Jump to content


So is Redress supposed to work like this?


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#1 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 05 September 2011 - 05:05 PM

6 race series, one discard.
Coming into the last race
Boat 1 is scoring 1,1,RDGa,1,4. RDGa was for a BFD that was overturned in the room, so they were awarded average points.
Boat 2 is scoring 2,4,1,2,5

Boat 2 goes for Boat 1 before the start and takes them both to the back of the fleet. Eventually Boat 1 places 37th, and boat 2 38th.
Thus Boat 1's average points go to 8.8 and Boat 2 wins the event, having failed to finish ahead of Boat 1 in any race in the series.

I wonder if there's a case for average points to exclude the last race of the series? I know hard cases make for bad law, but this situation doesn't seem too clever.

#2 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,350 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 05 September 2011 - 05:21 PM

You toss the discard before working out the average score.

#3 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 05 September 2011 - 08:05 PM

You toss the discard before working out the average score.

citation, please.

RRS:

A10 GUIDANCE ON REDRESS
If the protest committee decides to give redress by adjusting a boat's score for a race, it is advised to consider scoring her

  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races in the series except the race in question;
  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races before the race in question; or
  • points based on the position of the boat in the race at the time of the incident that justified redress.


#4 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 05 September 2011 - 08:32 PM


You toss the discard before working out the average score.

citation, please.

RRS:

A10 GUIDANCE ON REDRESS
If the protest committee decides to give redress by adjusting a boat's score for a race, it is advised to consider scoring her

  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races in the series except the race in question;
  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races before the race in question; or
  • points based on the position of the boat in the race at the time of the incident that justified redress.

RRS A10 is advisory, so it really depends on how the PC writes the decision. A good PC will be very specific in how "average points" are calculated.

#5 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 08:57 PM



You toss the discard before working out the average score.

citation, please.

RRS:

A10 GUIDANCE ON REDRESS
If the protest committee decides to give redress by adjusting a boat's score for a race, it is advised to consider scoring her

  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races in the series except the race in question;
  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races before the race in question; or
  • points based on the position of the boat in the race at the time of the incident that justified redress.

RRS A10 is advisory, so it really depends on how the PC writes the decision. A good PC will be very specific in how "average points" are calculated.


To avoid the possibility of the situation described in the OP, the PC would have to award average points on a boats score AFTER applying the discard. That would be fair.

The result produced in the OP was grossly unfair. But no PC could have anticipated that happening.

#6 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:09 PM

JimC,

Please, give us some more information.

1. "6 race series, one discard."

Q1: All six on the same day? Yes? No?

2. "RDGa was for a BFD that was overturned in the room"

Q2: Wow! Did RC made a significant error?

#7 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:13 PM

To avoid the possibility of the situation described in the OP, the PC would have to award average points on a boats score AFTER applying the discard. That would be fair.
The result produced in the OP was grossly unfair. But no PC could have anticipated that happening.

I dunno though: in normal circumstances I would think it fairest for the average to reflect all the races sailed, just like the guidelines and certainly not what would be a weighted average with the worst result removed. Had I been the PC I would have awarded average points after about ten seconds consideration: as you say I'd never have anticipated that happening, but I bet now its happened once, and in a high profile UK event at that, it will happen again...

Do you think the PC should have reopened the redress hearing? Would the end result points be

significant new evidence ... available within a reasonable time

You could make a case that in the event the redress granted turned out not to be fair even though the PC couldn't possibly have been expected to know that at the time...

Q1: All six on the same day? Yes? No?
Q2: Wow! Did RC made a significant error?

I wasn't at the event, but it was one race a day. I have no idea of the circumstances of the redress hearing.

#8 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:21 PM


To avoid the possibility of the situation described in the OP, the PC would have to award average points on a boats score AFTER applying the discard. That would be fair.
The result produced in the OP was grossly unfair. But no PC could have anticipated that happening.

I dunno though: in normal circumstances I would think it fairest for the average to reflect all the races sailed, just like the guidelines and certainly not what would be a weighted average with the worst result removed. Had I been the PC I would have awarded average points after about ten seconds consideration: as you say I'd never have anticipated that happening, but I bet now its happened once, and in a high profile UK event at that, it will happen again...

Do you think the PC should have reopened the redress hearing? Would the end result points be

significant new evidence ... available within a reasonable time

You could make a case that in the event the redress granted turned out not to be fair even though the PC couldn't possibly have been expected to know that at the time...

A bit hard for the PC to reopen the hearing and change their decision. That's for IJs to respond to.

Could RRS2 come into the picture here? Could the eventual winner be considered to have not competed under "the recognized principles of sportsmanship & fair play" in this situation?

#9 Lido Guy

Lido Guy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:32 PM

Nothing unsportsmanlike about pushing a boat back into the fleet if it will help your series score.

#10 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:37 PM

Nothing unsportsmanlike about pushing a boat back into the fleet if it will help your series score.

I raised the question because it might be considered unsportsmanlike to win a series without ever beating the opposition by engaging in tactics that will result in an unfair final result.

Unfortunately, sportsmanship is a bit like proper course.

#11 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,529 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:43 PM

Nothing unsportsmanlike about pushing a boat back into the fleet if it will help your series score.


of course not...,

but the problem here is a different one..., the problem here is that once redress is granted, it creates a highly asymmetric strategic calculus for the competitors.

for the sailor to whom redress has been granted, a bad score effectively counts twice, but for the sailor who decides to drive him to the back of the fleet in a race (who will presumably also receive a bad score), the bad score only counts once.

now, if neither sailor has used their drop, the one who got the redress, still effectively has to count it once, but the one who drove him back doesn't count it at all.

in effect the sailor who gets redress becomes a sitting duck.

remember, that when someone gets redress, it was because the original bad score was "no fault of their own"

now, we turn the redress into a penalty.

#12 Lido Guy

Lido Guy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:46 PM


You toss the discard before working out the average score.

citation, please.

RRS:

A10 GUIDANCE ON REDRESS
If the protest committee decides to give redress by adjusting a boat's score for a race, it is advised to consider scoring her

  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races in the series except the race in question;
  • points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races before the race in question; or
  • points based on the position of the boat in the race at the time of the incident that justified redress.


Looking at option one, it seems to me that the RC should take the average points for the races that are actually scored, and not include points for the race that is taken as a discard. Once you race enough races for the discard to take effect, the race with the worst finish is discarded, i.e. there are no points for that race.

But, this is just advisory, so the RC can pretty much do whatever they think is fair when granting redress. :)

#13 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:46 PM

To avoid the possibility of the situation described in the OP, the PC would have to award average points on a boats score AFTER applying the discard. That would be fair.
The result produced in the OP was grossly unfair. But no PC could have anticipated that happening.

I dunno though: in normal circumstances I would think it fairest for the average to reflect all the races sailed, just like the guidelines and certainly not what would be a weighted average with the worst result removed. Had I been the PC I would have awarded average points after about ten seconds consideration: as you say I'd never have anticipated that happening, but I bet now its happened once, and in a high profile UK event at that, it will happen again...
Do you think the PC should have reopened the redress hearing? Would the end result points be

significant new evidence ... available within a reasonable time

You could make a case that in the event the redress granted turned out not to be fair even though the PC couldn't possibly have been expected to know that at the time...

A bit hard for the PC to reopen the hearing and change their decision. That's for IJs to respond to.
Could RRS2 come into the picture here? Could the eventual winner be considered to have not competed under "the recognized principles of sportsmanship & fair play" in this situation?

I don't think the protest committee would be relying on 'new evidence'. It would be relying on 'significant error': an outcome of its unqualified deicsion that was not foreseen and was unfair. Yes I think they could reopen and give average excluding the discardable score.
No breach of rule 2: See Case 78.

#14 Lido Guy

Lido Guy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:52 PM

but the problem here is a different one..., the problem here is that once redress is granted, it creates a highly asymmetric strategic calculus for the competitors.

for the sailor to whom redress has been granted, a bad score effectively counts twice, but for the sailor who decides to drive him to the back of the fleet in a race (who will presumably also receive a bad score), the bad score only counts once.

now, if neither sailor has used their drop, the one who got the redress, still effectively has to count it once, but the one who drove him back doesn't count it at all.

in effect the sailor who gets redress becomes a sitting duck.

remember, that when someone gets redress, it was because the original bad score was "no fault of their own"

now, we turn the redress into a penalty.


I agree completely and don't think that it is in anyway fair to include a discarded score when calculating average points. There are no points scored when you take a discard.

#15 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:54 PM

To avoid the possibility of the situation described in the OP, the PC would have to award average points on a boats score AFTER applying the discard. That would be fair.
The result produced in the OP was grossly unfair. But no PC could have anticipated that happening.

I dunno though: in normal circumstances I would think it fairest for the average to reflect all the races sailed, just like the guidelines and certainly not what would be a weighted average with the worst result removed. Had I been the PC I would have awarded average points after about ten seconds consideration: as you say I'd never have anticipated that happening, but I bet now its happened once, and in a high profile UK event at that, it will happen again...
Do you think the PC should have reopened the redress hearing? Would the end result points be

significant new evidence ... available within a reasonable time

You could make a case that in the event the redress granted turned out not to be fair even though the PC couldn't possibly have been expected to know that at the time...

A bit hard for the PC to reopen the hearing and change their decision. That's for IJs to respond to.
Could RRS2 come into the picture here? Could the eventual winner be considered to have not competed under "the recognized principles of sportsmanship & fair play" in this situation?

I don't think the protest committee would be relying on 'new evidence'. It would be relying on 'significant error': an outcome of its unqualified deicsion that was not foreseen and was unfair. Yes I think they could reopen and give average excluding the discardable score.
No breach of rule 2: See Case 78.

only problem is that could be seen as the PC changing things after the fact because they don't like how things turned out.

#16 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,340 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 05 September 2011 - 10:33 PM

Boat 1 loses because she let let Boat 2 keep her at the back of the fleet. Boat 2's success in ruining Boat 1's series is in no way preordained.

Still, I think the scoring system is unfair. To have the discard affect a non-discard seems screwy.

#17 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 10:39 PM

Boat 1 loses because she let let Boat 2 keep her at the back of the fleet. Boat 2's success in ruining Boat 1's series is in no way preordained.

Still, I think the scoring system is unfair. To have the discard affect a non-discard seems screwy.


Boat 2 still let boat 1 beat her in EVERY race.

I have witnessed 2 World Champions battle it out for last place in the last race of a Worlds - but not as in the OP.

#18 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 10:42 PM

If it was one race a day event and Boat 1 has been given redress in race 3, then its score in Race 3 should have been based on Boat's Nr.1 results in Races 1 and 2 and should have been published prior to Race 4.( Assuming, of course, that request forredress was heard after the race No.3).
Any decision by PC to adjust Boat's 1 score in Race 3 based on all (including following) races would have been unfair to Boat 1. -i.e.it changes the game - you're expected to compete, knowing that your results in all races will also affect your result in one of the previos ones. Othe rboats competing did not have such requirements.
Maybe it would have been wise to abandon the race No.3?

#19 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 06 September 2011 - 12:36 AM

Looking at option one, it seems to me that the RC should take the average points for the races that are actually scored, and not include points for the race that is taken as a discard. Once you race enough races for the discard to take effect, the race with the worst finish is discarded, i.e. there are no points for that race.

But, this is just advisory, so the RC can pretty much do whatever they think is fair when granting redress. :)

Just for future reference, the RC (while responsible for scoring) does not grant redress.

That's the Protest Committee's turf.

#20 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 06 September 2011 - 12:41 AM

If it was one race a day event and Boat 1 has been given redress in race 3, then its score in Race 3 should have been based on Boat's Nr.1 results in Races 1 and 2 and should have been published prior to Race 4.( Assuming, of course, that request forredress was heard after the race No.3).
Any decision by PC to adjust Boat's 1 score in Race 3 based on all (including following) races would have been unfair to Boat 1. -i.e.it changes the game - you're expected to compete, knowing that your results in all races will also affect your result in one of the previos ones. Othe rboats competing did not have such requirements.
Maybe it would have been wise to abandon the race No.3?


Unwise, it would be.

64.2 Decisions on Redress
When the protest committee decides that a boat is entitled to redress
under rule 62, it shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all
boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress.


Abandoning a race because one boat was scored BFD incorrectly by the RC is quite unfair to all the other competitors who started, sailed the course and finished correctly.

#21 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:21 AM

Yes I think they could reopen and give average excluding the discardable score.

Only problem is that could be seen as the PC changing things after the fact because they don't like how things turned out.

Agree it's a 'problem' but I don't think it's a deal-breaker.
Protest committee is required to make 'as fair arrangement as possible'.
Reopening under rule 66 is to allow protest committee to fix a mistake. When later events demonstrate that the original decision was not 'as fair as possible', then protest committee can fix it. There's a readily obvious rationale for changing the decision, which is just an elaboaration on the previous decision|: no change in principle.
The protest committee can always invite all the competkitors along and see what they all think.

#22 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:26 AM

If it was one race a day event and Boat 1 has been given redress in race 3, then its score in Race 3 should have been based on Boat's Nr.1 results in Races 1 and 2 and should have been published prior to Race 4.( Assuming, of course, that request forredress was heard after the race No.3).
Any decision by PC to adjust Boat's 1 score in Race 3 based on all (including following) races would have been unfair to Boat 1. -i.e.it changes the game - you're expected to compete, knowing that your results in all races will also affect your result in one of the previos ones. Othe rboats competing did not have such requirements.
Maybe it would have been wise to abandon the race No.3?

Agree with Hobie. ABN is a last resort. There's nearly always some way to give mass redress without abandoning.

Can't see a good reason for giving only average in races to date in this case, particularly in the light of concerns about averaging over too small a sample in Q&A 2007-001.

#23 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:10 AM

Yes I think they could reopen and give average excluding the discardable score.

Only problem is that could be seen as the PC changing things after the fact because they don't like how things turned out.

Agree it's a 'problem' but I don't think it's a deal-breaker.
Protest committee is required to make 'as fair arrangement as possible'.
Reopening under rule 66 is to allow protest committee to fix a mistake. When later events demonstrate that the original decision was not 'as fair as possible', then protest committee can fix it. There's a readily obvious rationale for changing the decision, which is just an elaboaration on the previous decision|: no change in principle.
The protest committee can always invite all the competkitors along and see what they all think.


The problem is that having set the redress sets 2nd places strategy for the last race. If they had set a different redress would the 2nd placed boat have done something differently?
Making a change to the scoring after the end of the last race is seldom fair to everyone.

#24 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:21 AM

Agree with Hobie. ABN is a last resort. There's nearly always some way to give mass redress without abandoning.

Can't see a good reason for giving only average in races to date in this case, particularly in the light of concerns about averaging over too small a sample in Q&A 2007-001.


Sure! (That's about ABN). It was just a rhetorical question. We still don't have enough information.. And, btw, Q&A2007-001 deals with only two days of racing and redress at the end of day two. Different situation.

#25 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:25 AM

What event did this occur in?

#26 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:30 AM

6 race series, one discard.
Coming into the last race
Boat 1 is scoring 1,1,RDGa,1,4. RDGa was for a BFD that was overturned in the room, so they were awarded average points.
Boat 2 is scoring 2,4,1,2,5

Boat 2 goes for Boat 1 before the start and takes them both to the back of the fleet. Eventually Boat 1 places 37th, and boat 2 38th.
Thus Boat 1's average points go to 8.8 and Boat 2 wins the event, having failed to finish ahead of Boat 1 in any race in the series.

I wonder if there's a case for average points to exclude the last race of the series? I know hard cases make for bad law, but this situation doesn't seem too clever.



Rule A10 give guidance on redress. Redress may have been (but options not limited to) either:

0. Average of all races scored - including discards. (A10a)
1. Average of Races 1 & 2. (A10b)
2. Average of races not including the discard. (Suggested in this thread.)

0. Average of all races scored - including discards. (A10a)

Clearly this solution (A10a) is not sensible. When one race is able to make such a significant change to the 'average' score and result in this situation, it is not the fairest to all boats.

A10a may work better in a longer series or in a fleet with fewer boats.

1. Average of Races 1 & 2 Only. (A10b)

This has been mentioned in conjunction with Q&A 2007-001 and regarding sample size.

However, I think that Q&A is not so much about sample size, but about the sample size vs number of redressed races. It says that the sample should always be more than the number of races for which redress is applied.

By using only races 1&2, to apply redress to race 3, the sample is greater than the number of races to which that average is applied.

Option 1 seems very valid to me.

2. Average of races not counting the discard.

Interestingly one of the latest Q&A's (2011-015) addresses this question, burried within another issue.

Question 2
Assuming the sailing instructions allow for a discard, should one race be discarded before
calculating the average points?

Answer 2
No, normally not. Although the protest committee may make any arrangement they consider the
fairest for all the boats involved, rule A10 gives a guidance on redress and rule A10(a) specifically
refers to counting all the races in the series.


Notice the word 'normally' here. Also notice, that the suggestion that the discard be discounted before averaging, is only specified in A10a. Lastly, remember that all of A10 is only guidance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

What should have happened.

So, to me there are two solutions which probably would have been more preferable:

A10b - points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05
to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races before the
race in question; or,

Modified A10a - points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05
to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races in the
series except the race in question and not including discarded scores.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

What happens now?- Can the PC go back and change the redress?

I think so. Rule 60 basically allows anyone to request redress for a boat.

Applying original redress which is not the fairest to all boat is an improper action by the PC. So further redress would be available under rule 62.1a.

The time limit would be extended to take into account the calculation of the last race results.

Unfortunateley, one boat will say that her entire strategy was based on the original redress, and therefore she should get redress for the final race. Fair enough.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

DW's Solution - Post series

Giving redress to both boats for the tactics in race which were based on the original redress. Then giving redress to Boat A for race #3.

1. Step 1 - Give redress to both boats (average points for all races sailed) for race 6,

Boat A 1, 1, X, 1, 4, RDG* >> 1, 1, X, 1, 4, 1.8*

Boat B 2,4,1,2,5, RDG* >> 2,4,1,2,5, 2.8*


2. Give redress to Boat A for race #3 based on all races scored.

Boat A 1, 1, RDG, 1, 4, 1.8* >> 1, 1, 1.8*, 1, 4, 1.8** = 8.8 pts

Boat B 2,4,1,2,5**, 2.8 = 11.8

*Result of Redress
** Discarded from Total.

BOAT A Wins with 8.8 points.

DW

#27 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 06 September 2011 - 08:04 AM

I think it better not to name the event at this stage since it tends to personalise a debate on what I think is basically a scoring problem...

The trouble with A10b, considering the situation beyond this example, is supposing the redress were granted in the first race?

At the moment I still go back to my thought that the appendix should list an option of average of all races except the last race, or possibly last (number of discards) races

- it means that sail down the fleet in the last race to bring down the average doesn't work, although sailing down the fleet to bring a poor result into play does.
- it means that the points scored in the series up to date are known precisely before the race so working out who needs to beat who is much easier
- although there is still the option of sailing the other boat down the fleet in an earlier race, its a much higher risk strategy since if you sail both of you into a discard in the last but one race and then screw up in the last race then you have stuffed your own series and could very easily end up with boat number three beating both of you.

#28 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 08:13 AM

I think it better not to name the event at this stage since it tends to personalise a debate on what I think is basically a scoring problem...

The trouble with A10b, considering the situation beyond this example, is supposing the redress were granted in the first race?

At the moment I still go back to my thought that the appendix should list an option of average of all races except the last race, or possibly last (number of discards) races

- it means that sail down the fleet in the last race to bring down the average doesn't work, although sailing down the fleet to bring a poor result into play does.
- it means that the points scored in the series up to date are known precisely before the race so working out who needs to beat who is much easier
- although there is still the option of sailing the other boat down the fleet in an earlier race, its a much higher risk strategy since if you sail both of you into a discard in the last but one race and then screw up in the last race then you have stuffed your own series and could very easily end up with boat number three beating both of you.

If the event is of high enough stature then ISAF might look at the problem.

I think the fairest way to deal with it is to score average points of all races after the discard.

#29 European Bloke

European Bloke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,630 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 08:25 AM

The 'special twist' here was the boat that was black flagged was not informed at the time so they knew his actual finish position in the race in question...

#30 pidry

pidry

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 September 2011 - 08:32 AM

My opinion:

- The redress decision taken after race 3 should not be changed. Competitors should know what they are dealing with (both, boat 1 and boat 2), to adjust their tactics accordingly.

- Counting only the races prior to the incident should be done only when there is a specific reason, e.g. redress was given because of a damage that changes later performance.

- Under "normal" circumstances, all races should be taken into account, including the redress.

Simple example: We had a small race this spring, where the jury awarded redress EXCLUDING the discard. Boats on places 3 and 4 had the following points:
Boat 1: 3 - RDG (=3.5) - OCS* - 3 => 9.5 points
Boat 2: 4 - 6* - 4 - 3 => 11 points
*excluded

We had a big discusion after the event, because the jury excluded the discarded score. The general argument was that a redress should represent your average performance, and averaging means including the good and the bad races, and therefore your mistakes, not only the good.

How could a jury foresee whether you will have a bad race, which should be counted, or you are victim to tactical games, which (maybe) should not be counted?

I'm not sure, but the proposal to include all races but excluding the last to minimize the risk of tactical disadvantages sounds not too bad ...

#31 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 08:53 AM

My opinion:

- The redress decision taken after race 3 should not be changed. Competitors should know what they are dealing with (both, boat 1 and boat 2), to adjust their tactics accordingly.

- Counting only the races prior to the incident should be done only when there is a specific reason, e.g. redress was given because of a damage that changes later performance.

- Under "normal" circumstances, all races should be taken into account, including the redress.

Simple example: We had a small race this spring, where the jury awarded redress EXCLUDING the discard. Boats on places 3 and 4 had the following points:
Boat 1: 3 - RDG (=3.5) - OCS* - 3 => 9.5 points
Boat 2: 4 - 6* - 4 - 3 => 11 points
*excluded

We had a big discusion after the event, because the jury excluded the discarded score. The general argument was that a redress should represent your average performance, and averaging means including the good and the bad races, and therefore your mistakes, not only the good.

How could a jury foresee whether you will have a bad race, which should be counted, or you are victim to tactical games, which (maybe) should not be counted?

I'm not sure, but the proposal to include all races but excluding the last to minimize the risk of tactical disadvantages sounds not too bad ...

I have to ask .... how do you average 3 & 3 and get 3.5

Also it looks like a dead heat in the last race - both scored 3.

#32 bye bye

bye bye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 10:10 AM

I'm amazed at the weight being given to advice in comparison to direct instruction to find a solution that is fair to all.

The fairest result for the race would of been to reinstate the competitor in their finishing position. None of the other competitors would of had their race materially prejudiced by thinking the competitor may of been black flagged, in the same way you wouldn't stop sailing in that situation if you intended to apply for redress. In fact the rules state that a boat is still racing unless it turns back (OCS) or retires.

Following the letter like that I'm guessing this was an appeal nervous international jury? What 'advice' is doing in the rule book lord knows.

#33 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 06 September 2011 - 10:36 AM

The fairest result for the race would of been to reinstate the competitor in their finishing position.

This is why I was trying to keep the event out of it. If the crew did cross the line then I agree that giving average points instead of a finishing position was probably a mistake. But the next time the situation occurs the average points will probably be legitimate.

#34 Peragrin

Peragrin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 11:55 AM

Discards only apply after the racing has finished and all races calculated. Therefore races that are disgarded still count toward those totals. Once all finished positions are calculated then and only then can the worst race be officailly disgarded. What happens is that most race officails, and racers like running totals which keeps them informed however a running total doesnt count all races and therefore invalid.

To the boat that got ran off the course well, why did you let it happen? It is tactics to keep your competitors at bay and boat 2 apparently did a masterful job of fucking you up. For that alone they deserve to beat you. Just remember they are superior tactitcains to you.

#35 l4k

l4k

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 12:08 PM

Discards only apply after the racing has finished and all races calculated. Therefore races that are disgarded still count toward those totals. Once all finished positions are calculated then and only then can the worst race be officailly disgarded. What happens is that most race officails, and racers like running totals which keeps them informed however a running total doesnt count all races and therefore invalid.

To the boat that got ran off the course well, why did you let it happen? It is tactics to keep your competitors at bay and boat 2 apparently did a masterful job of fucking you up. For that alone they deserve to beat you. Just remember they are superior tactitcains to you.


Excellent - a sensible and well-written response... *facepalm*

#36 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:16 PM

The fairest result for the race would of been to reinstate the competitor in their finishing position.

This is why I was trying to keep the event out of it. If the crew did cross the line then I agree that giving average points instead of a finishing position was probably a mistake. But the next time the situation occurs the average points will probably be legitimate.

So, JimC,
I'd still like to know more details...

Q1: Did Boat 1 sailed the course and finished according to RRS 28 and definition 'Finish' in Race No.3?
Q2: On what grounds Boat 1 requested redress in Race No.3?

BFD is pretty unique situation, isn't it?

#37 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:37 PM

To the boat that got ran off the course well, why did you let it happen? It is tactics to keep your competitors at bay and boat 2 apparently did a masterful job of fucking you up. For that alone they deserve to beat you. Just remember they are superior tactitcains to you.


That's total bullshit! The boat that was given redress was NEVER beaten by the other boat. Are you on the boat that was beaten in each race?

#38 Ryley

Ryley

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,016 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • Interests:Sailing, Photography, Sailing, Mountain Biking.. did I mention sailing?

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:50 PM

Peragrin, since JimC won't tell us what regatta this was, we have no idea whether it's OD or PHRF/IRC. If it's OD, you might have a point. If it's PHRF, you're crazy. If I have a boat that rates, say, -6, and you have a boat that rates say, 30ish, then it should be reasonably easy for me to sail you off the course regardless of your tactics. now, if you are in the controlling position and I can't get past you, then maybe you're right - I deserved to lose. but since we don't have that information, I think it's a pretty douchenozzle move for you to cast aspersions without the facts. Oh wait - SA - sorry, my bad. continue acting like a douchenozzle.

#39 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:05 PM

I'd still like to know more details...
Q1: Did Boat 1 sailed the course and finished according to RRS 28 and definition 'Finish' in Race No.3?
Q2: On what grounds Boat 1 requested redress in Race No.3?

This situation can occur again. There are a whole bunch of circumstances in which average points can be awarded in an early race. Whether the PC was right or wrong to award average points in this particular instance is not relevant to the discussion as to whether the end result was desirable. If I were to name the event the thread would probably divert right off the main topic, which might be quite fun, but wouldn't be helpful to establishing whether indeed we have a problem with the rules. I don't think I even know the participants. For all I know one or other might be putting through an appeal or something (I bet I would!) but who knows.

#40 shiny

shiny

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Location:Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten/Cowes

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:13 PM


I'd still like to know more details...
Q1: Did Boat 1 sailed the course and finished according to RRS 28 and definition 'Finish' in Race No.3?
Q2: On what grounds Boat 1 requested redress in Race No.3?

This situation can occur again. There are a whole bunch of circumstances in which average points can be awarded in an early race. Whether the PC was right or wrong to award average points in this particular instance is not relevant to the discussion as to whether the end result was desirable. If I were to name the event the thread would probably divert right off the main topic, which might be quite fun, but wouldn't be helpful to establishing whether indeed we have a problem with the rules. I don't think I even know the participants. For all I know one or other might be putting through an appeal or something (I bet I would!) but who knows.


Keeping to the problem itself, it would easily be avoided if the protest committee (or jury) had awarded average points after excluded races. A good example of where such a reward should be made.

#41 l4k

l4k

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:31 PM



I'd still like to know more details...
Q1: Did Boat 1 sailed the course and finished according to RRS 28 and definition 'Finish' in Race No.3?
Q2: On what grounds Boat 1 requested redress in Race No.3?

This situation can occur again. There are a whole bunch of circumstances in which average points can be awarded in an early race. Whether the PC was right or wrong to award average points in this particular instance is not relevant to the discussion as to whether the end result was desirable. If I were to name the event the thread would probably divert right off the main topic, which might be quite fun, but wouldn't be helpful to establishing whether indeed we have a problem with the rules. I don't think I even know the participants. For all I know one or other might be putting through an appeal or something (I bet I would!) but who knows.


Keeping to the problem itself, it would easily be avoided if the protest committee (or jury) had awarded average points after excluded races. A good example of where such a reward should be made.



Maybe, but why should the boat being given redress only get the average points for their good races? If the intention of the redress is to give the boat points relating to their average position in the fleet across all race in the series then all races should be considered to give the fairest picture of this.

This still leaves the original problem. As Jim says, an option for the protest committee would be to exclude the final race from the redress calculation, and this could be written into the PC guidance on redress. In effect this would already happen in a qualifying series + medal race regatta, where average points redress in an early race would probably be based on points over the whole qualifying series, i.e. not the final (medal) race. Doesn't help much for a regular series though.

#42 shiny

shiny

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Location:Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten/Cowes

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:37 PM

Maybe, but why should the boat being given redress only get the average points for their good races? If the intention of the redress is to give the boat points relating to their average position in the fleet across all race in the series then all races should be considered to give the fairest picture of this.


If there is a discard, then the series score is already only reflecting the boats 'good' races. Having the redress work on the same basis as the series score makes sense on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it effectively 'ignores' the redress score. The redress can not change the position of the boat in the series in either a positive of negative way.

This still leaves the original problem. As Jim says, an option for the protest committee would be to exclude the final race from the redress calculation, and this could be written into the PC guidance on redress. In effect this would already happen in a qualifying series + medal race regatta, where average points redress in an early race would probably be based on points over the whole qualifying series, i.e. not the final (medal) race. Doesn't help much for a regular series though.



If you eliminate the last race, what will prevent this sort of tactic of 'redress pollution' in the penultimate race?



#43 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:42 PM

I notice that the redress was given for a boat that got Black Flagged but not informed. While this can theoretically be a basis (other boats were informed) - the onus to "start correctly" is on the boat. So in this case the boat that got redress was "lucky" to still be "in the hunt". That they got average points when their Black Flag DSQ should have stood means that this is a no brainer. Average points for the whole series. Boat #2 beat you by sailing clean.

And its not at all unusual for the eventual champions at a top level event to never have a bullet. I believe one of the 49er worlds had a champion who never finished above 3rd, But never below 5th (in a 90 boat series run in heats of 30).

#44 shiny

shiny

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Location:Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten/Cowes

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:49 PM

I notice that the redress was given for a boat that got Black Flagged but not informed.


I don't know where you saw that in this thread.

#45 l4k

l4k

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:55 PM


Maybe, but why should the boat being given redress only get the average points for their good races? If the intention of the redress is to give the boat points relating to their average position in the fleet across all race in the series then all races should be considered to give the fairest picture of this.


If there is a discard, then the series score is already only reflecting the boats 'good' races. Having the redress work on the same basis as the series score makes sense on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it effectively 'ignores' the redress score. The redress can not change the position of the boat in the series in either a positive of negative way.


As you say, excluding the discard from the redress calculation makes it very neat, but IMO it doesn't give you a 'fair' assessment of that boat's average performance across the series.

#46 l4k

l4k

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:58 PM


I notice that the redress was given for a boat that got Black Flagged but not informed.


I don't know where you saw that in this thread.


Me neither. As I understand it the boat in question was scored BFD then managed to convince the protest committee that they weren't over the line and were therefore eligible for redress. I don't know what evidence they had to support this, and anyway this isn't relevant to the debate about the redress given.

#47 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:43 PM

While sailing another boat down the fleet is a legitimate tactic, it should only effect the race they are in. In this case, the tactic had an effect on the scores in 2 races and that I believe was unfair.

#48 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,636 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:55 PM

I have a vague recollection of sitting in Cowes week PCs awarding redress where the redress given was the average of all races for the week excluding the final race (obviously excluding the race for which redress was requested). Avoids this situation, as the finish position in the final race only affects the score relating to one race, rather than two.

Whether my memory is playing tricks on me, I'm not sure.....

#49 Peragrin

Peragrin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:17 PM

Peragrin, since JimC won't tell us what regatta this was, we have no idea whether it's OD or PHRF/IRC. If it's OD, you might have a point. If it's PHRF, you're crazy. If I have a boat that rates, say, -6, and you have a boat that rates say, 30ish, then it should be reasonably easy for me to sail you off the course regardless of your tactics. now, if you are in the controlling position and I can't get past you, then maybe you're right - I deserved to lose. but since we don't have that information, I think it's a pretty douchenozzle move for you to cast aspersions without the facts. Oh wait - SA - sorry, my bad. continue acting like a douchenozzle.

Thank you for letting me smack you with stupidity. When PHRF racing with such a difference it is extremely difficult to drive a boat off the course the faster boat will always be acceralting past the slower boat. While PHRF racing with boats of similar ir close speeds it ispossible however one crew should be able to break away with a tacking duel. enough differences exist to make it hard to stay in the sweet spot of killing the air.

Just because you because you beat them 4/6 times doesnt mean you always beat them. Consistency matters. I can' tell you the number of regattas that at least one competitor should have taken a place except for that one bad race,

Boat 1 had two bad races, and that cost them the series.

#50 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:24 PM


To the boat that got ran off the course well, why did you let it happen? It is tactics to keep your competitors at bay and boat 2 apparently did a masterful job of fucking you up. For that alone they deserve to beat you. Just remember they are superior tactitcains to you.


That's total bullshit! The boat that was given redress was NEVER beaten by the other boat. Are you on the boat that was beaten in each race?


Not necessarily true: We do not know what happened in Race 3.

#51 DancingBear

DancingBear

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Location:Naptown

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:27 PM

Since the RRS allows for a dropped race after 6 completed race, it can be assumed that the International Sailing Community feels that sailors should be allowed one "out of the norm" race out of 6. While arguments can be made for this and for not dropping any races, this is what ISAF has settled on. That being the case, it seems somewhat inconsistent to include the discard for calculating redress but not for final score.

In this situation, the sailor in question would not have even had to go out on the last day if redress had not needed to be granted. Redress is granted due to an error which was no fault of the sailor, so if no fault of the sailor, it seems somewhat unfair the sailor would lose the regatta by having to race the last race they would have probably just sat out. In addition, if there was no need for redress, the second sailor would never have even tried to sail the sailor into the back of the fleet.

#52 DancingBear

DancingBear

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Location:Naptown

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:33 PM


Peragrin, since JimC won't tell us what regatta this was, we have no idea whether it's OD or PHRF/IRC. If it's OD, you might have a point. If it's PHRF, you're crazy. If I have a boat that rates, say, -6, and you have a boat that rates say, 30ish, then it should be reasonably easy for me to sail you off the course regardless of your tactics. now, if you are in the controlling position and I can't get past you, then maybe you're right - I deserved to lose. but since we don't have that information, I think it's a pretty douchenozzle move for you to cast aspersions without the facts. Oh wait - SA - sorry, my bad. continue acting like a douchenozzle.

Thank you for letting me smack you with stupidity. When PHRF racing with such a difference it is extremely difficult to drive a boat off the course the faster boat will always be acceralting past the slower boat. While PHRF racing with boats of similar ir close speeds it ispossible however one crew should be able to break away with a tacking duel. enough differences exist to make it hard to stay in the sweet spot of killing the air.

Just because you because you beat them 4/6 times doesnt mean you always beat them. Consistency matters. I can' tell you the number of regattas that at least one competitor should have taken a place except for that one bad race,

Boat 1 had two bad races, and that cost them the series.

Not 100% sure of the facts, but from reading this thread it appears they beat them in all six races, including the one they sailed them into the back of the fleet, only to finish one place behind them.

#53 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:36 PM



I notice that the redress was given for a boat that got Black Flagged but not informed.


I don't know where you saw that in this thread.


Me neither. As I understand it the boat in question was scored BFD then managed to convince the protest committee that they weren't over the line and were therefore eligible for redress. I don't know what evidence they had to support this, and anyway this isn't relevant to the debate about the redress given.

Sure it is. Because the question is whether or not it is "fair" for them to have Avg numbers for ALL the races rather than avg not counting the discard. And if the issue was one where their redress comes from an RC mistake on Black Flag, that does affect the concept of fairness. I'll go dig up the post where I got the idea.



Ah here it is http://forums.sailin...dpost&p=3390706

Remember, Boat 1 only had to finish 28th or above to win the regattae:

Rdg = (7 + last)/5

Since the other boat never beat them they only have to tie them to win so that means

14(other boat's score) = 7 + Rdg
7 = (7 + last)/5

35 -7 = last == 28

#54 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:37 PM

If you eliminate the last race, what will prevent this sort of tactic of 'redress pollution' in the penultimate race?

If you try it in the penultimate race and then get a down the pan result in the last race there's every chance of stuffing up your own series and gifting the event to the third place sitter. Normally its only done in a no lose situation.

#55 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:48 PM

The fairest result for the race would of been to reinstate the competitor in their finishing position.

This is why I was trying to keep the event out of it. If the crew did cross the line then I agree that giving average points instead of a finishing position was probably a mistake. But the next time the situation occurs the average points will probably be legitimate.


So what actually happened in Race 3:
  • Was Boat 1 informed of the BFD situation and ordered to get off the race course?
  • Did Boat 1 sail the course?
Seems like a key issue:
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and actually sailed/completed the course, why was she not awarded her actual place/time as redress (instead of the average points)?
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and did not sail/complete the course, it would appear that she is not entitled to redress.


#56 shiny

shiny

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Location:Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten/Cowes

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:51 PM

If you eliminate the last race, what will prevent this sort of tactic of 'redress pollution' in the penultimate race?

If you try it in the penultimate race and then get a down the pan result in the last race there's every chance of stuffing up your own series and gifting the event to the third place sitter. Normally its only done in a no lose situation.


There's the rub - there's a 'chance' of stuffing your own result - but it is also the only chance of beating the boat that has beat you on the water all week, so I expect that a lot of competitive sailors would take that chance. Any time you can asymmetrically affect your competitor (by affecting two scores while only risking one of your own), it sounds a pretty good proposition...

#57 Ryley

Ryley

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,016 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • Interests:Sailing, Photography, Sailing, Mountain Biking.. did I mention sailing?

Posted 06 September 2011 - 05:08 PM


Peragrin, since JimC won't tell us what regatta this was, we have no idea whether it's OD or PHRF/IRC. If it's OD, you might have a point. If it's PHRF, you're crazy. If I have a boat that rates, say, -6, and you have a boat that rates say, 30ish, then it should be reasonably easy for me to sail you off the course regardless of your tactics. now, if you are in the controlling position and I can't get past you, then maybe you're right - I deserved to lose. but since we don't have that information, I think it's a pretty douchenozzle move for you to cast aspersions without the facts. Oh wait - SA - sorry, my bad. continue acting like a douchenozzle.

Thank you for letting me smack you with stupidity. When PHRF racing with such a difference it is extremely difficult to drive a boat off the course the faster boat will always be acceralting past the slower boat. While PHRF racing with boats of similar ir close speeds it ispossible however one crew should be able to break away with a tacking duel. enough differences exist to make it hard to stay in the sweet spot of killing the air.

Just because you because you beat them 4/6 times doesnt mean you always beat them. Consistency matters. I can' tell you the number of regattas that at least one competitor should have taken a place except for that one bad race,

Boat 1 had two bad races, and that cost them the series.


You obviously don't know the story of the two "A" boats in PHRF NE's that engaged in exactly that, with almost exactly that spread, 4 years ago. The faster boat deliberately flogged sails to keep the speeds equal and sail the slower boat off the course. That, of course, is what "tactics" is. So thank you for allowing me to smack you for ignorance.

#58 notallthere

notallthere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,648 posts
  • Location:im on a boat!
  • Interests:any sport that starts with S

Posted 06 September 2011 - 05:37 PM



Peragrin, since JimC won't tell us what regatta this was, we have no idea whether it's OD or PHRF/IRC. If it's OD, you might have a point. If it's PHRF, you're crazy. If I have a boat that rates, say, -6, and you have a boat that rates say, 30ish, then it should be reasonably easy for me to sail you off the course regardless of your tactics. now, if you are in the controlling position and I can't get past you, then maybe you're right - I deserved to lose. but since we don't have that information, I think it's a pretty douchenozzle move for you to cast aspersions without the facts. Oh wait - SA - sorry, my bad. continue acting like a douchenozzle.

Thank you for letting me smack you with stupidity. When PHRF racing with such a difference it is extremely difficult to drive a boat off the course the faster boat will always be acceralting past the slower boat. While PHRF racing with boats of similar ir close speeds it ispossible however one crew should be able to break away with a tacking duel. enough differences exist to make it hard to stay in the sweet spot of killing the air.

Just because you because you beat them 4/6 times doesnt mean you always beat them. Consistency matters. I can' tell you the number of regattas that at least one competitor should have taken a place except for that one bad race,

Boat 1 had two bad races, and that cost them the series.


You obviously don't know the story of the two "A" boats in PHRF NE's that engaged in exactly that, with almost exactly that spread, 4 years ago. The faster boat deliberately flogged sails to keep the speeds equal and sail the slower boat off the course. That, of course, is what "tactics" is. So thank you for allowing me to smack you for ignorance.


PHRF is not real racing. Sorry.

#59 ojfd

ojfd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 09:11 PM

So what actually happened in Race 3:

  • Was Boat 1 informed of the BFD situation and ordered to get off the race course?
  • Did Boat 1 sail the course?
Seems like a key issue:
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and actually sailed/completed the course, why was she not awarded her actual place/time as redress (instead of the average points)?
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and did not sail/complete the course, it would appear that she is not entitled to redress.


Thanks Ballast Technician!
At least I'm not the only one who sees this as a key issue.

What interests me even more is on what grounds Boat 1 managed to get RDG for BFD. Was it really SIGNIFICANT ERROR by the race commitee and Boat 1 was at no fault at all? What I'm trying to say is, that, if she bears even the slightest responsibility for her disqualification in Race No.3, then she was not entitled to redress in the first place (see RRS 62.1)!

#60 Peragrin

Peragrin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 09:27 PM



Peragrin, since JimC won't tell us what regatta this was, we have no idea whether it's OD or PHRF/IRC. If it's OD, you might have a point. If it's PHRF, you're crazy. If I have a boat that rates, say, -6, and you have a boat that rates say, 30ish, then it should be reasonably easy for me to sail you off the course regardless of your tactics. now, if you are in the controlling position and I can't get past you, then maybe you're right - I deserved to lose. but since we don't have that information, I think it's a pretty douchenozzle move for you to cast aspersions without the facts. Oh wait - SA - sorry, my bad. continue acting like a douchenozzle.

Thank you for letting me smack you with stupidity. When PHRF racing with such a difference it is extremely difficult to drive a boat off the course the faster boat will always be acceralting past the slower boat. While PHRF racing with boats of similar ir close speeds it ispossible however one crew should be able to break away with a tacking duel. enough differences exist to make it hard to stay in the sweet spot of killing the air.

Just because you because you beat them 4/6 times doesnt mean you always beat them. Consistency matters. I can' tell you the number of regattas that at least one competitor should have taken a place except for that one bad race,

Boat 1 had two bad races, and that cost them the series.


You obviously don't know the story of the two "A" boats in PHRF NE's that engaged in exactly that, with almost exactly that spread, 4 years ago. The faster boat deliberately flogged sails to keep the speeds equal and sail the slower boat off the course. That, of course, is what "tactics" is. So thank you for allowing me to smack you for ignorance.

I have watched it happen myself. However it means the slower boat has to do something drastic and force the faster boat to play catch up and you do it over and over again. It requires the slower boat to out think the opponent and put their speed into positions where it hurts them. Port, starboard tacking duels can work out for you in such cases. Even more so when the faster boat has to speed up / slow down.

Also I have to ask why is there such a huge difference in the PHRF fleet? they should both be classed in different fleets anyways to keep it mostly competitive.

#61 wabbiteer

wabbiteer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,351 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 10:10 PM


So what actually happened in Race 3:

  • Was Boat 1 informed of the BFD situation and ordered to get off the race course?
  • Did Boat 1 sail the course?
Seems like a key issue:
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and actually sailed/completed the course, why was she not awarded her actual place/time as redress (instead of the average points)?
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and did not sail/complete the course, it would appear that she is not entitled to redress.


Thanks Ballast Technician!
At least I'm not the only one who sees this as a key issue.

What interests me even more is on what grounds Boat 1 managed to get RDG for BFD. Was it really SIGNIFICANT ERROR by the race commitee and Boat 1 was at no fault at all? What I'm trying to say is, that, if she bears even the slightest responsibility for her disqualification in Race No.3, then she was not entitled to redress in the first place (see RRS 62.1)!


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the RC screwed up and yanked the wrong boat from the racecourse.

Hence Boat 1 did not sail the race.

Hence the redress.

I would assume that before I would assume that the PC (IJ?) at such a big event is composed of a bunch of dummies.

#62 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 10:29 PM

It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag. Redress could have been because they lost time (through no fault of their own), even though they might have finished. Their choice (if they were given one) might have been average points rather than a time adjustment.

#63 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:19 AM

It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag. Redress could have been because they lost time (through no fault of their own), even though they might have finished. Their choice (if they were given one) might have been average points rather than a time adjustment.


Would you really argue that there was no fault of her own in that case? Same situation as an individual recall: You either re-start or you sail the race and take your chance to get the OCS changed - what you do not get to do is restart and then claim redress for the time lost going back.

#64 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:29 AM


It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag. Redress could have been because they lost time (through no fault of their own), even though they might have finished. Their choice (if they were given one) might have been average points rather than a time adjustment.


Would you really argue that there was no fault of her own in that case? Same situation as an individual recall: You either re-start or you sail the race and take your chance to get the OCS changed - what you do not get to do is restart and then claim redress for the time lost going back.


I did not write restart. Read again what I wrote.

"It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag.'

That is pretty clear. It is speculating (like most here are doing) because we don't have all the facts.

It is NOT the same situation as an individual recall as that should not be signalled when the black flag is used.

#65 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:37 AM



So what actually happened in Race 3:

  • Was Boat 1 informed of the BFD situation and ordered to get off the race course?
  • Did Boat 1 sail the course?
Seems like a key issue:
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and actually sailed/completed the course, why was she not awarded her actual place/time as redress (instead of the average points)?
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and did not sail/complete the course, it would appear that she is not entitled to redress.


Thanks Ballast Technician!
At least I'm not the only one who sees this as a key issue.

What interests me even more is on what grounds Boat 1 managed to get RDG for BFD. Was it really SIGNIFICANT ERROR by the race commitee and Boat 1 was at no fault at all? What I'm trying to say is, that, if she bears even the slightest responsibility for her disqualification in Race No.3, then she was not entitled to redress in the first place (see RRS 62.1)!


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the RC screwed up and yanked the wrong boat from the racecourse.

Hence Boat 1 did not sail the race.

Hence the redress.

I would assume that before I would assume that the PC (IJ?) at such a big event is composed of a bunch of dummies.


That is my working assumption, as well (and I certainly did not suggest that PC made a mistake - let alone is "a bunch of dummies"). However, there should really be no need to make assumptions - just state the facts. Some of us know which event the OP is is talking about, others it appear do not...

#66 bye bye

bye bye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:50 AM



So what actually happened in Race 3:

  • Was Boat 1 informed of the BFD situation and ordered to get off the race course?
  • Did Boat 1 sail the course?
Seems like a key issue:
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and actually sailed/completed the course, why was she not awarded her actual place/time as redress (instead of the average points)?
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and did not sail/complete the course, it would appear that she is not entitled to redress.


Thanks Ballast Technician!
At least I'm not the only one who sees this as a key issue.

What interests me even more is on what grounds Boat 1 managed to get RDG for BFD. Was it really SIGNIFICANT ERROR by the race commitee and Boat 1 was at no fault at all? What I'm trying to say is, that, if she bears even the slightest responsibility for her disqualification in Race No.3, then she was not entitled to redress in the first place (see RRS 62.1)!


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the RC screwed up and yanked the wrong boat from the racecourse.

Hence Boat 1 did not sail the race.

Hence the redress.

I would assume that before I would assume that the PC (IJ?) at such a big event is composed of a bunch of dummies.

We've been told further up that the BFD completed the race. The race committee SHOULD NEVER yank a boat from a race. Their option is to restart the race if they feel it's necessary. Only a fool, having decided the black flag was not them, would not finish an unrecalled race.

I would guess the boat in question was asked what they felt would be a fair result and, having had bullets up to that point and having had shit race, asked for average points.

JimC, IMHO the rules are an issue in that a) they contain advice best left to a case, B) having added advice they didn't include the most obvious and include, where a competitor raced to the finish, reinstating the competitor in that position

#67 bye bye

bye bye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:55 AM


It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag. Redress could have been because they lost time (through no fault of their own), even though they might have finished. Their choice (if they were given one) might have been average points rather than a time adjustment.


Would you really argue that there was no fault of her own in that case? Same situation as an individual recall: You either re-start or you sail the race and take your chance to get the OCS changed - what you do not get to do is restart and then claim redress for the time lost going back.

Exactly, and particularly not for a black flag start where there is no option to restart.

#68 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:58 AM



It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag. Redress could have been because they lost time (through no fault of their own), even though they might have finished. Their choice (if they were given one) might have been average points rather than a time adjustment.


Would you really argue that there was no fault of her own in that case? Same situation as an individual recall: You either re-start or you sail the race and take your chance to get the OCS changed - what you do not get to do is restart and then claim redress for the time lost going back.


I did not write restart. Read again what I wrote.

"It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag.'

That is pretty clear. It is speculating (like most here are doing) because we don't have all the facts.

It is NOT the same situation as an individual recall as that should not be signalled when the black flag is used.


Ok, misunderstanding. Let me clarify:
If boat 1 " stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag", then she should not be entitled to redress. If it was the boat's decision to stop racing (temporarily), then she is partially at fault for her worse score.
My OCS example was an analogy and not specific to the (black flag) situation discussed here, but goes to the same point. The point was that as long as a boat's actions/decisions contribute to make her score in a race worse, she is not entitled to redress even if there was a mistake/an improper action by the RC (e.g., calling her OCS).



#69 kokosir

kokosir

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 02:03 AM




So what actually happened in Race 3:

  • Was Boat 1 informed of the BFD situation and ordered to get off the race course?
  • Did Boat 1 sail the course?
Seems like a key issue:
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and actually sailed/completed the course, why was she not awarded her actual place/time as redress (instead of the average points)?
  • If Boat 1 was not ordered off the race course and did not sail/complete the course, it would appear that she is not entitled to redress.


Thanks Ballast Technician!
At least I'm not the only one who sees this as a key issue.

What interests me even more is on what grounds Boat 1 managed to get RDG for BFD. Was it really SIGNIFICANT ERROR by the race commitee and Boat 1 was at no fault at all? What I'm trying to say is, that, if she bears even the slightest responsibility for her disqualification in Race No.3, then she was not entitled to redress in the first place (see RRS 62.1)!


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the RC screwed up and yanked the wrong boat from the racecourse.

Hence Boat 1 did not sail the race.

Hence the redress.

I would assume that before I would assume that the PC (IJ?) at such a big event is composed of a bunch of dummies.

We've been told further up that the BFD completed the race. The race committee SHOULD NEVER yank a boat from a race. Their option is to restart the race if they feel it's necessary. Only a fool, having decided the black flag was not them, would not finish an unrecalled race.

I would guess the boat in question was asked what they felt would be a fair result and, having had bullets up to that point and having had shit race, asked for average points.

JimC, IMHO the rules are an issue in that a) they contain advice best left to a case, B) having added advice they didn't include the most obvious and include, where a competitor raced to the finish, reinstating the competitor in that position



what are you talking about... its standard for a BFD to be removed from the course...

#70 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 02:17 AM




It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag. Redress could have been because they lost time (through no fault of their own), even though they might have finished. Their choice (if they were given one) might have been average points rather than a time adjustment.


Would you really argue that there was no fault of her own in that case? Same situation as an individual recall: You either re-start or you sail the race and take your chance to get the OCS changed - what you do not get to do is restart and then claim redress for the time lost going back.


I did not write restart. Read again what I wrote.

"It's possible that boat 1 stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag.'

That is pretty clear. It is speculating (like most here are doing) because we don't have all the facts.

It is NOT the same situation as an individual recall as that should not be signalled when the black flag is used.


Ok, misunderstanding. Let me clarify:
If boat 1 " stopped racing at one point when told (if she was told) that they were BFD then decided to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag", then she should not be entitled to redress. If it was the boat's decision to stop racing (temporarily), then she is partially at fault for her worse score.
My OCS example was an analogy and not limited to the (black flag) situation discussed here, but goes to the same point. The point was that as long as a boat's actions/decisions contribute to make her score in a race worse, she is not entitled to redress even if there was a mistake/an improper action by the RC (e.g., calling her OCS).


It appears you know more about this event than has been written in this thread. I, and probably a lot of other readers, know only what is written here.

Boat 1 was obviously called OCS on a black flag and was able to get redress. We do not know what was written in the SIs re black flag use (if anything). We do not know if there was a general recall and boat 1 was notified and subsequently decided to start in the restart, maybe a little later. We do not know how boat 1 was able to get redress. There could be various reasons why they could ask for redress, including one of the rescue boats telling them they were identified as OCS on a black flag & they should go home (sometimes written in the SIs)

If a boat stops racing at the direction of a RC boat, or if it was signalled at say the windward mark, (and that signal was in error) then that direction is an improper action by the RC.

I have seen on at least 2 occasions the mis-identification of boats as OCS on a black flag. One from the pin end, and one from a well known RO on the CB with me who IDd the wrong number. Both received redress.

#71 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 07 September 2011 - 02:27 AM

what are you talking about... its standard for a BFD to be removed from the course...

No, it's not.

Only if it's written into the sailing instructions, because it's not in the RRS.

#72 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 02:41 AM

[SNIP]
It appears you know more about this event than has been written in this thread. I, and probably a lot of other readers, know only what is written here.

Boat 1 was obviously called OCS on a black flag and was able to get redress. We do not know what was written in the SIs re black flag use (if anything). We do not know if there was a general recall and boat 1 was notified and subsequently decided to start in the restart, maybe a little later. We do not know how boat 1 was able to get redress. There could be various reasons why they could ask for redress, including one of the rescue boats telling them they were identified as OCS on a black flag & they should go home (sometimes written in the SIs)


Mostly agree with that. That is why I requested clarification of the facts (or of the assumptions, if this is to be a hypothetical scenario) - some people think the boat finished the race, others think she did not; some think she was yanked; there is the possibility of recalls/re-starts, etc.

If a boat stops racing at the direction of a RC boat, or if it was signalled at say the windward mark, (and that signal was in error) then that direction is an improper action by the RC.

I have seen on at least 2 occasions the mis-identification of boats as OCS on a black flag. One from the pin end, and one from a well known RO on the CB with me who IDd the wrong number. Both received redress.


So these are situations were the boats were 'yanked' from the course - very different from stopping "racing at one [...] then decid[ing] to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag"...

#73 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:00 AM


[SNIP]
It appears you know more about this event than has been written in this thread. I, and probably a lot of other readers, know only what is written here.

Boat 1 was obviously called OCS on a black flag and was able to get redress. We do not know what was written in the SIs re black flag use (if anything). We do not know if there was a general recall and boat 1 was notified and subsequently decided to start in the restart, maybe a little later. We do not know how boat 1 was able to get redress. There could be various reasons why they could ask for redress, including one of the rescue boats telling them they were identified as OCS on a black flag & they should go home (sometimes written in the SIs)


Mostly agree with that. That is why I requested clarification of the facts (or of the assumptions, if this is to be a hypothetical scenario) - some people think the boat finished the race, others think she did not; some think she was yanked; there is the possibility of recalls/re-starts, etc.

If a boat stops racing at the direction of a RC boat, or if it was signalled at say the windward mark, (and that signal was in error) then that direction is an improper action by the RC.

I have seen on at least 2 occasions the mis-identification of boats as OCS on a black flag. One from the pin end, and one from a well known RO on the CB with me who IDd the wrong number. Both received redress.


So these are situations were the boats were 'yanked' from the course - very different from stopping "racing at one [...] then decid[ing] to continue as they felt they could prove they were not OCS on a black flag"...

One was told at the windward mark (written in the SIs) and went home. Later given redress as they were able to produce witness's that they were well behind the line (130 performance skiffs, and 2 boats with the same number - different letter prefix). The other was ID'd from the pin end on a GR with a black flag, but was actually on the opposite side of the CB (behind my back) having been shut out (numbers displayed on CB before the next start - go away).

If you were racing and a RC boat told you you should leave the course are as you were OCS on a black flag, your first reaction would be to do that rather than risk not being able to discard that race. You might then after a few minutes decide that you would risk that and ask for redress if you felt you might get it. It's a case of you having to prove yourself "not guilty", not the RC having to prove you guilty, before scoring you BFD.

#74 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:04 AM

Case 96 and case 65.

Come on guys. There is no question her only option is to retire and seek redress.

I haven'thaven't even got a casebook handy, but im pretty sure one of them says....you don't argue a bfd.

#75 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:16 AM

Case 96, Case 111 and most of all Case 65.

Come on guys. There is no question her only option is to retire and seek redress.

Fuck, i haven't even got a casebook handy, but im pretty sure one of them says....you don't argue a bfd.


Not sure about that. IIRC Case 65 was the boat knowing that she was OCS, while the situation in question has her called OCS but believing/knowing that she is not.

Need to look up 96 and 111.

#76 kokosir

kokosir

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:21 AM

What would happen if...

you were about to start.. and a boat from behind collided with your transom and pushed you over the line. you were scored BFD when the 'overtaking boat' clearly broke the rule.

would you be entitled to redress here?



#77 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:22 AM

Ok. I don't know if there was any recall so they may not be entirely appropriate .

I think case 96 does clear the scoring question.

As for her retirement, im not sure now. It just says she gets dsq at the end.

Only si may impose a requirement to retire.

Lastly, i don't know where i got 111 from. Sorry.

#78 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:22 AM

Case 96, Case 111 and most of all Case 65.

Come on guys. There is no question her only option is to retire and seek redress.

Fuck, i haven't even got a casebook handy, but im pretty sure one of them says....you don't argue a bfd.

No, No and No.

Case 65 has to do with knowing you were OCS/BFD, continuing to race anyway for the specific reason of screwing another competitor.
Both 96 and 111 have to do with ZFPs and BFDs sticking after a general recall.

There has been no mention of a general recall in this instance.

Unless it's written in the sailing instructions that BFDs will be removed from the course, they have every right to continue sailing (unless it's a restart after a general recall or abandonment) and finish. 99% of the time, they won't even know they got a BFD until they see the scores posted.

#79 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:28 AM

[Attached File  csae96.PNG   66.01K   13 downloads

EDITED. I posted an older version.

#80 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:28 AM

What would happen if...

you were about to start.. and a boat from behind collided with your transom and pushed you over the line. you were scored BFD when the 'overtaking boat' clearly broke the rule.

would you be entitled to redress here?


Possibly, but it would have to meet the requirements of 62.1 (b ) (injury or physical damage). Injury - "I broke a fingernail". Physical damage - "There's a ding on my transom". You would also have to start correctly (Question 101ľA right-of-way boat compelled by a keep-clear boat to cross the starting line early is not relieved of her obligation to start as described in the definition Start.)

#81 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,671 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:30 AM

What would happen if...

you were about to start.. and a boat from behind collided with your transom and pushed you over the line. you were scored BFD when the 'overtaking boat' clearly broke the rule.

would you be entitled to redress here?



That question reminds me of


#82 kokosir

kokosir

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:36 AM




its all there

#83 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:43 AM


Case 96, Case 111 and most of all Case 65.

Come on guys. There is no question her only option is to retire and seek redress.

Fuck, i haven't even got a casebook handy, but im pretty sure one of them says....you don't argue a bfd.

No, No and No.

Case 65 has to do with knowing you were OCS/BFD, continuing to race anyway for the specific reason of screwing another competitor.
Both 96 and 111 have to do with ZFPs and BFDs sticking after a general recall.

There has been no mention of a general recall in this instance.

Unless it's written in the sailing instructions that BFDs will be removed from the course, they have every right to continue sailing (unless it's a restart after a general recall or abandonment) and finish. 99% of the time, they won't even know they got a BFD until they see the scores posted.


Hobie,

Like i said, im on the move right now, and going from my head and memory.

JS posted the preamble to 96. Unleashed there is more in there, its pretty much a i remembered.

Maybe you can explain.

Thanks.

DW

#84 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:45 AM


Case 96, Case 111 and most of all Case 65.

Come on guys. There is no question her only option is to retire and seek redress.

Fuck, i haven't even got a casebook handy, but im pretty sure one of them says....you don't argue a bfd.

No, No and No.

Case 65 has to do with knowing you were OCS/BFD, continuing to race anyway for the specific reason of screwing another competitor.
Both 96 and 111 have to do with ZFPs and BFDs sticking after a general recall.

There has been no mention of a general recall in this instance.

Unless it's written in the sailing instructions that BFDs will be removed from the course, they have every right to continue sailing (unless it's a restart after a general recall or abandonment) and finish. 99% of the time, they won't even know they got a BFD until they see the scores posted.


Inclined to agree with that. Unless the the SIs permit the 'yanking' of boats and the RC exercises that right, I would think the onus is on the boat herself to decide whether she was OCS or not accordingly - if she believes she started correctly but is scored OCS/BFD, then she is only entitled to redress if she completes the race (and convinces the PC that she was not over, obviously).
JS suggests that there might be case evidence to the contrary (i.e., improper action by the RC entitles a boat to redress if she retires), but the specifics are unclear.

Reminds me of this earlier discussion of whether to remove OCS boats from the course.

#85 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:46 AM





its all there

Pay attention to the first five words:

"When after a general recall . . . "

Nobody has mentioned anything about a general recall in the OP's scenario.

#86 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:48 AM



Case 96, Case 111 and most of all Case 65.

Come on guys. There is no question her only option is to retire and seek redress.

Fuck, i haven't even got a casebook handy, but im pretty sure one of them says....you don't argue a bfd.

No, No and No.

Case 65 has to do with knowing you were OCS/BFD, continuing to race anyway for the specific reason of screwing another competitor.
Both 96 and 111 have to do with ZFPs and BFDs sticking after a general recall.

There has been no mention of a general recall in this instance.

Unless it's written in the sailing instructions that BFDs will be removed from the course, they have every right to continue sailing (unless it's a restart after a general recall or abandonment) and finish. 99% of the time, they won't even know they got a BFD until they see the scores posted.


Hobie,

Like i said, im on the move right now, and going from my head and memory.

JS posted the preamble to 96. Unleashed there is more in there, its pretty much a i remembered.

Maybe you can explain.

Thanks.

DW


Having had a quick look, Cases 96 and 111 both deal with with recalls/re-starts. They do not address the question whether a boat called OCS/BFD should retire from a race in progress.

#87 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:48 AM






its all there

Pay attention to the first five words:

"When after a general recall . . . "

Nobody has mentioned anything about a general recall in the OP's scenario.



Seems like you're right Hobie. Well done!

JS, what did that old version say, just out of interest. Any chance to post it up again?

#88 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:51 AM






its all there

Pay attention to the first five words:

"When after a general recall . . . "

Nobody has mentioned anything about a general recall in the OP's scenario.


You beat me to it. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that is why I keep asking about what happened in Race 3 (or what the assumptions for the discussion are) - otherwise we are missing relevant facts.

#89 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:55 AM







its all there

Pay attention to the first five words:

"When after a general recall . . . "

Nobody has mentioned anything about a general recall in the OP's scenario.



Seems like you're right Hobie. Well done!

JS, what did that old version say, just out of interest. Any chance to post it up again?

Ask & you shall receive.... 2008 case book.
Attached File  Case96 - 2008.PNG   84.26K   7 downloads

#90 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 07 September 2011 - 07:41 AM

You beat me to it. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that is why I keep asking about what happened in Race 3 (or what the assumptions for the discussion are) - otherwise we are missing relevant facts.

The assumption for the discussion is that they were correctly awarded redress. I have no great interest in the rights and wrongs of one particular redress decision (nor do I know *any* of the details), which as far as I am concerned is utterly irrelevant to the point in hand. What I am concerned about is that sailing someone down the fleet to lower their average points *as well* as give them a bad result appears to me to be a perversion of the redress principle, which I thought was intended, as closely as possible, to put the competitor in the position they would be in if the third party error hadn't happened.

#91 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 08:49 AM


You beat me to it. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that is why I keep asking about what happened in Race 3 (or what the assumptions for the discussion are) - otherwise we are missing relevant facts.

The assumption for the discussion is that they were correctly awarded redress. I have no great interest in the rights and wrongs of one particular redress decision (nor do I know *any* of the details), which as far as I am concerned is utterly irrelevant to the point in hand. What I am concerned about is that sailing someone down the fleet to lower their average points *as well* as give them a bad result appears to me to be a perversion of the redress principle, which I thought was intended, as closely as possible, to put the competitor in the position they would be in if the third party error hadn't happened.


Sorry, I am not going to let you off the hook that easily.

First, the overriding principle for redress is not to "as closely as possible, to put the competitor in the position they would be in if the third party error hadn't happened", but to achieve "...as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected..." (R64.2). But I suspect you knew that already.
It follows that your statement/assumption "that they were correctly awarded redress" is ambiguous and ultimately meaningless. It could mean one of two things:
  • Either means that the redress granted (i.e., average points for all other races without consideration of discards) is "correct" (i.e., fair). In this case there is no discussion.
  • Or it could mean that Boat 1 is indeed entitled to redress, but the question is what redress should be awarded. That question cannot be answered without knowing what actually happened - how are we to comment on what would be "fair" without knowing the facts?


#92 bye bye

bye bye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 10:40 AM

what are you talking about... its standard for a BFD to be removed from the course...

if there is a recall, if there is no recall then no

if the RC is unable to identify all the BFD's then they should recall the race and mark out those they saw clearly

#93 shiny

shiny

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Location:Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten/Cowes

Posted 07 September 2011 - 10:41 AM

Sorry, I am not going to let you off the hook that easily.


Blimey, that'll teach you to ask your own question. You should know that once one of these threads has driven off the cliff you must then follow the new and more important imperative until a humorous video is posted.

I'm interested in the original question about granting redress of average points with or without discard, and the unintended consequences thereof (I assume that the jury did not foresee that the average points award in race 3 would be manipulated in the way that it was).

Ignoring the facts leading up to the redress entirely and just starting from a valid request for redress, if the jury (or PC) wanted to reduce or eliminate the outcome in this case, what would be the best way for them to do so:

1. Grant redress as an average of a strict set of races (like 1,2,4,5),
2. Grant redress as an average of all races except any discarded score, or
3. Some other means

#94 bye bye

bye bye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 10:55 AM

It's a self answering question. If average points for all races was fair redress, then what happened is a fair result.

...

May be the issue is with having discards rather than the redress options advised.

#95 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,701 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 07 September 2011 - 12:02 PM

It's a self answering question.

Na, that's just a circular argument...

Sadly wibbling on about whether redress was or wasn't appropriate, which is to miss the point completely, has obscured the real argument. To my mind the point of an event is to find the best sailor. This situation resulted in boat 1, which beat boat 2 in every race other than the one in which it was excluded as a result of an error, finishing 2nd to boat 2. Only the very obtuse or very biased could regard that as correctly reflecting who the best sailor was. That seems to me a failure in the scoring system. Seems to me it would be useful to explore how that failure could be avoided in the future. There are any number of ways this could happen, no discards, two discards, redress score fixed somehow, all these could have that effect. No option is perfect, but improvement is always possible...

The actual event was the UK Merlin Rocket National Championships. I don't know any of the leading participants or whether its going further, but to me it would be a good thing if the redress award was somehow appealed because it seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory situation. Whether it could be appealed by the competitor is another matter entirely, and I expect the usual suspects will wibble on about that too for another thirty posts.

#96 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 12:24 PM

To my mind the point of an event is to find the best sailor. This situation resulted in boat 1, which beat boat 2 in every race other than the one in which it was excluded as a result of an error, finishing 2nd to boat 2. Only the very obtuse or very biased could regard that as correctly reflecting who the best sailor was. That seems to me a failure in the scoring system. Seems to me it would be useful to explore how that failure could be avoided in the future. There are any number of ways this could happen, no discards, two discards, redress score fixed somehow, all these could have that effect. No option is perfect, but improvement is always possible...

Indeed, the point of a championship event is to find the best sailor.
Sometimes circumstances arise that makes that impossible, and the best that can be done is to determine a winner according to the rules.
Sometimes the rules determine a 'winner' who seems underserving.
Sometimes it is possible to reconsider and rejig how the rules are applied to arrive at a 'better winner'
You're right: it's an imperfect world.

I think most people have agreed that because the averaging method including all races gives a 'double effect' to one very bad race for the boat taking average points, while only having a single effect for the boat that drove her down the fleet was not the fairest possible method of giving redress and that averaging so as to exclude that race would have given a fairer and 'better' result.
Some people have agreed that the protest committee could have reopened the hearing and made that change. It may also be possilbe to bring about a desirable change by an appeal (which by the look of the NOR and SI is not impossible).

Personally I don't think RRS Appendix A should be changed either to prefer averaging excluding discards, or to try to cover every possible eventuality in giving redress.

Thanks for raising an interesting problem and allowing us to discuss it (at whatever tedious length).

#97 bye bye

bye bye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 12:39 PM

Best sailors? Looks from the results like they are flat trackers. So given they got taken apart and then choked in the last race it doesn't sound to me like they have the full set of ammo. (no idea what regatta we are talking about by the way).

But if there's a failure in the scoring system then it's that it includes a discard. If redress was allowed in the case of a rule 2 then that would fix things a lot more cleanly than tinkering with the advice on redress.

#98 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,350 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 07 September 2011 - 12:41 PM

Thank you ricm.

#99 bye bye

bye bye

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 12:53 PM

Why do we have a discard anyway these days? In days of yaw I'd guess that damage was more frequent and just plain down to luck. Not much excuse these days.

#100 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,350 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:01 PM

Whole other discussion mate.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users