Rot_at_RBYC

The world needs more 69, snowflake time

Recommended Posts

There are too many dicks in our sport who think they are untouchable.  Despite what that guy who made the front page may be whining about, more of them need to be brought to account, not less.

Recently, during the "Junior gold cup", a member at RBYC went on an extended drunken and profanity-laden rant directed at a junior sailor who had come up to the patio to get a glass of water and committed the heinous crime of having bare feet.  This was not in the club itself, merely at the outside bar; not that being inside would somehow justify the vitriol directed at a kid sailing an Opti who was a guest at the club at the time.  To review: more f-bombs than a Tarantino movie, directed at a kid (the future of the sport - ya know, that thing we're always whining about), for not wearing shoes, outside, in a spot that's 5 feet from where wearing no shoes would be no problem. 

This member's past antics include unleashing a tirade at an invitational race week guest so insane that the guest's reaction was "fuck this, I'm out" and he abandoned the regatta and flew back to England.  The visitor's transgression was to pull his Etchells into the wrong slip after a day's racing, he was supposed to be one over. 

There is far, far more of course, but we don't have all day.  The individual in question is perhaps 50.  Somebody that should know better, not some pickled old bar fixture who was actually there when the Star was designed and will be dead in a couple years anyway. This latest offense is believed to be the the first time he's ever faced any consequences - a couple months ban from the club premises and "probation" for a bit after that.  So harsh... poor thing!  No, fucker should be gone.  The individual in questions has, or rather had, some "special" connections to the club, which is perhaps why he's been untouchable until now. 

A large portion of the sailing world needs to just calm down.  We're playing with very expensive toys that could very easily hurt or possibly kill someone in the wrong circumstances.  We all know a guy who has, or has threatened to, put the wheel/tiller over to "teach that fucker a lesson".  Or watched some mid-packer knowingly invent rules, shouting and foaming at the mouth to intimidate a newbie boat back into their proper place.  Or maybe seen the guy that had a crappy day out in some race/series of absolutely no consequence aggressively using the rules to dig himself out of DFL to finish DFL-1, when coming in 2nd last would have been that new perpetually DFL boat's highlight of the season. Or boats with some pretty questionable optimizations.  Or, you get the idea. 

People get to run around without consequence, alienating others and leading to many of them walking away and thinking "I have way better things to do than deal with this bullshit.  Seems fun, but the people are crazy and I've already got enough drama".  This is what things like 69 are for (well, maybe not my 3rd example).  Instead, everyone gets worried about "the consequences of that sort of thing" and we end up with assholes chasing off the future, be it kids or newbies, simply because they can and that's how assholes work.

Oddly enough, those whining about the snowflakes are often snowflakier than the alleged flakes, which is always amusing.

Posting anonymously because the island is small and retribution is always a consideration.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think anyone is defending the dbag that curses out a kid period or a guest who made a mistake.

there are two extremes here.

1- this dbag you mention

2- someone letting a “what the fuck, head up jackass” after the 3rd hail on a crowded start line and moving on like nothing happened.

No one is condoning cursing at newbies or being an outright jackass. However, if I hail you to head up 3 times and you’re about to drive me down into another boat, you’re damn right I’m going to get your attention how best I see fit. I’m not going to hold it against you and once we’re back at the docks, you’re welcome to my beer. See you on the starting line tomorrow...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrug - 69 is overly broad and really local clubs don't need the 69 to expel people going on drunken tirades and discourteous behavior. 

Share this post


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

Shrug - 69 is overly broad and really local clubs don't need the 69 to expel people going on drunken tirades and discourteous behavior. 

Quite.  If a member misbehaves at your club, why on earth would you want to involve World Sailing and the Member National Authority? 

Rule 69 is a whole lot of work and I doubt that banning the member from Olympic competition will have much impact.  However the club can ban him from the premises and/or from racing in club organized events.

Heck, any club anywhere can deny Scooter entry before he even does anything. If you have to wait for enough evidence to constitute a Rule 69 hearing then the damage has probably already been done. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1. In the end we all get what we give! Remember, 69 works both ways!

Share this post


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

Quite.  If a member misbehaves at your club, why on earth would you want to involve World Sailing and the Member National Authority? 

Rule 69 is a whole lot of work and I doubt that banning the member from Olympic competition will have much impact.  However the club can ban him from the premises and/or from racing in club organized events.

Heck, any club anywhere can deny Scooter entry before he even does anything. If you have to wait for enough evidence to constitute a Rule 69 hearing then the damage has probably already been done. ;)

 

And the same aggressive compensating personality who relies on connections to the club to stick around - sorry to say the club is destined for decline if the members put up with that sort of nonsense. 69 isn't going to fix that.

Share this post


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

Oddly enough, those whining about the snowflakes are often snowflakier than the alleged flakes, which is always amusing.

Posting anonymously because the island is small and retribution is always a consideration.

These two lines more or less negate the previous reasonable ones... If you are going to take an anonymous cheap shot, you're stating the value of your opinion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I thought this thread was going to be about something very different. 

#disappointed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think R69 is appropriate for the guy at the bar.  Yes, he should be tossed (permanently), but most clubs by-laws should have the  method. As far as the perennial DFLer,  coming in 2nd to last can be a major accomplishment.  It's what keeps them coming back week after week, start chasing them off and the starting lines will get even lonelier.

I've lived at both ends of the fleet and I'm sure I've been somebodies asshat more than once over the years.  But since I also give back to the sport and chair several regattas per year nobody says anything to me because they know that next week I might be the one watching the line. 

Bottom line I don't think anyone should use R69 as a weapon when something doesn't go their way.  And the saddest case I've seen was used by a skipper who is also a coach for the local college and high school sailing teams.  And we wonder where snowflakes come from.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

These two lines more or less negate the previous reasonable ones... If you are going to take an anonymous cheap shot, you're stating the value of your opinion. 

 

Makes sense to me!

Share this post


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

I don't think R69 is appropriate for the guy at the bar.  Yes, he should be tossed (permanently), but most clubs by-laws should have the  method.

69 is not only not appropriate for the guy at the bar, but unless he's competing (or supporting a competitor) in a regatta being run under the racing rules, it doesn't apply. If he isn't tossed, he should at least be thoroughly chastised for his behavior, and made to promise not to do it again, but WS has no standing in the matter until he accepts the authority of the RRS, which most of us don't do explicitly until we enter a race or regatta (caveat: I hope he's not an international race official, but if he is, he's bound by codes of conduct applicable to those folks, which apply all the time).

As captnjoe said, that sort of case is a matter for club by-laws and hierarchies to deal with, and they should (in fact, it sounds like they did, though they appear to have been slow about it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the two egregiously bad examples of personal behavior didn't happen on the race course,  it's hard to wave the red book at them,  however - boy,  you sure want to not be associated with anyone that would act in such a manner. 

Too bad your club allowed this member to stain their reputation for so long.  I know I've been embarrassed to share membership with a couple real gems at my club over the years though.

We once had a club officer get frustrated with the course assigned (and to be fair, it was the 3rd long course on a light-air day) and flipped the bird at the R/C.

We banned him from the race course for a year.     Nobody abuses the volunteers.

Screaming at a kid ?      Best if that sort of thing was just quickly sorted out with a beat-down actually (by the kid's mom, because only a complete fucking pussy would do a thing that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its okay to discuss Rule 69 in general but to give front page space and forum attention to the specific OP's rant gives more credit to the incident than it deserves.

RBYC is a great club that blends a uniquely informal, welcoming and friendly atmosphere with a very classy and historic location. They get the balance between the tradition of a YC and the informality of a sailing club more right than most. Many of us have finished Bermuda races there. Ive raced a world championship there. They are incredibly friendly hosts and nobody should leave this mortal coil without experiencing the "loudmouth" or the "RBYC" cocktail served by the inestimable barman.

The former commodore is a regular poster on SA and can mix it up with anyone here.

They may or may not have an incident. They dealt with it privately as they saw fit. They certainly didn't use rule 69. 

Who knows why the OP chose to post it online rather than express his opinions to the club?   If asked who is likely to judge the best outcome after an incident that may or may not have involved alcohol.....the SA audience.....or the club members themselves and their officers?  I'm going with the club.   It certainly isnt WS.

Back on topic.....I certainly think rule 69 has its uses but not this.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CaptnJoe and Katydid are correct that R69 should only apply to misconduct by a competitor that is connected with his (rarely her) participation in a regatta. Of course, that can include social gatherings that are also part of an event. Otherwise, it is up to a club to control the conduct of members and guests on its premises or at its events, as the RBYC example demonstrates. A member of a local club received a one-year suspension from the club after calling another member a "cock-sucking mother fucker" during a verbal altercation in the club's dining area when other members were present, and members have been permanently excluded or thrown out of other clubs around here in recent years for other kinds of misconduct.

Published decisions of R69 decisions can be found on the World Sailing website for those interested enough to investigate the kinds of misconduct that can lead to penalties. There are also some decisions on the CAAS website for situations where a PC or OA over-reacted. One decision from the WS website that I particularly remember involved a German woman who cold-cocked another (female) competitor in the bar during an event. She was kicked out of sailing for a year, as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are a number of issues with 69, not least the lack of understanding when it should or shouldn't be used. I agree in a non racing related incident should not be applied because it is not applicable.

I have seen it, or shades of it wrongly used. For example a Rule 2 (I know that's a step down) and DSQ applied because a racer on starboard told an idiot crossing the race course on port to fuck off after repeated requests for the port tacker to give way.

On the other side of the equation a racer and well known rule pusher poking his finger in the shoulder of a female competitor while in the bar after racing and calling her "too fucking aggressive" almost reducing her to tears. Ironically video evidence of the incident on Facebook showed HE was clearly the one pushing his luck. If he was unhappy and had any balls he should have taken her to the room. Mark you he would have lost but bullies tend to take that sort of route.

I think there are two distinct problems with Rule 69. The first one is obvious and that it now can cover almost anything and almost anyone can raise a complaint against a sailor. A good example is the Scallywag non-event video that by the time it hit the internet had some key elements edited out (so much for a RAW video. Someone 6,000 miles away didn't like it so they complained. David Witt and the team owner forked out around USD50,000 to prove there was no case to answer.

The other problem is protest committees at club level don't fully understand the procedure and/or ramifications involved in a Rule 69 hearing. I know one case here in Asia where someone was protested under Rule 69 and the PC subsequently didn't follow through with it as they should. So one can either say that the sailor in question got away with it or, and this is perhaps even worse that same sailor didn't get the opportunity to clear his name and some people still call him a cheat when nothing was even properly followed up, never mind proven.

Rule 69 is, currently, a bloody big gun and people need to know how to use it, if at all.

Anyway, just sayin'

SS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that a "complaint" under R69 is not a "protest," it is a "report," and it is then up to the PC to decide what to do, if anything. In many instances, it is immediately obvious that no penalty would apply to the alleged misconduct, in which case many juries will contact the competitor and take action to caution the miscreant in order to avoid any repetition. Right now, the favored approach in the US seems to be to appoint a member of the jury to investigate the claim, talk to everyone involved, and determine if witnesses will be available to testify about what happened. If they will not, the whole issue may die. However, the cautionary effect of a hearing cannot be overstated, even if it does not result in any penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Great Red Shark said:

As the two egregiously bad examples of personal behavior didn't happen on the race course,  it's hard to wave the red book at them,  however - boy,  you sure want to not be associated with anyone that would act in such a manner. 

Too bad your club allowed this member to stain their reputation for so long.  I know I've been embarrassed to share membership with a couple real gems at my club over the years though.

We once had a club officer get frustrated with the course assigned (and to be fair, it was the 3rd long course on a light-air day) and flipped the bird at the R/C.

We banned him from the race course for a year.     Nobody abuses the volunteers.

Screaming at a kid ?      Best if that sort of thing was just quickly sorted out with a beat-down actually (by the kid's mom, because only a complete fucking pussy would do a thing that).

How a lot of Americans might feel, at this point, with the "Boy Who Cries Wolf" in DC.

Share this post


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

Remember that a "complaint" under R69 is not a "protest," it is a "report," and it is then up to the PC to decide what to do, if anything. In many instances, it is immediately obvious that no penalty would apply to the alleged misconduct, in which case many juries will contact the competitor and take action to caution the miscreant in order to avoid any repetition. Right now, the favored approach in the US seems to be to appoint a member of the jury to investigate the claim, talk to everyone involved, and determine if witnesses will be available to testify about what happened. If they will not, the whole issue may die. However, the cautionary effect of a hearing cannot be overstated, even if it does not result in any penalties.

You are right equivocaror, that is what the rule book says should be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with assholes is what I call the 'Asshole rule' 

As soon as you do something bad, immediately start blaming everyone else. 

The guy that went ballistic on the kid probably responded with "Why are you mad at me, I'm just enforcing the rules!"

The guy who barges the RC while intimidating the noob below is emboldened because it worked... "Don't blame me if you don't know the rules"

 

And yes, (delving into PA), the prime model of this is the pussy grabbing enabler-in-chief, who' likes to hurl insults, but has never once apologized for anything. 

 

And those people never learn, even if given punishment - they either move on, or redouble their assholeness. 

Rule 69 doesn't work on them.  A baseball bat might. 

 

Share this post


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

I don't think R69 is appropriate for the guy at the bar.  Yes, he should be tossed (permanently), but most clubs by-laws should have the  method. As far as the perennial DFLer,  coming in 2nd to last can be a major accomplishment.  It's what keeps them coming back week after week, start chasing them off and the starting lines will get even lonelier.

I've lived at both ends of the fleet and I'm sure I've been somebodies asshat more than once over the years.  But since I also give back to the sport and chair several regattas per year nobody says anything to me because they know that next week I might be the one watching the line. 

Bottom line I don't think anyone should use R69 as a weapon when something doesn't go their way.  And the saddest case I've seen was used by a skipper who is also a coach for the local college and high school sailing teams.  And we wonder where snowflakes come from.

 

 

 

He is an unfortunate byproduct of our club membership. Wish he’d go back to IH...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

He is an unfortunate byproduct of our club membership. Wish he’d go back to IH...

There you go...You sail "4" beer or with beer...? Swill makes a diff, so do ladies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something about sailing that naturally attracts dickheads.  I don't know why that is but as soon as you put sails on a boat the dickheads start coming out of the woodwork.  I dunno what that says about me but I hang out on SA because there seems to be a lack of dickheads here.  Maybe the dickheads can't handle the disorder?

Anyway, I sailed in a regatta 2 weeks ago and the people I sailed with were enough to make me not want to sail in a regatta again.  Lots of awesome people at the club but by the time the Sunday dinner came around I had to get the hell out of there.  I ate dinner quickly and headed for the door.  The amount of gossip was absolutely astounding.

Come to think of it, there may be a parallel in golf.... maybe it has something to do with having lots of money and belonging to a private, exclusive club that makes people feel superior.  All I know is that I'm getting to the point where I want to sail for fun and with friends and avoid the YCs.

Share this post


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

There's something about sailing that naturally attracts dickheads.  I don't know why that is but as soon as you put sails on a boat the dickheads start coming out of the woodwork.  I dunno what that says about me but I hang out on SA because there seems to be a lack of dickheads here.  Maybe the dickheads can't handle the disorder?

Anyway, I sailed in a regatta 2 weeks ago and the people I sailed with were enough to make me not want to sail in a regatta again.  Lots of awesome people at the club but by the time the Sunday dinner came around I had to get the hell out of there.  I ate dinner quickly and headed for the door.  The amount of gossip was absolutely astounding.

Come to think of it, there may be a parallel in golf.... maybe it has something to do with having lots of money and belonging to a private, exclusive club that makes people feel superior.  All I know is that I'm getting to the point where I want to sail for fun and with friends and avoid the YCs.

I know exactly what you mean...just like a CC. Same crappola, different venue...for fun, that is the way to swill. +1. I did it and was too young to care...now it is all gone...'cept me and jug! Screw it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a 69 issue. Look to your club's bylaws.  If they don't cover this, change the bylaws.  Then enforce the bylaws. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There are too many dicks in our sport who think they are untouchable.  Despite what that guy who made the front page may be whining about, more of them need to be brought to account, not less.

Recently, during the "Junior gold cup", a member at RBYC went on an extended drunken and profanity-laden rant directed at a junior sailor who had come up to the patio to get a glass of water and committed the heinous crime of having bare feet.  This was not in the club itself, merely at the outside bar; not that being inside would somehow justify the vitriol directed at a kid sailing an Opti who was a guest at the club at the time.  To review: more f-bombs than a Tarantino movie, directed at a kid (the future of the sport - ya know, that thing we're always whining about), for not wearing shoes, outside, in a spot that's 5 feet from where wearing no shoes would be no problem. 

This member's past antics include unleashing a tirade at an invitational race week guest so insane that the guest's reaction was "fuck this, I'm out" and he abandoned the regatta and flew back to England.  The visitor's transgression was to pull his Etchells into the wrong slip after a day's racing, he was supposed to be one over. 

There is far, far more of course, but we don't have all day.  The individual in question is perhaps 50.  Somebody that should know better, not some pickled old bar fixture who was actually there when the Star was designed and will be dead in a couple years anyway. This latest offense is believed to be the the first time he's ever faced any consequences - a couple months ban from the club premises and "probation" for a bit after that.  So harsh... poor thing!  No, fucker should be gone.  The individual in questions has, or rather had, some "special" connections to the club, which is perhaps why he's been untouchable until now. 

A large portion of the sailing world needs to just calm down.  We're playing with very expensive toys that could very easily hurt or possibly kill someone in the wrong circumstances.  We all know a guy who has, or has threatened to, put the wheel/tiller over to "teach that fucker a lesson".  Or watched some mid-packer knowingly invent rules, shouting and foaming at the mouth to intimidate a newbie boat back into their proper place.  Or maybe seen the guy that had a crappy day out in some race/series of absolutely no consequence aggressively using the rules to dig himself out of DFL to finish DFL-1, when coming in 2nd last would have been that new perpetually DFL boat's highlight of the season. Or boats with some pretty questionable optimizations.  Or, you get the idea. 

People get to run around without consequence, alienating others and leading to many of them walking away and thinking "I have way better things to do than deal with this bullshit.  Seems fun, but the people are crazy and I've already got enough drama".  This is what things like 69 are for (well, maybe not my 3rd example).  Instead, everyone gets worried about "the consequences of that sort of thing" and we end up with assholes chasing off the future, be it kids or newbies, simply because they can and that's how assholes work.

Oddly enough, those whining about the snowflakes are often snowflakier than the alleged flakes, which is always amusing.

Posting anonymously because the island is small and retribution is always a consideration.

This is a classic.  Why do we Americans, as a society, always want someone else, some other authority figure, to solve issues like this.  What's wrong with intervening, getting the Jr sailor out of the situation entirely, and then going back and saying "Mate, you're bang out of line"???  People have learned to act the way they do, because no one tells them they are acting inappropriately!  You don't need a rule 69 hearing, or the Commodore, or club or anyone else, until you first try to calmly solve the problem yourself.  Instead of posting anonomuously on an internet site, why not say "Dude, your being unthoughtful and inconsiderate."  If he can manage retribution, why would you want to associate yourself with a club that would let that happen?

We are the problem, and only we can solve it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when people could fight and not wind up in jail. Sometimes a little violence is the answer. In my experience (long ago, but I often pine for those days . . .) most assholes learn to shut their mouths once they've been dropped by a guy built like an oak tree. The biggest egos are usually the most fragile.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Rule 69 is, currently, a bloody big gun and people need to know how to use it, if at all.

Strongly disagree.

Rule 69, at the level of a club protest committee is NOT a 'big gun'.

The worst penalty that can be given to a competitor by a protest committee or jury is disqualification or exclusion from the particular event in question.  In contrast, rule 69 is the only rule under which a penalty as small as a warning may be given.

Under the 2017 rules, there is no provision for any higher sanction under rule 69:  any action by the MNA or WS must be taken under those bodies disciplinary provisoins.

A club protest committee, acting within the rules, just cannot impose any sort of employment-threatening or restraint of trade sanctions that should reasonably be said to create a need for legal advice or representation.  A club protest committee's decision under rule 69 will always be subject to appeal under rule 70.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule 69:

  1. A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.
  2. 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.

This is easily rule 69. If the surly curmudgeon was in the bar, then he was supporting the event (by purchasing excessive alcohol?). If he is in the bar, the club rules run secondary to licencing laws, and most kids that can fit in a oppy are too young to be in the bar. I.e. the club rules cannot make provision for the child to be lawfully in the bar, which would be the centre of SC's appeal.

 

However, which rbyc is this? 

Royal burnham yacht club

Royal brighton

Royal bermuda

Royal bombay

Royal Belal

Redondo beach

Rajgor Brahmin

 

Share this post


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

I think there are two distinct problems with Rule 69. The first one is obvious and that it now can cover almost anything and almost anyone can raise a complaint against a sailor. A good example is the Scallywag non-event video that by the time it hit the internet had some key elements edited out (so much for a RAW video. Someone 6,000 miles away didn't like it so they complained. David Witt and the team owner forked out around USD50,000 to prove there was no case to answer.

To a degree I agree with you.  I would have preferred to see the 'gross' level maintained:  it protected club protest committees from pressure to undertake rule 69 hearings on, shall we say, 'questionable' matters.

On the other hand, in the Scallywag case, the amended rule operated exactly as the drafters intended:  it ensured that a complaint, which was known to be supported by a prominent sailor, carrying an equal-treatment agenda, at a particular point in time when the Me-Too movement was at its height, was accorded a due process hearing.  Had the Jury, under the old rules announced that they did not consider the alleged actions to be gross and declined to call a hearing, it is highly likely that the complainant and others would have pursued a self-righteous publicity campaign causing further reputational damage to the event and WS.

Under the present rules, the findings of a jury on a rule 69 hearing have no bearing on any subsequent investigation or action by a MNA or WS, beyond triggering consideration of an investigation.  The investigation at the higher level is required to find its own facts and reach its own conclusions.  Engaging a lawyer at the stage of the Event rule 69 hearing stage was probably excessively cautious, but that was a business decision made by Witt.

I would observe that, had Witt been a cricketer or a footballer with a contractual relationship with WS or the event, then he would, in all liklihood, have been quite heavily penalised, and no questions asked.

 

4 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

The other problem is protest committees at club level don't fully understand the procedure and/or ramifications involved in a Rule 69 hearing. I know one case here in Asia where someone was protested under Rule 69 and the PC subsequently didn't follow through with it as they should. So one can either say that the sailor in question got away with it or, and this is perhaps even worse that same sailor didn't get the opportunity to clear his name and some people still call him a cheat when nothing was even properly followed up, never mind proven.

OK, in the past, detailed guidance on rule 69 might have been a bit hard to find, but now the Judges Manual Section N and the WS Misconduct Guidance now provide ample, readily accessible guidance.

Sadly, all the guidance in the world won't help arrogant, hasty judges, who rush into things, nor will they help the obtuse or slow-witted, who are determined not to apply themselves to mastering the task of being a judge, but that's what appeals are for.

Share this post


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

However, which rbyc is this?

Royal Bermuda.

2 minutes ago, Brass said:

On the other hand, in the Scallywag case, the amended rule operated exactly as the drafters intended:  it ensured that a complaint, which was known to be supported by a prominent sailor, carrying an equal-treatment agenda, at a particular point in time when the Me-Too movement was at its height, was accorded a due process hearing.  Had the Jury, under the old rules announced that they did not consider the alleged actions to be gross and declined to call a hearing, it is highly likely that the complainant and others would have pursued a self-righteous publicity campaign causing further reputational damage to the event and WS.

Perhaps.

Share this post


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

I know one case here in Asia where someone was protested under Rule 69 and the PC subsequently didn't follow through with it as they should. So one can either say that the sailor in question got away with it or, and this is perhaps even worse that same sailor didn't get the opportunity to clear his name and some people still call him a cheat when nothing was even properly followed up, never mind proven.

 

4 hours ago, equivocator said:

Remember that a "complaint" under R69 is not a "protest," it is a "report," and it is then up to the PC to decide what to do, if anything.

That's not quite what rule 69 says.

The gateway to the rule is that the protest committee needs to have formed a belief that a person may have broken rule 69.1( a ).

IF the protest committee has formed that belief, it it then required to decide whether or not to call a hearing..

In many instances, it is immediately obvious that no penalty would apply to the alleged misconduct,

I don't think that, as yet, this is true in 'many instances'.  What this amounts to is a conclusion that the alleged misconduct, if proven, is trifling:  I can't conceive of any allegation of non-trivial misconduct that a protest committee could conclude, without any investigation, did not merit any penalty.

in which case many juries will contact the competitor and take action to caution the miscreant

Then the protest committee is acting improperly.  Rule 69.2( h ) provides that when a protest committee decides that a competitor ... has broken rule 69.1( a ), it may ... issue a warning.

The power to issue a warning to a competitor is conditional on the protest committee deciding, in a proper hearing, that the competitor has broken rule 69.1( a ).

Any finger-wagging or warning of competitors without a proper hearing is beyond the proper powers of a protest committee or its members..

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Rule 69:

  1. A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.
  2. 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.

This is easily rule 69. If the surly curmudgeon was in the bar, then he was supporting the event (by purchasing excessive alcohol?). If he is in the bar, the club rules run secondary to licencing laws, and most kids that can fit in a oppy are too young to be in the bar. I.e. the club rules cannot make provision for the child to be lawfully in the bar, which would be the centre of SC's appeal.

I'm wondering, who has standing to file a complaint? Must it be an alleged victim? Another competitor int he same regatta? A bystander? Is standing even required, or can anyone file a complaint?

What standard of evidence is used to determine a finding of fault / guilt / liability / whatever ?

As written, and read literally within the four corners, the rule applies to behavior on or off the race course, even offsite from the host club.  

I have not read the cases, so perhaps this is answered there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Crash said:

This is a classic.  Why do we Americans, as a society, always want someone else, some other authority figure, to solve issues like this.  What's wrong with intervening, getting the Jr sailor out of the situation entirely, and then going back and saying "Mate, you're bang out of line"???  People have learned to act the way they do, because no one tells them they are acting inappropriately!  You don't need a rule 69 hearing, or the Commodore, or club or anyone else, until you first try to calmly solve the problem yourself.  Instead of posting anonomuously on an internet site, why not say "Dude, your being unthoughtful and inconsiderate."  If he can manage retribution, why would you want to associate yourself with a club that would let that happen?

We are the problem, and only we can solve it.

Trouble is there are too many "not my job" people in general and having served on YC committees all the way up to commodore there is so often an attitude among the general membership that it is not their responsibility. They clearly do not get the original concept or meaning of the very word "CLUB".

It doesn't have to be confrontational with these guys, often it is just blind behaviour but if the other members made it clear to them their behaviour is unacceptable they might (just might) get the message.

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BowBeast said:

This is easily rule 69. If the surly curmudgeon was in the bar, then he was supporting the event (by purchasing excessive alcohol?).

I can understand the temptation to try to make Rule 69 fit this situation, but it doesn't, temptation notwithstanding. "Support person" is a defined term under the RRS, and "supporting the event" is not in that definition. The person must be supporting a competitor - the definition reads:

Support Person  Any person who
     (a) provides, or may provide, physical or advisory support to a competitor, including any coach, trainer, manager, team staff, medic, paramedic, or any other person working with, treating or assisting a competitor in or preparing for the competition, or
     (b) is the parent or guardian of a competitor

Please note the absence of "drunk at the bar" in the list of examples in (a). This is a clear and serious breach of good manners, and should certainly be addressed, but a PC at a regatta has no standing to police the behavior of club members or others not participating in or supporting someone participating in that regatta. Strenuously objecting to the behavior personally, comforting and protecting the child in question, and/or bringing the behavior to the attention of the club's officers or management may all be good ways to deal with the problem, but a Rule 69 hearing is not - unless he is participating in the regatta (or a certified race official), the offender is outside the reach of the RRS.

Share this post


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

I'm wondering, who has standing to file a complaint? Must it be an alleged victim? Another competitor int he same regatta? A bystander? Is standing even required, or can anyone file a complaint?

69.2(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.
69.2(c) - 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.

The rest of 69.2 gives further guidance, but the gist is that the PC decides whether or not to call a hearing, so there is no issue of standing about how the information comes to the PC - it's their call, and theirs alone whether to hear the matter.

What standard of evidence is used to determine a finding of fault / guilt / liability / whatever ?

69.2(g) - The standard of proof to be applied is the test of the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousnesss 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.

See IJ Manual N2.9: The standard which applies in a regular protest hearing is that of "the balance of probabilities" or ""a preponderance of the evidence" - i.e., whether something is more likely to be true than not, which I understand is similar to that which obtains in a civil law suit. The standard in a criminal matter is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - i.e, if there's any plausible conflicting evidence that leads to any reasonable doubt, you must dismiss the charge.

"Comfortable satisfaction" falls between the two, and as the rule itself indicates, is on a sliding scale according to how serious the charge is. CAS uses this standard, as does WADA. Finally, the manual refers to the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence, and makes the point that among the characteristics of "comfortable satisfaction" is that "the evidence presented to the committee is sufficient to mean the competitor is no longer presumed to be innocent."

As written, and read literally within the four corners, the rule applies to behavior on or off the race course, even offsite from the host club.

That's correct, but it only applies to those who have agreed to be governed by the RRS, and a PC or Jury is only empowered to hear matters occurring at or in relation to an event for which it has been convened.

I have not read the cases, so perhaps this is answered there.

 

 

Share this post


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

To a degree I agree with you.  I would have preferred to see the 'gross' level maintained:  it protected club protest committees from pressure to undertake rule 69 hearings on, shall we say, 'questionable' matters.

On the other hand, in the Scallywag case, the amended rule operated exactly as the drafters intended:  it ensured that a complaint, which was known to be supported by a prominent sailor, carrying an equal-treatment agenda, at a particular point in time when the Me-Too movement was at its height, was accorded a due process hearing.  Had the Jury, under the old rules announced that they did not consider the alleged actions to be gross and declined to call a hearing, it is highly likely that the complainant and others would have pursued a self-righteous publicity campaign causing further reputational damage to the event and WS.

Under the present rules, the findings of a jury on a rule 69 hearing have no bearing on any subsequent investigation or action by a MNA or WS, beyond triggering consideration of an investigation.  The investigation at the higher level is required to find its own facts and reach its own conclusions.  Engaging a lawyer at the stage of the Event rule 69 hearing stage was probably excessively cautious, but that was a business decision made by Witt.

I would observe that, had Witt been a cricketer or a footballer with a contractual relationship with WS or the event, then he would, in all liklihood, have been quite heavily penalised, and no questions asked.

 

OK, in the past, detailed guidance on rule 69 might have been a bit hard to find, but now the Judges Manual Section N and the WS Misconduct Guidance now provide ample, readily accessible guidance.

Sadly, all the guidance in the world won't help arrogant, hasty judges, who rush into things, nor will they help the obtuse or slow-witted, who are determined not to apply themselves to mastering the task of being a judge, but that's what appeals are for.

I largely agree with you Brass but many people co-opted onto PCs don't even know there is a Case Book, never mind a there is a Misconduct Guidance manual.

There was a case in Asia where someone was accused of  knowingly missing a mark. A 69 process was started but the team subsequently retired.

The PC decided that as the team had retired then there was no need to continue so they closed the case.

RYA Case 2005/5 clearly states that if there is a higher possible sanction retirement should not stop the process. It quotes the possibility of a DNE but a 69 is more serious than that.

The upshot of that decision is that there are some in those circles that still call the skipper a cheat. That is entirely NOT PROVEN and perhaps an opportunity to prove he was has been missed.

Equally, and perhaps more important is that skipper was denied the right to defend himself and prove he was NOT a cheat which has led to an ongoing (behind the hands) verbal lynching by some.

I have no view or interest in the case other than because proper procedures were not followed the good reputation (or otherwise) of an individual remains open to question and that in itself does no favours to the reputation of the fairness in our sport.

You are right on judges quality, I have seen and experienced some horrendous calls here. Worst one led to an eventual breach of over 20 rules elements. No exaggeration, I counted and documented them - ask the Editor, he was competing in that regatta which has to be something of a record and that all came about because a judge made a screw up then tried to cover up that screw up resulting in another and so on and it just mushroomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Crash said:

This is a classic.  Why do we Americans, as a society, always want someone else, some other authority figure, to solve issues like this.  What's wrong with intervening, getting the Jr sailor out of the situation entirely, and then going back and saying "Mate, you're bang out of line"???  People have learned to act the way they do, because no one tells them they are acting inappropriately!  You don't need a rule 69 hearing, or the Commodore, or club or anyone else, until you first try to calmly solve the problem yourself.  Instead of posting anonomuously on an internet site, why not say "Dude, your being unthoughtful and inconsiderate."  If he can manage retribution, why would you want to associate yourself with a club that would let that happen?

We are the problem, and only we can solve it.

+1...try telling this to people who cannot thimk...! +1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and everybody at the club just wached the drunken guy shouting at the kiddo??  Then you need some guts and not rule 69.... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, M26 said:

and everybody at the club just wached the drunken guy shouting at the kiddo??  Then you need some guts and not rule 69.... 

 

I see your point; however, does a drunk remember...? How about a quiet admonition, later, in front of his/her peers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

I largely agree with you Brass but many people co-opted onto PCs don't even know there is a Case Book, never mind a there is a Misconduct Guidance manual.

Come rule 69 time, with club harmony and reputation at stake, the OA/RC should exert themselves to appoint at least one competent judge.  Well qualified regional judges, while they may not be 'happy' to do so, will normally be willing to assist.

There was a case in Asia where someone was accused of  knowingly missing a mark. A 69 process was started but the team subsequently retired.

The PC decided that as the team had retired then there was no need to continue so they closed the case.

That looks to me like a quite reasonable exercise of the protest committee's rule 69.2( b ) discretion to decide whether or not to call a hearing.

A boat broke a rule and retired.  That's what Basic Principles, Sportsmanship and the Rules says she is expected to do.

Was there a protest for breach of rule 28.1?  If not why not?  Was the rule 69 complaint made by a someone who was too dopey or idle to deliver a valid protest for the rule 29 breach?

The upshot of that decision is that there are some in those circles that still call the skipper a cheat. That is entirely NOT PROVEN and perhaps an opportunity to prove he was has been missed.

Equally, and perhaps more important is that skipper was denied the right to defend himself and prove he was NOT a cheat which has led to an ongoing (behind the hands) verbal lynching by some.

I take your point, but a protest committee is not a naval 'court of honour'.

It would be nice if senior club members responded to the gossip-mongers by pointing out that there has been no protest committee decision that the boat broke any rule and that is it unacceptable to bad-mouth other members without foundation.  Sure I know that this sort of determined, principled action is not that common, but we can live in hope.

I have no view or interest in the case other than because proper procedures were not followed the good reputation (or otherwise) of an individual remains open to question and that in itself does no favours to the reputation of the fairness in our sport.

RYA Case 2005/5 clearly states that if there is a higher possible sanction retirement should not stop the process. It quotes the possibility of a DNE but a 69 is more serious than that.

That appeal relates to a protest hearing.  Rule 63.2 requires that the protest committee shall hear all protests, right through to the written decision stage.  That's different from rule 69.2( b ) which specifically grants a protest committee considering a breach of rule 69.1, a discretion whether or not to call a hearing.

Also bear in mind that it's a RYA Appeal, not binding outside GBR..

You are right on judges quality, I have seen and experienced some horrendous calls here. Worst one led to an eventual breach of over 20 rules elements. No exaggeration, I counted and documented them - ask the Editor, he was competing in that regatta which has to be something of a record and that all came about because a judge made a screw up then tried to cover up that screw up resulting in another and so on and it just mushroomed.

See my comment at the head of this post.

OK, so i've shown a bit of impatience with protest committee members who, perhaps through no fault of their own, are less than knowledgeable, inexperienced, and lacking in judicial temperament.  In fairness, I recognise that sometimes one little mistake or error of judgement in a protest process can snowball, and it's quite possible for an inexperienced protest committee to go down for the third time.

But as I've said, that's what appeals are for..

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Why people shun these venues...bullroar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BobBill said:

I see your point; however, does a drunk remember...? How about a quiet admonition, later, in front of his/her peers?

This is what happens when you open a sport up to the great unwashed masses......peasant is as peasant does.    Proper dress and an ascot  would solve the problem.    Plus a word with the peasant.....I think the word is  "out"   damn spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, comcrudesgru8 said:

This is what happens when you open a sport up to the great unwashed masses......peasant is as peasant does.    Proper dress and an ascot  would solve the problem.    Plus a word with the peasant.....I think the word is  "out"   damn spot.

Yes, I agree, save one thing: "quiet admonition" is relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rot_at_RBYC said:

Posting anonymously because the island is small and retribution is always a consideration.

This comment does not lessen the severity of shouting at a female youth sailor but exemplifies how difficult it is to discipline rude members without retribution in small sailing communities. An adult did step in and ask the offender to settle down and probably more were reticent to approach in case they came under his verbal wrath while he was so heated. It was no doubt, an embarassing and appalling moment, there are ways to manage young sailors forgetting the rules and they do not include profanity, humilitation or deprecation. 

Share this post


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

This comment does not lessen the severity of shouting at a female youth sailor but exemplifies how difficult it is to discipline rude members without retribution in small sailing communities. An adult did step in and ask the offender to settle down and probably more were reticent to approach in case they came under his verbal wrath while he was so heated. It was no doubt, an embarassing and appalling moment, there are ways to manage young sailors forgetting the rules and they do not include profanity, humilitation or deprecation. 

Good on the adult who stepped in! The issue is with the “more that were reticent”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Crash said:

Good on the adult who stepped in! The issue is with the “more that were reticent”

I suspect the offender is lucky the kid's parent was not around. At least I assume that to be the case, because if I were the parent I would have been the one looking at the wrong end of a R69 action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 9:32 AM, Rot_at_RBYC said:

There is far, far more of course, but we don't have all day.  The individual in question is perhaps 50.  Somebody that should know better, not some pickled old bar fixture who was actually there when the Star was designed and will be dead in a couple years anyway. This latest offense is believed to be the the first time he's ever faced any consequences - a couple months ban from the club premises and "probation" for a bit after that.  So harsh... poor thing!  No, fucker should be gone.  The individual in questions has, or rather had, some "special" connections to the club, which is perhaps why he's been untouchable until now. 

You may well be right; but whinging on this forum isn't going to change anything.

Why don't you actually get involved at your club, and work with fellow members to create a more civil environment and enforce a better code of conduct? I sincerely hope your answer isn't "I would, but I'm too frightened: the island is small and retribution is always a consideration".

stand_up_and_be_counted_thumb.png

 

Share this post


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

Great post this board seems to have omitted from the quote when I hit reply quote...

My bad for not reading the rule before posting. Thanks for the detailed reply.

Share this post


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

I largely agree with you Brass but many people co-opted onto PCs don't even know there is a Case Book, never mind a there is a Misconduct Guidance manual.

Come rule 69 time, with club harmony and reputation at stake, the OA/RC should exert themselves to appoint at least one competent judge.  Well qualified regional judges, while they may not be 'happy' to do so, will normally be willing to assist.

The above sounds accurate to me. When I did my judges' course, we were advised to get a national or international judge involved if R.69 ever became an issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The above sounds accurate to me. When I did my judges' course, we were advised to get a national or international judge involved if R.69 ever became an issue.

I was told to get the MNA involved and let some judges that are 'experts' with RRS 69 to hear it.  It is not as simple as a normal protest hearing.  Especially when a persons reputation is involved.  If someone brought RRS 69 charges against me you can be sure I would want a lawyer involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tempest said:

There's something about sailing that naturally attracts dickheads.  I don't know why that is but as soon as you put sails on a boat the dickheads start coming out of the woodwork.  I dunno what that says about me but I hang out on SA because there seems to be a lack of dickheads here.  Maybe the dickheads can't handle the disorder?

Anyway, I sailed in a regatta 2 weeks ago and the people I sailed with were enough to make me not want to sail in a regatta again.  Lots of awesome people at the club but by the time the Sunday dinner came around I had to get the hell out of there.  I ate dinner quickly and headed for the door.  The amount of gossip was absolutely astounding.

Come to think of it, there may be a parallel in golf.... maybe it has something to do with having lots of money and belonging to a private, exclusive club that makes people feel superior.  All I know is that I'm getting to the point where I want to sail for fun and with friends and avoid the YCs.

I wish somebody at US Sailing would get this message.

One of the reasons I've gotten more involved in organization and admin is because of the increase in assholes and dickheads in sailing. Actually, I think the number has declined but the sport overall is less than 10% what it used to be, so they are MUCH more prominent. Having grown into some big shoes (or at least put them on and faked it) I have managed to stomp on a few dickheads and assholes over the last couple years and make the world a better place.

There are a lot of great people in sailing, I'm glad Tempest isn't just going away from the whole sport. We, the sailors, need to make some changes!

I don't think RRS #69 is applicable in many cases. I think common sense rule #1 is much more important (rule #1: don't be an asshole).

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

There are a lot of great people in sailing

Completely agree, and that is what keeps me involved.

Sure there is the occasional jerk, but he or she is very much 'the exception that proves the rule'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Svanen said:
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

There are a lot of great people in sailing

Completely agree, and that is what keeps me involved.

Sure there is the occasional jerk, but he or she is very much 'the exception that proves the rule'.

OTOH getting rid of toxic jerks is important to maintain the sport. Tempest is right, there are certain people who take it as a license to pump up their widdle egos at the expense of others.

I take it (getting rid of toxic jerks) as one of the main functions of leadership these days. It's also inherently difficult for Boards of Directors/Governors (whatever) to cope with.

You may be lucky in that your area has already weeded the worst ones out. Around here, sailing is almost down to the last two assholes. A positive sign is that we have had a number of new folk show up and like it enough to come back, in the last couple years.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't dispute the existence - happily rare - of toxic people. And I agree that if, after having been warned, their bad behaviour continues, they should be pitched. 

We had a member like that in a small sports club - not sailing-related - that I belonged to. He was constantly causing trouble, not only at the club but also at work (according to his own report, he was let go from several jobs due to personality disputes). He seemed to thrive on conflict, but it (understandably) alienated many of the other members and made for an unpleasant atmosphere. For whatever reason, the club president - a nice man, with much common sense and experience - was unable or unwilling to reign him in. When I became president, with the board's support I simply told Mr. Negativity that membership was a privilege not a right and that he was no longer welcome. He kicked up a bit of a fuss; demanded to see the club bylaws (which were duly produced); threatened to sue (nothing came of that); and promptly faded away. Result: routine drama died to near zero, and everyone was much happier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There's something about sailing that naturally attracts dickheads.  I don't know why that is but as soon as you put sails on a boat the dickheads start coming out of the woodwork.  I dunno what that says about me but I hang out on SA because there seems to be a lack of dickheads here.  Maybe the dickheads can't handle the disorder?

Anyway, I sailed in a regatta 2 weeks ago and the people I sailed with were enough to make me not want to sail in a regatta again.  Lots of awesome people at the club but by the time the Sunday dinner came around I had to get the hell out of there.  I ate dinner quickly and headed for the door.  The amount of gossip was absolutely astounding.

Come to think of it, there may be a parallel in golf.... maybe it has something to do with having lots of money and belonging to a private, exclusive club that makes people feel superior.  All I know is that I'm getting to the point where I want to sail for fun and with friends and avoid the YCs.

I would say that there is something racing that brings out the dickheads - one reason that I rarely race now. Cruising sailors on the other hand seem to be the polar opposites. Perhaps it is the nature of the sailing experience for each group.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to know the folks involved in this case, and this character has been lucky not to be previously reprimanded for other bad behavior. It is entirely up to RBYC how they do this, but he's lucky it wasn't my kid, and he's lucky I wasn't there. IMHO, the punishment is extremely light.

R69 worthy? Possibly. Possibly not. A few years ago, RBYC did pursue a R69 against an overseas competitor that was generally considered to be heavy handed and an over the top response to an unproven allegation. In that case, the "defendant" ended up losing out significantly (financially) as a result. A slap on the wrist might have been more suitable in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's apparently two RBYC members (the OP, and TwoRockKnock) who have suggested that this fellow has a long history of getting away with boorish behaviour at the club.

I would encourage them to email their concerns directly to the relevant management (commodore@rbyc.bm; vicecommodore@rbyc.bm; secretary@rbyc.bm; and manager@rbyc.bm). While it is too late to change the punishment (two month ban), it's not too late to advise that if this sort of incident reoccurs, you will change membership to RHADC. Perhaps that will capture their attention. If it doesn't, you might as well go ahead and switch clubs immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 2:32 PM, Rot_at_RBYC said:

Despite what that guy who made the front page may be whining about, more of them need to be brought to account, not less.

What you described is nothing short of unacceptable behavior, however, it is totally unrelated to the discussion I started.

If that guy was a racer or support, yes R69 him, if not then basic club rules on  behavior apply and no need to involve a PC. I know in my club that wouldn't be tolerated.

I still think abuse of R69 is only going to increase - simply because it is too easy to do so. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been on the "winning" side of a rule 2 that became a 69 (the protestee claimed that showing up to his rule 2 hearing was beneath him), it's certainly an interesting process.  In that case the individual (not the one implied by OP) got tossed from our Wednesday night series for the remainder of the year, perhaps 8 races.  All I wanted was a beer for the crew but that's just not within some people's capability... and so rule 2 it was... and then it sort of took a life of it's own.   To this day 2 or 3 years later, apparently a simple port/starboard followed by an extended rant (a J24 and an IOD go downwind at about the same rate in 12kt) is somehow OUR fault... and meanwhile the female newbie that was the subject of part of the ranting (3rd time out and was previously extremely keen) has never been out again.

I firmly believe that more people need to be held to account, that could mean 2/69.  For many, either a reconciliation or at least a tentative truce over a beer back at the bar does wonders.  Others don't work that way, or it proves ineffective via repeated incidents and they need the book thrown at them.  

For the sake of clarity and full disclosure:  I am not a member of RBYC... though I do have some familiarity with the incidents mentioned by OP.  Several people have sent me links to this thread over the past day and a bit, asking if/suggesting that I am the original author, I am not.  

Share this post


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

If that guy was a racer or support, yes R69 him, if not then basic club rules on  behavior apply and no need to involve a PC. I know in my club that wouldn't be tolerated.

I still think abuse of R69 is only going to increase - simply because it is too easy to do so. 

I think one of the reasons the rules require three judges for a 69 hearing, and that all the manuals (that I'm aware of) strongly recommend that at least some of them be certified, is to prevent some of that sort of abuse. I'm sorry to be a broken record here, but unless the guy is a racer or support person, not only is there no need to involve a PC, but I'm quite sure there's no way to involve one under the RRS.

Those of us who participate in sailboat racing, whether as competitors, race officials, or coaches and other support persons, voluntarily agree to accept the rules by virtue of our participation (please see the first Basic Principle and Fundamental Rule 3, and note that both refer primarily to competitors and by extension, their support persons. RRS 84 also binds the race officials, but nothing binds non-participants). The behavior of people not participating in a race or regatta (as either competitor, official, or support person) is not governed by the RRS, as those people have not agreed to be bound by those rules.

PCs are only permitted by the RRS to judge matters and people governed by those rules in a particular event for which they are empaneled. Any penalty beyond the race, regatta, or series itself requires the action of an MNA or World Sailing (this why RRS 69.2(j) requires that some more serious penalties be reported to those bodies). A judge who read the rules carefully would recognize he or she is not empowered to settle disputes among non-participants, and should decline to hear the matter. If a PC for a given event did hold a hearing and find someone outside that group or that event broke Rule 69, that finding would very likely be overturned on appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Rule 69 apply to a member of the Race Management team as a supporter whilst assisting a regatta at the club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, some dude said:

what ever happened to a good old fashioned punch in the mouth?

You could do that, but someone might bring a R69 action against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sasco said:

Would Rule 69 apply to a member of the Race Management team as a supporter whilst assisting a regatta at the club?

It would apply to the race management team for the race or regatta, but as officials, not as support persons. "Support persons"  is defined in the RRS - please see post #35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 2:38 AM, LionessRacing said:

These two lines more or less negate the previous reasonable ones... If you are going to take an anonymous cheap shot, you're stating the value of your opinion.  

 

So who the fuck are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Katydid said:
8 hours ago, Sasco said:

Would Rule 69 apply to a member of the Race Management team as a supporter whilst assisting a regatta at the club?

It would apply to the race management team for the race or regatta, but as officials, not as support persons. "Support persons"  is defined in the RRS - please see post #35.

Support Person  Any person who
     (a) provides, or may provide, physical or advisory support to a competitor, including any coach, trainer, manager, team staff, medic, paramedic, or any other person working with, treating or assisting a competitor in or preparing for the competition, or
     (b) is the parent or guardian of a competitor

I think it's far too much of a stretch and strain on the language to suggest that the 'services' provided by race committee members to competitors are 'support'.

A member of the race committee would only be a 'support person' if they were the parent or guardian of a competitor (no exceptions) or if they had, other than in their capacity as a member of the race committee provided support.

generally, misconduct by a member of the race committee should be dealt with under local club or association, MNA, or WS Misconduct of Officials provisions or by-laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this over a red.  Maybe this snowflake thing has merit, but why stop at one rule?

I fucking hate Rule 10. 

Who the fuck are these snowflakes that get their panties twisted just because you are on port?  How many fucking times do we have to let these girls squeal because you would beat them to the mark?  Then they pull some fucking rule out, weak as piss if you ask me.

IMG_1660-768x576.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Katydid said:
13 hours ago, SteveC said:

If that guy was a racer or support, yes R69 him, if not then basic club rules on  behavior apply and no need to involve a PC. I know in my club that wouldn't be tolerated.

I still think abuse of R69 is only going to increase - simply because it is too easy to do so. 

I think one of the reasons the rules require three judges for a 69 hearing, and that all the manuals (that I'm aware of) strongly recommend that at least some of them be certified, is to prevent some of that sort of abuse.

I don't understand what you guys mean by 'abuse' of rule 69.

Are you saying that you have observed an increased number of complaints related to rule 69/misconcuct, or rule 69 considerations or hearings by protest committees, and that these have been unmeritorious?

Or are you just going along with the 'moral panic' headlines about the 'possibility'?

Although I've seen some harsh rule 69 decisions over the years (before the relaxed definition), I'm a bit with Random:  .one can no more 'abuse' rule 69 than one can 'abuse' rule 10, or rule 18.

I'm sorry to be a broken record here, but unless the guy is a racer or support person, not only is there no need to involve a PC, but I'm quite sure there's no way to involve one under the RRS.

Good point, well worth emphasising.

Those of us who participate in sailboat racing, whether as competitors, race officials, or coaches and other support persons, voluntarily agree to accept the rules by virtue of our participation (please see the first Basic Principle and Fundamental Rule 3, and note that both refer primarily to competitors and by extension, their support persons. RRS 84 also binds the race officials, but nothing binds non-participants). The behavior of people not participating in a race or regatta (as either competitor, official, or support person) is not governed by the RRS, as those people have not agreed to be bound by those rules.

PCs are only permitted by the RRS to judge matters and people governed by those rules in a particular event for which they are empaneled. Any penalty beyond the race, regatta, or series itself requires the action of an MNA or World Sailing (this why RRS 69.2(j) requires that some more serious penalties be reported to those bodies). A judge who read the rules carefully would recognize he or she is not empowered to settle disputes among non-participants, and should decline to hear the matter. If a PC for a given event did hold a hearing and find someone outside that group or that event broke Rule 69, that finding would very likely be overturned on appeal.

Just so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, random said:

I've been thinking about this over a red.  Maybe this snowflake thing has merit, but why stop at one rule?

I fucking hate Rule 10. 

Who the fuck are these snowflakes that get their panties twisted just because you are on port?  How many fucking times do we have to let these girls squeal because you would beat them to the mark?  Then they pull some fucking rule out, weak as piss if you ask me.

IMG_1660-768x576.jpg

pretty lame sarcasm by most standards - even yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what the fuck is this Rule fucking 2?

2  FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalised under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. The penalty shall be either disqualification or disqualification that is not excludable.
 
Really?  WTF is that exactly?  Is that scope for whiny little bitches to protest people who beat them?  I mean the combination of this and Rule 69 will fuck our contact sport.
 
Now if you put that together with that fucking Rule 10 ... it's all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one can no more 'abuse' rule 69 than one can 'abuse' rule 10, or rule 18.

What an asinine statement. Few things.

1-Rule 10 and 18 have real world repercussions. One could gain physical positioning advantage and physical safety is at risk.

2-Rule 10 and 18 are clear and concise. No ambiguity. Nothing left to interpretation. Rule 69 on the other hand refers to “breach of good manners, sportsmanship and behavior”

That is ridiculously unclear. If it was so clear and concise, then why the hell do we have two threads totaling 200+ comments arguing over interpretation?

My good manners aren’t yours. Your idea of best behavior ain’t mine. At this rate they could just as easily make a rule that says “be nice”. WTH?

Imagine for one second if your government created a law that said “You violate this law if you say/do certain things. We will not tell you specifically what it is, you’ll only be told when you violate it” That’s unacceptable. Specifics are required. Any lawyer will tell you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, some dude said:

what ever happened to a good old fashioned punch in the mouth?

Only one short step from that self-help, might-makes-right  ‘solution’ to duelling, or (in America) gunfights on Main Street (“God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal”).

I would like to think that society has evolved past such primitive forms of conflict resolution, and that non-violence will prevail  ... especially when it comes to such unimportant matters as sailboat racing (let’s retain some perspective). Sure, political correctness has gone too far and SJWs currently have far too much influence in society, but that will even out over time. In the interim, it is preferable to unrestricted chaos.

”Sailing Anarchy” is great as a slogan and on a website, but in the ‘real world’ we need at least some rules and standards of civilized behaviour.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Support Person  Any person who
     (a) provides, or may provide, physical or advisory support to a competitor, including any coach, trainer, manager, team staff, medic, paramedic, or any other person working with, treating or assisting a competitor in or preparing for the competition, or
     (b) is the parent or guardian of a competitor

I think it's far too much of a stretch and strain on the language to suggest that the 'services' provided by race committee members to competitors are 'support'.

A member of the race committee would only be a 'support person' if they were the parent or guardian of a competitor (no exceptions) or if they had, other than in their capacity as a member of the race committee provided support.

generally, misconduct by a member of the race committee should be dealt with under local club or association, MNA, or WS Misconduct of Officials provisions or by-laws.

Apparently, I was unclear (which is quite annoying, after so many repetitions!) I wholeheartedly agree that members of the Race Management team for a given event are NOT "support persons". What I was trying to say was that they are participating in the race or regatta, and have thereby accepted and are governed by the RRS, NOT as support persons, but as officials, under RRS 84.

I think misconduct in a regatta by a race official in that regatta is therefore properly a concern of that regatta's PC (though other sanctions might be imposed by other bodies as well). I think that strictly speaking, those other sanctions don't depend on the RRS. They depend on various codes of conduct applicable to those officials, and in some cases, those codes don't only apply at regattas. For example, if the drunk at the bar in the OP is a WS race official, parts of WS' code of conduct for race officials apply while WS' certification lasts, so he could (and should) be disciplined even though he was not serving at a regatta at the time. That discipline would not be a matter for the PC at that event, though, but for the body whose code of conduct had been violated.

Speaking of independent codes of conduct (and just to add an extra wrinkle to the matter), race officials in the US are now required to be trained in and abide by the strictures of a program called "SafeSport", which is dedicated to the recognition and prevention of various types of abuse of children, from sexual misconduct to bullying and intimidation. The SafeSport training focuses on the clues that such abuse is or may be taking place, and on the obligation of those entrusted with children's safety (including coaches and race officials) to report it to competent authorities when they suspect it is happening. Needless to say, this imposes an additional obligation on officials and coaches participating at youth events, and had the situation in the OP happened in the US, it's quite possible that the drunk at the bar could have been construed as bullying or intimidating the Opti sailor - again, not a matter for a rule 69 hearing, but such a determination would impose an obligation on race officials and coaches to report the abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brass said:

I don't understand what you guys mean by 'abuse' of rule 69.

Are you saying that you have observed an increased number of complaints related to rule 69/misconcuct, or rule 69 considerations or hearings by protest committees, and that these have been unmeritorious?

Or are you just going along with the 'moral panic' headlines about the 'possibility'?

Although I've seen some harsh rule 69 decisions over the years (before the relaxed definition), I'm a bit with Random:  .one can no more 'abuse' rule 69 than one can 'abuse' rule 10, or rule 18.

I would say that if a PC holds a rule 69 hearing about a situation to which the rule doesn't apply (particularly if it issues a penalty), that's misuse or "abuse" of the rule (as would be a penalty for a breach of rule 10 or rule 18 given to a coach). I haven't seen one yet, but my point was that the training of certified judges should provide some protection against the misapplication of rules, and that I think that's part of why rule 69 requires that a hearing be conducted by at least three judges, and all of the judges manuals I am familiar with strongly recommend that at least some of those judges be certified and familiar with the rule and its procedures.

As to "'moral panic' headlines about the possibility", no, I'm not in favor of moral panic in general, but I will confess to a concern that the changes to Rule 69 may encourage misapplication of the rule. Rule 69 is inherently a blunt instrument, and I'm not sure the efforts to make it more usable by adding gradations of infractions is a good idea. It's such a big hammer that in my experience, it's most effective when it isn't used, but discussed. That may change as the rule gets more use with lesser punishments, and I'm not certain that change will be positive.

Share this post


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

Only one short step from that self-help, might-makes-right  ‘solution’ to duelling, or (in America) gunfights on Main Street (“God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal”).

I would like to think that society has evolved past such primitive forms of conflict resolution, and that non-violence will prevail  ... especially when it comes to such unimportant matters as sailboat racing (let’s retain some perspective). Sure, political correctness has gone too far and SJWs currently have far too much influence in society, but that will even out over time. In the interim, it is preferable to unrestricted chaos.

”Sailing Anarchy” is great as a slogan and on a website, but in the ‘real world’ we need at least some rules and standards of civilized behaviour.

Thank for the lecture, but you do realize he was not serious right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OutofOffice said:

That’s unacceptable. Specifics are required. Any lawyer will tell you that.

HAhhahahahahaaaa.

Yep, of course, that must be why there are so many courts and lawyers, the laws of the land are so clear cut!

So why aren't you complaining about Rule 2 or the others in RRS that require a judgment call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, random said:

HAhhahahahahaaaa.

Yep, of course, that must be why there are so many courts and lawyers, the laws of the land are so clear cut!

So why aren't you complaining about Rule 2 or the others in RRS that require a judgment call?

Because the discussion is about R69...

Look, fine if everyone wants to create a damn array of books to list our rules like a fuckin Encyclopedia Britannica. I just don’t think we’re going to be doing our sport any favors. If we create a new rule every time someone does something we don’t like just so next time we have a rule to stand on, then we’re delusional. This will not help the sport. It’s tightening a noose around it’s throat.

I’m still confused why there needs to be a damn rule in the RRS. You have a problematic person? Fix it with local regatta rules, club rules. Hell for all I care, build a gallows and publicly shame him infront of everyone. But I do not believe we need to add yet another overly broad rule to the RRS. It’s like having the federal government making a law and enforcing your neighborhood HOA rules. Why? It can be dealt with on a local level.

Share this post


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

Because the discussion is about R69...

Look, fine if everyone wants to create a damn array of books to list our rules like a fuckin Encyclopedia Britannica. I just don’t think we’re going to be doing our sport any favors. If we create a new rule every time someone does something we don’t like just so next time we have a rule to stand on, then we’re delusional. This will not help the sport. It’s tightening a noose around it’s throat.

I’m still confused why there needs to be a damn rule in the RRS. You have a problematic person? Fix it with local regatta rules, club rules. Hell for all I care, build a gallows and publicly shame him infront of everyone. But I do not believe we need to add yet another overly broad rule to the RRS. It’s like having the federal government making a law and enforcing your neighborhood HOA rules. Why? It can be dealt with on a local level.

Do you feel that your abusive behavior will be called out?

I suggest that you contact www.sailing.org/ and tell them what a silly rule they have in the RRS.

I am here supporting the Rule so I don't need to.  You however are spending time here instead of talking to them.  I'm sure they will listen to you!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites