Jump to content

When a penalty isn't a penalty?


Recommended Posts

Let's not go the COLREGS thing please.

It's boring as batshit and totally counterproductive.  I've seen it so many times it's painful.

COLREGS is a way for old cruisers who have never raced RRS, to ... wait for it ... race!  I left a club when that did this shit as it is dangerous.

EXAMPLE:

I was on Port about to cross behind a Starboard yacht at least 10' longer and twice the displacement.  At the last minute, the Starboard boat panicked and bore-away towards me so I dropped the bow as well.  We passed each other head-on, 8-10 knots, each reaching 8-10 knots, with mm's between.

Turns out that the guy thought that I was not going to cross and changed course to avoid a collision.  The cross was a normal RRS version that he had no experience with.  These guys were calling each other on the VHS pre-crossing as in COLREGS FFS!

I was gone from the club 6 months later due to lack of RRS events.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 4/26/2021 at 11:32 PM, jackattack said:

The SIs specifically allow for the arbitration penalty to be applied by the PC

10 ARBITRATION
10.1 Arbitration in accordance with RRS Appendix “T” will be used.
10.2 Protests not resolved by Arbitration, for any subsequent protest hearing the penalty given for a breach of a rule of Part 2 may be the arbitration penalty.
10.3 The arbitrator may be a member of any subsequent protest committee or may observe and give testimony to the protest committee. This changes RRS 63.3(a).

As many others have commented, the problem here was not the incident but the incorrect wording  of 10.2.

10.1 says Appendix T will be used.

10.2 states an "arbitration penalty" may be applied. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an "arbitration penalty" defined anywhere in the rules or appendix T.  There is something called a "post race penalty" which can only be taken voluntarily by the boat and must be taken prior to the start of the protest meeting.  Nowhere in the SIs does it use language such as "This changes Appendix T 1 (a)". so T1 (a) applies and  T1(a) states that a post race penalty must be taken prior to commencement of the protest meeting .

So the language is a bit odd.

In practical reality the SI makes no sense whatsoever.  The normal practice which encourages good behaviour is

(i) Your first opportunity is to take a penalty at the time of the incident. Either turns or 20% penalty.  

(ii) Your second opportunity is to take a 30% penalty at the time of the arbitration hearing or any time before a protest meeting

(iii) If the party declines both these opportunities then the penalty in a protest meeting should be harsher than a penalty in an arbitration meeting, otherwise, why bother with the arbitration meeting?  The usual course is if you decline both to take a penalty at time of incident and in arbitration then you should be dsq,

It is very unusual for a PC to have a choice of penalties and clearly can create mistrust of the system.

What may have happened here is the testimony was a close call and the PC subconsciously took the easy way out BUT this is not the right thing to do. However uncomfortable, the PC has to reach a decision and either dismiss of disqualify

The mystery to me is why B437 simply did not take the "post race penalty". The result would have stood. He/she would not have had to risk a dsq in the protest room. The protesting party would likely have felt better about everything. Simply do the math, realize you still win, and take the penalty ...even if you felt it was a close call.

  The OA made an error in drafting the SI.   I hate to be picky but it is this kind of sloppy SI that sets up the angst of the OP.

 

The arbitrator should have stated his findings, stated how he thought the PC would likely rule and leave it at that. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

The differences aren't in COLREGS rule 12. They're in:

Rule 8, requiring early and substantial action by the give-way vessel to pass at a safe distance (so for example a slight bear-away to pass inches astern of a starboard tacker is illegal under COLREGS. And a close cross on port is right out.)

Rule 13, Overtaking. COLREGS allocate give-way and stand-on based on relative motion, RRS gives ROW based on relative position (clear astern, overlapped, clear ahead)

Rules 16 & 17, Actions by Give-way and Stand-on Vessels. COLREGS assign both vessels responsibilities and neither vessel rights (note that the phrase "right of way" does not appear in the International COLREGS). COLREGS does not allow for luffing or other tactical maneuvers by the stand-on vessel, she's required to keep her course and speed as long as risk of collision exists.

I was just referring to the rule in the post above but you are completely correct on what you say.  I have, for example, seen a stand on vessel, though not standing on and holding course causing a collision then trying (although not racing) to invoke the RRS.

If many racers don't bother to try to understand the Racing Rules then what hope is there of the same numpties of even opening IRPCAS  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Randro said:

Let's not go the COLREGS thing please.

It's boring as batshit and totally counterproductive.  I've seen it so many times it's painful.

COLREGS is a way for old cruisers who have never raced RRS, to ... wait for it ... race!  I left a club when that did this shit as it is dangerous.

EXAMPLE:

I was on Port about to cross behind a Starboard yacht at least 10' longer and twice the displacement.  At the last minute, the Starboard boat panicked and bore-away towards me so I dropped the bow as well.  We passed each other head-on, 8-10 knots, each reaching 8-10 knots, with mm's between.

Turns out that the guy thought that I was not going to cross and changed course to avoid a collision.  The cross was a normal RRS version that he had no experience with.  These guys were calling each other on the VHS pre-crossing as in COLREGS FFS!

I was gone from the club 6 months later due to lack of RRS events.

 

Sounds like a QLD thing to do

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 11:32 PM, Couta said:

I think we've flogged this dead horse long enough...

you were saying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/26/2021 at 6:12 PM, jackattack said:

Out of curiosity, what was the change of course you made when you believed B347 wasn't keeping clear?

Was this ? ever answered?

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...