151 replies to this topic

[BalticBandit]

So far in all this parsing of words and word-smithing one upmanship nobody has explained why a flag should be required to validate a foul after 2 boats collide and people are yelling "PROTEST!!" and "FOUL!!" in each others ears. It's not like flying a flag impacts in any way the facts, the rights of way, burdens or purpose of the RRS.

Because on a boat with multiple persons - it is not clear who is yelling "protest" or exactly what context it is used in. As tactician I've been involved in argy-bargies where to keep my driver going as well as to forestall a developing situation, I faced outwards at the other boat and yelled "Skipper if you don't XX, YY we are going to protest you".

MY saying so has no inherent weight. The Skipper is the ultimate authority. So the Skipper gets to decide if s/he pulls the flag or not.

Hence the requirement. So that it is clear. Now in this case, the rules are obvious, but in many others they are not (as the many discussions we have had here demonstrate). And the requirement to attempt to notify used to be very loosey goosey, this codification of the "flag immediately at hand" has solved that.

I remember one Team Race we did in J-24s where the other skipper (their best driver, and I was the 'enforcer' so we were constantly in a tangle) would say "protest" in a NORMAL voice. IOW could not be heard unless you were right next to her and listening for it. In The Room, she would claim she hailed "protest" which she did, and her crew would validate hearing it. Fortunately we were also required to fly flags... and fortunately because we'd been constantly tangling, the one judges boat kept following us...

But that sort of "gaming the hail of 'PROTEST'" used to be common.

[TimFordi550#87]

willsail, do yourself a favor and put JS on "ignore"...and do the rest of us thousands who have already done so the favor of not quoting his sad, pathetic bluster.

end hijack

[walterbshaffer]

So far in all this parsing of words and word-smithing one upmanship nobody has explained why a flag should be required to validate a foul after 2 boats collide and people are yelling "PROTEST!!" and "FOUL!!" in each others ears. It's not like flying a flag impacts in any way the facts, the rights of way, burdens or purpose of the RRS.

Because on a boat with multiple persons - it is not clear who is yelling "protest" or exactly what context it is used in. As tactician I've been involved in argy-bargies where to keep my driver going as well as to forestall a developing situation, I faced outwards at the other boat and yelled "Skipper if you don't XX, YY we are going to protest you".

MY saying so has no inherent weight. The Skipper is the ultimate authority. So the Skipper gets to decide if s/he pulls the flag or not.

Hence the requirement. So that it is clear. Now in this case, the rules are obvious, but in many others they are not (as the many discussions we have had here demonstrate). And the requirement to attempt to notify used to be very loosey goosey, this codification of the "flag immediately at hand" has solved that.

I remember one Team Race we did in J-24s where the other skipper (their best driver, and I was the 'enforcer' so we were constantly in a tangle) would say "protest" in a NORMAL voice. IOW could not be heard unless you were right next to her and listening for it. In The Room, she would claim she hailed "protest" which she did, and her crew would validate hearing it. Fortunately we were also required to fly flags... and fortunately because we'd been constantly tangling, the one judges boat kept following us...

But that sort of "gaming the hail of 'PROTEST'" used to be common.

But see, this is the difference between notifying and invalidating; yes a flag is absolutely useful for helping notify (and exactly for the reasons you mention) but it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the claim or the facts of the situation.

I'm not suggesting that a visual signal of some kind should be done away with (!) just that the concept of a visual signal being almost immediately required in order to validate a protest seems contrary to basic fair play.

Suppose in any sport (tennis, football ,baseball, soccer) the ump did not throw a flag right away – would that mean the infraction did not occur?

Of course not! Only in sailing.

Please see the "I Quit Sailing Because..." thread.

[I'moutahere]

So far in all this parsing of words and word-smithing one upmanship nobody has explained why a flag should be required to validate a foul after 2 boats collide and people are yelling "PROTEST!!" and "FOUL!!" in each others ears. It's not like flying a flag impacts in any way the facts, the rights of way, burdens or purpose of the RRS.

Because on a boat with multiple persons - it is not clear who is yelling "protest" or exactly what context it is used in. As tactician I've been involved in argy-bargies where to keep my driver going as well as to forestall a developing situation, I faced outwards at the other boat and yelled "Skipper if you don't XX, YY we are going to protest you".

MY saying so has no inherent weight. The Skipper is the ultimate authority. So the Skipper gets to decide if s/he pulls the flag or not.

Hence the requirement. So that it is clear. Now in this case, the rules are obvious, but in many others they are not (as the many discussions we have had here demonstrate). And the requirement to attempt to notify used to be very loosey goosey, this codification of the "flag immediately at hand" has solved that.

I remember one Team Race we did in J-24s where the other skipper (their best driver, and I was the 'enforcer' so we were constantly in a tangle) would say "protest" in a NORMAL voice. IOW could not be heard unless you were right next to her and listening for it. In The Room, she would claim she hailed "protest" which she did, and her crew would validate hearing it. Fortunately we were also required to fly flags... and fortunately because we'd been constantly tangling, the one judges boat kept following us...

But that sort of "gaming the hail of 'PROTEST'" used to be common.

But see, this is the difference between notifying and invalidating; yes a flag is absolutely useful for helping notify (and exactly for the reasons you mention) but it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the claim or the facts of the situation.

I'm not suggesting that a visual signal of some kind should be done away with (!) just that the concept of a visual signal being almost immediately required in order to validate a protest seems contrary to basic fair play.

Suppose in any sport (tennis, football ,baseball, soccer) the ump did not throw a flag right away – would that mean the infraction did not occur?

Of course not! Only in sailing.

Please see the "I Quit Sailing Because..." thread.

So should we get rid of the rest of the Code flags as well? Just use voice calls for courses, starts, recalls and all the rest of the communication required to race?

Code flag B indicates that the boat displaying it is protesting. Nothing else.

Some people do not understand the concept of a boat having the opportunity of doing penalty turns after another boat displays code flag B.

[I'moutahere]

willsail, do yourself a favor and put JS on "ignore"...and do the rest of us thousands who have already done so the favor of not quoting his sad, pathetic bluster.

end hijack

Is that all you can contribute to this thread? Insults?

[BalticBandit]

So far in all this parsing of words and word-smithing one upmanship nobody has explained why a flag should be required to validate a foul after 2 boats collide and people are yelling "PROTEST!!" and "FOUL!!" in each others ears. It's not like flying a flag impacts in any way the facts, the rights of way, burdens or purpose of the RRS.

Because on a boat with multiple persons - it is not clear who is yelling "protest" or exactly what context it is used in. As tactician I've been involved in argy-bargies where to keep my driver going as well as to forestall a developing situation, I faced outwards at the other boat and yelled "Skipper if you don't XX, YY we are going to protest you".

MY saying so has no inherent weight. The Skipper is the ultimate authority. So the Skipper gets to decide if s/he pulls the flag or not.

Hence the requirement. So that it is clear. Now in this case, the rules are obvious, but in many others they are not (as the many discussions we have had here demonstrate). And the requirement to attempt to notify used to be very loosey goosey, this codification of the "flag immediately at hand" has solved that.

I remember one Team Race we did in J-24s where the other skipper (their best driver, and I was the 'enforcer' so we were constantly in a tangle) would say "protest" in a NORMAL voice. IOW could not be heard unless you were right next to her and listening for it. In The Room, she would claim she hailed "protest" which she did, and her crew would validate hearing it. Fortunately we were also required to fly flags... and fortunately because we'd been constantly tangling, the one judges boat kept following us...

But that sort of "gaming the hail of 'PROTEST'" used to be common.

But see, this is the difference between notifying and invalidating; yes a flag is absolutely useful for helping notify (and exactly for the reasons you mention) but it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the claim or the facts of the situation.

I'm not suggesting that a visual signal of some kind should be done away with (!) just that the concept of a visual signal being almost immediately required in order to validate a protest seems contrary to basic fair play.

Suppose in any sport (tennis, football ,baseball, soccer) the ump did not throw a flag right away – would that mean the infraction did not occur?

Of course not! Only in sailing.

Please see the "I Quit Sailing Because..." thread.

Well I suspect you would have a whole lot of 'I Quit Sailing Because' if people could game the system by filing protests without the need to notify the protestee on the water in any sort of meaningful manner. The idea of not needing an immediate notification worked fine when there was no way to exonorate yourself from a foul short of DNFing. But that put people into The Room for interminable hours and major events hinged on dubious calls of "Fact". (I remember winning more than an intercollegiate event this way )

So gradually "on water" infractions were introduced, starting with 20% penalties, which were murder in a big fleet front end and meaningless to back of the packers, followed by 720 rules from dinghies.

The popularity of 720 rules soon went from "alternate penalty" to the default penalty. That has REDUCED the "I Quit Sailing because" entries. But that also requires On Water Notification.

No system is perfect but this one works pretty well. Have a flag, pull it, yell PROTEST and then you can decide going up the course whether or not to file it.

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.



As to "getting a reputation"... Emerson said "live your life such that it matters not what they say about you....Even if it be untrue". Smart sailors consider The Room a learning opportunity. And good PCs manage it that way. My experience is that those who "give out the reputation" if you protest a lot, are the very ones who tend to push the rules and try to intimidate others on the course.

[walterbshaffer]

So should we get rid of the rest of the Code flags as well?

Absolutely not!

I would keep the flags that spell out J-O-H-H-N-N-Y-S-A-I-N-T-S-T-O-P-T-R-Y-I-N-G-T-O-S-H-O-W-U-S-A-L-L-H-O-W-C-L-E-V-E-R-Y-O-U-A-R-E

[I'moutahere]

So should we get rid of the rest of the Code flags as well?

Absolutely not!

I would keep the flags that spell out J-O-H-H-N-N-Y-S-A-I-N-T-S-T-O-P-T-R-Y-I-N-G-T-O-S-H-O-W-U-S-A-L-L-H-O-W-C-L-E-V-E-R-Y-O-U-A-R-E

How about you show us how clever you are by doing that in morse, or maybe the phonetic alphabet.

edit.... You do know that the protest flag is code flag B don't you? I thought everyone knew that.

[Ballast Technician]

[SNIP]
But see, this is the difference between notifying and invalidating; yes a flag is absolutely useful for helping notify (and exactly for the reasons you mention) but it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the claim or the facts of the situation.

I'm not suggesting that a visual signal of some kind should be done away with (!) just that the concept of a visual signal being almost immediately required in order to validate a protest seems contrary to basic fair play.

Suppose in any sport (tennis, football ,baseball, soccer) the ump did not throw a flag right away – would that mean the infraction did not occur?

Of course not! Only in sailing.

Please see the "I Quit Sailing Because..." thread.

Bullshit on both counts.

First, not making a valid protest (or not protesting at all) in no way " means the infraction did not occur", just that the perpetrator does not get penalized in the competition/event. Big difference. For instance, for insurance/cost of repairs purposes the 'guilty' party is generally still 'on the hook' irrespective - irrespective of the existence, validity, or outcome of any protest.

Also, this it is not a case of "only in sailing." Most other sports work exactly the same - one can appeal (=protest) line calls/handballs/strikes/etc. only immediately after the incident, not several sets/minutes/innings later.

[Presuming Ed]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

[I'moutahere]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

Having the flag ready to use belongs in the "learning to sail category", not the SI. It belongs with being ready to give way when you are on port tack, or be ready to keep clear when you are windward boat, and so much more in the "learning to sail category". Start doing that in a briefing and you are asking for trouble.

[The Ghost....]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

Having the flag ready to use belongs in the "learning to sail category", not the SI. It belongs with being ready to give way when you are on port tack, or be ready to keep clear when you are windward boat, and so much more in the "learning to sail category". Start doing that in a briefing and you are asking for trouble.

The problem I have is RRS deployed in a "reasonable" time, I raised mine in a reasonable time as far as I am concerned, he would have been 30m away in 10 seconds and involved in doing a gybte to head back towards the mark. What chance would he have of really seeing it all all??? All questions the jury didn't even consider 'cos there heads are up there arses about immediate, not reasonable.

G

[coyotepup]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

It seems reasonable to me to put a clause like that in the SIs. Actually it seems to me that such a clause ought to be in the RRS themselves. If the RRS insist that PCs throw out otherwise worthwhile protests based solely on whether or not the flag flew quickly enough** then the RRS should also make mention of an easily deployable flag. Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable. The rules as they are are too subjective; I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest, but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

**or even, hell, technically according to 61.1a, if your flag for whatever reason drops off the backstay to the deck and you put it back up, then your protest should be thrown out because you did not display the flag at all times.

[Presuming Ed]

It seems reasonable to me to put a clause like that in the SIs.

The problem is that SIs have the status of rules, by definition:

Rule (a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not titles;
b) ISAF Regulation 19, Eligibility Code; Regulation 20, Advertising Code; Regulation 21, Anti-Doping Code; and Regulation 22, Sailor Classification Code;
c) the prescriptions of the national authority, unless they are changed by the sailing instructions in compliance with the national authority's prescription, if any, to rule 88;
d) the class rules (for a boat racing under a handicap or rating system, the rules of that system are 'class rules');
e) the notice of race;
f) the sailing instructions; and
g) any other documents that govern the event.

And you really don't want to set up the potential for differences between the SIs and the rules if at all possible.

Actually it seems to me that such a clause ought to be in the RRS themselves. If the RRS insist that PCs throw out otherwise worthwhile protests based solely on whether or not the flag flew quickly enough** then the RRS should also make mention of an easily deployable flag. Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable.

IMHO, "reasonable time" is perfectly good enough, and any half-decent jury has no trouble sorting it out. All busy? Fine. Not all busy? Why aren't you fulfilling the requirements? Given the huge variety in the way boats are rigged, trying to write a suitable requirement would be a nightmare.

Case law has established (at least in the UK) that sending someone below doesn't fulfil the reasonablenesss test.

The rules as they are are too subjective; I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest, but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

Lots of the rules are subjective. When does a windward boat stop keeping clear? When does "initially" switch off wrt 15? How much time does a boat need to respond to a hail to tack at an obstruction?

[JohnMB]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

It seems reasonable to me to put a clause like that in the SIs. Actually it seems to me that such a clause ought to be in the RRS themselves. If the RRS insist that PCs throw out otherwise worthwhile protests based solely on whether or not the flag flew quickly enough** then the RRS should also make mention of an easily deployable flag. Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable. The rules as they are are too subjective; I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest, but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

**or even, hell, technically according to 61.1a, if your flag for whatever reason drops off the backstay to the deck and you put it back up, then your protest should be thrown out because you did not display the flag at all times.

FFS we are sailors we should be able to competently attach a flag to the backstay.
what other essential items for racing are you worrying might drop to the deck unexpectedly.. mainsail? how about the mast.

[coyotepup]

It seems reasonable to me to put a clause like that in the SIs.

The problem is that SIs have the status of rules, by definition:

Rule (a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not titles;
ISAF Regulation 19, Eligibility Code; Regulation 20, Advertising Code; Regulation 21, Anti-Doping Code; and Regulation 22, Sailor Classification Code;
c) the prescriptions of the national authority, unless they are changed by the sailing instructions in compliance with the national authority's prescription, if any, to rule 88;
d) the class rules (for a boat racing under a handicap or rating system, the rules of that system are 'class rules');
e) the notice of race;
f) the sailing instructions; and
g) any other documents that govern the event.

And you really don't want to set up the potential for differences between the SIs and the rules if at all possible.

Actually it seems to me that such a clause ought to be in the RRS themselves. If the RRS insist that PCs throw out otherwise worthwhile protests based solely on whether or not the flag flew quickly enough** then the RRS should also make mention of an easily deployable flag. Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable.

IMHO, "reasonable time" is perfectly good enough, and any half-decent jury has no trouble sorting it out. All busy? Fine. Not all busy? Why aren't you fulfilling the requirements? Given the huge variety in the way boats are rigged, trying to write a suitable requirement would be a nightmare.

Case law has established (at least in the UK) that sending someone below doesn't fulfil the reasonablenesss test.

The rules as they are are too subjective; I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest, but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

Lots of the rules are subjective. When does a windward boat stop keeping clear? When does "initially" switch off wrt 15? How much time does a boat need to respond to a hail to tack at an obstruction?

Case law is not something readily available to every PC, nor is that practical. The existence of a byzantine set of case law and precedents is why the legal system needs lawyers. When the results of a regatta await the outcome of a protest, it's not a great idea to be digging through past instances half a world away to find out what another PC or ruling body said about protest flags. Nobody wants to be in the room that long. The RRS need to be the first and final word, and that should really be all that a skipper or a PC should be expected to have a command of.

As for subjectivity, just because it exists elsewhere doesn't justify the existence of more of it. Imagine if you were required to give mark-room "within a reasonable distance from the mark" instead of the well-defined three hull-length zone.

I don't think it's too hard to write a rule to require the flag to be handy and ready to go. Consider this fictitious rule:

61.1(d) A boat shall have a red flag on deck at all times while racing, either on the person of a crewmember or affixed to the backstay or other location where the boat intends to display the flag in compliance with rule 61.1a.

I don't think there's any boat in the world that can't comply with that, except for those already exempted from flying it.

[coyotepup]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

It seems reasonable to me to put a clause like that in the SIs. Actually it seems to me that such a clause ought to be in the RRS themselves. If the RRS insist that PCs throw out otherwise worthwhile protests based solely on whether or not the flag flew quickly enough** then the RRS should also make mention of an easily deployable flag. Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable. The rules as they are are too subjective; I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest, but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

**or even, hell, technically according to 61.1a, if your flag for whatever reason drops off the backstay to the deck and you put it back up, then your protest should be thrown out because you did not display the flag at all times.

FFS we are sailors we should be able to competently attach a flag to the backstay.
what other essential items for racing are you worrying might drop to the deck unexpectedly.. mainsail? how about the mast.

Yeah, that never happens.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

I find it amazing that almost every discussion of a Rules question on Sailing Anarchy ends up in a bunch of folks making suggestions about rewriting the rules.

There actually is a process for doing this, but it doesn't involve a lot of "discussion" on places like this.

BV

[Presuming Ed]

Case law is not something readily available to every PC, nor is that practical. The existence of a byzantine set of case law and precedents is why the legal system needs lawyers. When the results of a regatta await the outcome of a protest, it's not a great idea to be digging through past instances half a world away to find out what another PC or ruling body said about protest flags. Nobody wants to be in the room that long. The RRS need to be the first and final word, and that should really be all that a skipper or a PC should be expected to have a command of.

The RYA casebook. And the CYA appeals book. US Sailing is easily findable, even though it's (in theory) intended for US Sailing members only. The abstracts at the front mean that checking up and seeing if there's anything relevant is very quick. Most senior judges I've come across have enough of a working knowledge of the book to have an idea if there's a relevant case for most common situations anyway. And having it all in one or two books means that it doesn't take ages to look up.

I don't know of any judge who doesn't bring a copy of the ISAF book as well as his own MNA's book. Mine live in the protest briefcase, along with models, rulebook, pens, etc. No reason at all why a club can't have copies to hand as well.

[JohnMB]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

It seems reasonable to me to put a clause like that in the SIs. Actually it seems to me that such a clause ought to be in the RRS themselves. If the RRS insist that PCs throw out otherwise worthwhile protests based solely on whether or not the flag flew quickly enough** then the RRS should also make mention of an easily deployable flag. Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable. The rules as they are are too subjective; I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest, but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

**or even, hell, technically according to 61.1a, if your flag for whatever reason drops off the backstay to the deck and you put it back up, then your protest should be thrown out because you did not display the flag at all times.

FFS we are sailors we should be able to competently attach a flag to the backstay.
what other essential items for racing are you worrying might drop to the deck unexpectedly.. mainsail? how about the mast.

Yeah, that never happens.

The point is that complaining that the rule is unreasonable because the flag might fall of the backstay is pathetic.

[coyotepup]

It seems reasonable to me to put a clause like that in the SIs. Actually it seems to me that such a clause ought to be in the RRS themselves. If the RRS insist that PCs throw out otherwise worthwhile protests based solely on whether or not the flag flew quickly enough** then the RRS should also make mention of an easily deployable flag. Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable. The rules as they are are too subjective; I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest, but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

**or even, hell, technically according to 61.1a, if your flag for whatever reason drops off the backstay to the deck and you put it back up, then your protest should be thrown out because you did not display the flag at all times.

FFS we are sailors we should be able to competently attach a flag to the backstay.
what other essential items for racing are you worrying might drop to the deck unexpectedly.. mainsail? how about the mast.

Yeah, that never happens.

The point is that complaining that the rule is unreasonable because the flag might fall of the backstay is pathetic.

Wrong: the point is that an unbending, rigid interpretation of a rule in order to throw out a protest based on a technicality instead of considering what led to the protest in the first place, is stupid. I never said the rule was unreasonable.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Coyote,

You seem to want to remove a great deal of "judgement" from the responsibilities of the Protest Committee and legislate it into the SIs or Rules. The word "reasonable" is only one of a large number of places where judgement is required to be a good Judge, thus the title. Has it occurred to you that the fault may not be in the SIs or Rules, but in the folks who you've observed serving as Judges? Bad judgement can't be fixed by explicit rules any more than bad sailing can be fixed by an instruction manual. Also, it's relatively easy to convince me that it's simply impossible to remove the use of judgement from this process and these rules without destroying the sport as we know it.

What is a "technicality" to you may not be something to which others would use the term in the pejorative way you have. You have an opinion on this, others have other opinions. When you say "the rules as they are are too subjective" you paint with an awfully wide brush. Do you really mean all the rules, some of them, only a few? How subjective is "too subjective". A well made argument that establishes that Judges are being too subjective in the application of their judgement hasn't been made here and is the opposite of my personal experiences in the Room.

In many years of being in and out of the Room I have developed a great respect for the thoughtful and accurate use of judgement by the Judges I've seen in action. The posts by Brass here at SA are a pretty good example.

BV

[wabbiteer]

Case law is not something readily available to every PC, nor is that practical. The existence of a byzantine set of case law and precedents is why the legal system needs lawyers. When the results of a regatta await the outcome of a protest, it's not a great idea to be digging through past instances half a world away to find out what another PC or ruling body said about protest flags. Nobody wants to be in the room that long. The RRS need to be the first and final word, and that should really be all that a skipper or a PC should be expected to have a command of.

That's a ridiculous statement. The Case Book is available on the ISAF website as a PDF document and it is indexed to make it extremely easy to find any cases related to the rule in question.

Anyone who cannot do this should not be on a protest committee. The exception might be some old fart who doesn't use a PC but has the Casebook practically memorized, anyways.

[Steam Flyer]

... ... The Case Book is available on the ISAF website as a PDF document and it is indexed to make it extremely easy to find any cases related to the rule in question.

Anyone who cannot do this should not be on a protest committee. The exception might be some old fart who doesn't use a PC but has the Casebook practically memorized, anyways.

Which is fine, perhaps better than having the book, until they change the rules not they'd ever do anything -THAT- stupid).

Actually I've found the indexing to be rather poor... maybe it's just me, can I be excused from Jury Duty Protest Committee, please?

FB- Doug

[Presuming Ed]

The ISAF casebook gets updated at the same times as the rules. Don't know about other MNAs , but the RYA is pretty prompt.

[ojfd]

........ such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, ........

Exactly! You can't do that. Third sentence in RRS63.1 (Requirement for a Hearing) says:
"The protest committee shall hear all protests and requests for redress that have been delivered to the race office unless it allows a protest or request to be withdrawn."
It can be declared invalid, if PC decides so, but is should be heard.

[coyotepup]

Coyote,

You seem to want to remove a great deal of "judgement" from the responsibilities of the Protest Committee and legislate it into the SIs or Rules. The word "reasonable" is only one of a large number of places where judgement is required to be a good Judge, thus the title. Has it occurred to you that the fault may not be in the SIs or Rules, but in the folks who you've observed serving as Judges? Bad judgement can't be fixed by explicit rules any more than bad sailing can be fixed by an instruction manual. Also, it's relatively easy to convince me that it's simply impossible to remove the use of judgement from this process and these rules without destroying the sport as we know it.

What is a "technicality" to you may not be something to which others would use the term in the pejorative way you have. You have an opinion on this, others have other opinions. When you say "the rules as they are are too subjective" you paint with an awfully wide brush. Do you really mean all the rules, some of them, only a few? How subjective is "too subjective". A well made argument that establishes that Judges are being too subjective in the application of their judgement hasn't been made here and is the opposite of my personal experiences in the Room.

In many years of being in and out of the Room I have developed a great respect for the thoughtful and accurate use of judgement by the Judges I've seen in action. The posts by Brass here at SA are a pretty good example.

BV

I mean the rules that we're talking about here. Or "the rule" I suppose, since my complaint is with that one clause.

I don't have a wide range of experience with PCs in different races and different locales around the country and so on. I'm sure what I've seen is different than what you've seen. I only know what I've seen and heard. So you might very well be right that what I've seen and heard is a bad outlier.

That said, it doesn't change that the opportunity exists, as the rule is written, to throw out a very protestable offense and not even consider the offense itself, based on a subjective standard. It's one thing when they're using their judgment to determine whether an offense was committed. It's another when there's too much judgment involved in deciding whether or not the protestor has met the obligations of the protest to begin with. Consider the example I gave a few pages ago. Should the committee be looking at the foul that was committed? Or should they be grilling the protesting skipper to see whether or not he had any crew available that could have waved the flag sooner than they did?

I do believe bad judgment can be fixed to some extent by the way the rules are written. As I mentioned, as an example you could open the door to a lot of bad judgment if rule 18 required giving room "within a reasonable distance" instead of how it's currently written. I would much rather the PC judge whether or not the boats were within three boat lengths, which is a finding of fact, rather than judge whether they were within a reasonable distance, which is a finding of opinion.

[I'moutahere]

If you want to race it behooves you to know the rules at least in passing. And having the flag READY TO GO is part of that. The one thing I'll admit SHOULD BE DONE MORE CLEARLY to help Newbies, is to tell then upfront - such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, but the briefing is a perfect time to mention it.

Having the flag ready to use belongs in the "learning to sail category", not the SI. It belongs with being ready to give way when you are on port tack, or be ready to keep clear when you are windward boat, and so much more in the "learning to sail category". Start doing that in a briefing and you are asking for trouble.

The problem I have is RRS deployed in a "reasonable" time, I raised mine in a reasonable time as far as I am concerned, he would have been 30m away in 10 seconds and involved in doing a gybte to head back towards the mark. What chance would he have of really seeing it all all??? All questions the jury didn't even consider 'cos there heads are up there arses about immediate, not reasonable.

G

And that is EXACTLY why the PC declared your protest invalid. You took over a minute to get the flag up = 180 metres (by your figures), so "What chance would he have of really seeing it all all??"

[Brass]

........ such as in the SIs, that "protest flags should be easily deployable" and protests in which the flag has to be retreived from storage will not be heard.

Not sure the SIs are the best place for that, ........

Exactly! You can't do that. Third sentence in RRS63.1 (Requirement for a Hearing) says:
"The protest committee shall hear all protests and requests for redress that have been delivered to the race office unless it allows a protest or request to be withdrawn."
It can be declared invalid, if PC decides so, but is should be heard.

And see RRS Appendix L

The principles on which all sailing instructions should be based are as follows:
1 They should include only two types of statement: the intentions of the race committee and protest committee and the obligations of competitors.
...
4 They should not repeat or restate any of the racing rules.

Don't put woulda/coulda/shoulda stuff in SI, and don't try to restate the rules.

[Brass]

Simply saying "reasonable time" is not enough because it could just as easily be argued that sending someone below to fetch the flag off the top of the chart table is reasonable.

IMHO, "reasonable time" is perfectly good enough, and any half-decent jury has no trouble sorting it out. All busy? Fine. Not all busy? Why aren't you fulfilling the requirements? Given the huge variety in the way boats are rigged, trying to write a suitable requirement would be a nightmare.
Whether something is 'reasonable' or not is archtypically a decision for a jury. Your protest committee is a jury of your peers and you should have no hesitation in trusting them to decide what is reasonable or not.
Case law has established (at least in the UK) that sending someone below doesn't fulfil the reasonablenesss test.

The rules as they are are too subjective;

Neither the rules, nor any other requirement of 'reasoanble' in the context of the rules are subjective. The test is objective: 'reasonable in the judgement of the average reasonable sailor'.

I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest,

Well that's the way they are: hail and flag and prompt on-water penalty are the way the game is meant to be played. If you don't have prompt flag and hail, then there can't be a prompt on-water penalty.

but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

Then there would be a whole storm of whinging and wailing that the rule was too prescriptive and inflexible.

Lots of the rules are subjective. When does a windward boat stop keeping clear? When does "initially" switch off wrt 15? How much time does a boat need to respond to a hail to tack at an obstruction?

See above. Technically that's objective, not subjective.

Case law is not something readily available to every PC, nor is that practical. The existence of a byzantine set of case law and precedents is why the legal system needs lawyers. When the results of a regatta await the outcome of a protest, it's not a great idea to be digging through past instances half a world away to find out what another PC or ruling body said about protest flags. Nobody wants to be in the room that long. The RRS need to be the first and final word, and that should really be all that a skipper or a PC should be expected to have a command of.

The ISAF casebook is easily available on the ISAF website, and can be downloaded for free. Likewise the RYA casebook. And the CYA appeals book. US Sailing is easily findable, even though it's (in theory) intended for US Sailing members only. The abstracts at the front mean that checking up and seeing if there's anything relevant is very quick. Most senior judges I've come across have enough of a working knowledge of the book to have an idea if there's a relevant case for most common situations anyway. And having it all in one or two books means that it doesn't take ages to look up.

I don't know of any judge who doesn't bring a copy of the ISAF book as well as his own MNA's book. Mine live in the protest briefcase, along with models, rulebook, pens, etc. No reason at all why a club can't have copies to hand as well.

And smartphone, and PC.

Coyotepup, you're just running off.

The Sailing Cases and appeals are far from 'byzantine'. There is ONE Casebook, and in some jurisdictions (UK, USA, CAN) ONE national Appeals Book, copiously indexed and cross referenced.

There are numerous things that are unusual and complicated, that are best dealt with by Cases, rather than rules, because if the rules were expanded to cover every obscure difficulty, they would be come impossibly unwieldy.

[The Ghost....]

19 posts before the protest meeting last Monday and 107 since, mainly about putting the flag up in zero seconds, the only comment before the PC meeting was to put it up immediately. Obviously my wording of saying within in minute or so is not what the PC want to hear, when questioned more deeply about it at the time I said it was very quick but how quick I cannot remember, I was under extreme stress at the time and afterwards. I do remember clearly what I did at the time and that has been re-enforced by other crew that were on board at the time. So I was stupid in what I said to the committee but didn't realize the implications at the time. I now know that in sailing rules, reasonable means but a few seconds. So if another boat is in trouble and a reasonable effort to assist could be over in a few seconds. I offered to re-enact the flag raising with the PC but they declined and I have just done a few runs of my own as I am now down on my boat.
The sequence is as soon as they are untangled from us and right next to us sailing away in the opposite direction I call Protest twice and then dive below to get the flag, my estimation the time from the second protest call to starting to tie the flag to the backstay, was 8 seconds. He would have been 25 metres away by then, but had it been 4 seconds he would still have been two of his boat lengths away and possibly more worried about damage to his boat than a protest flag.
Less than a minute is a term often used by people in Aus and I don't see anything wrong with it. As I said I had not known that it was such an important thing. All efforts to raise the flag were done in a timely matter as far as I am concerned and I stand by my statement that it was less than a minute. 8 seconds in fact.
Saturday afternoon sternchasers should really not be the same type of judgements as the Olympics, and I now know where the term sailing wankers comes from, the protest room.

~$6K damage BTW.

File attached, I think it should obvious which vessel is mine (Yellow)

G.

Attached Files

•  scenario 1.xbs.zip   1.25K   28 downloads

[coyotepup]

IMHO, "reasonable time" is perfectly good enough, and any half-decent jury has no trouble sorting it out. All busy? Fine. Not all busy? Why aren't you fulfilling the requirements? Given the huge variety in the way boats are rigged, trying to write a suitable requirement would be a nightmare.
Whether something is 'reasonable' or not is archtypically a decision for a jury. Your protest committee is a jury of your peers and you should have no hesitation in trusting them to decide what is reasonable or not.
Case law has established (at least in the UK) that sending someone below doesn't fulfil the reasonablenesss test.

The rules as they are are too subjective;

Neither the rules, nor any other requirement of 'reasoanble' in the context of the rules are subjective. The test is objective: 'reasonable in the judgement of the average reasonable sailor'.

I still don't like writing them to encourage people to fly the flag at the slightest provocation just in case you want to protest,

Well that's the way they are: hail and flag and prompt on-water penalty are the way the game is meant to be played. If you don't have prompt flag and hail, then there can't be a prompt on-water penalty.

but if that's the way they want it, then require boats to have the flag on deck and easily deployable and write the whole rule more concretely.

Then there would be a whole storm of whinging and wailing that the rule was too prescriptive and inflexible.

Lots of the rules are subjective. When does a windward boat stop keeping clear? When does "initially" switch off wrt 15? How much time does a boat need to respond to a hail to tack at an obstruction?

See above. Technically that's objective, not subjective.

Case law is not something readily available to every PC, nor is that practical. The existence of a byzantine set of case law and precedents is why the legal system needs lawyers. When the results of a regatta await the outcome of a protest, it's not a great idea to be digging through past instances half a world away to find out what another PC or ruling body said about protest flags. Nobody wants to be in the room that long. The RRS need to be the first and final word, and that should really be all that a skipper or a PC should be expected to have a command of.

The ISAF casebook is easily available on the ISAF website, and can be downloaded for free. Likewise the RYA casebook. And the CYA appeals book. US Sailing is easily findable, even though it's (in theory) intended for US Sailing members only. The abstracts at the front mean that checking up and seeing if there's anything relevant is very quick. Most senior judges I've come across have enough of a working knowledge of the book to have an idea if there's a relevant case for most common situations anyway. And having it all in one or two books means that it doesn't take ages to look up.

I don't know of any judge who doesn't bring a copy of the ISAF book as well as his own MNA's book. Mine live in the protest briefcase, along with models, rulebook, pens, etc. No reason at all why a club can't have copies to hand as well.

And smartphone, and PC.

Coyotepup, you're just running off.

The Sailing Cases and appeals are far from 'byzantine'. There is ONE Casebook, and in some jurisdictions (UK, USA, CAN) ONE national Appeals Book, copiously indexed and cross referenced.

There are numerous things that are unusual and complicated, that are best dealt with by Cases, rather than rules, because if the rules were expanded to cover every obscure difficulty, they would be come impossibly unwieldy.

Fine....you and others have done a great job of pointing out that what I said in that one paragraph is wrong. And nobody has yet addressed the argument at the whole core of the thing: Why should perfectly merit-worthy protests be disallowed because someone's definition of "reasonable" when they flew the flag was 20, 30 seconds different than someone else's? What is worse:

- Letting a boat get away with blatantly fouling another because the fouled boat didn't wave a flag in time? (or so the fouling boat claims?)
- Allowing a protest on a boat that didn't know they were being protested?

Yes, there are problems with both. Yes, I see them. I have a much bigger problem with the first, however, because it's the one that opens the door to more cheating on the course and more lying in the room. The PC should be focusing on the actual foul, not grilling the protesting skipper to see if he had one person on board that could have waved the flag. THAT is the core of what I'm saying, not whether or not there's a case book available to the PC as four people have latched on to. I haven't seen anyone address that.

I hardly think "a storm of whinging and wailing" would occur if skippers were required to adhere to the extremely not-burdensome requirement of having a flag on deck. After all, everyone seems to be arguing that they should anyway! Why not codify that? What would cause more whining? Disallowing a protest for the word "reasonable" or disallowing it for not adhering to a rule whose definition can't be disputed?

[Presuming Ed]

Less than a minute is a term often used by people in Aus and I don't see anything wrong with it. As I said I had not known that it was such an important thing.

Unfortunately, the only thing the PC have to go on is what you tell them. The skill of judging is generally not applying the rules - that's normally pretty easy - but making a judgement between the two stories you get told. Differences between the two stories can be small (making the job easy) or quite large..... Which is why it can be worth doing things like practising your presentation beforehand.

[Presuming Ed]

Yes, there are problems with both. Yes, I see them. I have a much bigger problem with the first, however, because it's the one that opens the door to more cheating on the course and more lying in the room. The PC should be focusing on the actual foul, not grilling the protesting skipper to see if he had one person on board that could have waved the flag. THAT is the core of what I'm saying, not whether or not there's a case book available to the PC as four people have latched on to. I haven't seen anyone address that.

I hardly think "a storm of whinging and wailing" would occur if skippers were required to adhere to the extremely not-burdensome requirement of having a flag on deck. After all, everyone seems to be arguing that they should anyway! Why not codify that? What would cause more whining? Disallowing a protest for the word "reasonable" or disallowing it for not adhering to a rule whose definition can't be disputed?

I don't think I've ever been part of a PC that has actively looked for reasons to disallow a hearing. Why sign up for a PC unless you actually want to get your teeth into some judging? Just chucking out protests is boring. We want 6 boat pile ups at the leeward mark, with a motorboat getting in the way. (But with minimal contact and no damage, thanks, if possible)

The rights of the boat to protest and the rights of the protested boat to know she has been protested are equal. I'm afraid to say that if you think that sticking an extra line into 61.1 will magically result in the extinction of invalid protests, then I'm sorry, but I don't agree. People still shout mast abeam; It's hard enough getting understanding of the 1600 words of part 2, let alone the minutiae of part 5.

Failing to comply with the requirements of 61.1 is the sort of mistake that most make only once. But everybody makes mistakes - we're all human.

[Steam Flyer]

... ...

I don't think I've ever been part of a PC that has actively looked for reasons to disallow a hearing. Why sign up for a PC unless you actually want to get your teeth into some judging? Just chucking out protests is boring. We want 6 boat pile ups at the leeward mark, with a motorboat getting in the way. (But with minimal contact and no damage, thanks, if possible)

... ...

you so funny

-DSK

[Presuming Ed]

File attached, I think it should obvious which vessel is mine (Yellow)

 scenario 1.png   77.51K   45 downloads

[coyotepup]

The rights of the boat to protest and the rights of the protested boat to know she has been protested are equal. I'm afraid to say that if you think that sticking an extra line into 61.1 will magically result in the extinction of invalid protests, then I'm sorry, but I don't agree. People still shout mast abeam; It's hard enough getting understanding of the 1600 words of part 2, let alone the minutiae of part 5.

I don't think it will result in the extinction of invalid protests, no - the fact that it's clearly said that starboard boats have right of way doesn't stop anyone from port-tacking people. I do think it would reduce them if skippers had a better idea beforehand of what to do in order to make their protest valid. (After all, if we had to rely on case law and not the RRS to tell skippers that port tack has to maneuver, wouldn't there be a lot more port-tacking?) And it would take a lot of the subjectivity out of why the protest was disallowed. Fulfilling the basic requirements to file a protest should be as clear as possible. That's why the RRS includes a protest form: so the skipper can fill in all the required fields and have a valid protest. Nobody calls that too burdensome. It's better than just handing them a blank piece of paper and telling them to figure it out themselves, which is the equivalent of the "reasonable" standard. "Write down what you think is reasonable so we know what happened." Wouldn't fly.

[Brass]

19 posts before the protest meeting last Monday and 107 since, mainly about putting the flag up in zero seconds, the only comment before the PC meeting was to put it up immediately.

Incorrect.

In post 10 rgscpat drew attention to the exception to the hail and flag requirement where damage was obvious to boats involved.

Immediately after you advised the protest hearing outcome and stated you intended to appeal, PEd, in post 20 asked you 'Was the damage obvious?', and again highlighted the rule 61.1(a)(3) exception.

In the remaining hundred or so posts, the rule 61.1(a)(3) exception for obvious damage has been mentioned by numerous posters, but in those posts you have never told us whether, in your opinion, there was damage obvious to the boats involved.

In your opinion was there damage that was obvious to the boats involved?

If so, did you state this to the protest committee or give the protest committee any other evidence of it?

In the protest committee's written decision, which I assume you have obtained, as you are entitled to do under rule 65.2, did the protest committee:

• Find a fact that there was damage obvious to the boats involved?
• Find a fact that there was NO damage obvious to the boats involved?
• Find no facts as to whether damage was obvious or not?
• State any conclusion referring to rule 61.1(a)(3)?

If there was damage obvious to the boats involved, but the protest committee concluded that your protest was invalid for lack of timely flag and hail, then your appeal on invalidity should be successful, and I hope you haven't frittered away your 15 days for lodging the appeal given to you under rule F2.1 in bothering about the flag and hail issue.

Obviously my wording of saying within in minute or so is not what the PC want to hear, when questioned more deeply about it at the time I said it was very quick but how quick I cannot remember, I was under extreme stress at the time and afterwards. I do remember clearly what I did at the time and that has been re-enforced by other crew that were on board at the time. So I was stupid in what I said to the committee but didn't realize the implications at the time. I now know that in sailing rules, reasonable means but a few seconds. So if another boat is in trouble and a reasonable effort to assist could be over in a few seconds. I offered to re-enact the flag raising with the PC but they declined and I have just done a few runs of my own as I am now down on my boat.
The sequence is as soon as they are untangled from us and right next to us sailing away in the opposite direction I call Protest twice and then dive below to get the flag,

The flag issue has been done to death, but your hail was way too late. There was absolutely nothing to prevent you from hailing 'protest' immediately you saw the other boat was not keeping clear, and before contact even occurred.

If it wasn't for the 'obvious damage' exception in rule 16.1(a)(3), you would be gone for all money, but if there was no obvious damage, then it would just be part of the game and it wouldn't matter

my estimation the time from the second protest call to starting to tie the flag to the backstay, was 8 seconds. He would have been 25 metres away by then, but had it been 4 seconds he would still have been two of his boat lengths away and possibly more worried about damage to his boat than a protest flag.

The time and distances are only relevant to explaining why it is necessary to hail and flag quickly.

Less than a minute is a term often used by people in Aus and I don't see anything wrong with it.

There is nothing wrong with it. It's just not evidence that you have hailed 'protest' and displayed a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity.

[Brass]

File attached, I think it should obvious which vessel is mine (Yellow)

 scenario 1.png   77.51K   45 downloads

Would that be the yellow boat which is shown as making absolutely no attempt to avoid contact resulting in serious damage?

[walterbshaffer]

File attached, I think it should obvious which vessel is mine (Yellow)

 scenario 1.png   77.51K   45 downloads

Would that be the yellow boat which is shown as making absolutely no attempt to avoid contact resulting in serious damage?

It's exactly this type of analysis that led to the original situation and (IMHO) faulty result.

Ghost & Coyote: give it up, not everyone will have the same perspective.

Post edited: Brass & P.Ed: your posts are generally very good and you should not devolve to taking shots at someone who questions the status quo.

[Brass]

File attached, I think it should obvious which vessel is mine (Yellow)

 scenario 1.png   77.51K   45 downloads

Would that be the yellow boat which is shown as making absolutely no attempt to avoid contact resulting in serious damage?

It's exactly this type of analysis that led to the original situation and (IMHO) faulty result.

Brass you should not devolve to taking shots at someone who questions the status quo.

I'm sorry if it came across as a cheap shot that contributed nothing.

The result was that Ghost's protest was closed for invalidity. He says he is appealing, and he may have good grounds to do so. If so, the protest will probably be sent back to the protest committee for a new hearing.

Here's the thing about the diagram and my comment.

If you are a right of way boat and a give way boat suddenly changes course across your bows, you just have to do everything in your power to avoid collision. That would include starting sheets to assist in bearing away and to reduce speed and steering vigourously. You just can't hold your course and cut the poor bugger in half.

If a right of way boat that T Bones another boat goes into a protest hearing and does not give truthful evidence that she was keeping a good lookout and that immediately she saw the other boat changing course and not keeping clear she took specific steering (and desirably sail-trimming) action to avoid contact, then she is at serious risk of being found to have broken rule 14.

Presenting a diagram showing her course as an arrow-straight line with no deviation in an attempt to avoid contact is not consistent with making every effort to avoid contact.

I am always very uncomfortable when a right of way boat says 'Under rule 14(a) I did not need to act to avoid contact until it was clear that the other boat was not keeping clear and by that time there was nothing I could do so I did nothing'.

[I'moutahere]

File attached, I think it should obvious which vessel is mine (Yellow)

 scenario 1.png   77.51K   45 downloads

Would that be the yellow boat which is shown as making absolutely no attempt to avoid contact resulting in serious damage?

It's exactly this type of analysis that led to the original situation and (IMHO) faulty result.

Brass you should not devolve to taking shots at someone who questions the status quo.

I'm sorry if it came across as a cheap shot that contributed nothing.

The result was that Ghost's protest was closed for invalidity. He says he is appealing, and he may have good grounds to do so. If so, the protest will probably be sent back to the protest committee for a new hearing.

Here's the thing about the diagram and my comment.

If you are a right of way boat and a give way boat suddenly changes course across your bows, you just have to do everything in your power to avoid collision. That would include starting sheets to assist in bearing away and to reduce speed and steering vigourously. You just can't hold your course and cut the poor bugger in half.

If a right of way boat that T Bones another boat goes into a protest hearing and does not give truthful evidence that she was keeping a good lookout and that immediately she saw the other boat changing course and not keeping clear she took specific steering (and desirably sail-trimming) action to avoid contact, then she is at serious risk of being found to have broken rule 14.

Presenting a diagram showing her course as an arrow-straight line with no deviation in an attempt to avoid contact is not consistent with making every effort to avoid contact.

I am always very uncomfortable when a right of way boat says 'Under rule 14(a) I did not need to act to avoid contact until it was clear that the other boat was not keeping clear and by that time there was nothing I could do so I did nothing'.

"Presenting a diagram showing her course as an arrow-straight line with no deviation in an attempt to avoid contact is not consistent with making every effort to avoid contact."

add to that the post where he told the helmsman to "hold his course"

[Meanie]

All too frequently the sequence of events goes something like this:
Stbd: "Starboard."
Stbd: "STARBOARD!"
Stbd: <reasonably ducks to avoid contact>
Stbd: "Hey! Do your turns!"
<ten seconds pass>
Stbd: "Come on! I had to avoid you; do your turns!"
<ten more seconds pass>
Port: "I'm not going to."
<it's now been 30 seconds since the incident>
Stbd: "Protest" <flag up>

Protest Committee: "30 seconds? Too long. Disallowed."

What about this one?

Stbd: "Starboard."
Stbd: "STARBOARD!"
Stbd: <reasonably ducks to avoid contact>
Stbd: "Protest!" <flag up>

You won't have any problems with it in the protest room.

Agreed. That's the way to do it. You can then make a request for turns but shout protest first!

Did exactly that over the weekend-with a witness viewing the incident clearly and corroborating my testimony. Committee dissallowed the protest, ruling that we didn't have to turn (claiming there was too much space between the boats). Seems like a Catch-22-if you avoid contact as per the rules, the protest is dissallowed. If you prove the case through contact-you get tossed for not avoiding. GRRRRR.

[JimC]

Did exactly that over the weekend-with a witness viewing the incident clearly and corroborating my testimony. Committee dissallowed the protest, ruling that we didn't have to turn (claiming there was too much space between the boats). Seems like a Catch-22-if you avoid contact as per the rules, the protest is dissallowed. If you prove the case through contact-you get tossed for not avoiding. GRRRRR.

There's too much of that crud. Appeal. It probably won't make any difference (facts found) but makes the point.

[Presuming Ed]

ISAF CASE 50

When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified.

Summary of the Facts
On a windward leg, P met S and sailed a course to cross ahead of S. S bore away, displayed a protest flag, and hailed P her intent to protest. Both boats were identical 27-foot keel boats, and the wind strength was Force 3. S protested under rule 10, stating that she had to bear away to avoid colliding with P. The protest committee dismissed the protest by S, stating that: "The need to change course could not be substantiated by the conflicting testimony of the two helmsmen"; S appealed.

Decision
Rule 10 protests involving no contact are very common, and protest committees tend to handle them in very different ways. Some place an onus on the port-tack boat to prove conclusively that she would have cleared the starboard-tack boat, even when the latter’s evidence is barely worthy of credence. No such onus appears in rule 10. Other protest committees are reluctant to allow any rule 10 protest in the absence of contact, unless the starboard-tack boat proves conclusively that contact would have occurred had she not changed course. Both approaches are incorrect.

S’s diagram, later endorsed by the protest committee, shows that S bore away to avoid contact. P’s diagram, which was not endorsed by the protest committee, showed a near miss if S did not bear away. P did not deny or confirm that S bore away but said that, if she did, it was unnecessary. A starboard-tack boat in such circumstances need not hold her course so as to prove, by hitting the port-tack boat, that a collision was inevitable. Moreover, if she does so she will break rule 14. At a protest hearing, S must establish either that contact would have occurred if she had held her course, or that there was enough doubt that P could safely cross ahead to create a reasonable apprehension of contact on S’s part and that it was unlikely that S would have ‘no need to take avoiding action’ (see the
definition Keep Clear).

In her own defence, P must present adequate evidence to establish either that S did not change course or that P would have safely crossed ahead of S and that S had no need to take avoiding action. When, after considering all the evidence, a protest committee finds that S did not change course or that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on her part, it should dismiss her protest. When, however, it is satisfied that S did change course, that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead, and that S was justified in taking avoiding action by bearing away, then P should be disqualified.

On the facts, as shown in the diagram and the report of the protest committee, the ability of P to cross ahead of S was doubtful at best. S’s appeal is upheld, and P is disqualified.

[Gone Drinking]

There was no chance of avoiding the collision on my behalf and truth be known on his as well, except for either of us to take action much prior to colliding, as stated the wind was quite light. I timed my start pretty good, was probably about 5m off the line when the started happened, it was a stern chaser so there was only three boats on the line and no start signal was given other than dropping a number. I used a timer to time my start.Prior to colliding I called him a couple of times to stay up which he failed to do, he was trying to slow up so he didn't go OCS and then at the last moment, after the race started, he turned in front of me, I believe because he thought we hadn't started, no other explanation for his actions. When he turned I had to asses what the outcome would be if I held my course he may cross, if we turned we may be more likely to collide, so we held our course, he failed to cross our bow, and of course we collided.

I had done hundreds of starts and there is always such argy bargy, but never have I seen some one turn in such a manner.
Don't forget the other boat is a 22 footer and I am a 40. Being a qualified coxswain, I am well of aware of the collregs.

G.

So I gather that he was clear ahead and you established an overlap to leeward and it sounds like you made no attempt to give him room to keep clear or to avoid a collision.

Now it seems that RRS 12 & 15 are relevent.

No the overlap gets established by Windward turning. That means that L has no requirement to "Give Room" to keep clear. Since overlap was established for a good time by testimony, W must stay clear.

This leads me to think that if you "had to asses what the outcome would be if I held my course he may cross, if we turned we may be more likely to collide, so we held our course, he failed to cross our bow, and of course we collided." you could had altered up a bit and avoided a collision. And if you had the time to "asses what the outcome would be" of your options, then, is it safe to assume that the overlap was not created by his turn down but by your holding course and overlapping him. Your description is starting to get me to side with the other guy..

[equivocator]

I think this horse is DEAD, but why not take a fe3w licks, anyway....

The drawing shows the overlap was established when W changed course. That means Rule 15 does not apply. However, once it became obvious that a collision was likely to occur and W was not taking action to avoid it, L was obligated to try to avoid contact "if reasonably possible." In my opinion, L could have tried to steer a course to pass behind L by putting her helm down. Given the circumstances (e.g., barest steerage way), it might not have been possible for L to avoid hitting W, but IMO she was obligated to make some attempt to avoid hitting W.

The protestor's subsequent attempt to revise the timeline, based on his visit to his boat, shows how important it is to adequately prepare for a protest hearing.

[us7070]

Well, I think the flag issue has been beaten to death, but I will comment on the fight between JS and WSFF

a boat that is over early retains all of its rights until it is "sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line..." - rule 21.1

So, it is not correct to say that a boat that is OCS must always keep clear of other boats.

Wherever you got that from, you have just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the rules. A boat is racing from the PREP SIGNAL.

Look saint, let's not get into a measuring contest over the wording here. The intent of my comment was to say "properly started" so I'll give it to you, your unit is bigger. But you should acknowledge that if the other boat had indeed been over early they were obligated to keep clear of the other competitors who had properly started and were not "over early."

To address your earlier comment, Ghost mentioned that his assumption was he was returning to the line in post 63. I've had my say on the matter and if I'm wrong so be it. I've got better things to do than get bent out of shape arguing and flinging vulgarities at you all night. You have the floor, let the profanity flow.

[SemiSalt]

So far in all this parsing of words and word-smithing one upmanship nobody has explained why a flag should be required to validate a foul after 2 boats collide and people are yelling "PROTEST!!" and "FOUL!!" in each others ears. It's not like flying a flag impacts in any way the facts, the rights of way, burdens or purpose of the RRS.

Instead of flying a flag why not jingle a bell, blow a horn or have the skipper pull his pants down? All are equally impactful.

And please don't say "because the boats involved need to know they are involved in a protest". They know; the flag has just become a cheap escape hatch to avoid culpability.

A collision of factors, especially tradition, I suspect if yacht racing had been invented in Lasers, or Beetle cats, there would be no flags. But it got it's start in big boats with excess crew. There is also a great mix of skill and experience in the fleets. It's not impossible for a neophyte to find himself in the same fleet with a professional or near-professional. This pushes an expectation of preparation (flag on the backstay) and precision (with a few seconds) down to the mom and pop fleets.

In some sense, it's an illustration of how much effort and organization is required to get boat to the starting line.

Come to think of it, I'm not quite sure where my protest flag is.

[Asymptote]

If the protest committee believed that the flag was not flown fast enough (Not a valid protest) but through the facts discovered a breach of the rules took place there is nothing stopping the committee from opening a hearing into the matter themselves which can still result in one or both parties being disq.

In saying that talking to friends down that way indicates that there is quite a prevalence for barging on the port phillip scene at the moment.

-TB

If this is the case then it seems the RC would be looking for a case like this to make an example out of someone. Not saying it's their job, but from all the information we have here it seems the leeward boat was deeply in the wrong here and failed to keep clear. If I was on the committee my objective, beyond enforcing the rules as they were intended, would be to make sure that yachts that violate those rules are aware that their actions have consequences. Giving idiots like this a pass on a technicality is not what the rules authors intended.

Furthermore, if the offending yacht believed they were over early (read: not started) then they had NO RIGHTS until they had properly returned to the line and started. Placing themselves in a position where ANY yachts who have properly started, regardless of tack, have to take evasive action to avoid them (or can't avoid them as seems to be the case) places them even deeper in the hole.

As the owner of an 19,000# yacht I can tell you that if I ever T bone someone (regardless of fault) I'm going to be on the bow looking at the fittings very carefully to insure my $60k spruce rig isn't going to go over the side after insuring everyone is alright, long before I worry about a flag. I expect the RC and PC to understand that this should be a skipper's priority.

--
http://bonne-amie.blogspot.com

Your second paragraph makes you a danger on the race course.

Your third paragraph response must assume you are single-handing, otherwise resolving fear for your mast (surely cut from the King's Forest in Denmark!) may be an appropriate action for you - while a crew member unfurls the red flag.

[Christian]

Yep. Using "conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity" as a reason to disallow a protest is just plain wrong and should be changed in the RRS. "Reasonable" is too subjective and protest committees are over-eager to decide much too stringently on this.

Look, set an exact time limit if you want, but "reasonable" simply doesn't cut it. Over and over and over again, reasonable protests are disallowed because of this horrible loophole.

Personally, I vote for "one minute" -- time enough to pull someone off the weather rail. Two minutes would be fine, also.

1 minute at 5kts and you're 150m away from where the incident occurred.

Even if the protestee can see your flag being displayed at that distance, how is she to know that it relates to some incident 40 seconds ago, and not to some other incident that may have occurred in that time.

ASAP means ASAP, and in the absence of some good reason why, that should be immediately.

One would have to pretty stupid to not know what the protest is about if one has just been t-boned at the start

[Brass]

Yep. Using "conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity" as a reason to disallow a protest is just plain wrong and should be changed in the RRS. "Reasonable" is too subjective and protest committees are over-eager to decide much too stringently on this.

Look, set an exact time limit if you want, but "reasonable" simply doesn't cut it. Over and over and over again, reasonable protests are disallowed because of this horrible loophole.

Personally, I vote for "one minute" -- time enough to pull someone off the weather rail. Two minutes would be fine, also.

1 minute at 5kts and you're 150m away from where the incident occurred.

Even if the protestee can see your flag being displayed at that distance, how is she to know that it relates to some incident 40 seconds ago, and not to some other incident that may have occurred in that time.

ASAP means ASAP, and in the absence of some good reason why, that should be immediately.

One would have to pretty stupid to not know what the protest is about if one has just been t-boned at the start

Sigh.

Above was in the context of a thread-drift about flag and hail generally.

Of course in a T-Bone in anything bigger than Optis @ 2 kts, there's going to be damage obvious to the boats involved and in accordance with rule 61.1( a )(3), hail and flag do not apply but the protesting boat shall attempt to inform the other boat within the time limit of rule 61.3.