Brass

Members
  • Content Count

    2,683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brass

  1. Brass

    RRS Appendix G

    You'd hope that was what a, wise protest committee would do, but disqualification without warning has been an option for at least the last two quads G4. WARNINGS AND PENALTIES When a protest committee finds that a boat has broken a rule of this appendix, it shall either warn her and give her time to comply or penalize her.
  2. Brass

    RRS Appendix G

    See the Australian Sailing Prescription to Appendix G Australian Sailing prescribes that this appendix shall apply to all boats except that the distinguishing number may be allotted by or under the authority of Australian Sailing. Sail numbers shall be deemed to include a club prefix if any Was your sail number issued to you by your State/Territory YA or Australian Sailing? That is, is it shown in the database here https://www.sailingresources.org.au/sail-number-database/ Was your sail number issued to you by a Club with a Club Prefix? If not, you might not be looking too good. But I can't see anything in Appendix G about having extraneous signs or symbols on sails. I find the idea that you have to have to have a valid class certificate to be allowed to display a class sail number odd. I think that would have to be in the class rules and the class rules will only apply if the NOR/SI list the class among the classes to race in the event.
  3. Brass

    Room to Tack question

    Rule 20 is a rule of Part 2. The preamble to Part 2 states The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing
  4. Brass

    Room to Tack question

    Case 35 Rule 20.2(c), Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Responding When a boat is hailed for room to tack at an obstruction and replies “You tack,” and the hailing boat is then able to tack and avoid the hailed boat in a seamanlike way, the hailed boat has complied with rule 20.2(c). Case 101 Rule 20.2(c), Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Responding When a boat with right of way is required to give another boat room for a manoeuvre, right of way does not transfer to the boat entitled to room. When, in reply to her call for room to tack when approaching an obstruction, a boat is hailed “You tack”, and when she does so and is then able to tack again to keep clear in a seamanlike way, the other boat has given the room required.
  5. Brass

    armchair Protest Com.

    Damn irony font not working again. Didn't think it was your usual form. Problem of incomplete records, and had crossed my mind, together with possibility of not all offending boats being protested. My view remains that the protest committee absolutely must disqualify all validly protested boats that did not sail the course. Failure to do that, if appealed would be sure to be overturned. Having done that, any redress contemplated should place boats given redress after boats that sailed the course properly.
  6. Brass

    armchair Protest Com.

    You're kidding? 'individual "truth"'? This is a protest committee, not a metaphysical debating society. The job of a protest committee is to decide protests according to the rules, not make up some new rules of its own. There is one rule, rule 28 and it's authoritatively interpreted by Case 129. Validly protested boats that did not sail the course should be disqualified. If it was a local practice to sound a horn for each boat finishing, then the race committee might have misled some competitors. Even so, it might well have been doubtful that boats, in the absence of the sound signal would have recognised and corrected their error. Good fences make good neighbours. The fairest thing is to apply the rules, particualrly once it comes to a protest committee. That's as nice as it gets. How would we think the boats that had their valid protest dismissed , knowing that an Appeal Committee would belt that decision out over left field are feeling? I don't think that's a fair outcome. Some boats sailed the course in compliance with the rules. They deserve to be placed ahead of boats that broke the rules. If it was accepted that boats that did not comply with rule 28 were misled into doing so by an improper action of the race committee, they could be scored, in their finishiing sequence, in places behind the last boat that sailed the correct course.
  7. Brass

    armchair Protest Com.

    No. Theres a clear rule and a clear Case 129. Dont mess with it. Just finsh between the damn mark an the S flag.
  8. Brass

    Rules question

    Nor to me. Don't do it deliberately unless you have no other choice. I don't really know what you mean by 'mark of the course', but I think Case 129 tells us exactly the opposite of what you are saying: After the race committee shortens the course, the windward mark is no longer a rounding mark. It becomes a finishing mark Agree. Read Case 129 and Case 82
  9. Brass

    Rules question

    Sounds like a very complicated solution. You have two rounding marks, about 1/3 and 2/3 way round the course. Why not just shorten at one of the existing rounding marks?
  10. Brass

    Rules question

    When positioning a committee boat at a rounding mark to shorten course the race committee should keep rule 28 in mind. Case 129 tells us that "Rule 32.2(a) permits the race committee to position the vessel displaying flag S at either end of the finishing line" but that to position the race committee vessel on the side opposite the side on which boats would have been required to leave it if the course had not been shortened is poor race management. Doug explained this with his little diagrams. Rule 32 is supposed to be 'fool-proof' so that a boat sailing the [unshortened] course will properly finish at the shorten course finishing line even if she is not aware of the shorten course signal. For completeness, Case 82 deals with the situation where you can't tell which 'side' of the rounding mark the race committee vessel is on.
  11. Brass

    Rules question

    New mark needs to be a rounding mark. So if it's a W-L course, there'd better be a direction change as well as a length change.
  12. Brass

    Falsification of Race Data

    We can all read the rule. In the OP scenario: In what way did the boat not start in accordance with the definition? A boat starts when, her hull having been entirely on the pre-start side of the starting line at or after her starting signal, and having complied with rule 30.1 if it applies, any part of her hull crosses the starting line from the pre-start side of the course side. In what way did the boat not sail the course in accordance with the definition? A boat sails the course provided that a string representing her track from the time she begins to approach the starting line from its prestart side to start until she finishes, when drawn taut, passes each mark of the course for the race on the required side and in the correct order, touches each mark designated in the sailing instructions to be a rounding mark, and passes between the marks of a gate from the direction of the course from the previous mark. In what way did the boat not finish in accordance with the definition A boat finishes when, after starting, any part of her hull crosses the finishing line from the course side. However, she has not finished if after crossing the finishing line she takes a penalty under rule 44.2, corrects an error in sailing the course made at the line, or; continues to sail the course.
  13. Brass

    Falsification of Race Data

    How do you think a boat might break rule 28?
  14. Brass

    Falsification of Race Data

    No you can't do that. You can't morph a request for redress into a protest. A boat shall not be penalised without a protest hearing (rule 63.1). The SI will doubtless say something like 'Boats shall record their finishing times and report them to the race committee'. If you get evidence of a window, from boat in front and boat behind, and the reported time is outside that window, then the reported time is not the boat's finishing time and the boat has failed to comply with the SI. That conclusion is enough to disqualify the boat. You can certainly protest for rule 2, but you will need at least something more, such as evidence of intention that negatives the 'honest mistake guv' defence.
  15. Brass

    they both suck?

    I still can't understand why you disagree that rule 17 and the right of way and room rules are independent of each other. In overlap circumstances where rule 17 applies: A boat can break rule 17 without there being a breach of a right of way rule or rule 15 or 16. A boat can fail to keep clear or give room to keep clear without there being a breach of rule 17. A breach of rule 17 does not compel the windward boat to break rule 11 and does not give rise to exoneration for the windward boat. Certainly the same set of facts may support conclusions of breach or rule 17 and breach of the right of way rules or rule 15 or 16, but the conclusions are separate and independent.
  16. Brass

    they both suck?

    I'll say it again: Right of way and room rules are independent of rule 17. We don't need to know anything about rule 17 to decide the rule 11/16/14 incident shown.
  17. Brass

    they both suck?

    Up until 2008 rule 17.2 obliged a windward boat not to sail below her proper course. That rule was deleted in 2009. More important, rules 11 and 17 operate independently. A leeward boat sailing above her proper course is no excuse for a windward boat not keeping clear.
  18. Brass

    they both suck?

    I'll buy that, so my previous post should be
  19. That would be the issue: whether, somehow or other the handicap shown on the certificate current at the time of the race was not the correct handicap. See my comments on IRC in previous post, but Case 119 specifically relates to American PHRF, so I doubt that the system has retroactive invalidation and adjustment. And it's a protest committee that can grant redress, not a race committee.
  20. I don't believe there is a grey area. The nuance is in what constitutes an error, and this is something you could have argued at a redress hearing if you had applied for redress. Well put. There is only one circumstance when a RC must (rather than 'should') correct errors, that is where 'the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly'. This, of course, raises the 'nuance' of what constitutes 'its own records'. It could well be argued, for example, that a written communication from the rating authority to the RC, placed on file by the RC becomes part of the records of the RC. In any case other than 'own records', whether or not to correct an error is at the discretion of the RC. Note that, as said in a previous post, in the interests of finality, the 2021 rules will provide in new rule 90.3(e) that a final time after which no changes in scores will be made may be prescribed in the NOR, so the thrust of the rules is not towards requiring the RC to correct errors no matter what. OP's description says the 'The jury made me [presumably the RO] aware that RRS 90.3c which says "When a race committee determines from its own records or observation that it has scored a boat incorrectly , it SHALL correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors." That doesn't indicate that the Jury concluded or considered whether there was an error or not: they merely pointed out a rule.
  21. No, a race committee can correct it's error if it has scored a boat incorrectly in any way, not just miscalculation.
  22. Generally speaking, I think a boat's 'rating' is what it says on it's 'rating certificate'. This 'scriveners error' stuff is an arcane area of law, and I'm not at all sure that it applies to 'certificates' which people are expected to rely on at face value. Some rating systems like IRC have mechanisms for retroactively invalidating certificates, and 'correcting' ratings and past results based on corrected ratings. I suspect that PHRF might not have such provisions. Clearly enough, in this case, the PHRF Board made a deliberate (if erroneous) deliberation, which was accurately recorded in the first rating certificate, which was current and valid at the time of the race. The new certificate applied only from its date of issue. There is nothing to stop OP from applying, but there sure is a lot to prevent the request for redress from being valid and being heard. Rule 62.2 requires that requests for redress of this nature shall be delivered as soon as reasonably possible after learning of the reasons for making the request. That would be, at the latest, when the PHRF explained their actions to the OP. Since that time, OP has: brought it to the attention of our Jury, but apparently not by way of a request for redress. read that in 2021 RRS 90.3(e) will be a rule to allow for prescribed changes to be introduced in the NoR, which is not the case now. decided to conduct a discussion on the internet and not read the rule book That's way in excess of 'as soon as reasonably possible after learning'. Any request for redress should be rejected as invalid. Only if there was a valid protest committee decision to appeal from.
  23. Case 119 Rule 62.1(a), Redress Rule A3, Starting Times and Finishing Places When a race is conducted for boats racing under a rating system, the rating that should be used to calculate a boat's corrected time is her rating at the time the race is sailed. Her score should not be changed if later the rating authority, acting on its own volition, changes her rating.
  24. Brass

    Draft Racing Rules 2021-2024 are out

    I think so. that does not add to, delete, or change any part of rule 20 Room to tack at an obstruction.