One possible way to see it is this:

By entering the event each party agrees to the published entry/exclusion rules - one of those rules could be health-related. Don't think only Covid, here, but any other contagious disease that may be common on the racing region. If the organizers published an exclusion rule, then everyone has to follow it. Becoming sick breaks that rule (1st sibling). Be becoming a potential infectous person, breaks the rule (2nd sibling). 

From this perspective both siblings are breaking the entry/exclusion rule independent of each other.

I know this is harsh, but it is what the organizers intented in the first place, right?

It doesn't fit with 62.1(a) or (b) or (c) or (d).  It doesn't fit with (d) because the sailor (member of her crew) is not giving help. Or maybe I should say that I would not stretch that far to call that help.

Sorry, no redress in my opinion, none of the conditions in (a) through (d) of 62.1 are met.  Considering this as 'help' under RRS 1.1 is a huge stretch.  Would you say the same thing about a sibling with any other communicable illness (cold, flu, chicken pox, measles, mumps, ...)?  I am not even sure if you can get past the 'no fault of her own' hurdle either.

No-one is entitled to redress.

You could get round this by putting a special scoring provision in your SI CovidRelatedScore make it average points, or points in bottom third, whatever.

You'd have to think about what score to give, depending on why you are bothering:  is it to preserve some sort of season-long pointscore, that the competitors will be able to come back to later in the season, or what.

Otherwise, leave it alone and its a 'rub of the green' issue.

Yeah I get all that.  The problem is that it then a sailor or parent is encouraged to hide their symptoms.  The thing about other communicable diseases is that they are much less infectious than Covid.  There are a few diseases in this country which are 'notifiable' in general terms, but none of them are subject to regulations as stringent as Covid-19.

Which leaves the scoring option.  The event is part of a series that forms qualification for our Optimist Teams.  So it matters.  Anyone got any advice on how you might word that?

The key point is not to give someone an incentive to hide symptoms.

Rule  62 Redress can be changed by NOR/SI, to broaden the bases of the entitlement to redress, or else, as I suggested above you can add to your scoring system (by NOR/SI) to cover the problem.

So I think setting up the mechanism isn't too difficult.

The bigger problem, as I see it, is what sort of, or how much redress should be given.

Given your 'ladder'/qualification/selection problems it's very necessary that the redress or scoring should be carefully articulated with the qualification/selection criteria.

It might be helpful to adjust the qualification/selection criteria to accommodate the covid situation and what practicably can be done in the events.

Not knowing how the qualification/selection works and the relevant criteria, it's difficult to help much more at this stage.

What do you think would be useful redress?

If you give redress to one family member because of COVID requirements, what about the family member (competitor) who actually is infected?  What would be the justification for giving redress to one but not the other?

Would the problem be ameliorated if you re-jigged the selection process to allow competitors disadvantaged by COVID requirements to get a 'second chance' at a further regatta/special selection trial?

Presumably it would be acceptable if a competitor that COVID-ed out of two events would then be unlikely to succeed at the next level due to unfitness/lack of training and would have to accept the 'tough-luck' result.

By the way:  Hi Matt.

Hi Matt.

I think Thomas is right. It might not just be COVID-19. We had a scenario a few years ago where a competitor had really nasty cold and barely got through Day 1 of a selection trials. He was in contention for a spot on the team. His doctor recommended he not go sailing on Day 1. His father talked to the PC about redress and we went through the list of 62.1 criteria. None were met. We suggested he spoke to the Class Association to see if they could make a case within their own selection rules but, as far as the RRS were concerned, the PC could do nothing.

Another hypothetical example of something outside the control of a competitor could be where a competitor is on a bus travelling to the event and the bus breaks down and he/she is late for racing. We can't control the bus any more than we can control who is or isn't infected by a virus. No redress there either (Unless the bus is provided by the OA!!). It's tough but it's what we have to work with.

Emmet (In a chilly Dublin)

RRS can not cover everything. Sometimes things just need to be filed under "Sh*t Happens", frown and move on. As an aside, what does your local public health agency say about this?

I do not consider redress possible.  If you went down that road you would soon have trouble with how many races you could give redress for, which could lead to holding on for another day or complaints. The class selection procedures are where this should be covered.

I agree with Emmet. A competitor who is positive for the virus (or one who has been exposed), and poses a risk of infection to others, is legitimately subject to exclusion from competing under RRS 76 if the intention to exclude them is written into the NOR and SI, and there is nothing that prevents an OA from adding a sailing instruction removing the limitation that the exclusion must happen before the first race, if the reason for the exclusion (i.e., being a health risk to the other competitors) is discovered during the event.

As John A notes, those SIs could also be modified to provide redress for such a competitor under an expansion of 62.1, but I don't see that there is any redress that could be granted in that regatta that would actually solve the problem. The WS Judges Manual guidelines direct that average points redress should only be granted if the competitor is excluded after at very least 50% (and better 80%) of the event was complete. Even in that circumstance, some of what's being considered is redress for pre-race exclusion, and while the manual isn't written to include circumstances like the pandemic, it suggests that the only circumstances under which such pre-race exclusion is redressable is if the NOR and/or SI are flawed, which they wouldn't be in this case. Absent such a flaw, there is no improper action or omission to redress.

In the case of a ladder qualifier event, the MNA or class association might be persuaded to permit a competitor excluded from one region's qualifier by illness or exposure to compete in another's, but that wouldn't be redress granted by the PC at a given event - such redress would be outside that PC's competence.

I feel for those who get excluded from competitions for these reasons, but I don't see that there's any way to fix it that's not much less fair for everyone else at the regatta.

I think Mike B has got it.

John M

Stay away from rule 76

Rule   86.1b prohibits NOR or SI from changing rules 76.1 an 76.2.

And where do you get your authority for the 'the intention to exclude them is written into the NOR and SI' from ?

John A -
I could have been clearer, but I don’t propose to change 76.1, nor did I mean to say I did. What I meant was that 76.1 provides permission for an OA to exclude a competitor, provided it states the reason for doing so. It says that exclusion must happen before the first race, but as I read that requirement, a statement that any competitor who poses a threat to the health of others in the regatta by virtue of his or her exposure to the virus will be excluded from the competition sets the conditions for exclusion in time to meet that limitation. No change to 76.1 is required, and I don’t think the addition of an SI explaining the mechanics of testing, or that a competitor will be excluded as soon as his/her positive test (or symptoms, or exposure) is discovered, changes it. The only change to a rule I referred to is the one you spoke of, to 62.1. I agree that change is possible, I just think it would be pointless.

As to where I draw authority for 'the intention to exclude them is written into the NOR and SI', I draw it from the language of 76.1, which requires the statement of the reason for the exclusion. Since I’m not aware of any other rules documents through which an OA communicates with prospective competitors, such a statement of intent to exclude must come in the NOR, and should, in my view, be repeated in the SI (I suppose the latter isn’t strictly necessary, but would be a competitor-friendly reminder, as I see it).

FWIW, I agree that Mike has it right. I hadn’t seen his post when I wrote mine (the perils of taking too long to complete a post, I guess).