42 replies to this topic

[Brass]

Rule 61.1 Informing the protestee(a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest concerns an incident in the racing area that she is involved in or sees, she shall hail 'Protest' and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,

(1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;

(2) if the hull length of the protesting boat is less than 6 metres, she need not display a red flag;

(3) if the incident results in damage or injury that is obvious to the boats involved and one of them intends to protest, the requirements of this rule do not apply to her, but she shall attempt to inform the other boat within the time limit of rule 61.3.

Basic Question
People ask 'why do we have such detailed and prescriptive requirements for informing the protestee in rule 61.1(a)?'


Underlying Principles of justice and fairness
Better ten guilty men walk free than one innocent man goes to the gallows.

Following this principle, all sorts of rights and procedural protections are extended to accused parties, starting with the presumption of innocence, the right to silence, and strict procedural requirements, such as grand-jury or committal, and strict formulation of indictment or charging requirements, which can pre-emptively invalidate a trial, no matter how serious the offence might be. A similar approach applies to protest hearings in sailing.


Functions of the rule 61.1(a) requirements
Why is it necessary for the protesting boat to inform the protestee at all? Couldn't the Race Office just do that after the written protest has been lodged?

The functions of requirements for informing the protestee generally are:

· so that the protested boat knows that she is being protested and has the opportunity to take a rule 44 penalty if she wishes;

· so that the protestee knows to look at the notice board to find out if the protest has been followed through and she is required to attend a hearing;

· so that the protestee has time before the protest meeting to line up witnesses etc;

· to let every other competitor and the race committee know that the protesting boat is 'racing under protest' and is likely to deliver a formal protest after the race; and

Why are such strict requirements for hail and flag necessary?

This seems to be the issue which causes the most worry. The functions of the requirements for hail and flag at the first reasonable opportunity are:

· proximity of hail and flag to the alleged incident materially helps the protestee to identify the incident and make an informed decision about taking a rule 44 penalty, or later to prepare her defence for a protest hearing

· It's the 'other side of the coin' to the protesee's obligation to take a rule 44 penalty as soon after the incident as possible: to do this, it is necessary that the protestee be informed of the intention to protest as soon as reasonably possible, which is, at the first reasonable opportunity.

· importantly, to prevent competitors (or more worrisome still, the coaches and parents of junior competitors) 'cooking up' protests off the water, long after the on-water incident has happened, or picking and choosing among several incidents, which one the wish to pursue a formal protest on.


The game has rules - Different rules apply for serious cases
At a perhaps superficial level, the reason for strict informing the protestee requirement is, it's only a game and you must play the game according to the rules, whether you like them or not. As long as it's 'just a game', why should anyone be worried about the rationality and functionality of the rules? Lots of games have rules that aren't really rational, consider the off-side rule in football.

In respect of the hail and flag requirement, rule 61.1(a)(3), specifically provides for what happens when it ceases to be 'just a game' because there is damage or injury.

In respect of 'blatant' rule-breaking, there is another way in which the hail and flag requirements, as well as all the other formal protest requirements are switched off and that is, in the event of a 'gross' breach of the rules, a rule 69 hearing.

Because, to operate effectively and consistently, rules need some distinct limits:

· The limit of the rule 61.1(a)(3) exception is that the injury or damage must be 'obvious to the boats involved'; and

· The limit for rule 69 is that the breach of the rules must be 'gross'

As far as 'blatant' rule-breaking, as long as it stops short of 'gross', the rules don't distinguish 'blatant' from 'non-blatant' rule-breaking. The rules don't support any sort of moral crusading against 'blatent' rule-breaking, just as they don't provide for different penalties for 'just a little' breach. A breach is a breach is a breach. There may also be an underlying concern about objective determination of what is or is not 'blatant'. It would almost inevitably lead to considerations of intentionality or other mental state issues, which, the rules, being based as nearly as possible on observable conduct only, are not well-adapted to deal with. And it would not be a good thing to move the rules towards the many and varied species of 'thought-crime': it is hard enough for protest committees to resolve disputes based on observable conduct as it is, without adding an additional, inevitably moralistic, dimension.

It can be argued that two wrongs don't make a right. By failing to hail and flag, a boat intending to protest breaks rule 61.1(a). The rights of the boat to protest and the rights of the protested boat to know she has been protested are equal. It is not unreasonable that a boat that wishes to protest but which breaks rule 61.1(a), should suffer the detriment of losing her entitlement to have a protest decided.

In the absence of hail and flag following an incident, a potential protestee (or anyone else) is justified in inferring that no nearby boat intends to protes.

Prompt hail and flag actions on the water facilitate the taking of rule 44 penalties. It might be said that strict application of hail and flag requirements in protest procedures will thus encourage the proper use of rule 44 penalties.


More detailed questions
Why is it necessary to require that just one word 'Protest' is the only word that may be used?

Effective receipt or Understanding of a communication is difficult to prove, and all too easy for a protestee to deny. Hail of 'protest' and red flag are actions not reliant on any 'receipt' or 'understanding' by the protestee, which under the rules are together taken to be sufficient communication of the intention to protest, without further investigation.

Hail of the specified word 'protest' increases the likelihood that the intention signified will be unambiguously understood.

Because, given that there is always an option for a boat not to protest, there needs to be a conventional, unambiguous signification of the intention to protest.

Why is it necessary for there to be a flag as well as a hail?

The requirement for the hail of 'Protest' to be accompanied by the conspicuous display of a red flag to confirm it, significantly increases the likelihood that the intention so signified will be noticed and understood by the protestee.

Why is so much emphasis given to the promptness or immediacy of both hail and flag?

The importance of a boat signifying her intention to protest has changed over time. Now that the taking of on-water penalties is the normal, expected consequence of breaking a rule on the water, it is critically important that a protestee knows what she is being protested for, so that she can decide whether or not she wishes to take a penalty for the incident. If she knows exactly when she did whatever it is that is alleged to have broken a rule, she has a good chance of inferring what or how she may have broken a rule, and thus make a reasonable decision about whether or not to take an on-water penalty.

For this reason, an unambiguous hail and flag signal, at the first reasonable opportunity will significantly assist the protestee in identifying the incident being protested, as 'what she was doing immediately prior to the hail and flag'.

This is all the more relevant when there may be two or more possible incidents, say in a crowded start or a mark-rounding, which she may need to consider. Prompt hail and flag will assist in identifying the relevant incident.

Why is it necessary to keep the protest flag displayed continuously from the time of the incident until the boat is no longer racing?

The functions of flying the protest flag will be discharged if the protesting boat displays the flag to the protestee and the protestee sees it, about the time of the incident, and the race committee sees it as she finishes. The only useful purpose 'keeping the flag flying between the time of the incident and finishing is to avoid confusion, and to increase the probability that the protestee will see it if she did not see it at the time of the incident.

One needs to bear in mind that these rules cannot be expected to produce an iron-clad guaranteed result. The best they can do is to maximise the likelihood that the desired outcome will be achieved.

There is a history and a legacy in the wording of any particular rule. Rules were not necessarily designed rationally and instrumentally for the present purpose in the first place, and have been incrementally amended (read 'tinkered with by well-meaning, but not necessarily skilled drafters') over the years. The basic flag and hail requirements as they stand, have been in the rules since the Vanderbilt rules of 1935, at least.

[Delta Blues]

Good write up. The rules do make it so simple, hail and flag right away, and it is amazing how often people wish to make these two simple points into a Federal case. Have a flag already attached to your back or side stay with velcro around it, and pop it open and shout "Protest" and you'll never have this problem.

Have it tucked away below in a drawer and expect to have troubles ever having your protest validated.

[Gouvernail]

Maybe this will help...maybe it won't but here goes...



There is absolutely no set of tunse what so ever restricting or guiding a sailor who wishies to simply blow off the incident "until we get to shore...Then we can figure out who was right."



You can always find the other sailors, ask those other playmates what they thought happened and who they thought was right.


If the interaction is a friendly one, there are virtually no sailors anywhere who will refuse to "go with you to find a rules guru and sort this out."



But...



if you want to get all serious and dedmand a third party apply teh rules correctly officially and with the power of the orgainzation in charge...



You need to dot your Is and cross your Ts out on teh water when the incident happens.



If you want to avail yourself of the very well defined "Protest system" you simply have to play by the rest of the rules.



Nobody says you MUST protest or MUST fine a correct protest or hit every single shift or always execute perfect tacks and gybes....but...If you want to "get all official on somebody" you have to do it oficially.

[bye bye]

The reasons are rubbish. The moral obligation is to do your turns if you think you have fouled. The boat fouling the RRS always has opportunity to take an alternative penalty, whether or not there was a flag and hail.

What they are really saying there is they want to give both boats the opportunity to ignore the rules if they both wish. Is that fair on the rest of the fleet?

Niceties around checking the notice board and lining up witnesses are nonsense too.

The only reason to rigorously in force the rules as written is that it's pretty much the only way to maintain any kind of decorum out on the water.

[equivocator]

Brass has it right. It's like the old commercial (in the US) said about sending flowers, "Let her know you really care."

Incidents occur frequently on the race course that could result in a protest. The flag and the hail are intended to inform the other boat that the protestor believes that a foul has occurred and she intends to enforce the rules by protesting.

And the immediate hail and display requirement limits the ability of competitors to game the system.

[Ryley]

First off, I'd like to know if what Brass has written is his considered opinion, or if it is an interpretation from a third party. Too much in his piece is stated in the form of fact when it could also simply be his opinion. No disrespect, Brass, I agree with a lot of what's there.

Second, an immediate hail is one thing. The flag requirement gets to a whole other thing, and some of the interpretations of "first reasonable opportunity" have been ludicrous and appear to simply be a way to loophole the offending boat out of being penalized for a rule infraction. You really think in the sport of sailboat racing it's "better that 10 guilty [boats] go free?" so you get a difference of opinion in how long it took to fly the flag, and suddenly the facts of the protest are no longer even relevant. How is that good for the sport of sailboat racing? Is 10 minutes too long to put up the flag? My initial thought is yes, unless I'm recovering a crew member who went in during the foul. No injury, no damage, but crew in the water - I don't think that's one of the exceptions to me flying the red cloth so... you tell me where my priorities should be - on the crew in the water, or protocol? This is just an example, but it's relevant, especially as we build faster boats that require less crew (which means they're all working, right?). Most likely place for a rules infraction is going to be when there's a ton of stuff going on anyway, so maybe we need a little more reason in the rule regarding an interpretation of "first opportunity." My guess is the infracting boat will *still* know that they committed a foul and which foul they committed, because they knew it before there was ever a hail, just holding their collective breath to see if anyone's going to call them on it.

Third, stop telling me where to stow my protest flag. I'm not installing a backstay no matter how many times you tell me to put my flag there.

[European Bloke]

It’s a sensible rule to stop people ‘engineering’ situations after the event. Toughen the fuck up.

If you can’t work out if the guy was wrong at the time how can he decide he was wrong and do his penalty at the time? In a lead mine are you telling me that the snactician or mainsheet man can get the flag out of his pocket and wave it in about a second and a half? Where you stick it after that is irrelevant, you can hold the sails up, you can hold the flag up.

As you say loosing someone over the side is about the only decent excuse I can think of, or getting sunk.

[Delta Blues]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Every time someone cuts you off, blows a stop or yield sign, doesn't take advantage of a turn when the light is green, do you call the police, shrug it off, give the other car the finger? Really, how many ever call the police?

Now compare that to on the water, racers protest or threat to protest all of the time. Wouldn't it be better if we all shrugged off more "close ones" and save the protest hearing for something that really matters (like a collision or coming tight into the weather mark on port and jamming their way around)?

[bheintz]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Because racing sailboats is a game, games have rules. Sportsmanship and fairness are not part of traffic regulations.

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat’s series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

[green03]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Every time someone cuts you off, blows a stop or yield sign, doesn't take advantage of a turn when the light is green, do you call the police, shrug it off, give the other car the finger? Really, how many ever call the police?

Now compare that to on the water, racers protest or threat to protest all of the time. Wouldn't it be better if we all shrugged off more "close ones" and save the protest hearing for something that really matters (like a collision or coming tight into the weather mark on port and jamming their way around)?

It comes down to the type of competition you want to have.

If you just want to have fun, some places there are "competitions" that don't use the RRS (hence, no protests) don't use corrections (hence no measurement issues) but are still getting boats out in large numbers. That's clearly one successful way to engage without having to police on the water incidents.

Once you do use the RRS, you're a bit stuck with the fact that they are "one size fits all". They are written (and interpreted) to fit very competitive events. I think Brass did a good job reviewing the requirements and the rationale, but he did so in the context where competition is the primary motivation - not relaxation, fun, camaraderie (as much as they may be secondary motivations).

So if your primary motivation is having a good time on the water, then there are aspects of the rules that don't fit well. If you have a fleet where people only protest as a kind of "last resort" then it would seem that you are ill-served if your PC is particularly strict in interpreting rule 61.1(a). I don't know whether it's possible to formalize the kind of "relaxed" attitude that you are describing, so that all participants and the PC are on the same level, but it would be a different game.

That might not be bad. In the thread of why people quit racing, there's a lot of discussion about why people avoid hypercompetitive settings, and perhaps there is a need for a derivation that's not tied at the hip to Olympic and other racing.

[coyotepup]

I've already said my piece 100 times on 61.1(a).

However, I take issue with one other thing here. "Better ten guilty men walk free...." does not apply at all. You don't protest boats you think are innocent. And the rule isn't there to protect them. It's there to give a guilty boat that knows its guilty a chance to avoid going to the room. A boat that thinks its innocent will not do turns and it doesn't really matter whether you tell them now or later that you're protesting.

I have never seen an instance, either from the perspective of the fouling or fouled boat, where, as long as a clear hail is used (and sailors never seem to have any problem loudly swearing at each other which tends to make the situation very clear) there was any ambiguity as to who thought what and who was being protested, whether the flag was flown immediately or a minute later or whenever.

I of course agree with Ryley:

some of the interpretations of "first reasonable opportunity" have been ludicrous and appear to simply be a way to loophole the offending boat out of being penalized for a rule infraction.

...spot on, and disagree with the following:

the immediate hail and display requirement limits the ability of competitors to game the system.

In one way, yes, but as Ryley said, it just opens up another way to game the system - by fouling the hell out of someone and arguing they didn't have their flag up in time.

[movable ballast]

Interesting post, had it happen to me twice in the last two weeks, once as the protestee and once as the protestor.

In the first case we protested a boat on a straight rule 10. yelled protest, sail number and the rule infringed, the proteseted boat did not do turns and addmitted they fouled us but we did not flag them in time. It took 90 seconds to get the flag out. The protest was deemed invalid under the appeals as taking to long. So the protested boat was correct to the letter of the law but displayed poor sportsmanship in my mind. My flag is now taped to the backstay...

The very next race we were protested. the protesting boat hailed protest but did not say who, how or when we fouled them and had no flag (we were both on the same tack and clear when they hailed). I asked my crew "what happened, did we foul them" no one could say what happened so in the light of not knowing anything about the foul I did not do turns. The protestee did not pursue the protest off the water. Had the protestee given me a reason for the protest I would have done turns flag or no flag.

I guess the point is, you need to clearly inform the protestee what he did so he has a chance to respond, if he wants to play semantics about the flag time then maybe low key beer can racing is not for him, or he is just a prick. Maybe he should stick to grand prix racing to get his fix.

If you are protested and know you screwed up do a turn, dont use the late flag rule to get out of it,

[Gone Drinking]

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules
that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle
of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will
promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.


I'd even go so far as to say if they admitted they fouled you but didn't do circles or RAF because of a late flag they are cheating plain and simple.

[movable ballast]

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules
that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle
of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will
promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.


I'd even go so far as to say if they admitted they fouled you but didn't do circles or RAF because of a late flag they are cheating plain and simple.

Not according to the appeals...

[Gone Drinking]

Rule 2 states as above. If you know you broke a rule and don't take a penalty you are breaking rule 2. Protests should be for disagreements about who broke a rule, not when both boats are in agreement who broke one.

EDIT
And people keep wondering why the sport is in decline. It all the fucking sea lawyers.

[Brass]

First off, I'd like to know if what Brass has written is his considered opinion, or if it is an interpretation from a third party. Too much in his piece is stated in the form of fact when it could also simply be his opinion. No disrespect, Brass, I agree with a lot of what's there.

It's all my own work.

If you think there factual errors, by all means highlight them and we can have a discussion.

Second, an immediate hail is one thing. The flag requirement gets to a whole other thing, and some of the interpretations of "first reasonable opportunity" have been ludicrous and appear to simply be a way to loophole the offending boat out of being penalized for a rule infraction

I am happy to separate discussion of the reasonableness of the hail requirements and the flag requirements.

I take it you mean 'interpretations' by local protest committees (as reported on SA by the losing side).

I don't see any problem with the published 'formal' interpretations, all of which carefully avoid the 'instantly' or 'within few seconds' approach:

• US Sailing Appeals 61 (what are not good reasons) 68(what are not good reasons) and 82 (what are good reasons)
• RYA Appeals 1981/7 (third party protests), 1996/2 (third party protests), and particularly 1999/1 (requirements, including flag on deck)

. You really think in the sport of sailboat racing it's "better that 10 guilty [boats] men go free than one innocent man go to the gallows?"

Well, its a motto or slogan that is used in countries where there are common-law, adverserial trials, with the presumption of innocence.

I used it to explain the background to technical invalidity.

I certainly did not intend to suggest that the rules shoulde be designed so that only 10% of meritorious protests proceeded to hearing.

I assume that you don't believe the opposite: "better 10 innocent boats be disqualified than one guilty boat go free"?

I am heartened that several posters have backed up my concern about post-hoc 'concocted' or 'engineered' protests and attempts to 'game the system'.

so you get a difference of opinion in how long it took to fly the flag,

In my experience, disputes about how long are very infrequent: The majority of cases I see have the protesting boat giving direct evidence that she was slow with the flag. By far the most frequent is the 'I flew the flag not more than 1 minute after the incident', followed by a strange reluctance to give any more detail. I don't know where the 1 minute or 60 second number came from, but it's out there.

I think that, in the absence of a good reason, 60 seconds is too long. I am inclined to think that 20 to 30 seconds is OK.

You may recall I postited questions that the protest committee could ask if there appeared to be delay:

"Was there a good reason why you did not display the flag immediately after the incident?"

This would give the protesting boat a chance to trot out her good reasons, (and probably her weak excuses as well).

and suddenly the facts of the protest are no longer even relevant. How is that good for the sport of sailboat racing?

Because we have designed a fair (erring on the side of the defendant), credible protest system that people are willing to use, and which is protected to some extent at least from being manipulated.

Is 10 minutes too long to put up the flag? My initial thought is yes, unless I'm recovering a crew member who went in during the foul. No injury, no damage, but crew in the water - I don't think that's one of the exceptions to me flying the red cloth so... you tell me where my priorities should be - on the crew in the water, or protocol? This is just an example, but it's relevant, especially as we build faster boats that require less crew (which means they're all working, right?). Most likely place for a rules infraction is going to be when there's a ton of stuff going on anyway, so maybe we need a little more reason in the rule regarding an interpretation of "first opportunity."

I think this is all covered in the US Sailing Appeals I cited.

My guess is the infracting boat will *still* know that they committed a foul and which foul they committed, because they knew it before there was ever a hail, just holding their collective breath to see if anyone's going to call them on it.

The rules, as far as possible rely on observable conduct, not on mental states such as what a person 'knows', which is extremely hard to prove, and cannot be substituted by 'what one person says that another person must have known'

Many a time I have been out there and I think I may have broken a rule and I watch the other boat to see if they hail 'Protest' or fly the flag, so as to assist me to decide whether to take a penalty or not. That is exactly what the rules allow me to do.


Third, stop telling me where to stow my protest flag. I'm not installing a backstay no matter how many times you tell me to put my flag there.
There are other places people might tell you to put your flag <g>.

[stranded]

I think the meaning and significance of " reasonable " needs more understanding here


check definitions and case studies

PC has to be open to discussion by both parties as to what is or is not " reasonable " for the matter at hand.

........... can mean the protest can be initiated ashore after the finish

consider a passage race where the protestee finishes a day later .....................

[bye bye]

Rule 2 states as above. If you know you broke a rule and don't take a penalty you are breaking rule 2. Protests should be for disagreements about who broke a rule, not when both boats are in agreement who broke one.

EDIT
And people keep wondering why the sport is in decline. It all the fucking sea lawyers.

Exactly. Flag or no flag you still have the opportunity to do your turns.

RRS61.1 should really say "If you get in to some sort of slagging match you can kiss your protest good by. Shout 'protest' and shut the fuck up ... and don't go making some shit up afterwards either."

[Ryley]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Every time someone cuts you off, blows a stop or yield sign, doesn't take advantage of a turn when the light is green, do you call the police, shrug it off, give the other car the finger? Really, how many ever call the police?

Now compare that to on the water, racers protest or threat to protest all of the time. Wouldn't it be better if we all shrugged off more "close ones" and save the protest hearing for something that really matters (like a collision or coming tight into the weather mark on port and jamming their way around)?

NO. NO NO NO NO NO. There is no comparison with someone breaking a rule of the road in a car and a sailboat race. In your car you may *think* you're racing the guy in front of you, but that's in your head. on the race course, you are of course trying to get around the course as fast as possible and you are bound by the RRS. If you don't protest, a couple things happen. first, you potentially appear ignorant about the rules of the sport you apparently care enough to participate in, and second you create a slippery slope for both you and your competitors - well, he didn't hail that port starboard last time and it was way closer than this time! There's nothing wrong with (and a lot right with) taking tactical advantage of the rules, but hey, if we only enforce the ones that "matter" like when a boat gets t-boned, then why have any rule beyond "don't t-bone another boat?"

And uh, Brass? stop being so f'ng reasonable, eh?

[Skyywalker]

Hi guys,

I have a question for you... coming from skiff and now kiteracing, we are quite often facing the problem that the protestee did not hear the call. In skiffs (if over 6m) I have my red flag, but not on a kiteraceboard...

So here is the situation: 20 knots of winds, heavy chop, two boards are overlapped but 20m apart, both going with 30 knots boat speed. The one crashes and shouts protest. In the meantime the other guy has gone another 30 meters or so.

When it comes to the protest hearing, the one claims to have shouted loudly "protest", the other one said he did not hear it.

There are two options now:
a) the one guy shouted protest and the other one was beyond hailing distance (given the conditions, this can go very fast at that speed). The next time they meet is back on the beach, here is another option to protest, but then the other guy cant take a penalty anymore...
the one guy shouted protest, and the other one heard it, but there is no witness...

How to solve a) and ? Not that this would happen too often, but I can see it coming...

Thanks !

[Brass]

I have a question for you... coming from skiff and now kiteracing, we are quite often facing the problem that the protestee did not hear the call. In skiffs (if over 6m) I have my red flag, but not on a kiteraceboard...

So here is the situation: 20 knots of winds, heavy chop, two boards are overlapped but 20m apart, both going with 30 knots boat speed. The one crashes and shouts protest. In the meantime the other guy has gone another 30 meters or so.

When it comes to the protest hearing, the one claims to have shouted loudly "protest", the other one said he did not hear it.

There are two options now:
a ) the one guy shouted protest and the other one was beyond hailing distance (given the conditions, this can go very fast at that speed). The next time they meet is back on the beach, here is another option to protest, but then the other guy cant take a penalty anymore...
b )the one guy shouted protest, and the other one heard it, but there is no witness...

How to solve a ) and b ) ? Not that this would happen too often, but I can see it coming...

The sort of boats the RRS drafters usually have in mind are one design, or boats of comparable size and speed, say from 14 to 40ft.

Problems with hearing hails have already been identified with the AmCup and large multis. Say on a 100 footer, the skipper of one boat can be 100 ft from the other skipper when they make contact.

The hailing rules don't cope well with these situations. The rule 20 hailing rule (which was the one that caused trouble with the X Cats) will be fixed in the 2013 rewrite by introducing hand signals as in Match Racing, but the rule 61.1(a) 'Protest' hail rule hasn't had the problem addressed as far as I am aware. I do know, however that there has been a huge amount of development work on the Kiteboarding special rules

http://www.sailing.o...ersion4Jan2012-[11780].pdf

But that doesn't address the problem:

X5 CHANGES TO THE RULES OF PART 5

The first three sentences of rule 61.1(a) are changed to:

A kiteboard intending to protest shall inform the other kiteboard at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest concerns an incident in the racing area that she is involved in or sees, she shall hail 'Protest'. She shall inform the race committee of her intention to protest as soon as practicable after she finishes or retires.

OK back to your questions.

The requirement is for the boat intending to protest to 'hail 'Protest'. There is no requirement for the other boat to hear the hail.

Evidence from a protested boat that she did not hear a hail is evidence about that boat's hearing, not evidence about the protesting boat's hailing.

If a protesting boat comes to a hearing and gives evidence that she hailed, then the protestee's evidence that she did not hear the hail is not enough to rebut the protesting boat's evidence that she did hail.

I guess it's up to the Kiteboarders to come up with a better system suitable for their style, than the Experimental Rules provide.

[Brass]

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Mate, the reason nobody has yet replied to this proposal is that all the senior guys at ISAF and US Sailing had heart attacks the instant they saw it.

Everybody agrees that if a boat knows she has broken a rule she must accept a penalty. Nobody would want to change that.

I think your nutshell conceptual statement is logically flawed: whether a boat broke a rule can't depend on whether another boat shouted at her, after the event.

We should leave the concept of breaking a rule alone.

What we can look at are the concepts about a boat being penalised for breaking a rujle.

[Brass]

Wouldn't it be better if we all shrugged off more "close ones" and save the protest hearing for something that really matters (like a collision or coming tight into the weather mark on port and jamming their way around)?

It comes down to the type of competition you want to have.

If you just want to have fun, some places there are "competitions" that don't use the RRS (hence, no protests) don't use corrections (hence no measurement issues) but are still getting boats out in large numbers. That's clearly one successful way to engage without having to police on the water incidents.

Once you do use the RRS, you're a bit stuck with the fact that they are "one size fits all". They are written (and interpreted) to fit very competitive events. I think Brass did a good job reviewing the requirements and the rationale, but he did so in the context where competition is the primary motivation - not relaxation, fun, camaraderie (as much as they may be secondary motivations).

Guys, I think you are missing something. Protesting is a two stage process: the first stage is the mechanism for informing a boat that you think she has broken a rule and her taking a turns or scoring penalty on the water. Ever since turns penalties ceased to be 'alternative' penalties in the 1995 rewrite of the rules, on-water penalties are part of the game: an incident happens, a boat takes her turns and the issue is forgotten. That's the way the game is meant to be played, and I think that this would be even more desirable in 'friendly' racing than elsewhere.

I hope I have adequately explained why clearly and promptly informing the boat that you think has broken a rule, when they may not know that they have, is an essential requirement for this to work. In case I haven't:

Take a typical situation where you think that a boat on port has failed to keep clear of you on starboard, and you have taken action to avoid her.

If there was no contact and you did not change course (or take some other action to avoid, such as starting sails and slowing down) or if you changed course without really fearing in a genuine and reasonable way that there woudl be contact, then the give way boat has kept clear, and has not broken a rule (this is discussed in Case 50).

That's quite a few ifs and buts to consider.

A port tacker is entitled to cut it fine. While concentrating on her own boat handling, it may not be possible for P to see whether or not S changed course, and it is absolutely impossible for P to know whether S 'had a reasonable apprehension (was really fearful) of contact'.

The rules provide that the way that the right of way boat conveys to the give way boat that she may have broken a rule is to hail 'Protest' as soon as reasonably possible.

Going through the formality of a protest hearing is the second stage of the protesting process. I would suggest that it is unavoidably essential to have this second, optional but more serious process at least in teh background, to make the first, on-water, stage work. If we didn't have the formal protest hearing and disqualification 'back-up' we could have competitors just refusing to do on-water penalties and getting away with it. But the formal protest hearing stage is always at the choice of the protesting boat: she can, if she wishes just not deliver a written protest and let the thing slide.

But if you don't hail 'Protest' promptly on the water, the first stage, which is what we really want to happen won't work.

So if your primary motivation is having a good time on the water, then there are aspects of the rules that don't fit well. If you have a fleet where people only protest as a kind of "last resort" then it would seem that you are ill-served if your PC is particularly strict in interpreting rule 61.1(a).

Sorry, I think exactly the opposite (a I hope my discussion above about the 'two stages' indicates).

If a boat that thinks another boat has broken a rule doesn't 'play the game' by informing her promptly so that she can take hear on-water penalty, (the friendly thiing to do) then she shouldn't be allowed to escalate the incident into a formal protest hearing with the possibility of disqualification (the unfriendly thing to do).

I don't know whether it's possible to formalize the kind of "relaxed" attitude that you are describing, so that all participants and the PC are on the same level, but it would be a different game.

That might not be bad. In the thread of why people quit racing, there's a lot of discussion about why people avoid hypercompetitive settings, and perhaps there is a need for a derivation that's not tied at the hip to Olympic and other racing.

I don't think the rules are 'hypercompetitive'. They are rigourous, as they need to be, because once you start making wooley rules, everything gets confused and people start to, wilfully or inadvertently wriggle through the rules.

Competitors themselves have all the room they need to 'relax' the rules. They can, if they wish, not hail 'Protest' for 'just a little' breach; they can refrain from delivering a written protest; a protestee could refrain from disputing validity requirements in a protest hearing, but all that works best in a framework of clear precise rules.

[green03]

I like the word "rigorous". That describes it better than "competitive" or "friendly" vs. "unfriendly"

The very sensible interpretation of the process you've outlined are based on and demand rigorous attention to the rules from all parties.

If you're mentally and otherwise not prepared (because you've buried your flag in a locker) to protest and will not do so unless somebody T-bones you (or causes you to T-bone them, as in the other thread) then you are very far away from the "rigor" that's needed to make the rules work. To that extent, I think we agree.

If Delta Blues and others don't find this rigor compatible with their friendly encounters, then, I do think, they are not well served by the rules. Adding "rigor" to their game may not be where they want to go. Then what?

[Brass]

I've already said my piece 100 times on 61.1(a).

However, I take issue with one other thing here. "Better ten guilty men walk free...." does not apply at all. You don't protest boats you think are innocent. And the rule isn't there to protect them. It's there to give a guilty boat that knows its guilty a chance to avoid going to the room.

Maybe you don't protest boats that you think are innocent, but you do not necessarily represent every competitor.

If the rules don't protect the innocent, than people who think that they know what other people know are likely to screw them over.

A boat that thinks its innocent will not do turns and it doesn't really matter whether you tell them now or later that you're protesting.

Thats not exactly right. Many competitors choose, and have been coached to choose to do turns to avoid perceived uncertainty of the protest hearing process, even when they believe that they have not broken a rule.

I have never seen an instance, either from the perspective of the fouling or fouled boat, where, as long as a clear hail is used (and sailors never seem to have any problem loudly swearing at each other which tends to make the situation very clear) there was any ambiguity as to who thought what and who was being protested, whether the flag was flown immediately or a minute later or whenever.

Sorry mate, that's just nonsense. Yelling and swearing do absolutely nothing to make communication unambiguous. That's one of the reasons why the rules specify one particular word 'Protest.

Here's another consideration that I didn't bring up before.

Suppose there is a regatta in the Eastern Mediterranean, with Turkish, Greek, Slovak and other European competitors, with all their various different languages. No protest committee could be confident that a hail in one language, if it did not contain the word 'Protest' would clearly convey that the hailing boat [alleges that a rule was broken and] wants the other boat to take a penalty to a speaker of another language. In other words, the requirement for the hail to contain the word 'Protest' should be strictly applied.

Well, if the requirement is to be strictly applied at one sort of international event, should it not be equally applied at all events?

I of course agree with Ryley:

some of the interpretations of "first reasonable opportunity" have been ludicrous and appear to simply be a way to loophole the offending boat out of being penalized for a rule infraction.

...spot on,

If there really are cases where protest committees have declared protests invalid because of, say a 5 second delay in the hail, then I agree that this is wrong. I am not sure that thre really are that many instanced of this.

and disagree with the following:

the immediate hail and display requirement limits the ability of competitors to game the system.

In one way, yes,

C'mon, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you agree or you disagree.

but as Ryley said, it just opens up another way to game the system - by fouling the hell out of someone and arguing they didn't have their flag up in time.

I don't understand what 'fouling the hell out of someone' means. I suppose you mean 'not keeping clear or giving room to a boat as required by the rules'.

A boat either breaks a rule or she doesn't.

If she breaks, for example a right of way rule intentionally, then she also breaks rule 2.

The game requires that, for a boat to be penalised for breaking a rule she must be validly protested.

Your personal opinion about 'fouling' and 'hell', which looks like pretty emotive language to me, doesn't somehow cause the rules about protest validity to not apply.

If its that bad, there's always rule 69, which turns off all the protest validity requirements.

[Brass]

Interesting post, had it happen to me twice in the last two weeks, once as the protestee and once as the protestor.

In the first case we protested a boat on a straight rule 10. yelled protest, sail number and the rule infringed, the proteseted boat did not do turns and addmitted they fouled us but we did not flag them in time. It took 90 seconds to get the flag out. The protest was deemed invalid under the appeals as taking to long. So the protested boat was correct to the letter of the law but displayed poor sportsmanship in my mind. My flag is now taped to the backstay...

The very next race we were protested. the protesting boat hailed protest but did not say who, how or when we fouled them and had no flag (we were both on the same tack and clear when they hailed). I asked my crew "what happened, did we foul them" no one could say what happened so in the light of not knowing anything about the foul I did not do turns. The protestee did not pursue the protest off the water. Had the protestee given me a reason for the protest I would have done turns flag or no flag.

I guess the point is, you need to clearly inform the protestee what he did so he has a chance to respond, if he wants to play semantics about the flag time then maybe low key beer can racing is not for him, or he is just a prick. Maybe he should stick to grand prix racing to get his fix.

I disagree. I think the point is that if you hail 'Protest' immediately after the incident, the other boat knows that she is being protested for what she did immediatly before the hail (crossing close, bearing down, squeezing you into a mark, ...) So there is no need to describe the incident. The longer in time between the incident and the hail, the more difficult it is for the protestee to know what she is being protested for.

If you are protested and know you screwed up do a turn, dont use the late flag rule to get out of it,

YES: A boat that knows she has broken a rule MUST take a penalty. But nobody else knows what that boat or competitor does or does not know.

[Brass]

RRS61.1 should really say "If you get in to some sort of slagging match you can kiss your protest good by. Shout 'protest' and shut the fuck up ... and don't go making some shit up afterwards either."

I find that hugely appealing.

[Brass]

Wouldn't it be better if we all shrugged off more "close ones" and save the protest hearing for something that really matters (like a collision or coming tight into the weather mark on port and jamming their way around)?

I don't think the rules are 'hypercompetitive'. They are rigourous, as they need to be, because once you start making wooley rules, everything gets confused and people start to, wilfully or inadvertently wriggle through the rules.

Competitors themselves have all the room they need to 'relax' the rules. They can, if they wish, not hail 'Protest' for 'just a little' breach; they can refrain from delivering a written protest; a protestee could refrain from disputing validity requirements in a protest hearing, but all that works best in a framework of clear precise rules.

I like the word "rigorous". That describes it better than "competitive" or "friendly" vs. "unfriendly"

The very sensible interpretation of the process you've outlined are based on and demand rigorous attention to theCo rules from all parties.

I think you have missed one of thepoints I was trying to make, and are being unnecessarily hard on competitors.. The rules need to be rigourous, (and protest committees need to apply them rigourously), but competitors can consensually choose how rigourously they want to play the rules.

If you're mentally and otherwise not prepared (because you've buried your flag in a locker) to protest and will not do so unless somebody T-bones you (or causes you to T-bone them, as in the other thread) then you are very far away from the "rigor" that's needed to make the rules work. To that extent, I think we agree.

No, the rules deal with that perfectly well. Firstly, in a T-bone, rule 61.1(a)(3) switches hail and flag off completely. For a non-contact 'game-play' incident, then if you couldn't be bothered having your flag available, then you don't get a valid protest to be heard: simple.

If Delta Blues and others don't find this rigor compatible with their friendly encounters, then, I do think, they are not well served by the rules. Adding "rigor" to their game may not be where they want to go. Then what?

Rules - rigorous

Adherence to the rules need only be as rigourous as the competitors (collectively) want it to be.

[green03]

If you're mentally and otherwise not prepared (because you've buried your flag in a locker) to protest and will not do so unless somebody T-bones you (or causes you to T-bone them, as in the other thread) then you are very far away from the "rigor" that's needed to make the rules work. To that extent, I think we agree.

No, the rules deal with that perfectly well. Firstly, in a T-bone, rule 61.1(a)(3) switches hail and flag off completely. For a non-contact 'game-play' incident, then if you couldn't be bothered having your flag available, then you don't get a valid protest to be heard: simple.

Well, that was my understanding of the scenario in the other thread, and their protest got promptly dismissed - which started this whole discussion.
Rule 61.1(a)(3) that you reference does unfortunately say nothing about "contact", but only mentions obvious damage or injury.

Somebody else mentioned that "crew in the water" should be added to the list of exceptions, and I would agree - for the reason that there should be no need to second guess a boat giving absolute priority to that kind of emergency. And after recovering from that, there just isn't the same urgency for flying a flag.

Beyond that, I read many of the replies here that posters would be happier if the threshold for rule 61.1(a)(3) was a bit lower, like contact, or "audible contact" perhaps - just so that the flag can't be used as a loophole to get out of serious violations that by their results are incontestable. There are a number of reasonable scenarios where there's absolutely no doubt that someone violated some rule - so that your benchmark of the "need to be informed" (my paraphrase) doesn't apply in the same way.

I can't recall right now whether your writeup had made that connection already, but obviously the exceptions expressed in rule 61.1(a)(3) and rule 44.1.b currently match - because under 44.1.b taking turns is not enough when there's serious damage or injury, there's no need for prompt flag for the purpose of allowing the boat that was protested to be able to do prompt turns. If rule 61.1(a)(3) were to be broadened, it might have the beneficial effect to underscore that a penalty is required, as soon as it's clear a rule breach took place - not as soon as a rule breach was noticed by a competitor.

That gets us in the direction of whether changes to the rules are ultimately desirable, not how to interpret existing rules - for that, I have no issues with your summary.

[Brass]

If you're mentally and otherwise not prepared (because you've buried your flag in a locker) to protest and will not do so unless somebody T-bones you (or causes you to T-bone them, as in the other thread) then you are very far away from the "rigor" that's needed to make the rules work. To that extent, I think we agree.

No, the rules deal with that perfectly well. Firstly, in a T-bone, rule 61.1(a)(3) switches hail and flag off completely. For a non-contact 'game-play' incident, then if you couldn't be bothered having your flag available, then you don't get a valid protest to be heard: simple.

Well, that was my understanding of the scenario in the other thread, and their protest got promptly dismissed - which started this whole discussion.

You could have a low speed T Bone between, say, Optis that would cause no obvious damage. I would normally think that a T Bone (with keelboats) would cause damage obvious to the boats involved, but you can't expect a protest committee to find that fact unless you give them some evidence.

In the other thread, despite being directly asked at least three times, the Ghost never told us whether in his opinion or in fact there was damage obvious to the boats involved.

If there was no evidence given to the protest committee that there was damage obvioius to the boats involved they can't be expected to be mind-readers.

Otherwise, possibly the protest committee made a mistake in not applying rule 61.1(a)(3).

Rule 61.1(a)(3) that you reference does unfortunately say nothing about "contact", but only mentions obvious damage or injury.

Why is that a problem?

Somebody else mentioned that "crew in the water" should be added to the list of exceptions, and I would agree - for the reason that there should be no need to second guess a boat giving absolute priority to that kind of emergency. And after recovering from that, there just isn't the same urgency for flying a flag.

As I said in the original discussion paper, the switch-off provision has to have clear distinct limits, and the rules drafters chose to qualify injury or damage by 'obvious to the boats involved'. It would be possible to add something about crew overboard, but:

• 'crew overboard obvious to the boats involved' seems to be problematical. What if the crew overboard is not obvious to one of the boats? Say a leeward boat puts a hard luff on a windward boat and a creww goes over the windward side of the windward boat: that crew in the water would be obscured from the leeward boat by the hull of the windward boat. 'Obviousness' is clearly an essential criterion. We might also have a bit of difficulty about causation: it's pretty plain where a boat failing, say, to keep clear causes damage to another boat (by hitting her, or perhaps, arguably, causing her to manoeuvre in an unseamanlike way that brings her rig down); much less clear when a crew goes overboard: was it caused by the incident, or was it caused by clumsyness of the crew, or was it like a footballer taking a dive and so on.
• I am not sure that it is necessary. Looking at the US Appeal 67, which I find pretty persuasive: If everyone in the crew is occupied on seamanlike tasks in recovering the crew overboard, then that is a good reason for delay in displaying the red flag; if some crew member in not otherwise occupied, then they had a reasonable opportunity to display the flag.

Beyond that, I read many of the replies here that posters would be happier if the threshold for rule 61.1(a)(3) was a bit lower, like contact, or "audible contact" perhaps

That would introduce 'contact' into the exception rule: it would lessen its scope, not broaden it: see my example above about the rig coming down without contact.

The effect of the existing rule is to cover the case where everyone is floundering around in a tangled mess of boats and sails and nobody is thinking about hails and flags. Why should there be an excepton for 'contact' or 'obvious' contact if there is nothing in the contact that would otherwise provide a good reason for delay in haiI and flag? I really don't see the need to broaden it at all.

- just so that the flag can't be used as a loophole to get out of serious violations that by their results are incontestable.

The flag (or lack thereof) isn't a 'loophole': not displaying a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity after an incident is a negligent omission by the boat intending to protest. I repeat:

• in normal game-play (no damage or injury), regardless of the 'seriousness' of the 'violation' (which I really think is completely irrelevant: a breach is a breach is a breach, until you get to the very serious business of an intentional breach, but that's not 'normal'), the 'game' the rules require is 1) incident occurs that causes a boat to think that another boat has broken a rule and should be penalised; 2) the boat that wants the other boat to be penalised hails 'Protest' and displays a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each; 3) the other boat takes an on-water penalty, or else there is a valid protest hearing. It's nothing more than game-play according to the rules.
• Once one gets away from normal game-play: damange, injury, unsporting intentional rule breach, other rules provide exceptions to the flag and hail requirement.

There are a number of reasonable scenarios where there's absolutely no doubt that someone violated some rule - so that your benchmark of the "need to be informed" (my paraphrase) doesn't apply in the same way.

Look, the presumption of innocence says that nobody knows another boat broke a rule until a protest hearing concludes that she did. You may think that another boat broke a rule, but you can't know it.

I can't recall right now whether your writeup had made that connection already, but obviously the exceptions expressed in rule 61.1(a)(3) and rule 44.1.b currently match - because under 44.1.b taking turns is not enough when there's serious damage or injury, there's no need for prompt flag for the purpose of allowing the boat that was protested to be able to do prompt turns. If rule 61.1(a)(3) were to be broadened, it might have the beneficial effect to underscore that a penalty is required, as soon as it's clear a rule breach took place - not as soon as a rule breach was noticed by a competitor.

I wouldn't kid myself that references to injury and damage in the rules are coordinated and consistent.

Rule 44.1( b ) and rule 61.1(a)(3) are NOT consistent: 61.1(a)(3) refers to damage that is obvious, but need not be serious; 44.1( b ) requires damage that is serious, but may not be obvious.

Then there's damage (unqualified) in rule 14( b ), and physical damage in rule 62.1( b ).

No boat is ever required to take a turns (or scoring ) penalty in accordance with rule 44. Rule 44 is discretionary. All that happens is, that if the boat takes a penalty in accordance with rule 44, then if the other boat validly protests, the boat that took the penalty is protected from disqualification or further penalisation by rule 64.1( b ).pri

You may be onto something interesting here.

Suppose a protesting boat delays flying her protest flag for good reason, for, say, 30 seconds after the incident, and, the protestee goes into penalty turns immediately the flag is up, is anyone going to say that she did not take her turns 'as soon after the incident as possible'?

I'm not keen on that idea.

That gets us in the direction of whether changes to the rules are ultimately desirable, not how to interpret existing rules - for that, I have no issues with your summary.

Well, if anyone thinks changes to the rules are desirable, they've got five years to think about it, because the changes to the current rules went through the Racing Rules Committee last November, and only earth-shattering changes will go through the 2012 approvals without prior notice.

[Brass]

Some people think that the rule 61.1(a) hail and flag requirement being mandatory is not a good idea.

How about amending rule 61.1(a) as follows:

(a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest concerns an incident in the racing area that she is involved in or sees, if she shall hails 'Protest' and conspicuously displays a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each she shall be taken to have informed the protestee, whether the protestee hers the hail or sees the flag or not. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. ...

I personally don't think it's all that good an idea for the following reasons:

• The existing hail and flag requirements are pathetically easy to comply with: honestly, it's only competitors who are ignorant of the rules or who arrogantly suppose that the rules don't apply to them that have problems with complying.
• If a boat chose not to take the hail and flag option, she would still be left with the inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity obligation. That means that she has to communicate with the other boat somehow in just the same time limit as applies to the 'Protest' hail option. So there's no improvement for those who think it shouldn't matter how long it takes to inform the protestee.
• If a boat chose not to take the hail and flag option, but did say, or shout something at the first reasonable opportunity, it would be open to the protestee to say that she did not hear whatever it was that was said, and that therefore she was not effectively informed; It would also be open to the protestee to say that she heard but what she heard did not meaningfully 'inform' her. Thus the amendment would cause nasty, difficult disputes about the hail.

[haz]

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules
that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle
of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will
promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.


I'd even go so far as to say if they admitted they fouled you but didn't do circles or RAF because of a late flag they are cheating plain and simple.

Not according to the appeals...

Then (my opinion) the appeals are wrong, and in conflict with rules.

There are three avenues available if the offending boat DOESN'T believe they fouled: Protest room, friendly bar discussion, ignorance.

The rules would seems very clear once the offending boat believes they broke a rule ... take the penalty.

We can argue ourselves into a corner about situations where the offending boat's not certain, but I don't see a lot of wiggle room if they're sure?

Haz

[Steam Flyer]

RRS61.1 should really say "If you get in to some sort of slagging match you can kiss your protest good by. Shout 'protest' and shut the fuck up ... and don't go making some shit up afterwards either."

I find that hugely appealing.

+ + +

FB- Doug

[Steam Flyer]

Wouldn't it be better if we all shrugged off more "close ones" and save the protest hearing for something that really matters (like a collision or coming tight into the weather mark on port and jamming their way around)?

Depends on what you mean by "a close one."

A windward boat blithely sailing right up gun'l to gun'l with a leeward boat and failing to keep clear, because it would be disadvantageous tactically to live up to the rules?

No

FB- Doug

[Christian]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Because racing sailboats is a game, games have rules. Sportsmanship and fairness are not part of traffic regulations.

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Please stay off the water. It is this attitude that kills sailing. If you don't automatically and un-prompted take a penalty when you know you broke a rule you are a complete fucktard!

[coyotepup]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Because racing sailboats is a game, games have rules. Sportsmanship and fairness are not part of traffic regulations.

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Please stay off the water. It is this attitude that kills sailing. If you don't automatically and un-prompted take a penalty when you know you broke a rule you are a complete fucktard!

Actually, I think the attitude that kills sailing is know-it-alls telling other people to get off the water for not conforming precisely to a glorified ideal of knowledge and ability. Then they do stay off the water leaving the know-it-alls to wonder why participation has been declining so much.

[10er]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Because racing sailboats is a game, games have rules. Sportsmanship and fairness are not part of traffic regulations.

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Please stay off the water. It is this attitude that kills sailing. If you don't automatically and un-prompted take a penalty when you know you broke a rule you are a complete fucktard!

Actually, I think the attitude that kills sailing is know-it-alls telling other people to get off the water for not conforming precisely to a glorified ideal of knowledge and ability. Then they do stay off the water leaving the know-it-alls to wonder why participation has been declining so much.

I agree with Christian...If the racer KNOWS that they broke a rule, they should do what is needed to exonerate themselves. And if they don't fuck em! Who needs them on the race course. In the Chicago NOODs last weekend in our one design fleet of 31 boats, a boat fouled another at a mark rounding, which requires a 720 to exonerate themselves. The boat rounded the mark, settled in and sailed for a few minutes, then did a 360, sailed for another 5 minutes and did another 360. My interpretation of the rule means that you must do a 720 at the 1st opportune moment you are clear of other boats, not when you have built up speed to do the turns, and a 720 with minimal speed is alot more damaging than doing 2 360s done at full speed. I know that the offending boat knew the rule as they are seasoned racers and I had conversations with the skipper regarding that rule in the week prior to the NOOD. My first statement to him after the race was if he was going to withdraw from the race. His response was 1) he wasn't sure if he was supposed to do a 360 or 720 so they did a 360, sailed while a crew member checked the rules, and when found that they were to do a 720, did the other 360, which to him was his 1st opportunity after learning the rule 2) he didn't want to withdraw because he didn't want to do that to his crew. I say BULLSHIT. If a racer KNOWS that they fouled another boat and the other boat calls them on it they should do the Corinthian thing and take the penalty. What happens when no one else is around...hitting a mark when no one sees it..or on long distance races. I hope that sailors that feel the need to cheat drop out of racing...that will only make the sport better.

[Brass]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Because racing sailboats is a game, games have rules. Sportsmanship and fairness are not part of traffic regulations.

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Please stay off the water. It is this attitude that kills sailing. If you don't automatically and un-prompted take a penalty when you know you broke a rule you are a complete fucktard!

Actually, I think the attitude that kills sailing is know-it-alls telling other people to get off the water for not conforming precisely to a glorified ideal of knowledge and ability. Then they do stay off the water leaving the know-it-alls to wonder why participation has been declining so much.

I agree with Christian...If the racer KNOWS that they broke a rule, they should do what is needed to exonerate themselves. And if they don't fuck em! Who needs them on the race course. In the Chicago NOODs last weekend in our one design fleet of 31 boats, a boat fouled another at a mark rounding, which requires a 720 to exonerate themselves. The boat rounded the mark, settled in and sailed for a few minutes, then did a 360, sailed for another 5 minutes and did another 360. My interpretation of the rule means that you must do a 720 at the 1st opportune moment you are clear of other boats, not when you have built up speed to do the turns, and a 720 with minimal speed is alot more damaging than doing 2 360s done at full speed. I know that the offending boat knew the rule as they are seasoned racers and I had conversations with the skipper regarding that rule in the week prior to the NOOD. My first statement to him after the race was if he was going to withdraw from the race. His response was 1) he wasn't sure if he was supposed to do a 360 or 720 so they did a 360, sailed while a crew member checked the rules, and when found that they were to do a 720, did the other 360, which to him was his 1st opportunity after learning the rule 2) he didn't want to withdraw because he didn't want to do that to his crew. I say BULLSHIT. If a racer KNOWS that they fouled another boat and the other boat calls them on it they should do the Corinthian thing and take the penalty. What happens when no one else is around...hitting a mark when no one sees it..or on long distance races. I hope that sailors that feel the need to cheat drop out of racing...that will only make the sport better.

So, how did it go at the protest hearing?

[Gone Drinking]

Why not compare racing sailboats to driving a car?

Because racing sailboats is a game, games have rules. Sportsmanship and fairness are not part of traffic regulations.

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Please stay off the water. It is this attitude that kills sailing. If you don't automatically and un-prompted take a penalty when you know you broke a rule you are a complete fucktard!

Now go back and re-read the first sentence of rule 2........If you know you broke a rule, there is no need for someone to protest you, just reture or do your circles. Else you are a cheater

[Brass]

Please stay off the water. It is this attitude that kills sailing. If you don't automatically and un-prompted take a penalty when you know you broke a rule you are a complete fucktard!

Actually, I think the attitude that kills sailing is know-it-alls telling other people to get off the water for not conforming precisely to a glorified ideal of knowledge and ability. Then they do stay off the water leaving the know-it-alls to wonder why participation has been declining so much.

At least we can agree on this.

[I'moutahere]

Because racing sailboats is a game, games have rules. Sportsmanship and fairness are not part of traffic regulations.

I would like to propose the following rules changes that will make this argument simpler.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a).

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated and only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a). A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat’s series score.

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules, only if they are protested by a boat intending to protest who follows the rules, specifically RRS 61.1 (a);


In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Telling that the poster should think that the boat protesting should follow the rules, but the boat infringing does not need to.

[The Ghost....]

I have found the solution to rules 61.1(a), raise the red flag before the start and keep it up, then yell "Protest" at every boat within earshot.

G.

[Steam Flyer]

... ...

In a nut shell, a boat breaks a rule only if someone protests them properly.

Telling that the poster should think that the boat protesting should follow the rules, but the boat infringing does not need to.

Agreed.

Cheaters tend to think that cheating is OK and the real problem is only in getting caught. They also tend to think that everybody would do it if they could (or if they were brave enough, cool enough, smart enough, etc etc)

FB- Doug