LionessRacing

Depth Perception vs Boundary

Recommended Posts

We were protested last race; for supposedly crossing a line between two daymarks that denotes a restricted (depth) zone. 

We don't think we did; as the rhumb line (Shown as a blue bearing line) rom mark OYC_4 to the daymark (28, FL R 2.5s) of 202 Mag is very close to what was our average Starboard tack heading of ~200 Mag. (wind was averaging 8 kts from 245, oscillating 20-30 degrees), and the boundary line is at 232 giving 30 degrees of separation. 

We were somewhere about around Red circle, got headed, tacked to port for a short while (30 sec?)  and tacked back to starboard well clear as shown by red sketched line.

Rhumb line to next course mark is 211 red heading line. 

Protesting boat was somewhere around Blue circle at top of image, though they claim to be near the black question mark in their diagram. 

Aside from a technically invalid protest (they hailed wrong sail number, and flew flag "within 5 minutes") I'd like to win on the merits. 

  1. Any references on ability to estimate distance to an invisible line from > 25 boat lengths away?
    1. I know it's hard to know how far to a starting line when you are < 5 lengths. 
  2. There was a comment made to us in the bar, by protesting skipper, that previous race there had been boats in the restricted zone and she had talked to RC about making an issue of it. 
  3. FWIW we were sailing to our polars (elapsed time within 5% of polar predicted for 8 kts)  and won the race. We had passed protesting boat just after 1st mark, and were at the time we would have been at position #1, were 2 miles further along course, sailing average of 2.8 min/mile faster, (with them owing us 42 sec a mile.) That would have put them actually around the corner and still farther away from blue position 1 being ~5.5 min behind (finished 3.5 miles 7.25 min behind) 
  4. At what point does a protest that contains demonstrably erroneous and potentially fraudulent information, coupled with statement  "to make an issue" become a rule 69? 

THe boat that was protest.thumb.PNG.c397839ec8504bdc3abd1c5598ba83a4.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb rule. Looks like that shoal water doesn't need any help in enforcement. But...no other witnesses? It will be simply your word against theirs. Stick to your knowledge that you did not sail over that line.The other boat must prove you did. By the looks of that chart that protesting boat had better been on the line themselves to have any credibility in their sighting.  All the other crap is just noise to a legit jury.

Also...an invalid protest is a favorite way out for most committees. Immediate return to the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a nice 5 page reconstruction/forensic analysis of the race to support where they were, and why their sight angle/distance is unlikely to be useful. 

We should win on the invalidity, but I'm annoyed to have been possibly selected to make an issue out of, and it would be nice to have a reference on ability to resolve and estimate distances at a given angle. 

Share this post


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

Also...an invalid protest is a favorite way out for most committees. Immediate return to the bar.

I serve on a lot of juries, and in my experience it is not "a favorite way out." Those are the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SF Woody Sailor said:

I serve on a lot of juries, and in my experience it is not "a favorite way out." Those are the rules.

Agreed. It's a pity that the protest is prima facia invalid, as I would like to actually hear it on the merit, and make my counterpoint that it is probably motivated by other than my specific sailing. Puts a tarnish on our first win of the series after consistent 2nds to a boat that weighs about 1/5 what we do. 

 

Share this post


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

Agreed. It's a pity that the protest is prima facia invalid, as I would like to actually hear it on the merit, and make my counterpoint that it is probably motivated by other than my specific sailing. Puts a tarnish on our first win of the series after consistent 2nds to a boat that weighs about 1/5 what we do. 

 

I don't see how a protest win, however it comes about, diminishes your sailing accomplishment at all. You say you were not over the line. That would be good enough for me. No asterisk in the record  book. That another nitwit has a chip on their shoulder...so what.

(Off subject) Is there some big advantage to be had by sailing in the shallows there? Or a South Tower Demon? Sailing courses with mild hazards is quite normal, and a good challenge, in mixed fleet racing.

Share this post


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

I don't see how a protest win, however it comes about, diminishes your sailing accomplishment at all... No asterisk in the record  book.

+1

On a slightly different topic, in my opinion there are far too few protests filed in our self policing sport as this leads some competitors to believe (more or less correctly) that they can break the rules with impunity. There should be no negative connotations to filing a protest or being protested unless a competitor files frivolous, losing protests as a routine matter or a competitor routinely violates the rules and routinely is DSQ. In either case the behavior tends to self correct pretty quickly as seen in the SF J-105 Fleet. If a competitor files a protest to "make a point" to a fleet that might be unsavory, but I cannot possibly imagine it rising to the level of a Rule 69 matter.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SF Woody Sailor said:
4 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Also...an invalid protest is a favorite way out for most committees. Immediate return to the bar.

I serve on a lot of juries, and in my experience it is not "a favorite way out." Those are the rules.

Well, I've seen it over a dozen times at several different clubs. Lots of Protest Committees don't want to DSQ anybody, don't want to piss anybody off. So they take an easy way out.

Looks like it's your word against mine.  ;)

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Well, I've seen it over a dozen times at several different clubs. Lots of Protest Committees don't want to DSQ anybody, don't want to piss anybody off. So they take an easy way out.

Looks like it's your word against mine.  ;)

FB- Doug

While I would like an argument I haven't paid the requisite fee to buy one.

Are the Protest Committees to whom you refer composed of US Sailing (or otherwise qualified) Judges? In my experience Judges enjoy hearings and in particular difficult hearings. In fact, the more difficult the hearing the more interesting it is. Otherwise why would we volunteer our spare time to be Judges? It is not as if we are rewarded with hookers and blow like the old days.

I suppose if you pull three random folk off their bar-stools and tell them they can't drink until they have heard all the hearings then the incentive would be to dismiss hearings by taking an easy way out. Perhaps you have seen that. I have served on many, many panels and have never seen that. On many occasions I have served on panels that went into the wee hours without even a bag of crisps or a cup of coffee from the OA (which I think is poor form by the OA), but I have have never seen a panel of properly qualified Judges dismiss a protest on validity grounds in order to get back to the bar or avoid pissing anybody off.

Looks like it's your word against mine.  ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Lots of Protest Committees don't want to DSQ anybody, don't want to piss anybody off. So they take an easy way out.

Hang on a second. If they don't DSQ anybody they don't accomplish the notional objective of not pissing anybody off. I assume (in your thought experiment) they piss off the protestor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SF Woody Sailor said:

While I would like an argument I haven't paid the requisite fee to buy one.

Are the Protest Committees to whom you refer composed of US Sailing (or otherwise qualified) Judges? In my experience Judges enjoy hearings and in particular difficult hearings. In fact, the more difficult the hearing the more interesting it is. Otherwise why would we volunteer our spare time to be Judges? It is not as if we are rewarded with hookers and blow like the old days.

I suppose if you pull three random folk off their bar-stools and tell them they can't drink until they have heard all the hearings then the incentive would be to dismiss hearings by taking an easy way out. Perhaps you have seen that. I have served on many, many panels and have never seen that. On many occasions I have served on panels that went into the wee hours without even a bag of crisps or a cup of coffee from the OA (which I think is poor form by the OA), but I have have never seen a panel of properly qualified Judges dismiss a protest on validity grounds in order to get back to the bar or avoid pissing anybody off.

Looks like it's your word against mine.  ;)

Well, I'm not here to bullshit; OTOH there is really no good reason to believe a faceless stranger on the internet. However I know and have sailed with/against a bunch of SA'ers and they don't seem to think of me as a bullshitter.

For example, I was racing as a guest of a fleet in a boat I did not own..... one of the hotshots bore away into me on a reach and of course I protested. This was a few years ago when there were more racers and fewer judges, but there was a US Sailing judge who looked over my form as I was finishing it up, briefly heard the story, and passed it on as a valid protest. The committee did no more than look at my club affiliation and threw it out. Pointing to the diagram, showing a boat overtaking from astern, passing to windward and bearing away into a certain collision had I not given way, and asked them politely if windward boats had right-of-way. They replied "None of that matters, we're not DSQing the other boat for you."

I have served on Protest Committees (and some years ago I did the certification as a judge myself) and been amazed at the attitude of "don't piss off the customers" although it doesn't seem to occur to them that letting aggressive cheaters get away with it is only going to shrink the sport more.

But I am glad to hear that you experience is diferent, I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people are honest and the vast majority of sailors only want fair competition.

3 minutes ago, SF Woody Sailor said:

Hang on a second. If they don't DSQ anybody they don't accomplish the notional objective of not pissing anybody off. I assume (in your thought experiment) they piss off the protestor.

Well, yeah. But they don't appear to think of it that way

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Well, I'm not here to bullshit; OTOH there is really no good reason to believe a faceless stranger on the internet. However I know and have sailed with/against a bunch of SA'ers and they don't seem to think of me as a bullshitter.

For example, I was racing as a guest of a fleet in a boat I did not own..... one of the hotshots bore away into me on a reach and of course I protested. This was a few years ago when there were more racers and fewer judges, but there was a US Sailing judge who looked over my form as I was finishing it up, briefly heard the story, and passed it on as a valid protest. The committee did no more than look at my club affiliation and threw it out. Pointing to the diagram, showing a boat overtaking from astern, passing to windward and bearing away into a certain collision had I not given way, and asked them politely if windward boats had right-of-way. They replied "None of that matters, we're not DSQing the other boat for you."

I have served on Protest Committees (and some years ago I did the certification as a judge myself) and been amazed at the attitude of "don't piss off the customers" although it doesn't seem to occur to them that letting aggressive cheaters get away with it is only going to shrink the sport more.

But I am glad to hear that you experience is diferent, I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people are honest and the vast majority of sailors only want fair competition.

Well, yeah. But they don't appear to think of it that way

FB- Doug

I am sorry to hear about your experience. I was not calling you a bullshitter. I can only hope that in our little district we do better for our customers who I consider to be not only the protestor and protestee in the room at a given time but all of the competitors in any regatta who are effected by PC decisions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The committee did no more than look at my club affiliation and threw it out.

FB- Doug

There is a clear mechanism in 70.1(a) to appeal this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No GPS track to verify your position? What kind of boats?

With the information given, I would not count on invalidity. Why they hailed the wrong sail number? Too far away to see? Sailing the wrong course or outside limits is not equal to some other insidents, which happen at a very specific time and always need a rapid protest hail and flag use. Especially this possible breach can't be undone with taking penalty turns.

Share this post


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

I don't see how a protest win, however it comes about, diminishes your sailing accomplishment at all. You say you were not over the line. That would be good enough for me. No asterisk in the record  book. That another nitwit has a chip on their shoulder...so what.

(Off subject) Is there some big advantage to be had by sailing in the shallows there? Or a South Tower Demon? Sailing courses with mild hazards is quite normal, and a good challenge, in mixed fleet racing.

Generally with a foul current ( it was mid flood) you would stay out of the deeper water all things being equal 

We were not specifically trying to do that, given the layline and starboard tack heading, and the time that Lioness takes to tack I prefer to minimize my tacking where I can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Joakim said:

No GPS track to verify your position? What kind of boats?

With the information given, I would not count on invalidity. Why they hailed the wrong sail number? Too far away to see? Sailing the wrong course or outside limits is not equal to some other insidents, which happen at a very specific time and always need a rapid protest hail and flag use. Especially this possible breach can't be undone with taking penalty turns.

I didn't have Expedition fired up due to doing maintenance before we sailed. Might have a track on the chart plotter, have not looked as i was off the boat when we were informed and it's 60 miles away. 

My tactician is a USSAILING National level umpire/judge. He was aboard, and has expressed his opinion, that this is not valid. He's pulled up the US, UK, Canadian appeals that support the "5 minutes" not being acceptable on flying a flag

Hailing the wrong sail number is also not likely to be compliant either. Had it simply been a typo on the sail number on the protest form, perhaps not an issue. This was a hailed "protesting sail 681 out of bounds"  

This is not failure to sail the course, which could have been "rectified" by correcting the mark roundings, and would have NOT required hail or flag. but an alleged violation of the SI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the perception issue: If they were at the black question mark as claimed, they would have been almost at right angles to the line that they were judging you to have crossed, while you had near 180 degree bearings to the two marks. If both of you were disinterested witnesses in some other case, I would have no difficulty believing that you had the more accurate read.

If they were instead at the blue circle, that puts them almost in line with the boundary line - if I read your diagram correctly. From that position their ability to estimate whether you crossed would be much better. With the reasonable assumption that you are closer to their end of the line, they could have make some pretty shrewd guesses as to when you would have crossed. You wouldn't have had to extend very much into the line for the closer mark to fully line up with the silhouette of your boat. Seen from that angle and giving your location closer to the closer mark, their view would have been similar whether you merely approached or barely crossed the line: a "small" separation between the mark and your boat. Now judge "small".

If you had merely obscured the farther mark from their hypothetical vantage point, that would not be sufficient to prove that you were over, because of the line bias and you sailing near the closer mark, but if they really were at the blue circle, it may have seemed that way to them. However, from their claimed position (black), I don't see how they could have made a reliable observation, short of you rounding the boundary mark on the wrong side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I didn't have Expedition fired up due to doing maintenance before we sailed. Might have a track on the chart plotter, have not looked as i was off the boat when we were informed and it's 60 miles away. 

My tactician is a USSAILING National level umpire/judge. He was aboard, and has expressed his opinion, that this is not valid. He's pulled up the US, UK, Canadian appeals that support the "5 minutes" not being acceptable on flying a flag

Hailing the wrong sail number is also not likely to be compliant either. Had it simply been a typo on the sail number on the protest form, perhaps not an issue. This was a hailed "protesting sail 681 out of bounds"  

This is not failure to sail the course, which could have been "rectified" by correcting the mark roundings, and would have NOT required hail or flag. but an alleged violation of the SI. 

Why did they hail wrong sail number? Why should they know your sail number and certainly there is no requirement to use a sail number in the first place. Flag was shown 5 minutes after what? The hail, the time they thought you crossed the boundary or the time they thought you were no longer outside the boundary?

I really hate this invalidity thing in the rules. It is used too often and the actual case is not even heard. But in this case there might be a valid reason for the delay. You don't have to protest until you know a breach has been done. They may have rechecked SI, map etc. before hailing. It may even be possible to make a valid protest after finishing in cases like this. At least it is possible for not sailing the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why did they hail wrong sail number? Why should they know your sail number and certainly there is no requirement to use a sail number in the first place. Flag was shown 5 minutes after what? The hail, the time they thought you crossed the boundary or the time they thought you were no longer outside the boundary?

I really hate this invalidity thing in the rules. It is used too often and the actual case is not even heard. But in this case there might be a valid reason for the delay. You don't have to protest until you know a breach has been done. They may have rechecked SI, map etc. before hailing. It may even be possible to make a valid protest after finishing in cases like this. At least it is possible for not sailing the course.

You need to read the rules and the appeals on protesting within a reasonable first opportunity.  

here's the relevant rules. (note the boat that is protesting is 35 feet) 

61 PROTEST REQUIREMENTS 61.1 Informing the Protestee (a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. 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 for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However, (1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity; (2) if the hull length of the protesting boat is less than 6 metres, she need not display a red flag;

 

Appeals for US are searchable here https://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Appeals-Book-for-2017-2020.pdf

Appeal 61, and 67 

here's abstract of #67 

APPEAL 67 635 vs. 2641 Rule 61.1(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee Failure to display a protest flag during a period of time when some member of the crew is not otherwise occupied is a failure to display it “at the first reasonable opportunity.” If a protest flag is not displayed at the first reasonable opportunity, the protest is invalid and the hearing must be closed.

Share this post


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

You need to read the rules and the appeals on protesting within a reasonable first opportunity.  

here's the relevant rules. (note the boat that is protesting is 35 feet) 

61 PROTEST REQUIREMENTS 61.1 Informing the Protestee (a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. 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 for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However, (1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity; (2) if the hull length of the protesting boat is less than 6 metres, she need not display a red flag;

 

Appeals for US are searchable here https://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Appeals-Book-for-2017-2020.pdf

Appeal 61, and 67 

here's abstract of #67 

APPEAL 67 635 vs. 2641 Rule 61.1(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee Failure to display a protest flag during a period of time when some member of the crew is not otherwise occupied is a failure to display it “at the first reasonable opportunity.” If a protest flag is not displayed at the first reasonable opportunity, the protest is invalid and the hearing must be closed.

Having already come down on the other side (ie dislike throwing out protests), there is a reason why there is no specific time interval specified, and the rule does NOT say "absolutely instantly" or "as soon as possible" (which wording is used elsewhere in the rules). In a case like this, double checking the chart and the SIs before protesting would seem perfectly reasonable to me.

5 minutes, they must be slow readers.

(further explanation) the case that was given to us in the judges course was a protest at the windward mark, with contact between boats that were just rounding and beginning to set spinnakers. Hail "Protest" within a few seconds, as the skipper might be in the middle of issuing commands to crew, then fly the flag after the spinnaker is up and drawing, is fine. Boats are not required to stop time, or instantly cease all other sailing activity, in order to lodge a protest

The point is to enforce the rules, after all

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 In a case like this, double checking the chart and the SIs before protesting would seem perfectly reasonable to me.

5 minutes, they must be slow readers.

Given that the skipper told us that they were concerned about their belief that in  previous race other boats had crossed boundary, there's no credible "need to check the SI" argument.

(nor is there ever one...)

It's a crewed 35' boat in a Non-Spinnaker fleet, in 8 kts on a sheltered water, without any traffic/mark roundings at the time/position that was claimed.

First Reasonable opportunity to display a flag is not "within 5 min" (see Appeal 67's indication that 20 seconds of crew inactivity was excessive)

We were tossed a couple of years back for taking > 30 sec to fetch and rig a flag, and the flag not being "conspicuous at 20" length when fouled in port/starboard.  

Based on that learning, we keep a 54" Code B made from spinnaker cloth behind the helm,  bent onto a flag halyard leading to the Mizzen masthead, that I hope to never use.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A timely hail would greatly help this problematic protest. The crew of the accused boat, and other nearby boats, would become potential witnesses. They would hear the immediate hail and might take a look. Five minutes later is ridiculous. Like a football referee whistling a step out of bounds five minutes late.

Plus...accusing from a distance, and well off axis. Give me a break. Would that work at a starting line? The protestee can do the necessary very complicated trigonometry in their head based on a glimpse? Sorry, need more evidence.

What would our self-styled judges here rule when the only facts are "we felt they were out of bounds" vs. "I know the SI and the marks, I know I was in-bounds."

Share this post


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

A timely hail would greatly help this problematic protest. The crew of the accused boat, and other nearby boats, would become potential witnesses. They would hear the immediate hail and might take a look. Five minutes later is ridiculous. Like a football referee whistling a step out of bounds five minutes late.

Plus...accusing from a distance, and well off axis. Give me a break. Would that work at a starting line? The protestee can do the necessary very complicated trigonometry in their head based on a glimpse? Sorry, need more evidence.

What would our self-styled judges here rule when the only facts are "we felt they were out of bounds" vs. "I know the SI and the marks, I know I was in-bounds."

Both of those statements are subjective, in the absence of any concrete evidence, neither should be given priority over the other.

A timely hail would be good, a witness claiming to be able to derive the position of another boat at an odd angle from a glimpse -could- be able to corroborate his observation (unlikely but possible).

Some years ago I heard a protest that a boat had made contact with a mark, the boat was some distance away and at an odd angle. The skipper of the protested boat was not a particularly good witness, but he was sitting on the lee side and watching as they rounded (spinnaker was being hoisted too); the protesting skipper just kept repeating that he saw what he saw, with increasing vehemence and eventually profanely. He also insisted "I don't have a dog in this fight" when not only would his own position in the race improve, he would have become a points leader for an inter-club award. In this case the PC decided that we could not DSQ a boat based on "I saw what I saw, goddammit!!"

Lioness, you might want to lighten up on the insistence of throwing out the protest itself. It makes you look guilty.

While I'm blathering on: rules like this are stupid. They're difficult (or impossible) to enforce, unless the RC is going to the step of enforcement by GPS track, and they only help dumb down the sport.

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

... The committee did no more than look at my club affiliation and threw it out. Pointing to the diagram, showing a boat overtaking from astern, passing to windward and bearing away into a certain collision had I not given way, and asked them politely if windward boats had right-of-way. They replied "None of that matters, we're not DSQing the other boat for you."...

It seems to me (if you had witnesses) thay would be a basis for a 69 against the members of the protest committee.

Share this post


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

While I'm blathering on: rules like this are stupid. They're difficult (or impossible) to enforce, unless the RC is going to the step of enforcement by GPS track, and they only help dumb down the sport.

This case was about a shoal area. What about other cases, like not sailing into the opening of a shipping channel which may well be a Coast Guard requirement. Equally difficult to enforce, but stupid? How would you handle such restrictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

...

At what point does a protest that contains demonstrably erroneous and potentially fraudulent information, coupled with statement  "to make an issue" become a rule 69? ...

If they genuinely believed you broke the rules then there is no rule 69 issue...getting tired of cheaters and not putting up with it any more is the self policing we need more of.

However, if they fabricated evidence, misrepresented themselves, and filed a protest they knew was invalid...good case for 69

Share this post


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

.., and it would be nice to have a reference on ability to resolve and estimate distances at a given angle. 

It is entirely possible the protesters are both sincere in their belief and wrong.

Unlikely you would bother but you could consider gathering more evidence.

If you have the time and opportunity you could assemble a group of unbiased / credible folks and do a recreation.

Position observers who have both black marks in a line. Position observers where you believe the protesting boat was and where the protesting boat claims it was. Then move a boat towards, over, and back from the line while recording what the different observers describe as the position of the moving boat compared to the exclusion zone. Including GPS data if you can would be very helpful.

It’s likely that only those lining up the marks will be any good at identifying when you cross the line.

If the protesters still insist they have outstanding eyesight and the ability to do trigonometry in their head in real time you could offer them the chance to step out to the parking lot and prove their ability (set up some cones etc.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KC375 said:
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

They replied "None of that matters, we're not DSQing the other boat for you."...

It seems to me (if you had witnesses) thay would be a basis for a 69 against the members of the protest committee.

 

Much simpler way of solving it, I don't sail at that club or with that fleet any more.

 

1 hour ago, green03 said:
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

rules like this are stupid. They're difficult (or impossible) to enforce, unless the RC is going to the step of enforcement by GPS track, and they only help dumb down the sport.

This case was about a shoal area. What about other cases, like not sailing into the opening of a shipping channel which may well be a Coast Guard requirement. Equally difficult to enforce, but stupid? How would you handle such restrictions?

 

Well, I don't know a good way, for sure. But I do know that rules which are not enforced are harmful to the sport. There are places where any racer who has a commercial vessel give them 5 (or more) honks is automatically DSQ'd, could do the same for a Coast Guard warning. If all racers have the equipment (not a difficult level to aspire to, these days) you could enforce it by checking their GPS track. I'm not a big fan of putting the gizmos in charge, but it would be fair (in the absence of people hacking their GPS, which is possible).

As Brass has occasionally pointed out in these kinds of threads: procedural rules about how protests must be filed are rules, just as much as the rule about port keeping clear of starboard. But the point of a protest is to resolve a breach of the rules, not get bogged down in petty details and try to throw out a protest regardless of the offense (or lack of it).

 

1 hour ago, KC375 said:

...     ...     ...

If the protesters still insist they have outstanding eyesight and the ability to do trigonometry in their head in real time you could offer them the chance to step out to the parking lot and prove their ability (set up some cones etc.)

 

 

Bingo

I just don't see a DSQ for Lioness as a likely result here.

-DSK

Share this post


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

You need to read the rules and the appeals on protesting within a reasonable first opportunity.  

here's the relevant rules. (note the boat that is protesting is 35 feet) 

61 PROTEST REQUIREMENTS 61.1 Informing the Protestee (a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. 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 for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However, (1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity; (2) if the hull length of the protesting boat is less than 6 metres, she need not display a red flag;

 

Appeals for US are searchable here https://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Appeals-Book-for-2017-2020.pdf

Appeal 61, and 67 

here's abstract of #67 

APPEAL 67 635 vs. 2641 Rule 61.1(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee Failure to display a protest flag during a period of time when some member of the crew is not otherwise occupied is a failure to display it “at the first reasonable opportunity.” If a protest flag is not displayed at the first reasonable opportunity, the protest is invalid and the hearing must be closed.

I know the rules quite well and have read quite a few cases. Not so many US appeals, since I don't sail in the US.

Case 67 is very different from your case. There was contact and the protesting boat was one of the boats having contact. So there is a very clear time line and also both should have know which boat made the fault. In the case of this thread there is no need to make the protest when the boundary was crossed. At least they can make a protest as long as they thought you were outside of the boundary (+ some time to make the protest).  Are you sure crossing the boundary does not fall under 61.1 3) sailing the course? Then they could protest even after you finished.

You still haven't told where was the 5 minute delay. Between hail and flag or possible breach and hail + flag?

Best for you would be to show the GPS data from your plotter. If it shows you crossed the boundary, you should retire and hope for protest to be invalid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a club doesn't want to do a lot of protest hearings, they can just put Appendix T arbitration in the SIs and that will take care of most protests with about a 10 minute hearing. Seems to me this is very appropriate for most informal club racing. 

 

I agree that most protest committees aren't as anxious to toss protests on validity as people seem to think. But the rules are pretty clear and lodging a valid protest isn't very difficult, so personally I don't have much sympathy for someone who can't do it properly. 

Share this post


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

Lioness, you might want to lighten up on the insistence of throwing out the protest itself. It makes you look guilty.

 

Not insisting it be thown, out, read my posts, I expect it to be, but I want it to be heard. We should win on merits.

I reconstructed the race, based on average speed from finishing time, vs distance we had to go from when we were at same point. (2.8 min/mile)  based on that; I know where they would have been if sailing to that average, when we tacked which is somewhere no closer that then blue #1. 

That's ~25 boat lengths away, and potentially behind a pier as indicated in my chart image, while we were sailing at 200 Magnetic ave, which is the rhumb line to fetch daymark. 

We looked at the area where they claim to have been, saw a different boat, which had been ~50 yds behind us also on Port tack, near to the shoreline (pier). I have no idea how far they were from the pier. 

10 hours ago, KC375 said:

However, if they fabricated evidence, misrepresented themselves, and filed a protest they knew was invalid...good case for 69

That's the reason I am pissed off. It derives from the comment when the protesting skipper talked to us after the race about being concerned about "safety" and wanting to make a point. If you think we committed a foul, then by all means protest,  preferably if you think a quiet conversation in the bar would be inadequate (this was a beer can..) or it was a repeating issue. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You still haven't told where was the 5 minute delay. Between hail and flag or possible breach and hail + flag?

 

the 5 minutes was in their protest form as "hoisted flag within 5 min" I have no idea when their clock started, be it when they think we were over the line, they decided to protest, they hailed or what. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 9:48 PM, LionessRacing said:
  1. Any references on ability to estimate distance ...
  2. ... she had talked to RC about making an issue of it. 
  3. ...That would have put them actually around the corner and still farther away...
  4. At what point does a protest that contains demonstrably erroneous and potentially fraudulent information, coupled with statement  "to make an issue" become a rule 69? 

 

1) If the protesting boat was not in line or did not observe the other boat passing beyond an object that was clearly beyond the line I wouldn't give much weight to their judgement.

2) Seems perfectly reasonable. If the fleet has got in the habit of sailing in the restricted zone then there's a very solid argument that competitors have a *duty* to make an issue of it.

3) Very nebulous. I don't think I'd give any weight at all to an estimate of where a boat 'must have been'.

4) 'Make an issue' isn't an issue at all.Deliberately lying in a hearing might be RRS69. Making an honest error or misjudgement, no matter how stupid, isn't.

================================

On PCs seeking to throw out an invalid protest to get back to the bar. The whole process is guaranteed to give a disgruntled protester the impression that the protest committee was doing all it could to avoid hearing the protest. Because lets face it, they are: they are required to. If you hear an invalid protest its only going to get thrown out on appeal. The PC are required to test the validity of the protest first without hearing any other evidence, and to close the whole thing down without hearing any other evidence if it is invalid. Its the most efficient way to do it I suppose, but its hard to think of a way more guaranteed to create bad feeling and a poor impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:   Protest heard tonight by three external judges and decided: "dismissed

Committee allowed hearing on rationale that a possible rule violation was Rule 28, and that does not require flag or hail (protestor displayed a red jacket) 

Lioness will potentially file a question to USSAILING for clarity if avoiding a "restricted" area is part of sailing the course, in the usual context of the piece of string being drawn taut on the correct sides. As a violation of the Sailing Instructions a hail and flag would have been required. 

Witnesses for protestor told conflicting stories about location of boats (One witness claimed we were far enough over the line that we would have been aground) , and mysteriously included representatives of boat that was behind protestor, with even less of a view, and a person who was standing on the race deck > 1/2 mile away.  Reconstruction with chart snippets seemed to be persuasive, as it was objective and credible, vs toy boats and inaccurate diagrams. "We were laying the daymark on 200 M until we were headed and tacked" was a believable statement.

Due to scheduling hearing at 5:15 and first gun at 6:25, neither protestor, nor Lioness made the start and we filed request for redress.

More fun to come.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your friend had it wrong (or at least different to PC) about the validity, just as I warned. Are they really stupid enough to keep the hearing so you miss the next race of a series? Or is this another race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are Estuary beer can races.  It sounds like the fleet is getting off-message or there's some bad blood somewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how Rule 28 enters into it unless you violate the string rule. And if I'm not mistaken validity is supposed to be determined without regard for what rules violations are alleged (except to the extent of determining whether a flag or hail is required). 

If the RC is concerned (or wants to address an expressed fleet concern) about boats sailing through the restricted area and wants to make a point of emphasis , maybe they could station a skiff in the vicinity to verify compliance and protest violators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: is sailing into an area restricted by the sailing instructions "an error in sailing the course" for the purposes of 61.1.a.3? Or does only a violation of rule 28 bring that into play? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

I don't see how Rule 28 enters into it unless you violate the string rule.

28.1 does not mention "string rule", but it does mention "course described in the SI". I would assume this boundary is part of that.

@LionessRacing

Did you check your plotter for GPS track? What did it show?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeus was not recording a track since mid 2017  and AIS showed 1 data point... 

Quote

So your friend had it wrong (or at least different to PC) about the validity, just as I warned. Are they really stupid enough to keep the hearing so you miss the next race of a series? Or is this another race?

Friend has it right, we'll file a question for clarification to USSAILING to docuement. 

Yes they ran a hearing that took 2.5 hours, Judges were thorough. and I was called as a witness at 15 min past our start for the 7th of 8 races in the series.

First time I've ever seen a protest committee go out of the room and check a witness's line of sight.

(Sweet 16 out of Oakland YC) Protest was for the 6th race. 

So I've ordered 2 yrds of 1.5 oz 60" wide RED ripstop and 15' of adhesive backed velcro, will make up 9 20" Code B flags to donate to the club as kits so we don't have to screw around with inappropriate flags. 

 

Share this post


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

Those are Estuary beer can races.  It sounds like the fleet is getting off-message or there's some bad blood somewhere.

The sense of the PC, (expressed after the hearing) was that there was something more than was presented. As noted in my OP #4 there was a statement made in the bar about making an issue, and definite sense of coordination and coaching among the witnesses. 

As regards bad blood, not that I am aware of, but I would suspect that when we sail to our rating, and are beating younger, lighter boats that give us > 40 sec a mile by 0.75- 6.5 min raw time in 3.5 miles they might be very frustrated. 

 image.png.f1b612fe7ffabb036792ce2923c5880b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You beat the J/100 once in a non-spinnaker beer can race.  Good for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 1:53 PM, BobJ said:

You beat the J/100 once in a non-spinnaker beer can race.  Good for you.

We finally beat a 45 yr newer designed boat that displaces 1/3 of us on the Estuary in a CCA design centerboard yawl with overlapping genoa.

it was a basic parade with only 6 tacks on 5 legs.

I'll take it.

if winds were more from the west +/or lighter would have been much harder to catch on handicap.

Share this post


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

We finally made it out this week. Hope we can catch you in the next one.

 

 

473593E9-348F-4ABB-A7D1-ED7F6F8FB471.jpeg

Say hi if you see us, we are pretty distinctive

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recently issued supplement to the Case Book is Case 145 which holds:  "A boat's string, referred to in rule 28.2, when drawn taut, is to lie in navigable water only."  The answer explains:  "A boat's track cannot pass over dry land, nor can it pass through non-navigable waters or through prohibited areas."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now