LotsO'Knots

Can RC revoke a win b/c PHRF changes rating after the fact? Without a protest? (spoiler alert - they did)

Recommended Posts

We won our class in the Ida Lewis Distance Race two weekends ago, with a PHRF rating of 127

We received this rating cert from PHRF about a week before the race

A week after the race, the RC emailed to inform me that PHRF informed them that they made a mistake and revised our rating to 118

The RC applied the new rating to our time on the race and that bumped us down into 2nd place

There was no protest or option of redress, and the RC stated:

 I spoke directly with NB-PHRF to discuss their correction.  I brought it to the attention of our Jury. The jury made me aware that  RRS 90.3c which says "When a race committee determines from its own records or observation that it has scored a boat incorrectly , it SHALL correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors." No protest or time limit is needed. The rule does not give RC any latitude in the matter.  I have read that in 2021 RRS 90.3(e) will be a rule to allow for prescribed changes to be introduced in the NoR, which is not the case now.

Before I spend an hour reading the rule book, what say the internet??

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say you are the first place loser! 
 

Not a bad thing at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you'd complain. A mistake was rectified.

Could you, in good conscious, display a pickle dish won as a result of a rating mistake? What if they accidentally rated you 218 instead of 118? 

Don't expect a lot of sympathy here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pokey uh da LBC said:

Not sure why you'd complain. A mistake was rectified.

Could you, in good conscious, display a pickle dish won as a result of a rating mistake? What if they accidentally rated you 218 instead of 118? 

Don't expect a lot of sympathy here. 

If I was looking for sympathy I'd be whining. Instead, I asked "can they/should they" do this, per the rules, and what the community thought about it. Your take is that per my principals I shouldn't make a deal out of it, and point taken. Now back to my question about the rules...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you fail to grasp is PHRF didn’t change your rating.  You always rated 118 for that race.  Due to a scrivener’s error, an incorrect rating was applied … mistake found and corrected.

 

What if the RC had entered your rating at 158 because of a keystroke error when the results were being calculated?  Would you take the position that such a result was valid?

I have heard and experienced firsthand lots of PHRF horror stories.  This is not one them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the boats in our division was re-rated near the end of the 2015 Van Isle 360, and the updated slightly slower rating was retroactively applied to all the races in the series.

They were initially in the bottom third of the fleet with the initial rating, so we didn't pay much attention to them.

We still beat them, but they did move to the middle of the fleet and become more of a threat with the new rating, so we certainly would have covered them better throughout the series had we known their rating would be updated. They also made a particularly egregious move in one race that I would have protested had I known they were in the middle and not the bottom third of the fleet.

In any case, I found it quite annoying that the rating changed part way through the event, because we had no opportunity to go back and do things differently.  

As such I'd prefer submitted ratings to stand for the duration of an event, and only be changed between events.  

Edit: In this case the rating change was only six seconds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the position of the PHRF board is that your valid rating at the time the race was run was 118 (which is to say that the erroneous 127 rating was never in effect) then I think the RC did not make an error in correcting the score. There's nothing to protest and no cause for redress.  

If the PHRF board feels that your rating of 127 was in effect from the time of issuance until the correction was made (if the revision to your rating was made after the race), then you've got a case that you should be scored with the 127 rating that was in effect at the time of the race.

Would you have sailed the race any differently if you'd known you were rated 118 instead of 127?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Former MDR Vandal 1 said:

What you fail to grasp is PHRF didn’t change your rating.  You always rated 118 for that race.  Due to a scrivener’s error, an incorrect rating was applied … mistake found and corrected.

 

 

 

What if the RC had entered your rating at 158 because of a keystroke error when the results were being calculated?  Would you take the position that such a result was valid?

 

I have heard and experienced firsthand lots of PHRF horror stories.  This is not one them.

 

The OP didn't say there was a typo. I think we'd have to know more, so I looked up the race results. The only boats with a 118 rating were a NY 36 which retired and a custom 45' wooden yawl. Given its a custom boat, there isn't any data to judge the relative correctness of the ratings, so no help there (if that is the boat).

You can't blame the Race committee for correcting an error. The OP needs to know why/where the Rating Committee erred. Why was the cert issued incorrectly, if not, why was it changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who take PHRF racing seriously are doomed to disappointment.  Race for fun, sail the boat the best you can and decide for yourselves as a crew how you did.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Remodel said:

The OP didn't say there was a typo.

 

To me a scrivener’s error can encompass a clerical problem that may exceed a mere typo.  For example, if PHRF board added the calculations wrong to arrive at the final figure …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the nature of your question and how a lot of these comments are missing the point.

In my opinion the race committee did not determine the error from its own records or observations in accordance with 90.3. They were made aware of an external error which affected the results of a race by the outside party which made the error. Technically, I think you *could* argue they do not have grounds to adjust the results and inform competitors under 90.3. You competed with a valid PHRF certificate in accordance with the NOR/SIs and they have no grounds to adjust it after the fact. If they changed results based on rating changes everyone could realistically go back to old race results when their ratings are appealed etc. and demand they're changed under this rule.

That being said if your boat actually rates 118 and was used in the configuration the 118 rating was based on at the time of the race I think you'd be a big piece of shit for bitching about this for a pickle dish. If you didn't use a sail, take an outboard off, or whatever which brought the rating from 127 to 118 during the race I think you'd be justified to bitch about it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised that your boat could have a PHRF rating of 118 or 127.  Don't PHRF ratings all have to be divisible by 3 evenly?  They seem that way on Long Island Sound.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Former MDR Vandal 1 said:

What you fail to grasp is PHRF didn’t change your rating.  You always rated 118 for that race.  Due to a scrivener’s error, an incorrect rating was applied … mistake found and corrected.

 

 

 

What if the RC had entered your rating at 158 because of a keystroke error when the results were being calculated?  Would you take the position that such a result was valid?

 

I have heard and experienced firsthand lots of PHRF horror stories.  This is not one them.

 

I think this is a huge difference as the 158 being entered would be the RCs fault and be an error to be corrected under 90.3. The 127 rating was not a RC error and has nothing to do with 90.3.

Share this post


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

I think this is a huge difference as the 158 being entered would be the RCs fault and be an error to be corrected under 90.3. The 127 rating was not a RC error and has nothing to do with 90.3.

It never rated 127.  It always rated 118.

Share this post


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

I think this is a huge difference as the 158 being entered would be the RCs fault and be an error to be corrected under 90.3. The 127 rating was not a RC error and has nothing to do with 90.3.

 

90.3 has nothing to do with whether the errors was the RC's or not. simply it is enough that the RC observes that the scoring is incorrect. In this case once they weer informed of the proper rating, it was clear that the boat had been incorrectly scored as 1st.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If OP had a cert that said 127 was it actually scored incorrectly? That's the point here. If they reissued the cert and the date on the new 118 cert was after the date of the race I would argue the rating for the race was 127 not 118. Doesn't matter if the handicapper fucked up or not.

If I appeal my rating before a race and after the race it's changed from 118 to 127 do I get to call RC and tell them there was an error and they need to change the results under 90.3?

This is like walking into a restaurant, buying a meal, paying the price that was on the menu and then two days later the waiter comes banging on your door and said they had a mistake on the menu and you need to pay up. You'd laugh in their face. RC should eat this one and let everyone else be upset with the handicapper.

Not saying it's right I'm saying changing this result is not permitted under the rules the way they're written. Being the right thing and being allowed by the rules are two completely exclusive things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it matter?  It's just a handicap race, nothing to brag about if you did win it.  Just means that you sailed it well enough and that your boat liked the conditions and didn't favor the others.

EDIT: But you could always escalate the issue to Sailing Anarchy.  :ph34r:

 

Share this post


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

 

90.3 has nothing to do with whether the errors was the RC's or not. simply it is enough that the RC observes that the scoring is incorrect. In this case once they weer informed of the proper rating, it was clear that the boat had been incorrectly scored as 1st.

What he said …

 

Look, the real aggrieved party are the guys who thought they finished second, but in fact, were first.  The guys on Zingara had a great sail followed by a fun night where they got to be congratulated, go to the podium and have a fun time.  The guys on the M 24 got an apology and a trophy in the mail a week or two later.

Making a big deal about this might be interesting.  Zingara (through no fault of their own) raced with an invalid certificate (you can make that argument).  What’s to stop the 3rd place boat from requesting redress and getting you tossed?

Litigation has many unintended consequences …

Share this post


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

Surprised that your boat could have a PHRF rating of 118 or 127.  Don't PHRF ratings all have to be divisible by 3 evenly?  They seem that way on Long Island Sound.

 

 

No.  More advanced civilizations have been  using increments less than 3 for years. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Rule A3, Starting Times and Finishing Places
When a race is conducted for boats racing under a rating system, the rating that should be used to calculate a boat's corrected time is her rating at the time the race is sailed. Her score should not be changed if later the rating authority, acting on its own volition, changes her rating.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Brass said:
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Rule A3, Starting Times and Finishing Places
When a race is conducted for boats racing under a rating system, the rating that should be used to calculate a boat's corrected time is her rating at the time the race is sailed. Her score should not be changed if later the rating authority, acting on its own volition, changes her rating.

The nub of the question, I think, is did the rating authority rate the boat at 127 and then change it to 118 or did the rating authority, or did the rating authority rate the boat at 118 but issue an erroneous certificate stating 127?

Correcting an erroneous certificate is not, I think, the same thing as acting on its own volition to change the rating. 

Share this post


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

I understand the nature of your question and how a lot of these comments are missing the point.

In my opinion the race committee did not determine the error from its own records or observations in accordance with 90.3. They were made aware of an external error which affected the results of a race by the outside party which made the error. Technically, I think you *could* argue they do not have grounds to adjust the results and inform competitors under 90.3. You competed with a valid PHRF certificate in accordance with the NOR/SIs and they have no grounds to adjust it after the fact. If they changed results based on rating changes everyone could realistically go back to old race results when their ratings are appealed etc. and demand they're changed under this rule.

That being said if your boat actually rates 118 and was used in the configuration the 118 rating was based on at the time of the race I think you'd be a big piece of shit for bitching about this for a pickle dish. If you didn't use a sail, take an outboard off, or whatever which brought the rating from 127 to 118 during the race I think you'd be justified to bitch about it.

Clime, thanks for the most valid comment yet.

Let me clarify my question a bit for all the haters: I'm asking specifically about the rules, and how a jury should/would/could approach this situation at hand, NOT whether I should bitch and moan about "whether I should have won". Note my absence of whining, and my matter-of-fact play by play summary..... relax....

A couple of facts to set straight, per your questions:

  • Yes the boat in question is Zingara, a very sexy and very fast custom Brooklin Boatyard cold molded 45' yawl with modern underbody.
  • The boat rated 111/114 for over ten years under PHRF-NE. PHRF-NB issued us a cert rating us a 127/133 (spin/non-spin) about a week before the regatta.
  • The PHRF-NB office reached out about 6 days after the race to say this: "We missed the fact that PHRFNE treated your boat as a non-overlapping headsail boat.  We treated it as being an overlapping headsail boat which resulted in the Headsail adjustment of +9 for your Spinnaker Rating and +12 for Non-Spinnaker, this should not have been applied.  As a result I will amend your certificate to reflect this change and your new rating will be: Spinnaker 118; Non-Spinnaker 121.."
  • The boat has always sailed with the same 110% overlapping jib, forever, in every single race. We used this same jib in this race. The PHRF committee was actually provided multiple photos of the boat under sail for the purpose of issuing this new cert, because they had questions about the position of our jib leads. So it wasn't a question of using an overlapping headsail vs a non overlapping headsail, its a question of how the rating accommodates a boost for boats designed for XL overlapping headsails. In their words: 

"In our rules we treat boat’s headsails in two categories.  The first is a boat that was designed with overlapping headsails, these boats have a baseline headsail of 155% LP.  The second is a boat design with non-overlapping headsails or less than 118% LP.  Any change in headsail size is then adjusted based on Table A for the first category and Table B for the second category. So in your case we initially thought your boat, in its base configuration, had a 155% Genoa and you were sailing with a 110% Genoa.  A substantial difference.  Since your base configuration is with the 110% Genoa, no adjustment is necessary."

  • No, we didn't sail with a configuration other than what we were rated for, or use any sails that weren't measured. I'd rather lose than cheat.

Climenuts highlighted my two main points and concerns about this process.

1. If the bullet can be retroactively rescinded by the RC without a protest, and without an error by the RC (the alleged error was the PHRF-NB committee), then what stops anyone from appealing their rating and protesting a result after the fact? 

2. RRS.90.3C states that an RC may retroactively correct results "When a race committee determines from its own records or observation that it has scored a boat incorrectly". But in this case, the RC did not make a mistake. We were scored on a valid PHRF certificate, and then the PHRF-NB committee changed our rating 6 days after the race.

Once again, for the haters in the peanut gallery, I'm not whinging about whether we should keep the trophy over the other guy who arguably had a more valid PHRF measurement, I'm asking what the procedure should be and/or if the RC, in this case, is correct in their ruling, and if they can deny me redress in the absence of a protest against my rating?

Thanks BRASS for your quote/excerpt: "A3: When a race is conducted for boats racing under a rating system, the rating that should be used to calculate a boat's corrected time is her rating at the time the race is sailed. Her score should not be changed if later the rating authority, acting on its own volition, changes her rating."

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so from a rules point of view:

There is nothing to stop you applying for redress. Your grounds would be an improper action by the RC in changing your score based on a change in the rating after the race.

The only counter to this could be that the rating on the certificate was incorrect, (e.g. a typo for example) in which case the RC could claim they were legitimately correcting the score.Based on the note from the ratings authority, I would say that they changed the rating.

BUT there is at a good chance that you would win the appeal. (especially if you quote case 119 :).

Of course if the rating for the boat really should be 118 you should probably be proud of your 2nd place finish.

39 minutes ago, LotsO'Knots said:

1. If the bullet can be retroactively rescinded by the RC without a protest, and without an error by the RC (the alleged error was the PHRF-NB committee), then what stops anyone from appealing their rating and protesting a result after the fact?

Basically what stops this from happening is that appealing the rating results in a change in the rating, rather than a correction of the rating certificate. The difference is between a scoring correction (wrong handicap being applied) which does not require a hearing and a change in the handicap (after the fact) which should not result in a change in the scoring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been on the other end of that fight. Our local PHRF board gave us a rating that didn’t account for our change to masthead kites, despite having all the information. We voluntarily sailed all season with what we knew the correct penalty would be. We fought with PHRF all year to properly penalize our rating. We eventually won the battle and got the correct rating, and go figure, it was the fake rating we sailed under. 
 

It’s your choice, but I know which battle I’d rather fight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Former MDR Vandal 1 said:

What he said …

 

 

 

Look, the real aggrieved party are the guys who thought they finished second, but in fact, were first.  The guys on Zingara had a great sail followed by a fun night where they got to be congratulated, go to the podium and have a fun time.  The guys on the M 24 got an apology and a trophy in the mail a week or two later.

 

Making a big deal about this might be interesting.  Zingara (through no fault of their own) raced with an invalid certificate (you can make that argument).  What’s to stop the 3rd place boat from requesting redress and getting you tossed?

 

Litigation has many unintended consequences …

 

That's the question. Was it invalid? Who says so? And Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Former MDR Vandal 1 said:

To me a scrivener’s error can encompass a clerical problem that may exceed a mere typo.  For example, if PHRF board added the calculations wrong to arrive at the final figure …

Fine. No issue, but you'll need the board to explain. My personal experience with the board - not this one -  is that they can be arbitrary and vindictive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brass said:
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Rule A3, Starting Times and Finishing Places
When a race is conducted for boats racing under a rating system, the rating that should be used to calculate a boat's corrected time is her rating at the time the race is sailed. Her score should not be changed if later the rating authority, acting on its own volition, changes her rating.

Did another boat ask for redress prior to the result change?

The OP could ask for redress when he was notified of the result change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, I think a boat's 'rating' is what it says on it's 'rating certificate'.

This 'scriveners error' stuff is an arcane area of law, and I'm not at all sure that it applies to 'certificates' which people are expected to rely on at face value.

Some rating systems like IRC have mechanisms for retroactively invalidating certificates, and 'correcting' ratings and past results based on corrected ratings.  I suspect that PHRF might not have such provisions.

Clearly enough, in this case, the PHRF Board made a deliberate (if erroneous) deliberation, which was accurately recorded in the first rating certificate, which was current and valid at the time of the race.  The new certificate applied only from its date of issue.

3 hours ago, JohnMB said:

so from a rules point of view:

There is nothing to stop you applying for redress. Your grounds would be an improper action by the RC in changing your score based on a change in the rating after the race.

There is nothing to stop OP from applying, but there sure is a lot to prevent the request for redress from being valid and being heard.

Rule 62.2 requires that requests for redress of this nature shall be delivered as soon as reasonably possible after learning of the reasons for making the request.  That would be, at the latest, when the PHRF explained their actions to the OP.

Since that time, OP has:

  • brought it to the attention of our Jury, but apparently not by way of a request for redress.
  • read that in 2021 RRS 90.3(e) will be a rule to allow for prescribed changes to be introduced in the NoR, which is not the case now.
  • decided to conduct a discussion on the internet and not read the rule book

That's way in excess of 'as soon as reasonably possible after learning'.

Any request for redress should be rejected as invalid.

 

3 hours ago, JohnMB said:

BUT there is at a good chance that you would win the appeal. (especially if you quote case 119 :).

Only if there was a valid protest committee decision to appeal from.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer from the 20,000 foot view:

An organizing authority puts together NOR, SI's, RC, etc. then runs the race and results are posted.

The ONLY correction to the results an RC can make is if they made a scoring miscalculation.

The ONLY way to change results otherwise is through a Redress or a Protest.
===================

In this case, the RC could file a protest over a boats rating, the protest committee hears the testimony and makes a decision.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

The ONLY way to change results otherwise is through a Redress or a Protest.

No, a race committee can correct it's error if it has scored a boat incorrectly in any way, not just miscalculation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

In this case, the RC could file a protest over a boats rating, the protest committee hears the testimony and makes a decision.

What rule would you say a boat had broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a non-issue. They posted the wrong rating associated with your boat. They corrected it once they realized there was a mistake. Do you really want a trophy for a race that you know you didn't really win? And rob the M24 guys from a trophy that they know they deserve? You say you aren't whining but yet instead of actually looking into the proper process, you've taken the time to start an open discussion about it on the internet. It was very clear that ILYC had to work incredibly hard just for the event to happen this year. Cut them a break, enjoy your still very good result in competitive fleet and challenging conditions, and look forward to next year.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

No, a race committee can correct it's error if it has scored a boat incorrectly in any way, not just miscalculation.

Brass - the RC did NOT make an error in scoring. They scored the boat appropriately with the valid PHRF cert she was given before the race. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This seems like a non-issue. They posted the wrong rating associated with your boat. They corrected it once they realized there was a mistake. Do you really want a trophy for a race that you know you didn't really win? And rob the M24 guys from a trophy that they know they deserve? You say you aren't whining but yet instead of actually looking into the proper process, you've taken the time to start an open discussion about it on the internet. It was very clear that ILYC had to work incredibly hard just for the event to happen this year. Cut them a break, enjoy your still very good result in competitive fleet and challenging conditions, and look forward to next year.

Thanks for the thought policing there East Coast, and sorry for bringing up a question about racing rules on a sailboat racing forum. Guess I got lost from the 'principals and ethics' forum? I have always said and continue to say that the IL crew put on an awesome event and we are happy either way, but because this is a scenario I had not encountered I thought it an interesting debate about how a jury would/could/should view it.

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LotsO'Knots said:

Thanks for the thought policing there East Coast. Sorry for bringing up a question about racing rules on a sailboat racing forum. Guess I got from the 'principals and ethics' forum? I said and continue to say that the IL crew put on an awesome event and we are happy either way, but because this is a scenario I had not encountered I thought it an interesting debate. Apologies if asking about proper procedure triggered your sensibilities.

You can say that all day long, but your statements and "questions" show otherwise. It seems as though you are the one who has been "triggered". 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2020 at 11:09 PM, Remodel said:

Fine. No issue, but you'll need the board to explain. My personal experience with the board - not this one -  is that they can be arbitrary and vindictive.

I have limited experience with this board, but I have found them to be fair and helpful, and not vindictive in any fashion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You can say that all day long, but your statements and "questions" show otherwise. It seems as though you are the one who has been "triggered". 

Cool man, thanks for taking this otherwise constructive discussion down the tit-for-tat, personal insult rabbit hole. You continue to miss the point, which I clearly made above - this is not about whether I could/should push the issue, it's about the nuances and gray area that seems to have been left between rules 90.3C and A3. If you've got something to offer to the debate please chime in, if you're here to troll me for asking a racing rules question on a racing rules forum, piss off.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LotsO'Knots said:

Cool man, thanks for taking this otherwise constructive discussion down the tit-for-tat, personal insult rabbit hole. You continue to miss the point, which I clearly made above - this is not about whether I could/should push the issue, it's about the nuances and gray area that seems to have been left between rules 90.3C and A3. If you've got something to offer to the debate please chime in, if you're here to troll me for asking a racing rules question on a racing rules forum, piss off.

The grey area is intentional. No where does it say that the error has to be on the part of the race committee. The handicapper found an error in the way that your cert was issued, one could argue that this invalidates the rating. They corrected the error and as such under 90.3, the scoring was corrected. No protest, no redress necessary. This would be different if they had changed your rating based on perceived performance of the boat, which is clearly not the case. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must correct errors and they should. End of.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LotsO'Knots said:

 this is not about whether I could/should push the issue, it's about the nuances and gray area that seems to have been left between rules 90.3C and A3.

I don't believe there is a grey area. The nuance is in what constitutes an error, and this is something you could have argued at a redress hearing if you had applied for redress.

The RC can (and must) correct errors in scoring (no hearing required), whatever the source. In your case it is possible they acted incorrectly, but this is totally dependent on what the rating board actually did. (i.e was there an error in the handicap or a change in the handicap.)

In your case the RC spoke to the jury, and took the jury's advice, so they both believed that the RC  was correcting an error rather than responding to a change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A3 is there for a specific purpose. You might have a good argument on that basis.

Did you give back the trophy? I possibly would to show some kind of good sportsmanship if the M24 is listed as the winner (for now) .

Remember it is PHRF and the OA and RC does not get paid. They are out there to give back to the sport.

Go try again next year.

 

Sail Safe!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've heard of a 45' boat with "a modern underbody" that rates 118 (or 127) described as being "very fast".  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the PHRF board decide they should contact the race organizers ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Essex said:

Why did the PHRF board decide they should contact the race organizers ?

Probably because they realized they had made an error and wanted to notify interested parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2020 at 6:11 PM, LotsO'Knots said:

Clime, thanks for the most valid comment yet.

Let me clarify my question a bit for all the haters: I'm asking specifically about the rules, and how a jury should/would/could approach this situation at hand, NOT whether I should bitch and moan about "whether I should have won". Note my absence of whining, and my matter-of-fact play by play summary..... relax....

A couple of facts to set straight, per your questions:

  • Yes the boat in question is Zingara, a very sexy and very fast custom Brooklin Boatyard cold molded 45' yawl with modern underbody.
  • The boat rated 111/114 for over ten years under PHRF-NE. PHRF-NB issued us a cert rating us a 127/133 (spin/non-spin) about a week before the regatta.
  • The PHRF-NB office reached out about 6 days after the race to say this: "We missed the fact that PHRFNE treated your boat as a non-overlapping headsail boat.  We treated it as being an overlapping headsail boat which resulted in the Headsail adjustment of +9 for your Spinnaker Rating and +12 for Non-Spinnaker, this should not have been applied.  As a result I will amend your certificate to reflect this change and your new rating will be: Spinnaker 118; Non-Spinnaker 121.."
  • The boat has always sailed with the same 110% overlapping jib, forever, in every single race. We used this same jib in this race. The PHRF committee was actually provided multiple photos of the boat under sail for the purpose of issuing this new cert, because they had questions about the position of our jib leads. So it wasn't a question of using an overlapping headsail vs a non overlapping headsail, its a question of how the rating accommodates a boost for boats designed for XL overlapping headsails. In their words: 

"In our rules we treat boat’s headsails in two categories.  The first is a boat that was designed with overlapping headsails, these boats have a baseline headsail of 155% LP.  The second is a boat design with non-overlapping headsails or less than 118% LP.  Any change in headsail size is then adjusted based on Table A for the first category and Table B for the second category. So in your case we initially thought your boat, in its base configuration, had a 155% Genoa and you were sailing with a 110% Genoa.  A substantial difference.  Since your base configuration is with the 110% Genoa, no adjustment is necessary."

  • No, we didn't sail with a configuration other than what we were rated for, or use any sails that weren't measured. I'd rather lose than cheat.

 

It reads like they rerated your boat. Probably should have had a proper hearing with notification to make it official. 

 

You can appeal 

https://cdn.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Appeal-Process.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, USA2695 said:

Probably because they realized they had made an error and wanted to notify interested parties.

If the PHRF board re-rated the boat after the event I don't think there was any reason for them to contact the event organizers/RC since the boat sailed under a certificate that was apparently valid at the time of the event. The PHRF board probably should have just contacted the boat owner and updated their fleet list.

So I'm leaning toward four thoughts:

1. Zingara probably did have cause for redress when they were made aware of the scoring change

2. The period for them to request redress is almost certainly expired

3. It really was the better part of valor to just accept the change and not make a big stink

4. That said, it's not at all untoward for the OP to pose the question on this forum and see what folks think, for his own edification and that of the community

One thing that continues to puzzle me - the PHRF board rated the boat faster with a 110% jib than with an overlapping headsail?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

One thing that continues to puzzle me - the PHRF board rated the boat faster with a 110% jib than with an overlapping headsail?

No,

They incorrectly assumed that the base configuration was the faster 155% jib, so they modified the rating by 9 seconds to allow for the 110% jib that the boat actually used.

However since the base configuration was 110% jib no allowance should have been applied.

I.e. the 110% jib was already counted into the base configuration, so when they modified the rating from the base they made a mistake.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No,

They incorrectly assumed that the base configuration was the faster 155% jib, so they modified the rating by 9 seconds to allow for the 110% jib that the boat actually used.

However since the base configuration was 110% jib no allowance should have been applied.

I.e. the 110% jib was already counted into the base configuration, so when they modified the rating from the base they made a mistake.

 

 

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JohnMB said:
8 hours ago, LotsO'Knots said:

 this is not about whether I could/should push the issue, it's about the nuances and gray area that seems to have been left between rules 90.3C and A3.

I don't believe there is a grey area. The nuance is in what constitutes an error, and this is something you could have argued at a redress hearing if you had applied for redress.

Well put.

Quote

The RC can (and must) correct errors in scoring (no hearing required), whatever the source. In your case it is possible they acted incorrectly, but this is totally dependent on what the rating board actually did. (i.e was there an error in the handicap or a change in the handicap.)

There is only one circumstance when a RC must (rather than 'should') correct errors, that is where  'the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly'.

This, of course, raises the 'nuance' of what constitutes 'its own records'.  It could well be argued, for example, that a written communication from the rating authority to the RC, placed on file by the RC becomes part of the records of the RC.

In any case other than 'own records', whether or not to correct an error is at the discretion of the RC.

Note that, as said in a previous post, in the interests of finality, the 2021 rules will provide in new rule 90.3(e) that a final time after which no changes in scores will be made may be prescribed in the NOR, so the thrust of the rules is not towards requiring the RC to correct errors no matter what.

Quote

In your case the RC spoke to the jury, and took the jury's advice, so they both believed that the RC  was correcting an error rather than responding to a change.

OP's description says the 'The jury made me [presumably the RO] aware that  RRS 90.3c which says "When a race committee determines from its own records or observation that it has scored a boat incorrectly , it SHALL correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors." 

That doesn't indicate that the Jury concluded or considered whether there was an error or not:  they merely pointed out a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because he has a piece of paper that represents 127, doesn't mean it was accurate.  The Board made a mistake, fixed the mistake and life went on.

Zingara usually sits on a mooring in Nantucket Harbor.  Perhaps it has changed hands recently.  Either way, if a boat usually rates 114 and it gets a rating of 127 that means the Skipper should at least question if the current rating makes sense.

Opera House Cup ... poor guys having a great time until rich guys got wind of it ... that is where I have seen Zingara.

Only one thing to say ...

I have been in a position where I got a phone call that told me I wasn't first place (after drinking the rum, etc.,0 but the RC said I was in  second place.  My first question was, "Have you already spoken to Tom?"  He was the skipper of the boat that won, but was scored second.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

... probably did have cause for redress when they were made aware of the scoring change

Without commenting on whether redress is appropriate, the duty of an RC when granting redress is to "make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress." Can anyone think of any situation where scoring the race with the correct handicap would not be the fairest arrangement?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Without commenting on whether redress is appropriate, the duty of an RC when granting redress is to "make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress." Can anyone think of any situation where scoring the race with the correct handicap would not be the fairest arrangement?

That would be the issue:  whether, somehow or other the handicap shown on the certificate current at the time of the race was not the correct handicap.

See my comments on IRC in previous post, but Case 119 specifically relates to American PHRF, so I doubt that the system has retroactive invalidation and adjustment.

And it's a protest committee that can grant redress, not a race committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Former MDR Vandal 1 said:

Either way, if a boat usually rates 114 and it gets a rating of 127 that means the Skipper should at least question if the current rating makes sense.

Most people have a good idea of what rating they will get when they apply, especially with an existing design with a previous rating.  If the rating came back that far off  a quick call/email to the committee should have resolved this a week before the race occurred.

I won't argue if it was OK/legal or not to change rating or scores after the fact.  I will leave that up to the sea lawyers of the world. 

In fairness to all participants it sounds like this situation was simply dealt with and the boat that deserved to win has been recognized.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Without commenting on whether redress is appropriate, the duty of an RC when granting redress is to "make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress." Can anyone think of any situation where scoring the race with the correct handicap would not be the fairest arrangement?

I can think of some, but they mainly situations where knowing you current score in the series affects your tactics in the current race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LotsO'Knots, your boat should be scored using the true rating it was configured at the time of the race.  

If you supplied the incorrect rating to the officiating body, you should be disqualified if it was your fault or rescored if it was PHRF'S FAULT. How difficult is that to understand?

How, by any stretch of the imagination, should redress be applied to this correctly scored race?

Share this post


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

Most people have a good idea of what rating they will get when they apply, especially with an existing design with a previous rating.  If the rating came back that far off  a quick call/email to the committee should have resolved this a week before the race occurred.

 

 

This raises a very good question.  A knowledgeable yacht owner/racer would surely question why their boat is suddenly rated some 16 to 13 seconds slower than previously rated.

It would seem that this issue could have been avoided upon receipt of the new rating cert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Former MDR Vandal 1 said:

Either way, if a boat usually rates 114 and it gets a rating of 127 that means the Skipper should at least question if the current rating makes sense.

My boat rates from 66 to 78 depending on PHRF region. 3 of the regions with the wildest disparity are within the same body of sailing water.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to chime in on this because I just saw it.  Here are facts as I can reconstruct.

Thus it appears that rescoring with the correct rating was the proper thing to do.

Now for opinion.  I was the 3rd place boat (first on uncorrected time) and showed up after the dinner at ILYC to pick up my trophy. I spoke with the Melges 24 skipper and congratulated him.  He kicked my ass planing past me downwind.  Going upwind he wasn't having much fun on the west side popping like a cork in the chop as we passed him, but he lost too much time upwind to be able to pass me again on the next downwind leg.  When I saw him at the awards, his hands were like chop meat and he worked real hard with his crew to finish where they did.  It's not the first time he's beaten me and I'm sure not the last.  I congratulated him and look forward to another opportunity to race against him again.  Yeah, PHRF sucks when conditions favor one type boat over another and that's why I prefer OD but it wasn't an option. 

He called me later that week and asked if I had reported the improper Zingara PHRF rating.  I told him no, that I wasn't aware of it and then checked the PHRF-NB website for the rating. If I had found that my finish was calculated using a wrong value and it made the outcome different (better or worse) I feel a personal obligation to let the RC know.  I've done it in the past on Tuesday night race series when we shift from Spring to Summer. Typically I'll use a 110% jib in spring and 145% genoa in summer.  JYC continued to score me with the slower rating.  I caught it after the first race and had them rescore, dropping our finish down a few positions.

Suck it up and congratulate the 1st place finisher on the win!

 

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2020 at 7:45 PM, WHK said:

Late to chime in on this because I just saw it.  Here are facts as I can reconstruct.

Thus it appears that rescoring with the correct rating was the proper thing to do.

Now for opinion.  I was the 3rd place boat (first on uncorrected time) and showed up after the dinner at ILYC to pick up my trophy. I spoke with the Melges 24 skipper and congratulated him.  He kicked my ass planing past me downwind.  Going upwind he wasn't having much fun on the west side popping like a cork in the chop as we passed him, but he lost too much time upwind to be able to pass me again on the next downwind leg.  When I saw him at the awards, his hands were like chop meat and he worked real hard with his crew to finish where they did.  It's not the first time he's beaten me and I'm sure not the last.  I congratulated him and look forward to another opportunity to race against him again.  Yeah, PHRF sucks when conditions favor one type boat over another and that's why I prefer OD but it wasn't an option. 

He called me later that week and asked if I had reported the improper Zingara PHRF rating.  I told him no, that I wasn't aware of it and then checked the PHRF-NB website for the rating. If I had found that my finish was calculated using a wrong value and it made the outcome different (better or worse) I feel a personal obligation to let the RC know.  I've done it in the past on Tuesday night race series when we shift from Spring to Summer. Typically I'll use a 110% jib in spring and 145% genoa in summer.  JYC continued to score me with the slower rating.  I caught it after the first race and had them rescore, dropping our finish down a few positions.

Suck it up and congratulate the 1st place finisher on the win!

 

WHK, thanks for illustrating to the internet how much bigger and better a man you must be than myself. I must say I never expected this to turn into a trial hearing about my personal ethics and morals, but since it obviously has, here's my defense:

As for previous rating vs new rating:

The boat isn't mine, and I hadn't previously raced her or been involved with any of her historic rating discussions. I facilitated the sale of the boat and was asked to campaign her for this race. I've never been involved with a PHRF-NB program or re-cert, and I did in fact apply for the rating about ten days in advance of the race. The reason the records show it GRANTED two days before the race, is that I enjoyed a four day back and forth dialogue with the PHRF-NB committee about the particulars of the boat, and, in particular, the details of the headsail and the tracks/sheet leads. We went so far as to provide multiple photos of the boat underway and yes did in fact question the ratings bump, but were reassured that "PHRF-NB updates their algorithm often and very commonly the rating disagrees by a fair margin with a PHRF-NE rating for the same boat". What a cheater I am.

As for my intentions:

If you'd read back up the thread, you might have seen me mention multiple times that this post was never intended to be an argument for who SHOULD have won, or how I refused to concede, or about my thoughts towards the IL RC, or towards the 2nd place Melges. I stated on multiple occasions that this was a case study and debate about the rules and the application of those rules, in what was (to me, at least), an unprecedented situation. I have always sung the praises of the RC, and of the race they managed to put on during extremely adverse circumstances. I continue to hold the RC and the club in a very high regard. Also, I have already arranged to meet with the RC chair to return the trophy so that it may be passed to the rightful winning boat. So how about you guys just relax and get off your high horses, stop with the chest pumping and the "WWJD", and participate in a debate about the rules of sailing and how they might be/should be applied in a rare and interesting scenario.

I found it an interesting debate and apparently I wasn't alone, as over 60 of you chimed in, with almost exactly a 50/50 split in opinion (yeah I counted). Seems like a pretty on--topic thread for such a forum, but boy I won't ever make that mistake again - not with the social-justice-warrior, holier-than-thou thought-police on here shaming me like a dad who just caught his son cheating on his homework. Next time I'll just save the debate for the bar, if those ever open up again. 

Signing off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LotsO'Knots said:

....

As for my intentions:

If you'd read back up the thread, you might have seen me mention multiple times that this post was never intended to be an argument for who SHOULD have won, or how I refused to concede, or about my thoughts towards the IL RC, or towards the 2nd place Melges. I stated on multiple occasions that this was a case study and debate about the rules and the application of those rules, in what was (to me, at least), an unprecedented situation. I have always sung the praises of the RC, and of the race they managed to put on during extremely adverse circumstances. I continue to hold the RC and the club in a very high regard. Also, I have already arranged to meet with the RC chair to return the trophy so that it may be passed to the rightful winning boat. So how about you guys just relax and get off your high horses, stop with the chest pumping and the "WWJD", and participate in a debate about the rules of sailing and how they might be/should be applied in a rare and interesting scenario.

I found it an interesting debate and apparently I wasn't alone, as over 60 of you chimed in, with almost exactly a 50/50 split in opinion (yeah I counted). Seems like a pretty on--topic thread for such a forum, but boy I won't ever make that mistake again - not with the social-justice-warrior, holier-than-thou thought-police on here shaming me like a dad who just caught his son cheating on his homework. Next time I'll just save the debate for the bar, if those ever open up again. 

Signing off.

and from your first post

On 8/26/2020 at 4:43 PM, LotsO'Knots said:

Before I spend an hour reading the rule book, what say the internet??

I'm confused - you asked for an opinion on what should have been done, and now you don't want to hear the opinion?  I provided two responses.  One based on a factual timeline that provides the basis for what the RC did to rescore the race, and the second based on my opinion.

You are obviously deeply hurt and should seek counseling for this traumatic event in your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, WHK said:

and from your first post

I'm confused - you asked for an opinion on what should have been done, and now you don't want to hear the opinion?  I provided two responses.  One based on a factual timeline that provides the basis for what the RC did to rescore the race, and the second based on my opinion.

You are obviously deeply hurt and should seek counseling for this traumatic event in your life.

He clearly was just looking for people to agree with him from the start. If he was the sportsman he claims to be, this would not have been any issue at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2020 at 9:11 PM, LotsO'Knots said:

Clime, thanks for the most valid comment yet.

Let me clarify my question a bit for all the haters: I'm asking specifically about the rules, and how a jury should/would/could approach this situation at hand, NOT whether I should bitch and moan about "whether I should have won". Note my absence of whining, and my matter-of-fact play by play summary..... relax....

A couple of facts to set straight, per your questions:

  • Yes the boat in question is Zingara, a very sexy and very fast custom Brooklin Boatyard cold molded 45' yawl with modern underbody.
  • The boat rated 111/114 for over ten years under PHRF-NE. PHRF-NB issued us a cert rating us a 127/133 (spin/non-spin) about a week before the regatta.
  • The PHRF-NB office reached out about 6 days after the race to say this: "We missed the fact that PHRFNE treated your boat as a non-overlapping headsail boat.  We treated it as being an overlapping headsail boat which resulted in the Headsail adjustment of +9 for your Spinnaker Rating and +12 for Non-Spinnaker, this should not have been applied.  As a result I will amend your certificate to reflect this change and your new rating will be: Spinnaker 118; Non-Spinnaker 121.."
  • The boat has always sailed with the same 110% overlapping jib, forever, in every single race. We used this same jib in this race. The PHRF committee was actually provided multiple photos of the boat under sail for the purpose of issuing this new cert, because they had questions about the position of our jib leads. So it wasn't a question of using an overlapping headsail vs a non overlapping headsail, its a question of how the rating accommodates a boost for boats designed for XL overlapping headsails. In their words: 

"In our rules we treat boat’s headsails in two categories.  The first is a boat that was designed with overlapping headsails, these boats have a baseline headsail of 155% LP.  The second is a boat design with non-overlapping headsails or less than 118% LP.  Any change in headsail size is then adjusted based on Table A for the first category and Table B for the second category. So in your case we initially thought your boat, in its base configuration, had a 155% Genoa and you were sailing with a 110% Genoa.  A substantial difference.  Since your base configuration is with the 110% Genoa, no adjustment is necessary."

  • No, we didn't sail with a configuration other than what we were rated for, or use any sails that weren't measured. I'd rather lose than cheat.

Climenuts highlighted my two main points and concerns about this process.

1. If the bullet can be retroactively rescinded by the RC without a protest, and without an error by the RC (the alleged error was the PHRF-NB committee), then what stops anyone from appealing their rating and protesting a result after the fact? 

2. RRS.90.3C states that an RC may retroactively correct results "When a race committee determines from its own records or observation that it has scored a boat incorrectly". But in this case, the RC did not make a mistake. We were scored on a valid PHRF certificate, and then the PHRF-NB committee changed our rating 6 days after the race.

Once again, for the haters in the peanut gallery, I'm not whinging about whether we should keep the trophy over the other guy who arguably had a more valid PHRF measurement, I'm asking what the procedure should be and/or if the RC, in this case, is correct in their ruling, and if they can deny me redress in the absence of a protest against my rating?

Thanks BRASS for your quote/excerpt: "A3: When a race is conducted for boats racing under a rating system, the rating that should be used to calculate a boat's corrected time is her rating at the time the race is sailed. Her score should not be changed if later the rating authority, acting on its own volition, changes her rating."

 

The CORRUPTION of PHRF committee's never cease to amaze me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2020 at 7:45 PM, WHK said:

Late to chime in on this because I just saw it.  Here are facts as I can reconstruct.

Thus it appears that rescoring with the correct rating was the proper thing to do.

Now for opinion.  I was the 3rd place boat (first on uncorrected time) and showed up after the dinner at ILYC to pick up my trophy. I spoke with the Melges 24 skipper and congratulated him.  He kicked my ass planing past me downwind.  Going upwind he wasn't having much fun on the west side popping like a cork in the chop as we passed him, but he lost too much time upwind to be able to pass me again on the next downwind leg.  When I saw him at the awards, his hands were like chop meat and he worked real hard with his crew to finish where they did.  It's not the first time he's beaten me and I'm sure not the last.  I congratulated him and look forward to another opportunity to race against him again.  Yeah, PHRF sucks when conditions favor one type boat over another and that's why I prefer OD but it wasn't an option. 

He called me later that week and asked if I had reported the improper Zingara PHRF rating.  I told him no, that I wasn't aware of it and then checked the PHRF-NB website for the rating. If I had found that my finish was calculated using a wrong value and it made the outcome different (better or worse) I feel a personal obligation to let the RC know.  I've done it in the past on Tuesday night race series when we shift from Spring to Summer. Typically I'll use a 110% jib in spring and 145% genoa in summer.  JYC continued to score me with the slower rating.  I caught it after the first race and had them rescore, dropping our finish down a few positions.

Suck it up and congratulate the 1st place finisher on the win!

 

Just for giggles,  why does it matter that you were ‘first on uncorrected time’?  You were the second fastest boat out of 13.  you were suppose to be 1st or 2nd.  Are there bonus points awarded for that? 

 

Share this post


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

The CORRUPTION of PHRF committee's never cease to amaze me

I use to think you were always  blowharding about this, but then I saw  the light.  Ain’t it the truth. 

Share this post


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

Just for giggles,  why does it matter that you were ‘first on uncorrected time’?  You were the second fastest boat out of 13.  you were suppose to be 1st or 2nd.  Are there bonus points awarded for that? 

 

Actually there is for Ida Lewis distance race.  The Lighthousekeeper trophy is awarded for best uncorrected time in class.  I got beat on corrected time - good on the guys that beat me!  I saw Zephyros and congratulated him in person.

IdaDistance2020Awards-1024x768.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2020 at 12:08 PM, Somebody Else said:

 

On 8/29/2020 at 12:08 PM, Somebody Else said:

LotsO'Knots, your boat should be scored using the true rating it was configured at the time of the race.  

If you supplied the incorrect rating to the officiating body, you should be disqualified if it was your fault or rescored if it was PHRF'S FAULT. How difficult is that to understand?

How, by any stretch of the imagination, should redress be applied to this correctly scored race?

 

So if your boat  rating is reviewed at the request of other competitors and they give your boat a new rating though nothing was changed on the boat should all of your previous race results be recalculated? It would appear the previous rating  according to the PHRF Board was incorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat should be scored with the correct rating.

If previous races were scored with an incorrect rating, they should be rescored.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 12:55 PM, VWAP said:

So if your boat  rating is reviewed at the request of other competitors and they give your boat a new rating though nothing was changed on the boat should all of your previous race results be recalculated? It would appear the previous rating  according to the PHRF Board was incorrect

A competitor initiated a review. That means any change is from the date the rating is changed forward.
Read the So Cal PHRF Rules

https://www.phrfsocal.org/wp-content/uploads/Rules/lr.pdf

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