Jump to content

Reasons to lose a protest


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, JohnMB said:
1 hour ago, ride2live said:

Learned that the hard way decades ago racing Tech Dinghys on the Charles. Guy came up from astern on the run and ran dead on into our stern. I told him to "Do your circles." He didn't, I protested. Jury found there was contact, no hail of "Protest" both boats out. 

Well that seems like an incorrect application of the rules. No hail of protest should mean that the protest stops and no further action is taken. for the jury to throw either boat out there needs to be a legitimate protest.

The following rule was inserted into the RRS in 1977 and remained until it was deleted int he 1995 re-write

Rule 33.2 Contact Between Yachts Racing

When there is contact  between the hulls, equipment or crew of two yachts both shall be disqualified or otherwise penalised  unless either:

(a)  one of the yachts retires or [takes an on-water penalty]  or

(b)  one or both of the boats [protests].

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Brass said:

The following rule was inserted into the RRS in 1977 and remained until it was deleted int he 1995 re-write

Rule 33.2 Contact Between Yachts Racing

When there is contact  between the hulls, equipment or crew of two yachts both shall be disqualified or otherwise penalised  unless either:

(a)  one of the yachts retires or [takes an on-water penalty]  or

(b)  one or both of the boats [protests].

Ouch.....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2021 at 5:55 PM, Brass said:

Absolutely you can ask for the decision to be explained.

What you can expect to get is an explanation of how the rules applied.

What you can't expect is an explanation of how or why the protest committee found the facts that they did.  That's a bit like a court jury not explaining how they made their decision.

As a judge, I don't like doing explanations immediately after the hearing because I have just gone to a lot of trouble to write a proper decision which should require no explanation, and until the parties read the written decision, they can hardly claim that they don't understand it.  Also, immediately after a hearing, people are still a bit wound up, and not necessarily all that receptive to explanations.

It may well be that I'll want to wait 15 days before discussing the protest to ensure that any mistake or misunderstanding of what I say won't lead to a valid appeal.

If you have difficulty understanding a protest decision, here's what I suggest you do.

First step is get the written protest decision and study it with the rules book open and try to understand how the protest committee applied the rules to the facts they found (not the facts you wanted them to find), to reach the conclusions about what boat broke what rules.

Then look at the Facts Found and identify those Facts Found that were different from the facts you wanted the committee to find, and review your notes and recollection of the hearing to see why or how you didn’t bring enough weight of evidence to convince the protest committee of ‘your’ facts.

All good advice.

When I am chief judge, I try and give a succinct and friendly explanation of the facts found and the basis to our decision. I focus on the losing skipper because if he/she walks out feeling the protest was a learning experience rather than a guilty verdict then the protest has been successful.

I will not engage in prolonged discussion of facts found. I will simply state them ....and explain that we considered all the testimony carefully and used our experience of how boats interact to find those facts but they are not up for discussion. If anyone wants to discuss the rules later, always happy to dothat

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On validity.

I think it is an essential element of fairness to check that a protest is valid.

One of the core constituents of the sport of sailing is to allow an alternate penalty. It is thoroughly unfair if a  boat fails to fly the protest flag in  a timely manner and then expect a protest committee to disqualify the other boat. They should be allowed to take their penalty st the first reasonable opportunity, not 5 minutes later when the racing positions have changed.

I am reasonably generous on time to flying the flag. However if you are not set up for racing and protesting, you are not properly prepared.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Brass said:

The following rule was inserted into the RRS in 1977 and remained until it was deleted int he 1995 re-write

Rule 33.2 Contact Between Yachts Racing

When there is contact  between the hulls, equipment or crew of two yachts both shall be disqualified or otherwise penalised  unless either:

(a)  one of the yachts retires or [takes an on-water penalty]  or

(b)  one or both of the boats [protests].

Indeed. I cannot remember exact wording but I recall also that if a third boat witnessed the collision they can subsequently protest both boats when they discover that nobody took a penalty or protested.

I used that rule once long ago to get both of us tossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Indeed. I cannot remember exact wording but I recall also that if a third boat witnessed the collision they can subsequently protest both boats when they discover that nobody took a penalty or protested.

I used that rule once long ago to get both of us tossed.

You certainly can't do that now.

'First reasonable opportunity' means after the incident and does not include additional time to see whether a boat takes a penalty or flies a red flag.

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

Collegiate sailing tends to have a bit of "interesting" rules applications, at least back in the day.... 

We raced MAISA vs Cornell I think it was, and they had some type of aluminum hulls, which apparently dented like Grumman Canoes. So they had a local rule that the boat was extended by 1 foot in all directions, so "contact" was any part of two boats within 2' and actual hull to hull contact was DSQ for both.

That made the he said/(s)he said presentations, truly legendary as the arguments of "how close" became opinion vs objective fact. I vaguely recall that my skipper reached over and tapped the windward boat's leeward side to make the point of proximity. 

Need one of these social distancing sticks...

 

giphy.gif.4353ad8456dd4cd967f45fba14b4e2d4.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ride2live said:

Learned that the hard way decades ago racing Tech Dinghys on the Charles. Guy came up from astern on the run and ran dead on into our stern. I told him to "Do your circles." He didn't, I protested. Jury found there was contact, no hail of "Protest" both boats out. 

Those boats are at our club now, it’s easy to see how the other boat may have been out of control during the takeover incident. They are red and gray dogs!

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

You certainly can't do that now.

'First reasonable opportunity' means after the incident and does not include additional time to see whether a boat takes a penalty or flies a red flag.

When did that change? I thought that if neither fouled vessel did turns or raised a protest before the next Mark you were able to protest as a third party. By allowing a foul without any acknowledgment or penalizing action, me, as the third party boat may not benefit from the penalty, and lose to a boat that committed a foul with no recompense and a boat that allowed it as it didn’t encumber their progress.

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

If anyone wants to discuss the rules later, always happy to dothat

 

Would you discuss and defend your findings about a particular case on facebook? Would you make a formal complaint that you felt threatened when a highly experienced professional yachtsmen politely pointed out in that discussion that you were wrong about an indisputable point of fact? Would you then sit on a panel hearing a protest involving the person you had made a formal complaint about? Would you refuse to move a hearing so that a party could call a witness that the RO had banned from their club (while refusing to state why that person is banned)? Have you ever yelled at a competitor in the room for simply asking for clarification about a conflict of interest? Would you demand that a competitor explain a conflict of interest in '5 words or less'? In a redress hearing do you let the RC's representative (who appointed the panel) to interject continually while reprimanding the competitor for simply smiling? Would you meet privately with one party just prior to them lodging their protest form? Would you refuse to defer a hearing so that both sides can have legal representation when one side shows up at the hearing with a solicitor and a QC unannounced? 

Would you sit on a panel hearing a protest involving your commercial landlord?

And my favorite - would you allow a club's constitution that states that they can 'reject an entry without giving any reason therefore' to trump RRS 76.1 that states 'provided it does so before the start of the first race and states the reason for doing so.'? 

I am sure you are fair and balanced but I do find your condescending attitude that the person who loses a protest can 'learn' from you to be amusing. You of course are assuming that you know more about the sport than that person, based on the 'Facts' you found after hearing (and accepting) the testimony from people who do sometimes lie through their teeth.

The problem is the system that appoints NJ/IJ's and protects them when they fuck up. One particular IJ and another NJ have driven away more people from the sport than any other people I know around here. They have caused the system to have lost any credibility and have turned the peak body into a laughing stock. Obviously not all J's can be judged (pardon the pun) by these pieces of work, and the only way to rid the sport of these types is for their peers to act. But the system doesn't allow that. The appeal process is nothing but a circling of the wagons.

The system for dispute resolution in our sport is not just far from perfect, it can be shown that one or two people who have ascended to a position they have no place to occupy, can break it completely.  

And fuck with peoples lives.

 

 

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

On validity.

I think it is an essential element of fairness to check that a protest is valid.

One of the core constituents of the sport of sailing is to allow an alternate penalty. It is thoroughly unfair if a  boat fails to fly the protest flag in  a timely manner and then expect a protest committee to disqualify the other boat. They should be allowed to take their penalty st the first reasonable opportunity, not 5 minutes later when the racing positions have changed.

I am reasonably generous on time to flying the flag. However if you are not set up for racing and protesting, you are not properly prepared.

How about rejecting an application for redress over a time limit when the competitor finished at two am in the morning, went directly to the sailing office to lodge (as per the SI's) found the office to be closed and (again as per the SI's) rang the Race director (no answer and the call time recorded) emailed the protest form to the club and complied with the SI's direction (if the race office is closed protest forms shall be delivered to the Race office no later 9 am the following morning) The Panel (chaired by the RO's landlord) rejected the protest on validity, finding that even if the race office is closed, locked and lights out at two am, it was still technically 'open' because a staff member was wandering around the marina somewhere. He accepted the RO's claim that the Race office was in fact a person,(that could not be found) not the physical building as described in the SI's. 

The protection racket appeals panel agreed with the landlords tenant. When the competitor requested the matter be taken to the office of sport arbitration, AS refused. It should be noted that the club in question was not only the Judges landlord - it is also AS's.

And no, you can't make this shit up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sail4beer said:

 I thought that if neither fouled vessel did turns or raised a protest before the next Mark you were able to protest as a third party. By allowing a foul without any acknowledgment or penalizing action, me, as the third party boat may not benefit from the penalty, and lose to a boat that committed a foul with no recompense and a boat that allowed it as it didn’t encumber their progress.

There's never been a rule anything like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. I never thought of it myself as a rule, just heard of it. I’m too far in the lead to deal with that type of encounter;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Thanks for the clarification. I never thought of it myself as a rule, just heard of it. I’m too far in the lead to deal with that type of encounter;)

You are the most modest man in the whole world.  Ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

When did that change? I thought that if neither fouled vessel did turns or raised a protest before the next Mark you were able to protest as a third party. By allowing a foul without any acknowledgment or penalizing action, me, as the third party boat may not benefit from the penalty, and lose to a boat that committed a foul with no recompense and a boat that allowed it as it didn’t encumber their progress.

Under 60.1 (a) a boat may protest another boat(s) for an alleged breach of a Part 2 rule if she was involved in or saw the incident even if she was not the one who was fouled. 

The protest requirements are the same. So informing at the first reasonable opportunity via hail and flag. First reasonable opportunity is very quick. You can't wait to see if anyone does a circle. People who can't figure out where to put a red flag or whether to protest within 10 seconds should really take up a sport that doesn't involve moving objects. Sudoku or something.

Bear in mind the following from 61.1

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

(there are a couple of other exceptions)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

You are the most modest man in the whole world.  Ever.

Hey, you have to sell yourself around here. The product may be weak , but the advertisement must stand out:D

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...