I think that where a competitor comes forward, admits to breaking the rules in a major way and wishes to return trophies and prizes  to ’make themselves right’, you just have to respond according to their wishes.

I think that it is arguable that  rule 90.3(c) addresses errors by the race committee in the application of its own observations and records during the event, and does not apply to the effect of an action occurring after the event has concluded.  Thus amendment of the results to reflect the boat’s retirement, is not a correction of an error under rule 90.3(c), which would be prohibited by the implementation of rule 90.3(e), but is a change to the results in a way other than contemplated by rule 90.3(e), and is permissible.

Alternatively, based on the boat’s admission of breaking the rules, a rule 69 hearing could be held, in which case any change in scores would permissible in accordance with the exception at the foot of rule 90.3.

In addition to John’s comments, there was a Q&A 2017-007 (which was not retained forward into 2021). 

Unfortunately, rule 90.3(e) uses the word “action” which is pretty amorphous.

How I read the Basic Principles .. (emphasis added)

So, “retiring” when a boat breaks a rule and is not exonerated, is categorized by the RRS as “an appropriate penalty or action”. 

But which is “to retire”?… the “appropriate penalty” or the “appropriate action”?

I could make the argument (the success of which being uncertain) that “retiring” in this case is the “appropriate penalty”, so as John makes the case, is not an “action” as intended by 90.3(e). 

In any case, 90.3(e) does not change the Basic Principle. 

Ang

Hmm.

Q&A 2017-007 was presumably repealed since it conflicts with 90.3(e).

I think the whole point of 90.3(e) is to give the OA a chance to 'end' the event.  For some events this is necessary. It's awkward to say the least when you have to recall the sponsor prizes and trophies, recalculate and then redistribute!  Especially if the competitors have all left the area.  One boat retiring could have drastic effects on the podium places and results. Some events just can't have that.

I think 'retiring' is an action and 'retirement' is a penalty, and therefore which ever way you look at it, would not be a valid reason to change the scores after the time limit.

If the SI state a time limit to the event per 90.3(e), then after that point, the event is over.  You could say that the rules no longer apply to that event (save for Rules 6, 69 and 70).

When a boat realises after that time limit she won the trophy illegally illegitimately, then she has to live with that guilt for the rest of her life.  Every time she sees her name on the trophy, she will feel bad!  Tough! She should have checked her sails beforehand.  It may be a noble and honest gesture to inform everyone in a letter afterwards of the situation, and hope no one is to bothered.  (If they are, then maybe that's as good as a penalty.)  However, I don't think there is any scoring change that can take place.

The same sentiment is illustrated in the fact that not even the RC can 'correct' errors after the time limit.  In which case, the RC will have to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives.

But at the end of the day, its only a game (and mistakes are made).  Animosity and guilt should only be short-lived by true sportspeople.  There's always next year.

Ben, maybe “illegitimately” instead of “illegally”?

90.3(e) puts limits on what the RC can do. It does not change the RRS Basic Principles.  
There are 2 separate steps here.

90.3(e) impacts #2, not #1.

The competitor should do their best to have their retirement be effective. If the RC decides that they cannot change her score, she should insist that her retirement be at least noted with an asterisk for the record. 

Ang,

OK - illegitimately... that's a better word.  Fixed.

I see what you're getting at, but to me it amounts to the same result.

Certainly noble and honest to come clean, and in keeping with the Basic Principals.  Various ways to note the good deed too (asterisk, 'unofficial' results, another prize giving) and make everyone feel better.

But no way to change the official score. No?

“But no way to change the official score. No?“

Ben, probably so.  I made my best counter argument earlier that retiring is not an action being initiated, but is simply taking a penalty (as the terms are used in the Basic Principles) … but that argument is untested. 

There is another way that this could be gamed-out I suppose, as RRS 70 is an exception. 

The retiring boat doesn’t have a basis to request redress, as her score is not being made worse by the RC disallowing their retirement .. it’s being made better. 

However, a boat (call her Boat 2) could claim that the refusal of the retirement worsened Boat 2’s score.  (Under this concept, any boat that the retiring boat beat could request redress as soon as the RC posts the denial of the scoring change).  Boat 2 could make my previous “not an action” argument.

Boat 2 would likely lose the R4R, so then Boat 2 appeals.  The Appeals Comm would have to find that taking a penalty is not an “initiated action” covered by 90.3(e). 

I still think that 90.3e is deliberately inserted to avoid this protracted follow-up to the event.

If it doesn't work because there are loopholes, then I think the rules guys will plug them, rather than allow them. i.o.w. , they have tried to design into the rules a 'hard-brickwall-end to the event'.

It's certainly true that some juggling of appeals process, or request for redress process could be manipulated to effect that boat's wish to retire, but that doesn't help the poor OA who have given the pickle dishes out and distributed T-shirts to the original winners.

So my brutal interpretation is that if 90.3e is in place, the event and all possible remedies for correcting mistakes (including your illegitimate win) end at the time.

Quite interesting discussion... it would be good to test this.. maybe a Q&A needs to be sent!

Hmmm…. if we only knew an IJ that could submit the question ;-)