Katydid

Members
  • Content Count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Suckup

About Katydid

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    LIS
  • Interests
    Photography, Flying

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Katydid

    Thin is in, WOXI scalps Comanche

    Protest was found invalid (RC couldn't protest based on a third party report, apparently), so WOXI keeps her nut dish, but does anyone know what the original cause of the protest was? Edit: Never mind - apparently a failure to maintain AIS reporting was alleged. If they wanted to protest, Black Jack should have done so, instead of reporting to the RC, which may not protest due to a report from an interested party.
  2. Katydid

    This is going a bit far

    Moby's Restaurant, East Hampton Point, Three Mile Harbor, NY 5.5 Metre, Jade - Rig is cut down a bit, but it makes a great leaning bar.
  3. Katydid

    Funny Comments while Racing

    Key West Race Week, many years ago: "OK y'all, everyone put on his full body condom, because we're gonna get well and truly fucked at this mark rounding."
  4. Katydid

    This is going a bit far

    Doesn't have to be hanging overhead to make a good conversation piece. Helps to start with a pretty hull, though.
  5. Katydid

    Rules Question - Shortening the Race

    Agreed. I should have been more precise. Openly disclosed and agreed upon conflicts are permitted on PC panels, and except in regulations governing the conduct of international race officials, not addressed elsewhere. As you have observed before, the rules that are in the rulebook don't govern the conduct of race officials except in very limited ways, and there is no rule that prevents an RC officer from performing with a conflict of interest, apart from the rules which prevent a competitor from taking advantage of such a conflict (chiefly 2, 41, and 69). Conflict of interest is defined, but not specifically prohibited outside the protest process and the WS Regs, as you note, because it is pretty common for local fleets to agree to live with conflicts that serve their interests fairly. For that reason, I'm not sure I agree that the formal conflict in the OP breaks a rule if nobody is advantaged thereby, and if nobody objects, it's irrelevant as a practical matter. I couldn't agree more that it's a terrible idea, for the reasons we have both expressed above, and you may well be right that the radio chatter in the OP contributed to the flaws in the shortening process. I also agree that having a hearing isn't the right way to deal with it - the motivations are likely entirely innocent, and in the absence of an aggrieved party, it's better to simply fix it ASAP, without the recriminations and bad feeling attendant upon a hearing.
  6. Katydid

    Rules Question - Shortening the Race

    Agreed, under the new rules, openly disclosed conflicts are permitted if nobody objects, but it's not great practice, and as soon as the RC not sailing gets up to speed, it should probably be discontinued. Not because the competitor with a conflict is doing anything wrong (he/she is very likely being as impartial as they can), but because it's a potential source of bad feeling. Rule 2 protests (or 69 hearings) should be a last resort, in my view.
  7. Katydid

    Rules Question - Shortening the Race

    Sorry, but this is incorrect. The definition of finish requires that a boat cross "...the finishing line from the course side." Anyone who has done this has met the definition of finish. It is bad (even terrible) practice to shorten the course such that boats must pass an existing rounding mark on a different side, but it breaks no rule to do so, and the boats that cross the line from the course side have still finished (Case 129). Conversely, those boats that round the mark according to the original course and sail through the line after doing so will have crossed the line in the wrong direction to meet the definition of finish (they will not have crossed "...from the course side"), and will therefore not have finished. The only exception to this is when the RC has placed the mark in such a position that it is impossible to tell which side is the course side (for example, when the line is parallel with the course direction, or nearly so). In such an instance competitors are permitted to cross the line in either direction, and they should still be scored in the order in which they crossed, regardless of the direction they crossed in (see Case # 82). This means that a boat which attempts to "hold her line" and round the old mark / new finish pin "inside" other boats will not be rounding a mark of the course, and will get no protection from RRS 18, and if she makes it around the mark without fouling anyone to cross the line headed back toward the course, she won't finish. As Brass and Svanen have pointed out, there are a couple things that may have been improper in the OP, but there is no evidence that any of them caused a material disadvantage to any competitor. In a one design race, even shortening the race after one boat has rounded the mark, while certainly improper, has arguably not made anyone's finishing position worse. If I were sitting on the PC to hear this case, and heard the story as presented in the OP and nothing else, I would likely not find anything on which to hang a decision to change anyone's score (even if we could establish that something improper was done, like improper signaling of the shortened course or shortening after the first boat rounded, the fairest redress to grant for all would probably be to do nothing. Clearly, some conversation with the RC is in order. Having two sources of decisions on the race course is a recipe for trouble, and one of them inherently has a conflict of interest (having a competitor in the race giving advice on how long the race should be is almost a textbook case of the perils of conflicts of interest). Proper signaling of a shortened course is very easy to do and quite flexible, and it's not hard to train a mark boat to establish a shortened course finish line which gets crossed by anyone who properly rounds the mark, and this will avoid confusion. Murphness will get much more result out of having such a conversation (or instigating one in the fleet at large) than out of filing for redress over this finish.
  8. Katydid

    Race Committe Question

    This may seem perversely contrary even for me, but FWIW, despite my arguments to the contrary, I'm inclined to agree. While I'm not sure Brass' example is dispositive (see my reply to him above), and I agree that RYA 1999/8 is a mistake, I think that there could be other examples similar to RYA 1969/12 (thanks for the clarification), in which the RC has done something boneheaded that wasn't due to a conflict or anything unethical, but was still manifestly unfair to someone. Again, I think the RC in that case was more actively boneheaded than in the other possible examples we've discussed (they changed the location of the start area, and then provided a tow that made the boats really late for the start), and there may be some impropriety there that the rules cover, but I concede that that's a bit of a stretch, and it would be better not not have to make it. I would like to see an addition to the IJ Manual (or better yet, a case) that modifies the guidance in K.29.9 to include actions that are "manifestly unfair", as my colleague here in the US has suggested. Meanwhile, if we need to fix something like that as a PC, I suppose we can take refuge in Brass' observation that the IJ Manual isn't a rule or an authoritative interpretation, and hope that an appeal or question can produce a WS Case that will be authoritative in time.
  9. Katydid

    Race Committe Question

    Brass, I hesitated to do this, but I'm afraid I have to re-open our discussion of whether Rule 69 applies to race officials, because I realized something I had completely forgotten when we discussed it last, and I think I have to withdraw my full agreement with you that it does not. It's a bit convoluted, but I'd like to draw your attention to section (b) of the definition of rule, which includes the WS Disciplinary Code as a rule. The WS Disciplinary Code (Reg 35), in turn, says (in relevant part); 35.2 Part A – Obligations concerning Misconduct 35.2.1 In this Code, a “Participant” means any competitor, boat owner, support person, World Sailing committee or commission member, World Sailing Member, World Sailing Officer, World Sailing Race Official, or World Sailing Representative. 35.2.2 In this Code “Misconduct” means a breach of Regulation 35.2.3, 35.2.4 and/or Regulation 35.3.9. 35.2.3 No Participant shall commit misconduct, as defined under RRS 69.1(a). 35.2.4 No World Sailing committee or commission member, World Sailing member, World Sailing officer, World Sailing Race Official or World Sailing Representative shall commit a breach of the World Sailing Constitution or Regulations that is deliberate, repeated or otherwise more than a misjudgement. ... 35.3.9 All Participants must take all reasonable measures to assist Disciplinary Investigating Officers in the collection of evidence. If a Disciplinary Investigating Officer requests the production of evidence from any person that person shall (subject to considerations of legal professional privilege or other legal entitlement) be under an obligation to provide it. Failure to comply with a Disciplinary Investigating Officer’s request shall be regarded as Misconduct. I think this means that while you're right that Rule 69 per se doesn't apply to race officials, Reg 35 does, and it's not just a regulation, it's a rule as defined in the rulebook. What's more, that part of Reg 35 uses the definition of misconduct in 69.1(a) (and I believe, by extension, 69.1b - actually, I think 69.1a is effectively a typo, since there is no definition there) to describe what is prohibited to (WS) race officials. It's true that there is a different mechanism for hearing cases and enforcing the disciplinary code than the hearing conducted by a PC at an event, so I think the thrust of your comments about a misbahaving race official not being subject to a PC's discipline is still true, but it's not true that such a race official hasn't broken a rule as defined in the RRS, and it seems to me that that allows redress to be considered.
  10. Katydid

    Race Committe Question

    Thanks very much, I had a vague memory of that discussion, and was looking for it, but was unsuccessful. Just to prove that no good deed goes unpunished, could you point me to the examples you refer to? I couldn't find them, and it's not that I doubt you, but I'd like to read the examples themselves, as the only ones I could find were errors that broke rules. RYA 1999/8 really surprises me too, and with great respect to the RYA appeals committee, this is a rare example where I think they're wrong, and I'm glad the decision doesn't apply in the US. I sail (and officiate) in an area where having the wind quit is an unremarkable event, and it sometimes shuts off so completely that it doesn't matter that we can shorten, because the fleet won't make it to the shortened finish line either. It sometimes fills in after we abandon, often from a different direction (we often start in a light and fading northerly land breeze, which gets overcome by the convection that drives a southerly sea breeze. The sea breeze sometimes fills in in minutes, but more often takes hours - it's a long-standing joke that we'll have a lovely southerly in time for our second drink ashore). I think it would make for a significant deterrent to racing if we couldn't abandon a race that gives every indication of being a bust, on the long-shot chance that the wind fills in much more quickly that anyone anticipates. It does happen, but it's rare enough that few competitors are excited about the prospect of roasting all day on a windless racecourse to see if it will. I think this is a case where the RC's experience and discretion serves the competitors best, and would be unhappy about having that discretion by a PC. For some reason, I can't find RYA 1969/2, but I'm less troubled by what you describe in that appeal, because it seems to me that the RC which moves a start with inadequate time to get to the new start area has not only acted improperly, but has colorably broken a rule, to wit, the designation of the starting area in the SIs. All of this is pretty far from the original issue of whether raising AP is required for a delay, though. AP absolutely should be raised whenever there is to be a postponement, and it is best practice to display it for any delay, regardless of requirement. It hurts nobody to display it when it isn't required, and contributes to everyone's understanding - that's worth an extra 90 seconds. That said, I respectfully submit that your example of a late starter needing to see AP in order not to start is a bit far-fetched, and if something like that happened and I were PRO, I would hail, blow horns, or do something else to get the boat's attention and enlighten them. I would be comfortable that this would not break rule 41, because nobody is racing yet. I agree that the time between races (within limits) may not be a "delay", and so AP is not required for the time necessary to prepare to run the next race. Again, though, it can't hurt, and the extra minute and a half is worth the time. I'm aware that the use of displaying orange flags as an attention/timing signal is becoming fashionable, and that the use of the "F" flag is migrating over from match racing in some places, but I'm not sure I see the value in providing another way to signal that competitors should pay attention - it sounds like complexity that serves little purpose, when displaying and dropping an AP signal would achieve the same end. I've gone on too long (I know, you're shocked ), but for me, the bottom line is: AP works. It's best to just use it, even if failing to do so isn't "improper".
  11. Katydid

    Race Committe Question

    First, while I am mindful of the difference between an error or bad decision and an improper action or omission, I don't think that an action or omission by a race committee needs to contravene a rule to be improper. I thought that too, and someone on our rules committee has opined that an action or omission determined to be "manifestly unfair" should be improper too, but there is no rule or case I can find that speaks to the matter directly, so please consider this, from the redress section of the IJ Manual (admittedly not a rule, but pretty authoritative, in my view): K.29.9 Improper Action or Omission "An improper action is doing something that is not permitted by the racing rules, notice of race or sailing instructions. An omission is not doing something that is the rules including notice of race or sailing instructions states shall not be done. If a race officer or protest committee or the technical committee does or does not do something over which it has discretion or is not mandatory, even though it may be totally inappropriate and an extremely bad or poor judgement, it is neither an improper action, nor an omission for which redress can be given." I wouldn't be nailing my colours to the mast about the unliklihood of a boat ever being disadvantaged by a failure to display an AP. I wouldn't either, which is why I said I thought redress was "unlikely", not "impossible". That said, it seems to me that in the windsurfing/moth examples you provide, if competitors have been deprived of needed rest, more has happened that is prejudicial than simply not displaying a flag. I think it's noteworthy that for redress to be granted, it's not the delayed warning signal that has to have caused the score to be made worse, it's the "improper" signaling of that delay. The display and removal of AP (on the water) could be done in less than two minutes, and all boats (boards, foilers, etc.) would be disadvantaged equally by failing to do it, so I still think it's likely to fail the "my score was made significantly worse through no fault of my own" test. As to impropriety : I might be looking at the SI: if the (cautious) wording in rule L5.3 is used The scheduled time of the warning signal for the first race each day is ...", then inaccuracy or a reasonable delay in the actual time of the warning signal would not be improper, but if the SI say baldly "The warning signal shall be at ... " I might take a different view. I think that a reasonably brief delay without postponement would not be improper, while a more significant time delay might be. Use of the Orange Flags Up/Down protocol might make a difference to how I might see this (as would the reasons for delay and the level of the event). I might also be looking at the alleged worsening of performance and fault of the boat's own: It might be that while delay alone would not be improper, delay, where it was [readily] foreseeable by the race committee that this would disadvantage some or all boats would be improper. I agree that the wording in the SI template in Appendix L is cautious for a reason, and I actually wrote a little blurb about the difference between when a warning signal is scheduled and when the SIs say it WILL be made, but I deleted it after looking at the impropriety test in the IJ Manual above, because it seems to me that there are any number of changes to the rules that are introduced by the SIs that will change the answer to the question, and to get too deep in those weeds was an unnecessary distraction from the point. However, I agree with your general point. It seems to me that for any request for redress to have a snowball's chance to succeed, the delay must have been substantial, I'm just not convinced that substantial delay will do it without some other pretty unusual circumstance. As to your second observation, again without claiming a successful redress request is impossible, as a general principle I'm not much moved by changes which impact all competitors equally as causes for redress. As TJSoCal says, I think it's a difficult case to make that a change which affects everyone can make one boat's score worse through no fault of her own.
  12. Katydid

    Race Committe Question

    Spent all day watching AP yesterday, and I agree. Anyone harmed (which is highly unlikely) would be almost certain to have contributed to their own problem, hence, no redress...
  13. Katydid

    Race Committe Question

    Displaying AP if the racing will not start at the scheduled time is absolutely the right thing to do, and failing to do it is certainly indicative of sloppy RC work, but I can't find a rule, case, or appeal that explicitly says it's required. RRS 27.3, the definition of postpone, and the description of the use of AP in Race Signals all discuss the process of postponing, but none says explicitly that if a scheduled warning signal time is missed, the RC *must* postpone. I suspect that's because the rule writers are mindful of the slop in people's watch settings, and don't want to waste people's time with hearings about minor variations in timekeeping that affect when the first warning signal is displayed (after that signal, precise timekeeping is definitely required, for obvious reasons, and any deviation will require the display of either AP or N). So, failing to display AP when a warning signal is delayed is terrible practice, but whether it's actually "improper" (breaks a rule) is arguable, in my view. Possibly more to the point, though, is that any attempt to seek redress for such a failure will have to pass the tests for redress; that is to say that in a addition to finding the RC's failure to display AP improper, the PC would have to agree that a boat's score was made significantly worse through no fault of her own (and that granting redress to the boat asking for it will be the fairest solution for all competitors concerned, which is everyone in the race). I'm having a hard time imagining circumstances in which that could be established, so I submit that redress for such a failure is unlikely. Nothing in the rules relieves a boat from her obligation to start in accordance with the starting signals when they are displayed.
  14. Katydid

    Best Race Committee Boats

    Did you knock out the cross pieces in the rod holder so the staff goes all the way through, or will you sight the bottom of the holder? As an alternative to magnetic printer paper, what about making rigid placards with two s-hooks on top, and holes drilled at the bottom. You could hang the top placard from the back of the t-top, and the rest of the marks below the top one.
  15. Katydid

    Finish question

    The boat is definitely a finisher, having met the definition of finish. The RC must score her as having finished, in her finish order place. The only remaining question is whether or not a protest filed against her for breaking Rule 28 will succeed. I submit that it should not succeed. Apart from the "let's all try not to be jerks" reasons mentioned above, I believe she has met all the requirements of Rule 28. I don't think 28.1 is a problem; the only requirement about which I can see any argument is 28.2(a), which says; "A string representing the boat's track from the time she begins to approach the starting line to start until she finishes shall, when drawn taut, (a) pass each mark on the required side and in the correct order,..." If she loops around the finish line before finishing, the string, when taut, will still pass each mark on the required side and in the correct order. The fact that it will also pass the last (finish) marks on the wrong side doesn't break the rule. Consider a boat that rounds the first weather mark twice (for some reason). She is not required to unwind one of her roundings, but may sail on. Same thing with the finish line. She's finished, and has sailed the course correctly (though not as quickly as she might have liked).