interested party

61.1 Informing the Protestee

Recommended Posts

"When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area that she was involved in or saw, she shall hail " Protest" and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity". 

This protest was heard by the PC without the protestee, who did not know he was being protested. When he requested a reopening, the PC says they had covered validity. Both item 6 and the narrative confirm that "Protest" was never hailed. Light air race. Boats were near each other for a while. For the record the other boat never got closer than 6 feet from the mark and crossed with 5 feet to spare. Speed of boats approx 2 knots.

IMG_0240.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they didn't say the word "protest" it should not have been found valid.  One of only two required hails in sailing...

Share this post


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

This protest was heard by the PC without the protestee, who did not know he was being protested. When he requested a reopening, the PC says they had covered validity. Both item 6 and the narrative confirm that "Protest" was never hailed. Light air race. Boats were near each other for a while. For the record the other boat never got closer than 6 feet from the mark and crossed with 5 feet to spare. Speed of boats approx 2 knots.

I don't see any actual confirmation of failure to hail "Protest". While that may seem implicit from item 6 and the narrative, it's possible that the "Protest" hail was expressly confirmed through testimony during the hearing.

Why didn't the boat's representative attend the hearing? When you say the boat being protested did not know it was being protested, are you referring only to Rule 61(a) or also to Rule 63.2?

It's interesting that while you mentioned that "for the record, the other boat never got closer than 6 feet from the mark", but were silent about whether your boat touched the mark or failed to take a One-Turn Penalty. If those allegations were accurate it would be proper for you to accept disqualification, even if the protest lacked validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "the other boat" I meant us" They were 3 boatlengths back when we tacked to port a half boatlenght below the mark, crossed them and tacked back after they rounded. Item 6 says "words used" and their answer was "starboard bearaway". The only words they said to us were " get out of the way" when they were a boatlength away. We did not even nearly hit the mark, and if we had, we would have done a circle or retired whether we were protested or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Svanen,

you probably don't know it but interested party is one of the true stand-up guys in sailing. He knows the rules, he knows what's right, and if he (or anyone else on a boat he was on) did anything protestable, they would take the appropriate penalty, even if no one else saw it.

As to your comment, "I don't see any actual confirmation of failure to hail "protest," I think you actually do. As one of the only valid hails in racing, the fact that they didn't put it in 6a and instead indicated "starboard bareaway(sic)," when that form's whole purpose is to show that you made a valid hail, would make me, on a PC, think twice about the 'validity' of anything else presented in a hearing. I can imagine a PC reading that form, frowning, and asking, "did you ever say 'protest?' and the other boat saying  'oh, yeah! of course we did! Thanks for reminding us!'" Informing the race committee via VHF doesn't meet the requirement of notifying the competitor at the first opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, interested party said:

"When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area that she was involved in or saw, she shall hail " Protest" and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity". 

This protest was heard by the PC without the protestee, who did not know he was being protested. When he requested a reopening, the PC says they had covered validity. Both item 6 and the narrative confirm that "Protest" was never hailed. Light air race. Boats were near each other for a while. For the record the other boat never got closer than 6 feet from the mark and crossed with 5 feet to spare. Speed of boats approx 2 knots.

IMG_0240.jpg

Most club SI state that a notice re protest hearings will be placed on a notice board within a certain time after protest time limit stating time & place the hearing will be. 

It is not the PC's job to chase up errant protestees. Nor is a protestor required to do the same.

 If you were involved in an incident - check the notice board.

If there was no hail "protest" then one probably need not check the notice board.

To be safe, always check the notice board after the time for notices expires and ALWAYS check that any relevant notice has the time posted written on it and a legible signature by whoever posted it.

Share this post


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

Svanen,

you probably don't know it but interested party is one of the true stand-up guys in sailing. He knows the rules, he knows what's right, and if he (or anyone else on a boat he was on) did anything protestable, they would take the appropriate penalty, even if no one else saw it.

As to your comment, "I don't see any actual confirmation of failure to hail "protest," I think you actually do. As one of the only valid hails in racing, the fact that they didn't put it in 6a and instead indicated "starboard bareaway(sic)," when that form's whole purpose is to show that you made a valid hail, would make me, on a PC, think twice about the 'validity' of anything else presented in a hearing. I can imagine a PC reading that form, frowning, and asking, "did you ever say 'protest?' and the other boat saying  'oh, yeah! of course we did! Thanks for reminding us!'" Informing the race committee via VHF doesn't meet the requirement of notifying the competitor at the first opportunity.

frowning, and asking, "did you ever say 'protest?'

Kind of a leading question. Invites the protestor to say  'oh, yeah! of course we did! Thanks for reminding us!'"

Probably better to ask "did you speak to the other boat when the incident happened and what did you say"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Port Phillip Sailor said:

frowning, and asking, "did you ever say 'protest?'

Kind of a leading question. Invites the protestor to say  'oh, yeah! of course we did! Thanks for reminding us!'"

Probably better to ask "did you speak to the other boat when the incident happened and what did you say"?

Port Phillip Sailor, that's exactly my point. Svanen was saying that the form isn't an indicator that Protest wasn't said, but I maintain that the written record of the protest is exactly where it *should* be said, because anything that happens in the hearing as a finding of fact runs the risk of not being properly documented. If the elements of a valid protest aren't on the form, then why should I (as a PC) rule the protest valid?

Anyway, done and dusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must remebber the PC ist theire forre the drickeng and partey to.                                        :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Most club SI state that a notice re protest hearings will be placed on a notice board within a certain time after protest time limit stating time & place the hearing will be. 

It is not the PC's job to chase up errant protestees. Nor is a protestor required to do the same.

 If you were involved in an incident - check the notice board.

If there was no hail "protest" then one probably need not check the notice board.

To be safe, always check the notice board after the time for notices expires and ALWAYS check that any relevant notice has the time posted written on it and a legible signature by whoever posted it.

They the protest committee  should do their due diligence as not all boats go back to the same club. A simple phone call to the skipper works in this modern day and age. Saves time from having to deal with a request to reopen or  the appeal process 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VWAP said:

They the protest committee  should do their due diligence as not all boats go back to the same club. A simple phone call to the skipper works in this modern day and age. Saves time from having to deal with a request to reopen or  the appeal process 

The competitors DO have responsibilities you know. NOTHING in the RRS obligates the PC to chase up protestees who don't care enough to look on the notice board. It's part of the game, but then there are those that don't even read the SIs, then complain that "we didn't know", so it must be someone else's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

The competitors DO have responsibilities you know. NOTHING in the RRS obligates the PC to chase up protestees who don't care enough to look on the notice board. It's part of the game, but then there are those that don't even read the SIs, then complain that "we didn't know". 

"should do their due diligence"

The word must is not there.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VWAP said:

"should do their due diligence"

The word must is not there.

 

and NONE of that is in the RRS. It is NOT a case for the PC to do their "due diligence" (whatever you mean by that)

 Seems like you won't accept that the competitor has responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 wow 

I hope you do not hear protests

8 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

and NONE of that is in the RRS. It is NOT a case for the PC to do their "due diligence" (whatever you mean by that)

 Seems like you won't accept that the competitor has responsibilities.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ryley said:

Port Phillip Sailor, that's exactly my point. Svanen was saying that the form isn't an indicator that Protest wasn't said, but I maintain that the written record of the protest is exactly where it *should* be said, because anything that happens in the hearing as a finding of fact runs the risk of not being properly documented. If the elements of a valid protest aren't on the form, then why should I (as a PC) rule the protest valid?

Anyway, done and dusted.

I've got to strongly disagree with relying on a protest form to determine validity. 

If a protest form says By Hailing Immediately, Words Used Protest, Red Flag Immediately, I might say in the hearing "The protest form indicates that the protesting boat hailed Protest and displayed a red flag immediately at the time of the incident.   Are there any problems with validity?"  If the protestee doesn't object, I would expect the protest committee to consider the protest valid and get on with the hearing.   Otherwise, if there is an objection to validity. I'd signpost that there was an issue, saying something like "We need to take evidence on validity".  To the protesting boat:  "Please describe your actions to inform the protestee after the incident? "

Of course I'm going to avoid leading questions. 

I'm generally going to prefer face to face testimony tested, as necessary by cross questioning in a hearing, to anything written on a protest form.   After all, it's only an administrative form, often completed in some haste and under stress.   It's not as if it was a sworn deposition.

If the OP was notified of the time and place of the hearing in accordance with rule 63.2 and failed to obtain theprotest information and come to the hearing, I have little sympathy.  If you have doubts about validity and don't come to the protest hearing and argue your case, you have little to complain of.

OTOH if OP was NOT notified in accordance with rule 62.2,  it's far from done and dusted.   If OP is dissatisfied with the decision he should firstly obtain the written decision of the protest committee in accordance with rule 65.2,  and if still dissatisfied, appeal in accordancewith rule 70.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

I'm generally going to prefer face to face testimony tested, as necessary by cross questioning in a hearing, to anything written on a protest form.   After all, it's only an administrative form, often completed in some haste and under stress.   It's not as if it was a sworn deposition.

 

I generally make a copy of the protest form use that in the hearing then rewrite the decision etc on the original form so everything is clear and easy to read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, VWAP said:

 wow 

I hope you do not hear protests

 

I have, reluctlently. And I have spent considerable time looking for people all over an island, then when I found them they couldn't be bothered attending the hearing because they were "at dinner" with their phone turned off. That kept several other people & hearings waiting.

So I have no time for people who don't turn up for a hearing then try and lay the blame on the PC as you are doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Brass said:

 

If the OP was notified of the time and place of the hearing in accordance with rule 63.2 and failed to obtain theprotest information and come to the hearing, I have little sympathy.  If you have doubts about validity and don't come to the protest hearing and argue your case, you have little to complain of.

 

I have seen too many times that a club, protest committee get a bad reputation warranted or not for doing "everything it can to not hear the protest or get it over quickly , specifically if it involves one of their club members and everyone on the panel is from the same club. "

 

I see no issue spending a few minutes gathering the parties. In the long run it can save volunteers time from other hearings on the same issue  and not hurt the process 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VWAP said:

I have seen too many times that a club, protest committee get a bad reputation warranted or not for doing "everything it can to not hear the protest or get it over quickly , specifically if it involves one of their club members and everyone on the panel is from the same club. "

 

I see no issue spending a few minutes gathering the parties. In the long run it can save volunteers time and not hurt the process 

 

PC members are not paid. They generally do the job because somebody has to. They should NOT have to run around chasing competitors who are too lazy to accept their responsibilities. They would much rather be at the bar with their mates or crew than chasing people all over the place.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I have reluctlently. And I have spent considerable time looking for people all over an island then when I found them they couldn't be bothered attending the hearing because they were "at dinner" with their phone turned off. That kept several other hearings waiting. So I have no time for people who don't turn up for a hearing then try and lay the blame on the PC as you are doing.

 

You should assign someone  involved in race management to contact them while you do other things such as hearing the other protests if any . A simple phone call or message generally works. Time management is important when hearing multiple protest. There can be mitigating circumstances  that can keep someone from getting to the notice board. 

The goal here is to get the correct decision so racing is fair to all competitors. Sometime protest committees loose sight of this and just want to punish someone. 

Anyway good luck and I suggest you take your anger back over to PA where it appears you spend most of your time 

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

PC members are not paid. They generally do the job because somebody has to. They should NOT have to run around chasing competitors who are too lazy to accept their responsibilities. They would much rather be at the bar with their mates or crew than chasing people all over the place.

 Wow, you missed the whole point.

Best of luck in your future endeavors 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You should assign someone  involved in race management to contact them while you do other things such as hearing the other protests if any . A simple phone call or message generally works. Time management is important when hearing multiple protest. There can be mitigating circumstances  that can keep someone from getting to the notice board. 

The goal here is to get the correct decision so racing is fair to all competitors. Sometime protest committees loose sight of this and just want to punish someone. 

Anyway good luck and I suggest you take your anger back over to PA where it appears you spend most of your time 

 

 

 

 

There could be mitigating circumstances - such as an accident or someone has had to go to hospital.

NOT looking at the notice board, and turning off the phone  because you are at dinner in NOT one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Port Phillip Sailor said:

You are coming across as one of those people who blame anybody else for your fuck-ups.

Insults?

That is all you got left?

No need to respond as I am done with you as you can not have a rational conversation. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VWAP said:

Insults?

That is all you got left?

No need to respond as I am done with you as you can not have a rational conversation. 

I can have a rational conversation - with someone that is rational. You're not.

Again you blame someone else for your shortcomings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brass,

I completely understand your point. And when I said "done and dusted," what I meant was that the OP has made peace the situation.

As usual in these "rules" discussions, the armchair lawyers start to imply facts not in evidence. FWIW this wasn't some beercan event so some of the talk on here is kind of laughable. If the "protested" boat had thought for a second that they'd been protested, then they would have been at the protest hearing. as it was, they found out about the protest when they found they'd been dsq'd in the race.  I think it's interesting that the one thing both boats agree on is that the protesting boat said "starboard bear away," whatever that means. The rest? I guess since none of us were there, it'll just be more hearsay and speculation. That's all I've got. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ryley said:

Brass,

I completely understand your point. And when I said "done and dusted," what I meant was that the OP has made peace the situation.

As usual in these "rules" discussions, the armchair lawyers start to imply facts not in evidence. FWIW this wasn't some beercan event so some of the talk on here is kind of laughable. If the "protested" boat had thought for a second that they'd been protested, then they would have been at the protest hearing. as it was, they found out about the protest when they found they'd been dsq'd in the race.  I think it's interesting that the one thing both boats agree on is that the protesting boat said "starboard bear away," whatever that means. The rest? I guess since none of us were there, it'll just be more hearsay and speculation. That's all I've got. Carry on.

Wasn't there a question of validity in the OP?

"When he requested a reopening, the PC says they had covered validity. Both item 6 and the narrative confirm that "Protest" was never hailed. "

I assume protest invalid so no need to reopen.

Most of my life sailing I was in the habit of checking the Notice board before a race in case of any changes or Notice to competitors. And checking again after a race for protest notices etc. I was taught that very early in my sailing career. To me it is a part of the game - same as entering a race. Or complying with measurements or safety regs. Owner/skipper's responsibility.

I have also come across quite a few people who NEVER do any of that. It's always the RC's fault  if there has been some change that they weren't aware of.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, interested party said:

By "the other boat" I meant “us".

Okay, got it. Sorry, it wasn’t clear from your previous post.

8 hours ago, ryley said:

As to your comment, "I don't see any actual confirmation of failure to hail "protest," I think you actually do. As one of the only valid hails in racing, the fact that they didn't put it in 6a and instead indicated "starboard bareaway(sic)," when that form's whole purpose is to show that you made a valid hail, would make me, on a PC, think twice about the 'validity' of anything else presented in a hearing. I can imagine a PC reading that form, frowning, and asking, "did you ever say 'protest?' and the other boat saying  'oh, yeah! of course we did! Thanks for reminding us!'"

I refer you to Brass’ post, with which I agree.

Life would be a bit simpler if protest committees could draw definitive inferences from missing information in protest forms’ contents; but generally speaking, they can’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the the form verbiage, and lack of a reasonably detailed accounting  of the PC's assessment and rationale  with subsequent DSQ indicate procedural failings of the PC. On the face of it anyway. "Starbaord bear away " ?  LOL,  good one  skip !    wtf.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I have spent considerable time looking for people all over an island, then when I found them they couldn't be bothered attending the hearing because they were "at dinner" with their phone turned off. That kept several other people & hearings waiting.

Case 48 provides a certain amount of support for your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, interested party said:

This protest was heard by the PC without the protestee, who did not know he was being protested.

 

9 hours ago, ryley said:

If the "protested" boat had thought for a second that they'd been protested, then they would have been at the protest hearing. as it was, they found out about the protest when they found they'd been dsq'd in the race.

If these statements are true then the protestee was NOT "notified of the time and place of the hearing" as required by rule 63.2.

Was here a SI 'deeming' a notice posted on the official notice board to be sufficient notification, and if so, was such a notice posted?

Once again, the protestee would be well advised to obtain a written decision from the protest committee as they are entitled to do under rule 65.2.

If that decision doesn't include as a fact found "the protesting boat hailed 'Protest'", (or facts and conclusions that the protestee was informed of the protesting boat's intention to protest by one of the other permissible means shown in rule 61.1( a ), then the protestee should damn well appeal.

 

Thinking about 'deeming' SI, It seems to me that the reasonableness of deeming a notice on a noticeboard to be sufficient notification, is predicated on a protestee being aware of the protesting party's intention to protest, (in accordance with rule 61.1) in order to alert them to check the notice board.

In the case of a "deeming" SI, with no direct communication of the time and place of hearing to the protestee,, where a protest committee initially decided the protest in the absence of the protestee (as provided by rule 63.3( b )), and there was any doubt about compliance with rule 61.1, then, on an approach by the protestee, I would be very much inclined to conclude that the protestee had been unaviodably absent and reopen the hearing in accordance with rule 63.3( b ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about 'deeming' SI, It seems to me that the reasonableness of deeming a notice on a noticeboard to be sufficient notification, is predicated on a protestee being aware of the protesting party's intention to protest, (in accordance with rule 61.1) in order to alert them to check the notice board.

This was my point. It was properly listed on the board, but since the protesting boat never hailed and did not immediately fly a flag, we had no reason to look. I asked for a re-opening to at least discuss validity, but the PCs position was that , since it was properly listed and I did not attend, they would not re-open.

 

Lesson learned. Check the board, even if you have no idea that you might be involved in a protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, interested party said:

Thinking about 'deeming' SI, It seems to me that the reasonableness of deeming a notice on a noticeboard to be sufficient notification, is predicated on a protestee being aware of the protesting party's intention to protest, (in accordance with rule 61.1) in order to alert them to check the notice board.

This was my point. It was properly listed on the board, but since the protesting boat never hailed and did not immediately fly a flag, we had no reason to look. I asked for a re-opening to at least discuss validity, but the PCs position was that , since it was properly listed and I did not attend, they would not re-open.

 

Lesson learned. Check the board, even if you have no idea that you might be involved in a protest.

Was this your club?

Was the other party a member of the club running the regatta?

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, interested party said:

No and no. No collusion. Just a bad experience and a lesson learned.

thanks

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Events like the Heineken (event in OP's question) are more on water parties dressed up to look like real regattas. The rules are relaxed to allow charter boats to participate. These are economic stimulus events for the islands. There's no real YC behind the event and everyone wants to get to the party, including the PRO. 

Tough break. Sucks.

FWIW, I know the OP well and he is a rules expert and honest. If he say's there was no red flag, then there was no red flag. The race committee made assumptions and by the time the feces hit the fan, they were probably flying home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Student_Driver said:

Events like the Heineken (event in OP's question) are more on water parties dressed up to look like real regattas. The rules are relaxed to allow charter boats to participate. These are economic stimulus events for the islands. There's no real YC behind the event and everyone wants to get to the party, including the PRO. 

Tough break. Sucks.

FWIW, I know the OP well and he is a rules expert and honest. If he say's there was no red flag, then there was no red flag. The race committee made assumptions and by the time the feces hit the fan, they were probably flying home.

They could have done it over Skype at a later time if the parties were not available for numerous reasons.

It sounds like they just wanted to get it over with which is not uncommon. 

There are numerous people across the country and elsewhere  I will not sit with due to a similar attitude .

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

They could have done it over Skype at a later time if the parties were not available for numerous reasons.

It sounds like they just wanted to get it over with which is not uncommon. 

There are numerous people across the country and elsewhere  I will not sit with due to a similar attitude .

If lots of people have your views it is no wonder that people don't want to sit on PCs over there. Which means you end up with a lower standard of experience on PCs & who don't want to be there. They are VOLUNTEERS remember.

It is wholly unreasonable for the PC to have to waste time chasing parties to a protest that have not done their "homework" or just expect to be waited upon.

First "snip" is from one of the bigger regattas in Australia. Last one, 16.3,  is from the ISAF Sailing Instructions Guide.

All that said - the OP does not say what was the result of the protest. No mention of disqualification but reference to validity without saying valid or not valid.

 

Notices.JPG

protest time limit.JPG

protest.JPG

from SI guide.JPG

Share this post


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

Did anyone smell alcohol on the PC's  breath?

Ist theire a pub crawlle assossiatted with thisse regattae to?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?? 

If nobody hailed protest, no protest happened.

If the OP wants to have the error corrected he should file an appeal. 

“Decision does not agree with facts found. There was no protest and there was no foul upon which to base a decision to open a hearing. 

“Further, the damaged party may wish to request an investigation and possible hearing based upon the behavior of those who participated in what certainly was a malicious and unsportsmanlike and deceitful hearing process..”

Certainly, if the facts are as described in the OP, a number of individuals need to be removed from participation in our game and / or its administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-03-06 at 10:40 PM, bibs said:

It seems to me that the the form verbiage, and lack of a reasonably detailed accounting  of the PC's assessment and rationale  with subsequent DSQ indicate procedural failings of the PC. On the face of it anyway.

For reasons best known to himself, the OP has not published the written decision on this thread. However, that is no reason to presume that that decision does not include reasonably detailed factual findings and analysis.

On 2018-03-06 at 6:52 PM, Brass said:

If OP is dissatisfied with the decision he should firstly obtain the written decision of the protest committee in accordance with rule 65.2,  and if still dissatisfied, appeal in accordance with rule 70.

Agreed.

This thread should never have been started. Either accept the decision, or appeal it ... but don't whinge about the PC behind its back, that's just weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

...    ...     ...     ...

If nobody hailed protest, no protest happened.

...    ...     ...     ... 

I think this is a rather poor basis for rules enforcement. In the specific case here in this thread, it looks like there really should not have been a protest hearing. However it is easily possible (seen it happen a few times and I bet most of you all have too) for an incident to occur in which the boat being infringed on did not have a chance to hail PROTEST (for example two Lasers running into each other and the R-O-W one capsizing), or the boats seperated so quickly that a hail of PROTEST could easily go unheard.

Then there is the case (which, sadly, I have also seen) where skippers decide they don't have to follow the rules as long as they claim they never heard the hail of PROTEST. I knew one Lightning skipper who actually came in off the course with 4 protests against him in one day, and he never heard ANY of the hails! Remarkably bad hearing, but what are ya gonna do? Well, the very next day, he port-tacked me at the start and I hailed so loudly that Wal-Mart shoppers in the next county heard me...... and he tried to pull the same shit, only to get laughed out of the room.

I think that deciding whether a protest is valid should look at a number of factors, and a prompt hail is only one of them.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think this is a rather poor basis for rules enforcement. In the specific case here in this thread, it looks like there really should not have been a protest hearing. However it is easily possible (seen it happen a few times and I bet most of you all have too) for an incident to occur in which the boat being infringed on did not have a chance to hail PROTEST (for example two Lasers running into each other and the R-O-W one capsizing), or the boats seperated so quickly that a hail of PROTEST could easily go unheard.

Then there is the case (which, sadly, I have also seen) where skippers decide they don't have to follow the rules as long as they claim they never heard the hail of PROTEST. I knew one Lightning skipper who actually came in off the course with 4 protests against him in one day, and he never heard ANY of the hails! Remarkably bad hearing, but what are ya gonna do? Well, the very next day, he port-tacked me at the start and I hailed so loudly that Wal-Mart shoppers in the next county heard me...... and he tried to pull the same shit, only to get laughed out of the room.

I think that deciding whether a protest is valid should look at a number of factors, and a prompt hail is only one of them.

-DSK

Perhaps in the future we should all yell something like "FREE BEER HERE..." Then when the offending boat's crew and skipper turn to look, wave the flag and yell "protest".

Or just throw the beer at them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think this is a rather poor basis for rules enforcement. In the specific case here in this thread, it looks like there really should not have been a protest hearing. .......................

................................

I think that deciding whether a protest is valid should look at a number of factors, and a prompt hail is only one of them.

-DSK

and a red flag (if required).

It is the ONLY way a boat may know to do their turns if they choose to.

No hail, no flag, they don't have the opportunity to exhonerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

and a red flag (if required).

It is the ONLY way a boat may know to do their turns if they choose to.

No hail, no flag, they don't have the opportunity to exhonerate.

Agreed..... BUT ..... which is more important, punishing a boat twice for being infringed against, or punishing a boat that infringed the rules?

Fortunately, it doesn't often come down to this. But as an observer of human nature, the less you do the latter, the more of the former you will end up doing.

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

It is easily possible (seen it happen a few times and I bet most of you all have too) for an incident to occur in which the boat being infringed on did not have a chance to hail PROTEST (for example two Lasers running into each other and the R-O-W one capsizing), or the boats seperated so quickly that a hail of PROTEST could easily go unheard....

In the first scenario (" two Lasers running into each other and the R-O-W one capsizing"), nothing obviously prevents a protest hail be made "at the first reasonable opportunity", unless the sailor was endangered or injured: in which case, Rule 61.1(a)(4) would apply.

Rule 61.1(a)(1) expressly covers the second scenario ("the boats separated so quickly that a hail of PROTEST could easily go unheard"). In that case, the boat intending to protest "need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity".

Quote

Then there is the case (which, sadly, I have also seen) where skippers decide they don't have to follow the rules as long as they claim they never heard the hail of PROTEST. I knew one Lightning skipper who actually came in off the course with 4 protests against him in one day, and he never heard ANY of the hails! Remarkably bad hearing, but what are ya gonna do?

Rule 61.1(a) requires that a protest hail be made. It does not require that the hail be heard by the other boat.

It's quite common in protest hearings for the other boat to say that it did not hear the protest hail. That's understandable, as there is typically a lot going on during and immediately following an incident: failure to hear a hail does not imply bad faith or dishonesty. But if a protesting boat says that it made the hail, in the absence of exceptional circumstances that evidence will be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed..... BUT ..... which is more important, punishing a boat twice for being infringed against, or punishing a boat that infringed the rules?

Fortunately, it doesn't often come down to this. But as an observer of human nature, the less you do the latter, the more of the former you will end up doing.

FB- Doug

NOBODY punishes a boat for being infringed against - let alone TWICE, unless they have infringed.

If the boat supposedly infringed against does not follow the procedure laid down in the RRS they have infringed. But of course there is no penalty for not hailing.

That is beginning to sound like "it's every else's fault but mine".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

NOBODY punishes a boat for being infringed against - let alone TWICE, unless they have infringed.

If the boat supposedly infringed against does not follow the procedure laid down in the RRS they have infringed.

That is beginning to sound like "it's every else's fault but mine".

I'm beginning to think that some of you want to debate the rules without having any racing experience

Part of how the game is played depends on the right-of-way rules. If a port tack boat, for example, forces a starboard tack boat into ducking her stern instead of yielding, the port tacker has made a gain and the starboard tacker has incurred a loss. That one infringement alone -could- decide a race.

In the absence of a VALID protest, no rule has been infringed? Are you comfortable with saying that a boat can AND SHOULD bully her way onto the podium as well as sail there?

This is sort of a broad philosophical issue that I am beginning to seperate from the sport over. More and more, the answer is YES. It didn't use to be this way, the duty of a Protest Committee was to uphold the rules of the sport. Citing a procedural rule so you can ignore the actual working on-the-water rules seems to be the way the sport's governing bodies are going.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm beginning to think that some of you want to debate the rules without having any racing experience

Part of how the game is played depends on the right-of-way rules. If a port tack boat, for example, forces a starboard tack boat into ducking her stern instead of yielding, the port tacker has made a gain and the starboard tacker has incurred a loss. That one infringement alone -could- decide a race.

In the absence of a VALID protest, no rule has been infringed? Are you comfortable with saying that a boat can AND SHOULD bully her way onto the podium as well as sail there?

This is sort of a broad philosophical issue that I am beginning to seperate from the sport over. More and more, the answer is YES. It didn't use to be this way, the duty of a Protest Committee was to uphold the rules of the sport. Citing a procedural rule so you can ignore the actual working on-the-water rules seems to be the way the sport's governing bodies are going.

FB- Doug

I've likely had more racing experience than you. Try 63 years and at a very high level (except Olympics).

In the absence of a VALID protest, no rule has been infringed?  Who wrote that? Only you, and I am NOT "saying that a boat can AND SHOULD bully her way onto the podium as well as sail there?" An invalid protest does not mean nobody infringed. It means the protestor doesn't know the rules well enough.

The reason for the hail is obvious (except to people who have little understanding of the RRS). To give the infringing boat the opportunity to admit their mistake and do the penalty turns.

Maybe you should campaign to have RRS 44 deleted. Then there would be no need for a hail & flag. Except the boat alleged to have infringed will not know they will be possibly protested - which is what this whole thread is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I've likely had more racing experience than you. Try 63 years and at a very high level (except Olympics).

In the absence of a VALID protest, no rule has been infringed?  Who wrote that? Only you, and I am NOT "saying that a boat can AND SHOULD bully her way onto the podium as well as sail there?" An invalid protest does not mean nobody infringed. It means the protestor doesn't know the rules well enough.

The reason for the hail is obvious (except to people who have little understanding of the RRS). To give the infringing boat the opportunity to admit their mistake and do the penalty turns.

Maybe you should campaign to have RRS 44 deleted. Then there would be no need for a hail & flag. Except the boat alleged to have infringed will not know they will be possibly protested - which is what this whole thread is about.

That's possible, I've only been at it for 50 or so years, and rarely go to the biggies any more...... to some extent, not motivated because of experiences with assholes who think the rules are there to make it easy to beat more honest sailors.

I'm asking a question, thought it was fairly clear..... will re-state:

In YOUR opinion, in the absence of a valid protest, has no rule been infringed?

FWIW I agree with you that a boat which may have infringed a rule -should- be informed at the time so they can exonerate themselves, etc etc. That's not my point or close to it.

My point: Is the majority of sailing a self-policing sport? US Sailing seems to be going the way of umpired/judged races for as many events as possible (and that's a funding problem, and creates a gap between "everyday" sailors and the top level who expect to go to national and international championships, but that's going a bit down the rabbit hole of -why- I hold the beliefs that I do).

If sailing is still supposed to be a self-policing sport, is the Protest Comittee, made up of volunteer fellow sailors, supposed to uphold the rules?

Svanen's post #48 covers a bit of this ground..... I agree with much of what he says but it doesn't seem to happen that way very often AND you can't be a stickler for both sets of rules when you have an infringement and no protest.

This perhaps is a level of abstraction above the point of the thread but it's also what a number of posts...... not bad ones either....... are driving at.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's possible, I've only been at it for 50 or so years, and rarely go to the biggies any more...... to some extent, not motivated because of experiences with assholes who think the rules are there to make it easy to beat more honest sailors.

I'm asking a question, thought it was fairly clear..... will re-state:

In YOUR opinion, in the absence of a valid protest, has no rule been infringed?

FWIW I agree with you that a boat which may have infringed a rule -should- be informed at the time so they can exonerate themselves, etc etc. That's not my point or close to it.

My point: Is the majority of sailing a self-policing sport? US Sailing seems to be going the way of umpired/judged races for as many events as possible (and that's a funding problem, and creates a gap between "everyday" sailors and the top level who expect to go to national and international championships, but that's going a bit down the rabbit hole of -why- I hold the beliefs that I do).

If sailing is still supposed to be a self-policing sport, is the Protest Comittee, made up of volunteer fellow sailors, supposed to uphold the rules?

Svanen's post #48 covers a bit of this ground..... I agree with much of what he says but it doesn't seem to happen that way very often AND you can't be a stickler for both sets of rules when you have an infringement and no protest.

This perhaps is a level of abstraction above the point of the thread but it's also what a number of posts...... not bad ones either....... are driving at.

FB- Doug

I answered your question in my previous post.

If sailing is still supposed to be a self-policing sport, is the Protest Comittee, made up of volunteer fellow sailors, supposed to uphold the rules?

Certainly! I wouldn't expect otherwise. And one of those rules is a boat intending to protest MUST HAIL AT THE FIRST REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. (and display the red flag)

Are you suggesting that a PC should ignore selected rules?

ps. I'm not enamored with umpired races, except match & team racing (and I have done a little of that). Too much happening in fleet racing for it to be any more than a nuisance to competitors (except in the area of  RRS 42 - and then with reservations)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I answered your question in my previous post.

If sailing is still supposed to be a self-policing sport, is the Protest Comittee, made up of volunteer fellow sailors, supposed to uphold the rules?

Certainly! I wouldn't expect otherwise. And one of those rules is a boat intending to protest MUST HAIL AT THE FIRST REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. (and display the red flag)

Are you suggesting that a PC should ignore selected rules?

There you go...... when some rules conflict, yes. And the rules I would ignore are the pettifogging procedural rules, not the R-O-W ones which not only determine tactics in racing but keep sailors safe.

As Svanen pointed out, there is little real area where the rules conflict, however a PC which throws out a protest as INVALID because the protesting boat did not hail loudly enough to be heard 5 miles away by the protestee's deaf grandmother, -AND- fly a red flag of exactly the right hue & size within 5.3 seconds of the supposed infraction..... or whatever...... are in fact FAILING to enforce the rules. And to some extent, the sailing organizations themselves encourage this.

Surely you've seen a boat gain a place by ignoring or infringing a right-of-way rule. It happens a lot. Sometimes, in fact I'd say the great majority of times, it's a mistake or misjudgement of speed/distance, and the infringing boat should get a chance to exonerate herself. But whether she does or nt is not the overwhelming determining factor in whether a rule has been infringed IMHO.

FB- Doug

[edit to add] I apologize if some of these last few posts seem a bit rancorous. Just trying to state things briefly and clearly without a lot of waffling. I have really enjoyed learning from a lot of the rules discussions here and appreciate all those who join in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are both (quite properly) in agreement that (i) a protest's validity has nothing to do with whether a rule infringement occurred in the first place, and (ii) a PC is required to uphold the Rules. No real need to further debate those points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

There you go...... when some rules conflict, yes. And the rules I would ignore are the pettifogging procedural rules, not the R-O-W ones which not only determine tactics in racing but keep sailors safe.

As Svanen pointed out, there is little real area where the rules conflict, however a PC which throws out a protest as INVALID because the protesting boat did not hail loudly enough to be heard 5 miles away by the protestee's deaf grandmother, -AND- fly a red flag of exactly the right hue & size within 5.3 seconds of the supposed infraction..... or whatever...... are in fact FAILING to enforce the rules. And to some extent, the sailing organizations themselves encourage this.

If you've never seen a boat gain a place by ignoring or infringing a right-of-way rule, then I don't care how much hi-level racing you claim to have seen. It happens a lot. Sometimes, in fact I'd say the great majority of times, it's a mistake or misjudgement of speed/distance, and the infringing boat should get a chance to exonerate herself. But whether she does or nt is not the overwhelming determining factor in whether a rule has been infringed IMHO.

FB- Doug

BULLSHIT! That's all I can say about that.

You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. Don't!

If a PC finds as fact a boat hailed against evidence to the contrary - that's cheating - by the PC. Do you advocate that? It seems  you do.

ps.I edited my previous post at about the time you posted your last post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
15 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

...    ...     ...     ...

If nobody hailed protest, no protest happened.

...    ...     ...     ... 

I think this is a rather poor basis for rules enforcement.

I think that deciding whether a protest is valid should look at a number of factors, and a prompt hail is only one of them.

I think Gov's little snippet is a pretty good place to start.

We all know that there are exceptions in rule 61.1, and when hearing protests can apply them.

2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

In the absence of a VALID protest, no rule has been infringed? Are you comfortable with saying that

Of course not.  How can the fact and circumstances of breaking a rule depend on whether somebody complains about it?

But, in the absence of a valid protest a protest committee has no business expressing any opinion about whether or not a rule has been broken.

1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Are you suggesting that a PC should ignore selected rules?

There you go...... when some rules conflict, yes. And the rules I would ignore are the pettifogging procedural rules,

All rules are equal.

Procedural rules are there to ensure (as far as possible) basic procedural fairness:  what you would call 'due process'.

1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

If sailing is still supposed to be a self-policing sport, is the Protest Comittee, made up of volunteer fellow sailors, supposed to uphold the rules?

Yes it is.

A protest committee is there to apply the rules:  all the rules.  It has no business picking and choosing (presumably on the basis of the personal morality and preferences of the members) which rules are 'pettifogging' and which aren't.  That's only just a tiny step away from deciding that some rules apply to visiting competitors and don't apply to the home-town boys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I've likely had more racing experience than you. Try 63 years and at a very high level (except Olympics).

Johnny Saint??  You're back!!

3 hours ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Check this. Festival of Sails - Geelong. Probably the biggest regatta in Australia.

Naah.  Johnny would never have said Geelong was any good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brass said:

I think Gov's little snippet is a pretty good place to start.

We all know that there are exceptions in rule 61.1, and when hearing protests can apply them.

Of course not.  How can the fact and circumstances of breaking a rule depend on whether somebody complains about it?

But, in the absence of a valid protest a protest committee has no business expressing any opinion about whether or not a rule has been broken.

All rules are equal.

Procedural rules are there to ensure (as far as possible) basic procedural fairness:  what you would call 'due process'.

Yes it is.

A protest committee is there to apply the rules:  all the rules.  It has no business picking and choosing (presumably on the basis of the personal morality and preferences of the members) which rules are 'pettifogging' and which aren't.  That's only just a tiny step away from deciding that some rules apply to visiting competitors and don't apply to the home-town boys.

.... and most importantly, the content of the RRS apply to Juries, Protest Committees, Race Officers & competitors equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brass said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

If sailing is still supposed to be a self-policing sport, is the Protest Comittee, made up of volunteer fellow sailors, supposed to uphold the rules?

Yes it is.

A protest committee is there to apply the rules:  all the rules.  It has no business picking and choosing (presumably on the basis of the personal morality and preferences of the members) which rules are 'pettifogging' and which aren't.  That's only just a tiny step away from deciding that some rules apply to visiting competitors and don't apply to the home-town boys.

That's well and good to say but you know quite well that PC's occasionally throw out protests on the grounds that they are not valid when there has in fact been an infringement on the course. This may not be the intent of the rule, but that's the way it has worked out in practice.

This means that one rule has been enforced (due process, yes) at the cost of another.

The OP's situation that began this thread is the opposite end of the same stick..... there may or may not have been an infraction, but proceeding with a protest when the alleged infringer was not made aware resulted in a bad process and an almost certainly unfair result.

FB- Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's well and good to say but you know quite well that PC's occasionally throw out protests on the grounds that they are not valid when there has in fact been an infringement on the course. This may not be the intent of the rule, but that's the way it has worked out in practice.

This means that one rule has been enforced (due process, yes) at the cost of another.

The OP's situation that began this thread is the opposite end of the same stick..... there may or may not have been an infraction, but proceeding with a protest when the alleged infringer was not made aware resulted in a bad process and an almost certainly unfair result.

FB- Doug

... and on the admission of the protestee - he fucked up! He did not check the noticeboard as he was required to do. Why? Because he claims there was no hail so he had no need to check the noticeboard - which was a dumb thing to do on his part.

Protests are frequently "thrown out" because they are invalid. NOT because the PC don't want to hear it - BUT because the protestor fucked up!

And the OP did not state the protest was valid or not. Even though it apparently was heard.

Why is it that you Americans expect a PC to run around after you to notify you of a protest? The PC are volunteers - not your employees.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its nonsense like the above that caused me to make a 54" Code flag "B", so that in addition to my stentorian hail, even the most decrepit of our racers will be able to confirm the presence of a protest flag. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Brass said:

 

A protest committee is there to apply the rules:  all the rules.  It has no business picking and choosing (presumably on the basis of the personal morality and preferences of the members) which rules are 'pettifogging' and which aren't.  That's only just a tiny step away from deciding that some rules apply to visiting competitors and don't apply to the home-town boys.

Nothing prohibits a PC from  contacting the parties about a protest hearing much in the same way notices will be on the official board and then they also send them out via email before the deadline.

The time involved is minimal 

This is a new century with new technology. 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Brass said:

Johnny Saint??  You're back!!

Naah.  Johnny would never have said Geelong was any good.

 

Yea when they are looking like a fool and all they got left is proclaiming their vast years of experience. It more or less ends there. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, VWAP said:

Nothing prohibits a PC from  contacting the parties about a protest hearing much in the same way notices will be on the official board and then they also send them out via email before the deadline.

The time involved is minimal 

This is a new century with new technology. 

 

 

 

That requires the recipient to have his phone turned on!

 

Share this post


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

Yea when they are looking like a fool and all they got left is proclaiming their vast years of experience. It more or less ends there. 

I'll put my experience up against your anytime fool. I haven't listed anything.

have you graduated from Optis yet?

Does your mommy still wipe your arse for you?

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VWAP said:

Yea when they are looking like a fool and all they got left is proclaiming their vast years of experience. It more or less ends there. 

So triue, wen I wasa wee snaggy, latte teenes, me an my ballsey frend wentte racing on niew boate.  A fifteyish man trimmeng shute (poorley) my frende grbbed the sheete oute hise hande gotte speedo readeng much highere.  Olde mane reacttes viollentley, chases mu buddey accrosse the deck yelleng 'do you no hoew longue I have beene sailing"  My frende stoppes and face to face calmley states 'That in itselfe dose notte macke you a bettere sailore'.  The guye nevere sailed on the boatr againe, we didente looke backe.          :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I'll put my experience up against your anytime fool. I haven't listed anything.

have you graduated from Optis yet?

Does your mommy still wipe your arse for you?

Why do you sounde so angrey?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snaggletooth said:

So triue, wen I wasa wee snaggy, latte teenes, me an my ballsey frend wentte racing on niew boate.  A fifteyish man trimmeng shute (poorley) my frende grbbed the sheete oute hise hande gotte speedo readeng much highere.  Olde mane reacttes viollentley, chases mu buddey accrosse the deck yelleng 'do you no hoew longue I have beene sailing"  My frende stoppes and face to face calmley states 'That in itselfe dose notte macke you a bettere sailore'.  The guye nevere sailed on the boatr againe, we didente looke backe.          :)

On my,  the old guy was wearing speedos? Sounds about right for this thread 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snaggletooth said:

Why do you sounde so angrey?

He's right, you know. ^^^^

Port Phillip Sailor, IMO you have made some good points. On the other hand, you've rather let yourself down by the violence of your arguments.

Of course this is Sailing Anarchy, not an afternoon tea party; we all know that. But when discussing the Rules, the person who presents a dispassionate perspective backed up with citations to actual Rules and cases generally receives a more sympathetic hearing than one who just calls BS and makes ad hominem arguments. That's how I see it, anyway ... YMMV. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He's right, you know. ^^^^

Port Phillip Sailor, IMO you have made some good points. On the other hand, you've rather let yourself down by the violence of your arguments.

Of course this is Sailing Anarchy, not an afternoon tea party; we all know that. But when discussing the Rules, the person who presents a dispassionate perspective backed up with citations to actual Rules and cases generally receives a more sympathetic hearing than one who just calls BS and makes ad hominem arguments. That's how I see it, anyway ... YMMV. 

 

You haven't read my previous posts then - in particular post 40.

Sometimes when someone does write bullshit one MUST call it as such.

Not angry - just have little or no time to waste on fools such as VWAP.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Svanen said:

He's right, you know. ^^^^

Port Phillip Sailor, IMO you have made some good points. On the other hand, you've rather let yourself down by the violence of your arguments.

Of course this is Sailing Anarchy, not an afternoon tea party; we all know that. But when discussing the Rules, the person who presents a dispassionate perspective backed up with citations to actual Rules and cases generally receives a more sympathetic hearing than one who just calls BS and makes ad hominem arguments. That's how I see it, anyway ... YMMV. 

 

It is sad to see the elders degenerate both mentally and physically. We had and old gentlemen at one of my clubs that was a marginal racer but interesting to talk to.  Unfortunately  at some point he started loosing it and just turned nasty. People at one time gave him rides on their boat while doing some of the simple beer can races but once he turned nasty he was left at the bar until he was not welcome there either. It is sad to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VWAP said:

It is sad to see the elders degenerate both mentally and physically. We had and old gentlemen at one of my clubs that was a marginal racer but interesting to talk to but at the point he started loosing it and just turned nasty. People at one time gave him rides on their boat while doing some of the simple beer can races but once he turned nasty he was left at the bar until he was not welcome there either. It is sad to see. 

Wase he wearreng a speedo to?  I woude tacke a passe messelfe to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Wase he wearreng a speedo to?  I woude tacke a passe messelfe to.

No no speedo, he needed something with pockets. His great grand kids gave him a cell phone that he was real proud of.  He kept it in his  front pocket. Unfortunately he never did figure out how to turn it on so he never received any calls or made any. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I would ignore are the pettifogging procedural rules, not the R-O-W ones which not only determine tactics in racing but keep sailors safe.... 

[A] PC which throws out a protest as INVALID because the protesting boat did not hail loudly enough to be heard 5 miles away by the protestee's deaf grandmother, -AND- fly a red flag of exactly the right hue & size within 5.3 seconds of the supposed infraction..... or whatever...... are in fact FAILING to enforce the rules. And to some extent, the sailing organizations themselves encourage this.

I appreciate your moderate tone and contributions. However, I have to entirely disagree with the above.

It would be entirely wrong for a PC to 'help' a protestor who hasn't properly complied with Rule 61: whether because it suspects - without having yet heard any evidence! - that there may have been a Rules infringement out on the course, or for any other reason.

The validity issue is decided before getting into the 'meat' of the protest: that's required by Rule 63.5. Any PC that winks at a validity problem is acting quite improperly.

1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's well and good to say but you know quite well that PC's occasionally throw out protests on the grounds that they are not valid when there has in fact been an infringement on the course. This may not be the intent of the rule, but that's the way it has worked out in practice.

This means that one rule has been enforced (due process, yes) at the cost of another.

Due process is indeed more important than substantive law. That's why, for example, criminal charges are routinely dismissed against people accused of horrible crimes because the prosecutions were based on tainted evidence, or the statute of limitations has passed. While this is - obviously - not perfect, it beats the 'palm tree justice' alternative.

8281930157_9d91f15ba8_z.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

You haven't read my previous posts then - in particular post 40.

I'm not looking for an argument; as previously noted, I agree with many of your points.

Just wanted to share my perspective that you might want to dial things back a bit ... that's only 'free advice', not worth much. I'm not purporting to be Mr. Policeman here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

.... and most importantly, the content of the RRS apply to Juries, Protest Committees, Race Officers & competitors equally.

That's not a correct general statement.

Various rules apply, variously, to boats, competitors, owners, support persons, organising authorities, race committees, protest committees and Member National Authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I'll put my experience up against your anytime fool. I haven't listed anything.

have you graduated from Optis yet?

Does your mommy still wipe your arse for you?

My my! You certainly are a pompous ass. YUUUUge ego too!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 6:03 AM, Port Phillip Sailor said:

They are VOLUNTEERS remember.

It is wholly unreasonable for the PC to have to waste time chasing parties to a protest that have not done their "homework" or just expect to be waited upon.

Judges, like all race officials, whether volunteer or not, are there to provide fair safe competition for the racers.

I've walked a boat park or two looking for parties to a protest.

The game is not helped by people spouting off like some 1950s shop steward about what Judges will and will not do, nor should Judges expect to sit in their protest room and expect to be waited upon either.

On 3/7/2018 at 11:04 AM, VWAP said:

I see no issue spending a few minutes gathering the parties.

Well, of course a protest committee's time is best spent hearing scheduled protests, for which the parties have turned up on time.

Otherwise protest committees should exert themselves to help competitors make valid protests, and attend hearings.

On 3/7/2018 at 11:13 AM, VWAP said:

You should assign someone  involved in race management to contact them while you do other things such as hearing the other protests if any

A protest committee or jury is hardly in a position to 'assign' tasks to race management staff, but getting the cooperation of a local race manager or administrator who knows [many of] the competitors, to chase up parties is invaluable.  At a large event, the organising authority should provide a jury secretary, with sufficient assistants to perform these tasks.

2 hours ago, VWAP said:

This is a new century with new technology.

On 3/7/2018 at 11:13 AM, VWAP said:

A simple phone call or message generally works.

Yup, sailing really needs to drag itself into the 20th century with this new fangled tele thingy.

But, seriously, the 'post the schedule on the noticeboard, be there or be square' approach worked for regattas where all boats are at the same regatta venue and competitors had to look at the noticeboard to see their results.

For events where boats may not all be at the same venue, and competitors are accessing results and other race information electronically, then, as I've indicated in previous posts, I don't think it's reasonable to expect competitors to have to check the noticeboard just in case they have been invalidly protested.

My practice as a large regatta like this is to telephone parties and negotiate a hearing time, then put that in the notice board schedule.  Next best is text message.

1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

That requires the recipient to have his phone turned on!

Well, you can do things about that:

  1. Get the race officer to tell competitors, at the competitors briefing, to keep their mobile phones on when they come ashore;  and
  2. when receiving protest forms, check and verify that the protest form includes the protesting boat's mobile phone number and tell the boat's representative to keep their phone on.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites