Forum: Rules 2 and 69

14 (b) or RRS-2 for Red ?

Catalan Benaros
Nationality: Argentina

Hi everybody !!
I think that in position N°2 if we have contact and no demage,

1°)
Blue breaks rule 10 and

2°)
Red breaks:
a) BASIC PRINCIPLES "SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES"

b) rule 2 and

c) rule 3.3a 
3.3 Acceptance of the rules includes agreement (a) to be governed by the rules


What do you think about it ?

Thanks you !!!

Created: 20-Sep-09 11:57

Comments

Yves Leglise
Nationality: France
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Measurer
  • International Judge
  • Regional Umpire
  • National Race Officer
0
RRS 10 (or 12, depending on the evidences given by the parties), full stop.

Created: 20-Sep-09 12:09
Yves Leglise
Nationality: France
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Measurer
  • International Judge
  • Regional Umpire
  • National Race Officer
0
I mean, RRS 12 was to mentioned just to be sure they were on opposite tacks,
Created: 20-Sep-09 12:14
Charles Darley
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
2
Blue breaks 10, both break 14.
Created: 20-Sep-09 12:38
Werner Esswein
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
  • National Race Officer
2
Blue breaks RRS 10 (on opposite tacks) red breaksRRS 14 - but shall be exonerated RRS 14 (b).
Created: 20-Sep-09 12:39
Matt Bounds
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Race Officer
1
Just because there is contact does not automatically invoke RRS 2.

If the contact was intentional, then RRS 2 may be applicable, but proving intent can be difficult.  Was red yelling at blue (anything other than "starboard!")?  That could be construed as bullying and/or intimidation which is a breach of RRS 2 (and possibly RRS 69.1(a)).
Created: 20-Sep-09 13:00
Catalan Benaros
Nationality: Argentina
1
1°)
I agree with this that you have said:

Blue breaks RRS 10
Both  break RRS 14 - but  Red shall be exonerated RRS 14 (b).


2°)
Rule 14 says
 "....avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible."

I think that Red did nothing to avoid contact, that´s why i believe she breaks rule 2.

And as you know,  rule 3 says

3.3(a) to be governed by the rules

So i wonder, Red accepts rule 14 but  was governed by it ?
Created: 20-Sep-09 13:18
Paul Murray
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
1
Blue breaks rule 10.  Red breaks 14.  As drawn, blue makes no attempt to avoid red. Red exonerated under 14 (b) as others have said. 

If the scenario  was changed  slightly as follows, there might be an argument for rule 2:
Blue goes either up or down to get out of red’s way and red Responds by continuing to aim at blue’s transom possibly both 16 and 2 might apply.  
Created: 20-Sep-09 13:51
CAROL ROBINSON
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
1
Not enough information to say blue had time to avoid.  How fast were they going?  Were they planing/surfing on big waves with blue in a trough and slowing down while red got on a wave and was barreling down on blue.
 
Agree that that the following rules apply 10 and 14 (b).  I prefer using the current rule 69 instead of rule 2 because then you can give a warning if there appears to be misbehavior, especially if red is known be a non-Corinthian sailor around the race course.
Created: 20-Sep-09 14:53
Charles Darley
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
1
No change of course by red So blue had time to avoid. If there was surfing, blue should have allowed for that and avoided earlier

We are told no damage or injury so red is Exonerated for her breach of 14. It would be perverse to protest red  for a breach of 2 or 69 on the grounds that she deliberately broke 14 when she is exonerated for that breach

In light of the stricter standard of proof required for protests under 2 or 69 (beyond reasonable doubt rather than balance of probability) a finding against red is most unlikely. 

The proposal that Red’s reputation should influence proceedings is wrong. Any protest must deal only with the incident in question. If there have been incidents in the past which were not protested, then they should have been. Gossip about non Corinthian behaviour is little different to shouting do your turns but not protesting. 
Created: 20-Sep-09 16:25
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
1
Is any boat "entitled to room" to deliberately contact another boat that she could avoid and protest?
In this instance I think not.
DSQ both.

Created: 20-Sep-12 18:21
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
1
CAROL ROBINSON
said Created: Wed 14:53
 I prefer using the current rule 69 instead of rule 2 because then you can give a warning if there appears to be misbehavior, especially if red is known be a non-Corinthian sailor around the race course.

Consider 

Case 138
Rule 2, Fair Sailing Rule 69, Misconduct
Generally, an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the competition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule, should be considered under rule 2. Any action, including a serious breach of rule 2 or any other rule, that the committee considers may be an act of misconduct should be considered under rule 69. 

This is on on-water breach, with the outcome of the protest directly affecting the competition.  Given that the possible breach of rule 2 or rule 69 is highly questionable (see Charles' argument about exoneration), this is not a 'serious' breach of rule 2, so one should not proceed to rule 69.

Judges can't choose the penalty they want to impose before hearing evidence and reaching conclusions on what rules are broken:  that turns the process on its head.

And by the way, 'reputation' is not a consideration for a protest committee at any time, see also Charles' comment.

Charles Darley
said Created: Wed 16:25

 No change of course by red So blue had time to avoid. If there was surfing, blue should have allowed for that and avoided earlier

Agree.

We are told no damage or injury so red is Exonerated for her breach of 14. It would be perverse to protest red  for a breach of 2 or 69 on the grounds that she deliberately broke 14 when she is exonerated for that breach

Agree

In light of the stricter standard of proof required for protests under 2 or 69 (beyond reasonable doubt rather than balance of probability) a finding against red is most unlikely. 

This isn't quite right.
  • The standard of proof for rule 69 is 'comfortable satisfaction'.  See Case 122.
  • The standard of proof for rule 2 is, like every other rule except rule 69, balance of probabilities, but modified by the words of the rule " ... recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated."

I agree that breach of rule 2 will usually involve intent, and as Matt has said above, it is often difficult to establish intent clearly.

The proposal that Red’s reputation should influence proceedings is wrong. Any protest must deal only with the incident in question. If there have been incidents in the past which were not protested, then they should have been. Gossip about non Corinthian behaviour is little different to shouting do your turns but not protesting. 

Agree.
Created: 20-Sep-14 00:36
[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