clearly are an associated party with B and A is interested in improving B's result solely for the sake of B. In case 78 they conspired to provide outside assistance to each other, which I deem as solicited.. The facts in this example do not appear to suggest the conclusion that A was a party interested in B's result for its own sake,,,,,nor do they suggest that A and B conspired to provide outside help to each other.