Brass

2017 Rules Rule 69

Recommended Posts

Introduction

Significant changes to Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS) rule 69 Misconduct have been made in the 2017 version as follows:

  • References to ‘gross’ have been deleted, thus making any incidents of misconduct by competitors, boat owners and support persons subject to the rule.
  • The scale of penalties has been expanded to provide lesser penalties for less than ‘gross’ misconduct by allowing the penalty to be change in a boat’s score in one or more races, including disqualification that may or may not be excluded from the boat’s series score
  • Penalties have been ‘downshifted’ so that DNE is no longer automatically reportable to MNA for further action: the reporting threshold is now penalty greater than one DNE or exclusion of a person from the event or venue.
  • Procedures have been amplified to:
  • Allow the appointment of investigators, who shall not be members of the protest committee that will decide the matter, to gather relevant information and report to the protest committee before the protest committee decides whether or not to call a hearing;
  • If the protest committee decides to call a hearing, allow the appointment of a person, should not be a member of the protest committee hearing the matter, to present the allegation at the hearing;
  • Entitle a person against whom an allegation has been made to have an advisor and a representative with him who may act on his behalf at a hearing.

Guidance for protest committees dealing with rule 69 has been provided in Appendix M Recommendations for Protest Committees

Protest committees are expected to decide not to hold a rule 69 hearing when the allegation does not warrant such action.

World Sailing Submissions for Change with rules text as finally approved

Submission 201-15

Rule 69, Appendices M & N

A submission from the Chairmen of the Constitution Committee, Race Officials Committee and Racing Rules Committee

Purpose or Objective

To update RRS 69 to remedy shortcomings based on experience since the current version was introduced, and in response to the undertaking to CAS to review the processes.

The rule should be updated to achieve the following:

(i) remove the concept of “Gross” misconduct as distinct to misconduct from this rule;

(ii) to reintroduce a rule of misconduct by supporters, coaches and similar;

(iii) to maintain the concept of increasing penalties determined by the severity of the misconduct;

(iv) to establish a higher threshold before the decision of a protest committee should be notified to a national authority or ISAF; and

(v) to remove from the rule the procedures to be followed by ISAF, which will be set out in a new or amended Regulation generally.

To improve the guidance to protest committees acting under rule 69.

To update RRS Appendix N (International Juries) in line with the new RRS 69 and to improve the guidance for the conduct of hearings. 229

Proposal 1

Delete rule 69 and replace as follows:

SECTION C

MISCONDUCT

69 MISCONDUCT

69.1 Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution

(a) A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.

( b ) Misconduct is:

(1) conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or

(2) conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.

© An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.


69.2 Action by a Protest Committee

(a) A protest committee acting under this rule shall have at least three members.

( b ) When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, believes a person may have broken rule 69.1(a), it shall decide whether or not to call a hearing.

© When the protest committee needs more information to make the decision to call a hearing, it shall consider appointing a person or persons to conduct an investigation. These investigators shall not be members of the protest committee that will decide the matter.

(d) When an investigator is appointed, all relevant information he gathers, favourable or unfavourable, shall be disclosed to the protest committee, and if the protest committee decides to call a hearing, to the parties.

(e) If the protest committee decides to call a hearing, it shall promptly inform the person in writing of the alleged breach and of the time and place of the hearing and follow the procedures in rules 63.2, 63.3(a), 63.4 and 63.6 except that:

(1) unless a person has been appointed by World Sailing, a person may be appointed by the protest committee to present the allegation.

(2) a person against whom an allegation has been made under this rule shall be entitled to have an advisor and a representative with him who may act on his behalf.

(f) If the person is unable to attend the hearing and

(1) provides good reason, the protest committee shall reschedule it; or

(2) does not provide good reason and does not come to it, the protest committee may conduct it without the person present.

(g) The standard of proof to be applied is the test of the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. However, if the standard of proof in this rule conflicts with the laws of a country, the national authority may, with the approval of World Sailing, change it with a prescription to this rule.

(h) When the protest committee decides that a competitor or boat owner has broken rule 69.1(a), it may take one or more of the following actions

(1) issue a warning;

(2) change their boat’s score in one or more races, including disqualification(s) that may or may not be excluded from her series score;

(3) exclude the person from the event or venue or remove any privileges or benefits; and

(4) take any other action within its jurisdiction as provided by the rules.

(i) When the protest committee decides that a support person has broken rule 69.1(a), rule 64.4 applies.

(j) If the protest committee

(1) imposes a penalty greater than one DNE;

(2) excludes the person from the event or venue; or

(3) in any other case if it considers it appropriate,

it shall report its findings, including the facts found, its conclusions and decision to the national authority of the person or, for specific international events listed in the World Sailing Regulations, to World Sailing. If the protest committee has acted under rule 69.2(f)(2), the report shall also include that fact and the reasons for it.

(k) If the protest committee decides not to conduct the hearing without the person present, or if the protest committee has left the event and a report alleging a breach of rule 69.1(a) is received, the race committee or organizing authority may appoint the same or a new protest committee to proceed under this rule. If it is impractical for the protest committee to conduct a hearing, it shall collect all available information and, if the allegation seems justified, make a report to the national authority of the person or, for specific international events listed in the World Sailing Regulations, to World Sailing.


69.3 Action by a National Authority and World Sailing

The disciplinary powers, procedures and responsibilities of national authorities and World Sailing that apply are specified in World Sailing Regulation 35, Disciplinary Code. National authorities and World Sailing may impose further penalties, including suspension of eligibility, under that regulation.

This submission, prepared by the Rule 69 Working Party, requires the submission 202-15 to add a definition of support person and new rule 3 to be approved.

A consequential submission regarding RRS 60 will be made separately.

Current Position

See current rule 69.

Reasons

1. The behaviour of coaches and parents has been the cause of considerable problems. The Rule 69 Working Party was tasked to resolve this. Changes in concept were presented in November 2014. This submission achieved that aim while taking into account views expressed last November and the current rule 69 does not provide means to handle these problems.

2. There has been considerable difficulty in determining what is and is not “gross” in the context of misconduct. Misconduct is misconduct, and if it is minor or severe the penalty will reflect that.

3. A general definition of misconduct is helpful in the RRS as there are many different views around the world as to what constitutes misconduct.

4. A Case has also been prepared and is submitted as submission 272-15. Depending on this proposal, the Case will require editing.

5. As the procedures for Rule 69 hearings are different from those of other hearings they should be clearly set out, both for the help of the committee and to avoid procedural error.

6. It should also be clear that when a protest committee appoints one of its members or any other person to act as the presenter of any case against a competitor, that individual has the same rights as a party to a protest.

7. It should be clear as to when a protest committees report should be forwarded to ISAF or MNA

8. It should also be clear what happens if either a competitor cannot attend a hearing or if the report prompting a hearing is only received after the event.

9. The proposed revised RRS 69 increases the threshold for reporting a breach of RRS 69 to ISAF or MNA to avoid reporting minor penalties. The grounds for this change are to avoid discouraging protest committees from taking action and to avoid MNAs/ISAF needing to handle inappropriate cases.

10. These changes were supported in principle by Council in November 2014.

Proposal 2

Amend rule M5 as follows:

M5 MISCONDUCT (rule 69)

M5.1 An action under this rule is not a protest, but the protest committee gives its allegations in writing to the competitor before the hearing. The hearing is conducted under rules similar to those governing a protest hearing but the protest committee must have at least three members (rule 69.2(a)). Use the greatest care to protect the competitor’s rights.

M5.2 A competitor or a boat cannot protest under rule 69, but the protest form of a competitor who tries to do so may be accepted as a report to the protest committee, which can then decide whether or not to call a hearing.

M5.3 Unless World Sailing has appointed a person for the role, the protest committee may appoint a person to present the allegation. This person might be a race official, the person making the allegation or other appropriate person. When no reasonable alternative person is available, a person who was appointed as a member of the protest committee may present the allegation.

M5.4 When it is desirable to call a hearing under rule 69 as a result of a Part 2 incident, it is important to hear any boat-vs.-boat protest in the normal way, deciding which boat, if any, broke which rule, before proceeding against the competitor under rule 69.

M5.5 Although action under rule 69 is taken against a competitor, boat owner or support person, and not a boat, a boat may also be penalized (rules 69.2(h)(2) and 64.4).

M5.6 When a protest committee upholds a rule 69 allegation it will need to consider if it is appropriate to report to either a national authority or World Sailing. Guidance on when to report may be found in the World Sailing Case Book. When the protest committee does make a report it may recommend whether or not further action should be taken.

M5.7 Unless the right of appeal is denied in accordance with rule 70.5, a party to a rule 69 hearing may appeal the decision of the protest committee.

M5.8 Further guidance for protest committees about misconduct may be found on the World Sailing website.

Reasons

1. These changes to Appendix M will help protest committees to conduct rule 69 matters in an appropriate manner and will also give any person subject to action under rule 69 confidence that the matter will be managed in an appropriate manner.

2. Following these guidelines will reduce the risk of procedural criticism should the case be appealed.

3. While this submission has been prepared by the Rule 69 Working Party to be consistent with the proposed changes to rule 69, Proposal 2 is a separate proposal as it is not dependent on Proposal 1 being approved. There is nothing in the current rule 69 that prohibit these procedural clarifications, except that reporting to national authorities or ISAF is different.

Proposal 3
1. To move rule N3.2 to N1.6 and renumber N1.6 and N1.7 appropriately.

2. Add new rule N4:

N4 MISCONDUCT (Rule 69)

N4 MISCONDUCT (Rule 69)

N4.1 World Sailing Regulation 35, Disciplinary Code, contains procedures that apply to specific international events with regard to the appointment of a person to conduct any investigation. These procedures override any conflicting provision of this appendix.

N4.2 A person shall be responsible for presenting to the hearing panel any allegations of misconduct under rule 69. This person shall not be a member of the hearing panel but may be a member of the jury. Such a person shall be required to make full disclosure of all material that may come into his possession in the course of his investigation to the person subject to allegations of a breach of rule 69.

N4.3 Prior to a hearing, the hearing panel, to the extent practically possible, shall not act as an investigator of any allegations made under rule 69. However, during the hearing the panel shall be entitled to ask any investigative questions it may see fit.

N4.4 If the panel decides to call a hearing, all material disclosed to the panel in order for them to make that decision must be disclosed to the person subject to the allegations before the hearing begins.

Reasons

1. Placing the current rule N3.2 into N1.6 brings all of the rules governing the requirements for constituting an international jury into one section.

2. An international jury conducting a hearing under rule 69 is subject to more stringent procedures than a non-international jury as an international jury decision is not subject to appeal. The more stringent procedures introduce a greater segregation of duties.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more significant to the 2017 RRS is the removal of the word "gross" breach of manners from RRS 69. Now, a PC is obliged to act on a simple "breach of manners". The judging and umpiring community is already anticipating a large increase in RRS 69 protests over issues and actions that were previously under the radar. Buckle up and get your popcorn.

 

While the level of misconduct caught by rule 69 is no longer 'gross', and lesser penalties for other than gross misconduct have been introduced, nobody can protest anybody for a breach of rule 69, and the specific purpose of the provision in rule 69.2( b ) to decide whether or not to call a hearing, is to enable a protest committee to decline to hold a hearing where it is not warranted. See Submission 206-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One mans Misconduct is another mans fun night out. Bringing the sport into disrupt? This forum is fucked then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

69.1 Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution

 

(a) A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.

( b ) Misconduct is:

(1) conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or

 

 

In today's society where "good manners" seems all but extinct - how is this interpreted? It not only seems very subjective, but could over almost anything. Is it bad manners to shout at another boat if they are being fuckwits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it bad manners to shout at another boat if they are being fuckwits?

Absolutely, yes. Is it in the land of rule 69? I don't think so.

 

Striking out "gross" is not a good move. Special snowflakes may see it as a route to escalate life's minor conflicts and frustrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Jeff. If I were to yell at bent sailo'rs boat 'you are a cock sucker' then I could hardly be charged with anything. This is hypothetical of course. surly yelling out facts is fine and of course Bent doesn't sail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is it bad manners to shout at another boat if they are being fuckwits?

Absolutely, yes. Is it in the land of rule 69? I don't think so.

 

Striking out "gross" is not a good move. Special snowflakes may see it as a route to escalate life's minor conflicts and frustrations.

There's a whole bunch of IJ/IU's that think they are the morality police for the sport.

 

Like say a bunch of Aussies come to the US, go to some event in an uptight place like Snootport, and start calling everyone cunts.

 

Yeah, that's going to go over real well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's society where "good manners" seems all but extinct - how is this interpreted? It not only seems very subjective, but could over almost anything. Is it bad manners to shout at another boat if they are being fuckwits?

 

 

Absolutely its subjective. What's acceptable in an 18ft Skiff race may not be acceptable in another fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about famous sailors jumping on another boat and punching a competitor?

 

Does Famous give you a way out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about famous sailors jumping on another boat and punching a competitor?

 

Does Famous give you a way out?

Yes, clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no. All of this *(*&^)$ rubbsh is now ok. It falls into the definition of customary activity.

 

If you have always been swearing at your competitors, then by the priniciple of customary law, you can continue to do so. In fact, the rule gives the shouters a tool to totally tool the tools in the morality squad who think it is their obligation to impose their view of behaviour on your customary activity. Of course, their customary activity is being total carrot in the anus types. So everyone gets to behave like idiots in the sport. Its all good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt this will effect sailors at all. It seems more the intention was to have a way to punish support boats who in the past have pretty much been able to disregard PROs request for distance and speed from the race courses. Although rule 2 really probably should have been used more in terms of competitors calling each other cock suckers and what not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seroiousness, what, besides jumping into another boat and assaulting a skipper ( which did not get a penalty iirc) is worthy of a rule 69 hearing? Any actual experience? It's been threatened at one of my clubs for simply uttering "fuck" on the race course, in the proximity of another boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seroiousness, what, besides jumping into another boat and assaulting a skipper ( which did not get a penalty iirc) is worthy of a rule 69 hearing? Any actual experience? It's been threatened at one of my clubs for simply uttering "fuck" on the race course, in the proximity of another boat.

The Ben Ainsley case really shouldn't be factored into the discussion, pro atheletes have always gotten to play by a different set of rules, it's why charging the mound is a fine and minor suspension at most in the majors versus being banned from competition in your adult softball league.

 

There are probably many 69 worthy incidents every year but at the end of the day it's a self governing sport think about how hard your buddy would have to fuck up for you to ban him from sailing. It's not like most other organized sports where there is a neutral third party ref that the governing body gives power to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, Ben A. picked up two DNEs for his detour into the media boat - it was only because he groveled to the Powers that Be that he didn't get worse.

 

I was on the PC for a 69 hearing where the person in question sent a letter regarding a competitor to the competitor's employer (USCG) complaining about his lack of sportsmanship and then lied about the contents of the letter to the PC.

 

We ended up giving the person a warning - the club gave them a 6 month suspension.

 

It was not pretty - and everyone had lawyered up. Not fun.

 

Rule 69 is serious business.

 

You want to read ridiculousness - try the Paul Coady decision - all 59 pages of it. http://www.sailing.org/raceofficials/eventorganizers/disciplinary.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, hobie, that what I was wondering about. It gets kicked around as though swearing will get you thrown out. Fortunately I've never run into a real case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HobieAnarchy

 

Reckon your 69 guy also broke 3, going to the other guy's boss could easily be construed as a 'tribunal'

 

BA should never have had to grovel to avoid a greater sanction for an incident that was ultimately caused by badly written SI's and the organisers considering the needs of the media to be greater than the needs of the competitors - very much akin to allowing an ESPN cameraman to have a little trolley running along Usain Bolt in the 100m final.

 

I disagree that pros should be dealt with any differently - the rules are the same for us all - and equally SI's should not be written - certainly in OPEN events - as the Finn Gold Cup is - with the anyone but the competitors in mind.

 

FYI - redress was not allowed if media boats interfered with competitors as I understand it which was the whole point of the incident - BA was impeded and had NO protection with the SI's or the organisers so he took it on himself.

 

As reported at the time the media boat driver admitted he was at fault and at least part of the cause of the incident.

 

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, Ben A. picked up two DNEs for his detour into the media boat - it was only because he groveled to the Powers that Be that he didn't get worse.

 

I was on the PC for a 69 hearing where the person in question sent a letter regarding a competitor to the competitor's employer (USCG) complaining about his lack of sportsmanship and then lied about the contents of the letter to the PC.

 

We ended up giving the person a warning - the club gave them a 6 month suspension.

 

It was not pretty - and everyone had lawyered up. Not fun.

 

Rule 69 is serious business.

 

You want to read ridiculousness - try the Paul Coady decision - all 59 pages of it. http://www.sailing.org/raceofficials/eventorganizers/disciplinary.php

And of course Ainslie's brother in law being Jerome Pels, who was then ISAF Secretary General, might have had just a bit to do with his lack of further punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is it bad manners to shout at another boat if they are being fuckwits?

Absolutely, yes. Is it in the land of rule 69? I don't think so.

 

Striking out "gross" is not a good move. Special snowflakes may see it as a route to escalate life's minor conflicts and frustrations.

 

 

That was sorta where I was going with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check the link for some of the BA backstory

 

http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/ben-Ainslie-disqualified-after-ugly-encounter-with-media-boat-at-perth-2011

 

With regard to bad language, there is a big difference between a general expletive like 'f****** hell, what are you doing' and a more direct 'F*** you' and there is a real danger though in it being deliberately misquoted when in the room. Also when used big boy to big boy it is perhaps considered less serious than when against a female sailor or minor.

 

Also cultural differences also need to be considered and sailors need to be aware of these. I remember a story a Chinese friend told me of when he was on the phone in a queue in a Los Angeles bank. A number of times he said the dreaded "N-Word". The lady in front of him was an African American and when his call was finished she turned on him angrily. In Chinese Nigga -Nigga is kind of like we English speakers saying "erm" or "you know" when we are thinking of what to say next. Happy to say they both ended up apologising profusely to each other for the misunderstanding.

 

Bad language against an official, however, is NEVER excusable and this is NOT unique to sailing, For example such expletives aimed at a referee in rugby is an instant red card, I believe, and rightly so.

 

I have two instances where, when umpiring, we have been told to 'go forth and multiply' (I say we because always 2 x umps in the boat). In the first this was done repeatedly and the end result was a DNE. In the second (match racing) the 'swearer' - who as an Olympian should have known better - did his turns and once ashore, when shown why he was flagged was extremely conciliatory and apologetic. Perhaps he should also have suffered further sanctions but he had lost the match anyway and to quote a recent US President "justice had been served".

 

I do agree with HobieAnarchy however that 69 IS a serious business and should not be taken lightly.

 

Just some thoughts

 

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about in da wimins racin...' "lets 69 bitches?" or "I'll 69 you if you keep being naughty!" or "fuck this lets just 69 already"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bad language against an official, however, is NEVER excusable and this is NOT unique to sailing, For example such expletives aimed at a referee in rugby is an instant red card, I believe, and rightly so.

 

I have two instances where, when umpiring, we have been told to 'go forth and multiply' (I say we because always 2 x umps in the boat). In the first this was done repeatedly and the end result was a DNE. In the second (match racing) the 'swearer' - who as an Olympian should have known better - did his turns and once ashore, when shown why he was flagged was extremely conciliatory and apologetic. Perhaps he should also have suffered further sanctions but he had lost the match anyway and to quote a recent US President "justice had been served".

 

I do agree with HobieAnarchy however that 69 IS a serious business and should not be taken lightly.

 

Just some thoughts

 

SS

Yep, I learned first hand once while match racing. We got flagged once for what was obviously a foul by the other boat. I stood up and said "that's BULLSHIT!!!" Out popped the 2nd flag. I knew I was out of that match so I shut my mouth.

 

I took the umpire aside after and politely said WTF? He said he screwed up and just raised the wrong color flag. But that you can't curse at the judges. Fair enough. I apologized and bought him a beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/01/2017 at 2:41 PM, Hobie Anarchy said:

FYI, Ben A. picked up two DNEs for his detour into the media boat - it was only because he groveled to the Powers that Be that he didn't get worse.

 

I was on the PC for a 69 hearing where the person in question sent a letter regarding a competitor to the competitor's employer (USCG) complaining about his lack of sportsmanship and then lied about the contents of the letter to the PC.

 

We ended up giving the person a warning - the club gave them a 6 month suspension.

 

It was not pretty - and everyone had lawyered up. Not fun.

 

Rule 69 is serious business.

 

You want to read ridiculousness - try the Paul Coady decision - all 59 pages of it. http://www.sailing.org/raceofficials/eventorganizers/disciplinary.php

That 59 page decision has been taken down, and I for one would like to be able to read it.

Did anyone download it?

I understand that there is a decision in the offing and I have to say that Paul Coady and his daughter Steph will get a better deal in the Federal Court they ever would, or did, from the people who are in charge of our sport.

Its about time some of the dills running (down) this sport found out about human rights ie Human rights tops silly little local rules.

But with participation at all time lows I guess they are not really interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this happened a few weeks ago.

 

Boat A and B are in different divisions. Boat A is racing a one design with 9 boats and in start sequence, prep flag up. Boat B is PHRF boat similar hull speed, not in start sequence.  Both A and B are sailing on starboard paralleling start line 1 boat length below start line,  boat B is  leeward and bow out with overlap, less than 1 boat length below Boat A, with about 3m45s to Boat A start.  Wind is 6knots with 2 knots of current pushing boats toward start line.

Boat A asks Boat B to clear starting area at 3m45s, no response. Both sail towards pin for another 55s. Boat A again asks Boat B to clear line as Boat A maneuvers are impeded by boat B. Boat B now responds claiming that they are attempting to keep clear. Boat A responds "quit mucking about and get off the line". Boat B threatens protest for language and to rule 69 protest.  

 

Boat B is helmed by a  IJ. Boat A is a weekend warrior crowd. If this went to the room, what happens?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say no rule 69, since B was not racing.  Even though Boat A's language was probably more colorful than indicated and going around cussing people out would not be the type of Image World Sailing wants to promote.

but could A protest B  under rule 24.1    Technically A was racing per the definition...

 

Now if boat B was filled with a family out for a sail and they got swept into the starting mix and panicked....and A goes apeshit on them,  then maybe you have a reason for a sit down..

Get a drunk sailor at the end of the first day sailing at the after dinner party and he tries to mount up with the  commodores daughter on the dance floor, whats to stop them from doing a rule 69 violation then.  We are not racing,  but its not really great conduct to promote the sport...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marcjsmith said:

I'd say no rule 69, since B was not racing.  Even though Boat A's language was probably more colorful than indicated and going around cussing people out would not be the type of Image World Sailing wants to promote.

but could A protest B  under rule 24.1    Technically A was racing per the definition...

 

Now if boat B was filled with a family out for a sail and they got swept into the starting mix and panicked....and A goes apeshit on them,  then maybe you have a reason for a sit down..

Get a drunk sailor at the end of the first day sailing at the after dinner party and he tries to mount up with the  commodores daughter on the dance floor, whats to stop them from doing a rule 69 violation then.  We are not racing,  but its not really great conduct to promote the sport...

 

None of this amounts to rule 69 territory - except maybe an IJ trying to bully a weekend warrior - but even that would be a stretch.

 

That B was not formally racing at the time doesn't put her in the clear - rule 24.1

 

24 INTERFERING WITH ANOTHER BOAT
24.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misconduct - 69ing the owner's daughter/mistress.

Gross misconduct - 69ing the owner's wife. 

 

Striking the word "gross" from rule 69 does not bode well for anyone but owners. Oppression by the 1%!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christian said:

None of this amounts to rule 69 territory - except maybe an IJ trying to bully a weekend warrior - but even that would be a stretch.

 

That B was not formally racing at the time doesn't put her in the clear - rule 24.1

 

24 INTERFERING WITH ANOTHER BOAT
24.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

I agree that B broke 24.1 I would then add that an IJ should know better and that the resistance to get clear in spite of the various hails, and the subsequent protest against Boat A is bullying and a breach of R 69 So I would not penalize A and would penalize B. (serves them right for bringing the protest )

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First order of business - a boat cannot protest under rule 69.  Only a protest committee may call a hearing under rule 69.  An IJ should know this.  And shame on him if he doesn't.

In this instance, Boat B breaks RRS 24, then RRS 2 by intentionally breaking 24. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, olaf hart said:

How are skiffies going to sort out who has right of way if they can’t use profanities?

Aussie judges are mostly cunts anyway, they just don’t liked to be called that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one way.  Know how your boat works, and your mates' boats.

Pity the only audio is the ratchet block!

skip to 20 secs, for the impatient.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happens when the Protest Committee decide to investigate, appoint an investigator then all resign before deciding if a hearing should be held?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lydia said:

So what happens when the Protest Committee decide to investigate, appoint an investigator then all resign before deciding if a hearing should be held?

Rule 69.1 (k)

If the protest committee decides not to conduct the hearing without the person present, or if the protest committee has left the event and a report alleging a breach of rule 69.1(a) is received, the race committee or organizing authority may appoint the same or a new protest committee to proceed under this rule. If it is impractical for the protest committee to conduct a hearing, it shall collect all available information and, if the allegation seems justified, make a report to the national authority of the person or, for specific international events listed in the World Sailing Regulations, to World Sailing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe rule 69.9 should read "Anyone who tries to call Rule 69 on another competitor shall be subjected to repeated kicks to the nuts at the regatta party."

All of you Rule 69 whiners need to STFU and/or find a different sport. 

Here is a good rule of thumb for you Rule 69 dumbfucks: 

Would the same actions if committed on shore result in the person being arrested by the police?

If YES - MAYBE Rule 69 worthy.  If NO - fuck off and grow a pair you pansy.

MS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mr. Squirrel said:

I believe rule 69.9 should read "Anyone who tries to call Rule 69 on another competitor shall be subjected to repeated kicks to the nuts at the regatta party."

All of you Rule 69 whiners need to STFU and/or find a different sport. 

Here is a good rule of thumb for you Rule 69 dumbfucks: 

Would the same actions if committed on shore result in the person being arrested by the police?

If YES - MAYBE Rule 69 worthy.  If NO - fuck off and grow a pair you pansy.

MS

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17 November 2017 at 2:57 PM, Brass said:

Good point, but there are differences to some important points that I would make:

1/ boats weren't sailing parallel (until in close proximity), the windward boat was footing to the mark.  

2/ there were prior calls for room earlier and the boats were very close for the wind and sea conditions (witness capsized boat earlier in footage as an indication of relative difficulty). (How close is too close? Leeward boat need only slip on the tiller one inch and it would cause a damaging collision, as boatspeed would be ~10 knots and they turn very fast)

3/ If boats weren't sailing parallel in the video, they may have crashed: ie the video can never show intent.  It would be nearly impossible to determine who changed course, as 12's change course constantly.

4/ Does it actually breach rule 2 fair sailing?  Uncleating the jib seems a fair punishment for someone coming down on you... they know whats up as do we.. don't need to wait for crew to be injured. 

Am interested in some feedback

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben,

you're not interested in feedback, you're interested in justifying why it's ok to do what happened in the video. seems to me that if the 12ers want to play that way, that's cool, but reaching out to touch a competitor's boat for any reason besides fending off seems to break a rule in any other class. The guys in the video seemed to take it in stride, though, and the purple chute's set was better anyway. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 9:16 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

 

In today's society where "good manners" seems all but extinct - how is this interpreted?

Who decides what the deciders decide? 

 

On 1/20/2017 at 6:40 AM, sunseeker said:

 

Like say a bunch of Aussies come to the US, go to some event in an uptight place like Snootport, and start calling everyone cunts.

 

How about some Brits come over to the Redneck Regatta and say "Lets go have a fag"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2017 at 6:12 AM, Ben G said:

Good point, but there are differences to some important points that I would make:

1/ boats weren't sailing parallel (until in close proximity), the windward boat was footing to the mark.  

2/ there were prior calls for room earlier and the boats were very close for the wind and sea conditions (witness capsized boat earlier in footage as an indication of relative difficulty). (How close is too close? Leeward boat need only slip on the tiller one inch and it would cause a damaging collision, as boatspeed would be ~10 knots and they turn very fast)

3/ If boats weren't sailing parallel in the video, they may have crashed: ie the video can never show intent.  It would be nearly impossible to determine who changed course, as 12's change course constantly.

4/ Does it actually breach rule 2 fair sailing?  Uncleating the jib seems a fair punishment for someone coming down on you... they know whats up as do we.. don't need to wait for crew to be injured. 

Am interested in some feedback

 

Are you fucking serious????  I hope the crew on W beat the living shit out of the crew on L once back on shore for uncleating their jib.  WTF????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course it breaks RRS2. 

If it came to a hearing windward might cop DSQ for not keeping clear and Leeward DNE. But if the culture in the fleet *and* the race in question *and* the people involved meant that no-one was greatly aggrieved so be it. I don't believe either boat is *required* to protest. But the danger of a culture growing up in a fleet that has a sort of private rules interpretation  is that it results in a major *****storm if you sail somewhere else or people from elsewhere come in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Are you fucking serious????  I hope the crew on W beat the living shit out of the crew on L once back on shore for uncleating their jib.  WTF????

I thought it was hilarious.   Instead of protesting W for a clear breach of rule 11, and requiring their mates on  W to make 2 turns in a 12 skiff, they applied ahem an "alternate penalty" .  

See case 741 (IBWBSF), If I can unclear your jib, you are NOT keeping clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

I thought it was hilarious.   Instead of protesting W for a clear breach of rule 11, and requiring their mates on  W to make 2 turns in a 12 skiff, they applied ahem an "alternate penalty" .  

See case 741 (IBWBSF), If I can unclear your jib, you are NOT keeping clear. 

you should probably go read case 73. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a problem with RRS 73. Not with the principle that reaching out and touching a boat to cause a foul is not fair sailing, but with the fact found that windward was keeping clear. The separation between Leeward's crew and Windward must be under 18 inches, and given trapeze boat speeds I find it impossible to believe that Leeward could changed course to windward without immediate contact.To my mind Windward should not have been reinstated and a better result would be: W DSQ for RRS 11 before L's crew reached out,  L DNE for the contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 10:29 AM, Christian said:

None of this amounts to rule 69 territory - except maybe an IJ trying to bully a weekend warrior - but even that would be a stretch.

 

That B was not formally racing at the time doesn't put her in the clear - rule 24.1

 

24 INTERFERING WITH ANOTHER BOAT
24.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

If the A had yelled "protest" and then quoted the rule, and the IJ driver of B had decided that he had indeed violated the rule and wanted to clear the penalty, what would he do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wet Spreaders said:

If the A had yelled "protest" and then quoted the rule, and the IJ driver of B had decided that he had indeed violated the rule and wanted to clear the penalty, what would he do?

She can't 'clear the penalty'.

Rule 44 only applies to incidents that occur while racing.

44.1 Taking a Penalty
A boat may take a Two-Turns Penalty when she may have broken one or more rules of Part 2 in an incident while racing. She may take a One-Turn Penalty when she may have broken rule 31....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/10/2017 at 2:21 AM, Irish River said:

So this happened a few weeks ago.

 

Boat A and B are in different divisions. Boat A is racing a one design with 9 boats and in start sequence, prep flag up. Boat B is PHRF boat similar hull speed, not in start sequence.  Both A and B are sailing on starboard paralleling start line 1 boat length below start line,  boat B is  leeward and bow out with overlap, less than 1 boat length below Boat A, with about 3m45s to Boat A start.  Wind is 6knots with 2 knots of current pushing boats toward start line.

Boat A asks Boat B to clear starting area at 3m45s, no response. Both sail towards pin for another 55s. Boat A again asks Boat B to clear line as Boat A maneuvers are impeded by boat B. Boat B now responds claiming that they are attempting to keep clear. Boat A responds "quit mucking about and get off the line". Boat B threatens protest for language and to rule 69 protest.  

 

Boat B is helmed by a  IJ. Boat A is a weekend warrior crowd. If this went to the room, what happens?  

IJ's don't sail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 9:21 AM, Irish River said:

So this happened a few weeks ago.

Boat A and B are in different divisions. Boat A is racing a one design with 9 boats and in start sequence, prep flag up. Boat B is PHRF boat similar hull speed, not in start sequence.  Both A and B are sailing on starboard paralleling start line 1 boat length below start line,  boat B is  leeward and bow out with overlap, less than 1 boat length below Boat A, with about 3m45s to Boat A start.  Wind is 6knots with 2 knots of current pushing boats toward start line.

Boat A asks Boat B to clear starting area at 3m45s, no response. Both sail towards pin for another 55s. Boat A again asks Boat B to clear line as Boat A maneuvers are impeded by boat B. Boat B now responds claiming that they are attempting to keep clear. Boat A responds "quit mucking about and get off the line". Boat B threatens protest for language and to rule 69 protest.  

Boat B is helmed by a  IJ. Boat A is a weekend warrior crowd. If this went to the room, what happens?  

Happened to me.  A local race week.  35' boats.  A bit of a dust up at the boat end.  The IJ was guest-driving the weather boat, and we just about closed the door and made them shoot a narrow gap with no speed.  No contact.  I let them in, but luffed them after we passed the RC and left them dead in the water.  They protested on the basis that they were too closely overlapped with the RC boat and could not assume their "proper course".  All of the following is true:

The IJ wore his "US Sailing Judge" shirt to the hearing.  

The IJ declared he had flown a red "flag" which he had left on the boat.  My crew testified it was a red bandana.  A PC member pulled out his own red bandana and asked if it was similar and stated to the rest of the PC that that's what he always used, so OK.

The IJ declared he had flown the flag "in a timely manner".  My crew testified it was 2-3 minutes after the incident, after crew scrambled below to find someone's bandana.  PC ruled that 2-3 minutes was OK near the starting line.

The IJ declared he had notified us by hail.  My crew testified that the words used were "This is for you" when the the bandana was flown.  PC ruled that it was clear they meant "Protest", so OK.

Protest ruled valid. 

We were tossed for failing to give adequate room, causing a potentially "dangerous situation".  Lost the regatta to the IJ's boat.

Never go to the room. 

Hear that Mark Richards?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 4:14 AM, Meat Wad said:

Who decides what the deciders decide? 

 

How about some Brits come over to the Redneck Regatta and say "Lets go have a fag"

Suppose some Americans come over to Oz and say they're rooting for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Secret Experiment said:

Suppose some Americans come over to Oz and say they're rooting for us?

True story: Aussie in university in US leans over to a girl during class and asks "have you got a rubber?"  #triggered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

IJ's don't sail.

Lol   sometimes I wonder if they ever did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Secret Experiment said:

Suppose some Americans come over to Oz and say they're rooting for us?

OK, I got an Aussie friend and he has some great slang.
Aussie Slang, http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#R

4 hours ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

True story: Aussie in university in US leans over to a girl during class and asks "have you got a rubber?"  #triggered

Given the context I know what the bloke meant, but most american girls upon hearing the accent and question would just say, "who needs a rubber".....fucking american sluts love an accent. When I was making sails we had some NZ guys come though. Fricking american sluts would drop to their knees or spread like mayo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2017 at 12:56 PM, ryley said:

Ben,

you're not interested in feedback, you're interested in justifying why it's ok to do what happened in the video. seems to me that if the 12ers want to play that way, that's cool, but reaching out to touch a competitor's boat for any reason besides fending off seems to break a rule in any other class. The guys in the video seemed to take it in stride, though, and the purple chute's set was better anyway. ;) 

 

On 1/1/2018 at 9:33 PM, JimC said:

Well of course it breaks RRS2. 

If it came to a hearing windward might cop DSQ for not keeping clear and Leeward DNE. But if the culture in the fleet *and* the race in question *and* the people involved meant that no-one was greatly aggrieved so be it. I don't believe either boat is *required* to protest. But the danger of a culture growing up in a fleet that has a sort of private rules interpretation  is that it results in a major *****storm if you sail somewhere else or people from elsewhere come in.

 

On 1/2/2018 at 12:38 AM, EYESAILOR said:

I thought it was hilarious.   Instead of protesting W for a clear breach of rule 11, and requiring their mates on  W to make 2 turns in a 12 skiff, they applied ahem an "alternate penalty" .  

See case 741 (IBWBSF), If I can unclear your jib, you are NOT keeping clear. 

 

22 hours ago, JimC said:

I do have a problem with RRS 73. Not with the principle that reaching out and touching a boat to cause a foul is not fair sailing, but with the fact found that windward was keeping clear. The separation between Leeward's crew and Windward must be under 18 inches, and given trapeze boat speeds I find it impossible to believe that Leeward could changed course to windward without immediate contact.To my mind Windward should not have been reinstated and a better result would be: W DSQ for RRS 11 before L's crew reached out,  L DNE for the contact.

Thanks for the replies -

For context it was during some sprint race and start training, iirc no points no RC, definitely no PC.  From start to windward mark only a few hundred metres.  I don't think either boat would risk the scenario in a major race.  And yes the purple chute went up far too fast!

Feel it was definitely different to case 73, so I'd agree W DSQ and L DNE, just all round bad behaviour! 

Is there an established method of what defines 'keeping clear?  It actually takes a fair bit of skill to steer accurately enough at those quarters. Don't want to slowly squish my crew..

I suppose the right thing to do is to bear off (ie sail parallel with them), and raise a flag so they can practice their turns ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ben G said:

Is there an established method of what defines 'keeping clear?  It actually takes a fair bit of skill to steer accurately enough at those quarters. Don't want to slowly squish my crew..

It's in the Rules -> Definitions

Keep Clear

A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat
(a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and,
(b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact.

As to the vid you've posted.. Being a judge myself, I actually had a good laugh. That doesn't mean that I'd support such actions (as a judge ;) ) Did I also see a smile on W crew's face in that video?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Irish River said:

Lol   sometimes I wonder if they ever did. 

Of the 4 IJ's I have know well, 3 of them couldn't  sail for shit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 3 I know, one was a decent skipper, the another is so old he maybe sailed in last century, and one sold his one design boat in a 9 boat fleet and bought a similar style and size sport boat for beating up on PHRF guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now