Angelo,

Well written and right on point.

With your permission, I would like to copy this to our club newsletter.

I hope this “article” is picked up by other publications.

Thanks for writing it.

Thanks Leo for the kind words. I wrote it to be read so you (or anyone else) can forward it by link here or if copied, with proper attribution.

If more info is needed or appropriate I can be reached at the email above.

I agree but would add another category to the reason why someone fails to protest. Often when a boat is at the top of the fleet or may have even won a race they may fly a flag on the water but fail to file the protest because there is a risk that the protest may not go their way. I've seen that many times and its part of the you beat me so why would you risk filing culture.

Would you consider failing to file after flagging on the water breaking rule 2?

I would challenge all of the boats in the top of every fleet to lead by example and take a turn immediately. The top boats will quickly recover from the 4 or so boat-length loss and gain the respect of all. The rest of the fleet will follow the example and you'll create a culture of fair sailing.

IN Australian club/fleet sailing you will occasionally hear someone say "...after all, we are not racing for sheep stations!" (a station is a large farm or ranch, often in the tens of thousands of acres). The general implication is not to make a fuss about things.
In my book, if we are not racing for sheep stations, why doesn't the offending boat sail by the rules including just doing their penalty in the prescribed manner if they misjudge a crossing on port and force a change in direction of a right of way boat, or touch a buoy? Afer all, they are not sailling for sheep stations either!
I also would like to provide a copy to our newsletter editor (with proper acknowledgement and link as mentioned above by Angelo.

Very well written!

Well said. I too would like to give it wider exposure. I will post the link to the Ottawa Sailing Community Facebook page. I will be interesting to read local club racers' comments.

Brent, interesting additional thought. Thanks for adding. Though having the same effect (not protesting), I do think what you bring up is slightly different as there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not a foul occurred and if so, who was at fault. If there is no contact and both boats are confused about if a foul even occurred, then sail-on IMO as I think it's knowledge that a foul HAS occurred which compels racers to protest, not inkling.

Paul H. I can't wait to use "we're not racing for sheep stations" next season on my boat! (hopefully, my crew won't commit me).

One of the issues that bothers me is when the OA or PRO makes some statement during competitors' meetings about avoiding protests, or praising the lack thereof. I think that creates some stigma for those that have already filed and/or it discourages protests for the remaining races. Personally, I think we should encourage competitors to protest if they believe they were fouled and the offending boat didn't take her penalty. So I think the PRO is best served by not making any kind of judgement statement on the number of protests at competitor meetings. If the issue comes up, I would encourage the PRO to praise the number of penalty turns he saw on the water. That is much more significant than the number of protests brought to the jury.

Greg & Leo, I think it would be interesting if you would give us a taste and share a bit of what you get back from your racers. Wonder if they would have a different perception not being folk who usually contemplate their sailing-navels - Ang

Wilco, Ang. It will be interesting how many respond, as we are now all on the hard for winter lay up. If they do respond, will there be any consensus?

Hi Paul,
I agree that the way the OA and PRO phrase what they are saying contributes to the perception. I think what they are really trying to say is sail clean and with good sportsmanship which includes doing your circles. I think that the PC Chair can help to fix this perception perhaps by speaking up in the briefing (with permission) to say that the PC is here to serve the sport and competitors and that we are happy to do our part to make the event great. Use us as you need to in assisting with decisions but please do your part of fair sailing and sportsmanship by promptly taking a penalty when required.

Such a great article.... everyone should read it and be aware of the implications of letting it slide.... Thanks!

Angelo's comments are right on target. Several years ago I was active as a RC and PC member in a Southern California club where there was at least one protest in most events. Returning to SoCal after a 30 year absence, I have been asked to stand by for PC duty several times a year and noticed that the number of protests being filed was very small in spite of some obvious fouls.

Paul, John & Brent,

You all make great points and I can see that in my original article I left out an important point. The issue is not the lack of protests, but rather the lack of people doing their turns without a protest .. and then only after that .. the lack of protests. It would be wonderful if there were no protests at all because everyone just did the sportsman thing on the water and did their turns.

As Paul rightly pointed out, the OA/RC/PC should be encouraging and reminding everyone of Basic Principle ... please take your turns and enforce the rules . and that protests should be reserved only for differences in opinions regarding the infractions AND NOT knowing rules violators being forced to a hearing because they are trying to get away with it.

It's a chicken-n-egg though, protests need to maybe go way up so that the risk of a DSQ outweighs loosing a few boats due to turns.

Think I might edit/add some of these ideas into the article when I get a chance ...

Great input.

Submit it to sailing world

I added some foundational language at the beginning for a more general audience and added some of your comments regarding OA/RC comments contributing to the issue. Additions are shown in blue.

We start 5 classes 3 minutes apart at Cowan Lake; if a boat of another class fouls me, or visa versa, is it wrong to ignore the foul by agreement between the boats?

John, that sounds to me like a breach of RRS 24. Yes, you both agree, but do you have consent from everyone in the who is sailing under RRS? It is a strong precedent in common law that people can't contract out of obeying the law. This seems to me to be what you and the other boat are trying to do. If there is a foul, there should always be a penalty taken or a protest lodged or we no longer have a self enforcing sport.

John E said .

We start 5 classes 3 minutes apart at Cowan Lake; if a boat of another class fouls me, or visa versa, is it wrong to ignore the foul by agreement between the boats?

Thank you for that question as it hits on so many points of the article and provides an opportunity to address the "I owe you one" issue in a different way.

Here are the questions I'd put back to you.....

Let's say you are in Fleet A and you let a boat in Fleet B foul you without penalty. Unbeknownst to you, simultaneously on the other side of the course one of your competitors in Fleet A is fouled exactly in the same way by a different boat in Fleet B and at the time of the fouls, the two Fleet B boats were in a tie on the course. The 2nd fouling Fleet B boat understands her responsibilities, abides by the RRS and takes her turn .. and now is behind the Fleet B boat that fouled and did not take her penalty. Is that fair sailing?

Same scenario, but this time the 2nd Fleet B boat changes their course such that no foul occurs .. maybe they tack away from the favored side of the course or maybe duck the Fleet A boat which forces them take the stern of other boats as well .. again putting them behind their Fleet B competitor, Is that fair that the first Fleet B boat didn't have to alter course and got the advantage?

This is exactly the failing that I tried to address with the "I owe you one" mentality and why it corrupts fair sailing.

Ang

PS .. this also address the Stigma issue. I know you might feel like you're being a xxxxx by protesting, but that's exactly the problem. It's the boat that's not taking their rightful penalty that the stigma should be put on, NOT the person who is holding them to their responsibility.

Having received an email direct from Ange and entered into some correspondence he has suggested that my reply to him should be posted here and I am happy t oblige -

Ange
I have re read your article and at the risk of sounding like bit of a cop out I really don't have much to add because I agree with pretty well everything you say. It has often occurred to me in moments of quiet reflection that the use of the word "enforce" in the basic principle could have a pretty dramatic implication. Given that enforcement can really only mean lodging a protest could it be that the failure to lodge a protest could be seen as breach of the principle ? This of course does rather contradict the use of the word "may" in 60.1 but it is food for thought.

I think the only solution to the problems that you identify is education. When I give one of my rules talks I always major on the safety aspects of protesting. I say something like - there are three reasons a boat breaks a rule -
1. A genuine error of judgement which resolves itself by the infringing boat acknowledging her error and taking the appropriate penalty.
2. Ignorance, the boat doesn't think she has broken a rule and so doesn't take a penalty.
3. Cheating, the boat has broken the rule, knows she has but banks on the fact that other boats will not protest her.

Whilst the boats in 2 and 3 are morally miles apart they will both go on breaking rules for different reasons. The way to stop them is to protest as the ignorant will learn the rules and the cheat will stop cheating because it doesn't work. The PC has a role to play here. The cheat will often want to retire just before the meeting "to save everyone the trouble" whilst what he really means is that he thought he would get away with it and now he hasn't he will try and salvage some credibility by retiring. The PC must insist on holding the protest despite outside pressures not to so that a DNE under rule 2 can be applied if appropriate.

Where the safety comes in is what happens if boats don't protest. Sooner or later people get fed up with the rule breakers under 2 and 3 and if they do not protest they resort to trying to enforce their rights of way on the water by using their boat as a 10 ton battering ram. Very often where you get damage and injury the roots can be traced back to someone deciding to "take the law into their own hands". The message I give is that if you don't protest you are making and incident where someone is going to get hurt become more likely if not inevitable. That approach usually has a pretty good effect.

I also agree that as a PC we have to be prepared to demand our say at any briefing. I remember once following a RO who had given the usual line about how the event did not have many protests. I made the point that if this was as a result of boats obeying the rules that was something to be proud of but if it was achieved by boats breaking the rules and doing nothing then it was dangerous and something to be ashamed of - I didn't get invited back.

I have worked Opti Nationals as a judge. Our charge was enforcing Rule 42 which we did. I have also worked two Opti regional championships.

I want to share with you that I was dismayed at the amount of rule breaking happening, especially at the starts, with very few protests and even fewer taking of penalty turns. I heard lots of boat to boat contact and yelling with no protests or penalty turns. A couple of friends working the signal boat even witnessed sailors grabbing another sailor's boat - in my mind egregious breaking of rules.

I am glad to say that I did not see near the level of rule breaking at either regional event that was seen at Nationals, I but still heard some boat to boat contact without a protest or penalty turns. Not to be totally negative, I did observe sailors taking penalty turns at all three events, especially the regional events.

I don’t know how to address this problem.

In reply to Ange's request that I post how the locals in Ottawa responded, here's a quick (if tardy) summary. If you are on Facebook and want to see the full posts go to Ottawa Sailing Community. Most of the respondents "liked" the post. I would take that to indicate they generally agreed with the article.

Those that took a counter position generally argued that the protest process was too onerous. In the extreme, one sailor asserted "Raising a protest is a bureaucratic nightmare that lots of sailors just can't be bothered with. At least for local racing, anyway." However that same sailor later indicated there should be more protests in club racing and encouraged making the process easier to facilitate more protests. I think he was equating "more protests" to greater rule enforcement by competitors.

I think arbitration may deal with these impediments to protesting. I've been struggling with a way to do arbitration for our local racing, but the logistics are proving difficult. We have combined racing with 3 clubs which race together 4 nights per week (with 2 circles, 3 starts/circle most nights). The clubs are a few kilometres by road from each other. Any great (or even proven) ideas for getting skippers/arbitrators together in a situation like this?

Maybe investigate use of group video calls on eg Skype or Messenger rather than physical presence, to save the overhead of travel to and from the club where the protest/arbitration would otherwise be held. It would also save witnesses having to wait for sometimes an hour before being heard. Maybe start with having witnesses (other than boat representatives) attend by video, then later a try having the boat representatives also attend by video call and finally try having the whole thing on video call. Solving travel and waiting time overheads could be a significant reduction in the inconvenience factor. Video of start and finish lines, perhaps by elevated by drone) could also be a convenient and relatively inexpensive means of adding video evidence of some incidents.

I have suggested, without success yet, that lodgement of bare bones protest form by email be allowed. These days you could have a few forms in the chart table and use a mobile phone to take an image of the completed form which is then shared by email to the chair of the club protest committee. (This is at a yacht club where parking is difficult, some yachts come from miles away, and there is lots of traffic at the club pontoon, including yachts rafting up for a BBQ as well as dropping of crew and no marina).

In my limited experience in commercial disputes arbitration often fails to get a resolution when there is a fundamental disagreement between the parties, so it creates a new layer of overhead in those cases it does not resolve. There is the overhead of drafting and gaining acceptance of changes to sailing instructions etc.

Greg, great feedback .. thanks for remembering and taking the time to post that.

To your question regarding how to do Protests and Arbitration in you scenario .. I was RCC/PRO and then PCC for a race program with even a more spread-out group of racers and clubs .. just like you describe around the Magothy River (seen here). There were clubs from the south shore from Cape St. Claire to the furthest north-east point on Gibson Island and they all joined forces to run races under a common banner.

As far as protests were concerned, they were never done "day-of". One of the clubs was toward the western part of the river and thus about in the middle of the extreemes and we usually used that as the place to have the hearings. To make it easy on the PC, we would group the protests and try to have them before the last race of any series so that they knew standings going into the final series race. This worked out pretty well.

As far as arbitration is concerned, this was usually in the context of a series of phone calls by an experienced racer who was well versed in the rules who was not going to be part of the PC that round ... sometimes that was me. IMO, for arbitration to work, it's important that the SI's are clear on the penalties after racing that are available and they should be something worse that what was avail on the water and something better than DSQ. In the Magothy we did turns .. but AYC does scoring penalties on Wed's. with a 10% for mark hit, 20% for Part 2 without damage and 30% penalty for after-racing before hearing. Also, the process that will be used should be a set-play and described in the SI's.

In my experience, arbitration worked often and well when it was a rules teaching opportunity, but not when 2 knowledgeable racers had a difference of opinions. When I was the arbitrator, I would get a copy of the protest (again, I wasn't scheduled to be on the panel that session) and I would look for an obvious gap in rule application first .. on the part either party and then go from there. I would say that probably 75% of the time, one party simply didn't understand the rules on a obvious level and once they I walked them through it, the protest was either withdrawn or penalty taken. I always made it clear from the beginning that they are under no obligation to talk with me .. put any value on my input .. or take any action based on the conversation.

So, that's how I approached it .. it was an opportunity to walk someone through the rules in simple cases .. . Hope that helps.

Ang