Jump to content

can this person ask for redress?


Recommended Posts

Quote
Ok, more than one have asked me to post my rules question. I’m cutting pasting from the Messenger notes I sent to one of your members. Please don’t turn this into a fight. Lol
This is slightly complicated because of the mark numbers but I’ll try to make it somewhat clear. Regatta briefed at skippers meeting as two races. One race would be a “G” course, second would be an “O” course. They are pretty much the same as each other except the “O” adds one leg to finish upwind. The leeward mark was also the pin end of the start line, and on the second race the windward mark would be the pin end of the finish line. So G course is Start-Windward-Jibe-Leeward-Windward-Finish downwind. The O course is S-W-J-L-W-F upwind. There was wording in the skippers meeting to leave room for course changes due to time constraints because of a regatta following this regatta that some sailors would also be racing in. So here’s where it gets tricky…
We were using permanent numbered marks in the lake. The start pin/leeward mark was mark 3. Windward/finish pin for second race was mark 7. And the Jibe mark was mark 1. And the committee boat uses a dry-erase board to publish the course to be sailed.
So this makes the first race a G course (large “G” on the board and “7-1-3-7-3” Now, this doesn’t really matter in terms of rules but as I finished the first race, I was close to the committee boat and the head of the RC calls out, “Make sure you check the board for the second race.” This made me believe there would be some sort of change. So when I looked it said “O”, as expected, but the marks were listed as “7-1-3-7-1-7”. An O course SHOULD be “7-1-3-7-3-7”. So I took a picture of the board after the 5 minute sequence started.
So, when I got to mark 7, the windward/finishing pin, the second time, I had a choice to make, which admittedly was influenced by the fact that sailing a normal O course would have put me past the start window for the next regatta, I elected to sail the 7-1-7 reach-reach, that was written on the board. I was scored DNF. At the end of the day, the race didn’t count for anything and I made the next regatta and won it. And because of the next regatta, I wouldn’t have been able to protest anyway. But if I had protested the first regatta, I would have won it too because all other boats in contention would have sailed the wrong course.
All I really want is to know what the ruling would have been so we can educate our RC on the importance of attention to detail. This has actually happened in the past and the opposite ruling was applied. So there’s no consistency.
If I haven’t completely confused you, I welcome your thoughts. I don’t intend to shove this in anyone’s face. I just want to help our fairly inexperienced RC understand how to provide consistent conditions to the fleet.

 

 
 

 

 

ok, wasn't me,  wasn't even near OKC,  just interested if they were entitled to redress from RC screw up...

personally, why even put the order of marks up...

 

 

May be an image of one or more people, people standing, body of water and text that says 'ALL TOGETHER 0 Purpk Flog 7-1-3-7-1-7 OKLAHOMA CITY BOAT ÛT CL'

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you sail the course they posted, then you should get redress.

In a case where they post a course, then designate marks that are incompatible with the posted course, the race gets tossed out.

Attention to detail is definitely a thing for Race Committees.

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an relevant extract from the OA standard SI Courses

Addendum A Sailing Instructions – 2021 Oklahoma City Boat Club

7. Courses: (2) Course designation on the course board may be signaled as follows:

...

G Gold Cup – (W-J-L-W-finish)

O Olympic – (W-J-L-W-L-finish)

...

If a permanent mark is used it will be designated on the course board as follows where “n” is the mark number: W= # n, J= # n, L= # n

Assuming that something like that was written in the SI, the Oral Briefing to Competitors was consistent with the SI.

If the Oral Briefing to Competitors was NOT consistent with the SI, it must be disregarded and the written SI prevail.

 
Rule 86, Changes to the Racing Rules
Rule 90.2(c), Race Committee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing Instructions
A competitor is entitled to look exclusively to written sailing instructions and to any written amendments for all details relating to sailing the course.
 
So, the situation is that the course signaled was inconsistent with Course O described in the SI.
 
So the course designated on the course board was incorrect and actually misled at least one competitor.  That is an improper action by the race committee.  A competitor, in the pressure of a starting sequence is going to have difficulty deciding what is the correct course, which is going to be quite a difficult question for a protest committee in a warm dry protest room to decide, even with the benefit of evidence from the RO, which would have been unavailable to the competitor on the water.  I don't think there is any fault of the competitor's own here.  If her place or score was made significantly worse, she is entitled to redress (rule 62.1(a)).
 
The race committee scored the competitor DNF.
 
A boat crossing the finishing line at the windward mark, from the direction of EITHER the J mark or the L mark will be crossing the finishing line from the course side, and will thus have finished in accordance with the definition of finish.  The race committee may NOT score her DNF.
CASE 128
Definitions, Finish
Definitions, Sail the Course
Rule 28.1, Sailing the Race
Rule 31, Touching a Mark
Rule A4, Scoring System
Rule A5, Scores Determined by the Race Committee

If the race committee observes a boat make an error under rule 28.1 in sailing the course and fail to correct that error, it is required to score her NSC. If it observes a boat touch a mark as she finishes, it must score in her finishing position and it may protest her for breaking rule 31.
 
So, on valid request for redress, the OP would be entitled to redress.
 
Redress might be to score her in first place, having sailed the course signalled by the race committee, but to leave the results of all other boats stand, as they had a fair race among themselves, and in any case, a protest committee may NOT protest or penalise boats as a result of information in a request for redress (rule 60.3(a)).
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brass said:

7. Courses: (2) Course designation on the course board may be signaled as follows:

...

G Gold Cup – (W-J-L-W-finish)

O Olympic – (W-J-L-W-L-finish)

...

If a permanent mark is used it will be designated on the course board as follows where “n” is the mark number: W= # n, J= # n, L= # n

Just to add that the RC could have avoided this error if they'd signaled the course the way they said they would in the SI and not made the RC volunteer do math. Seems like it should have been:

Course O

W = 7, J = 1, L = 3

I don't guess any of the competitors would have been confused by that and a fair race could have been had by all.

I would also question the score of DNF. Sounds like the competitor did finish according to the definition. Score should have been NSC (same points, I suppose, so maybe a distinction without a difference). I'm assuming that the RC saw the incident and didn't rely on third-hand reports from another competitor, otherwise NSC should not have been assigned without a hearing.

More than likely the time limit for redress is passed. Might have been able to get the PC to extend it based on the second regatta and the fact that the competitor didn't know he was scored DNF until he saw the results. Probably too late now but it is worth a discussion with the RC Chair and PRO so they hopefully tighten up their procedures in the future.

If the competitor really wants to drive the point home he can still file a request for redress - even if it quickly gets tossed on validity he can still make them call a hearing which should make the incident stick in the minds of the OA

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

Just to add that the RC could have avoided this error if they'd signaled the course the way they said they would in the SI and not made the RC volunteer do math. Seems like it should have been:

Course O

W = 7, J = 1, L = 3

Supposing that the SI are similar to the sample I posted, I don't think this is the right interpretation of the SI.

I think the interpretation is that the 7, 1, and 3 numerals are to be substituted for the W, J, and L letters so that the race committee displays the list of marks to be rounded.  That's the common way for a blackboard/whiteboard course display to work.

I don't know about 'drive the point home'.  I would suggest that a bit more examination of race committee procedures and actions is warranted to approach the root cause of the problem.  For example, while the PRO might have a clear mental picture of the layout of the fixed marks, possibly the ARO who wrote up the course board didn't have such good visualization, so the 'obvious' error wasn't so obvious to him or her.   So maybe instead of blasting the race committee for carelessness or 'lack of attention to detail', it might be worthwhile to consider new procedures, such as the PRO marking up a course diagram with the intended course and giving it to the ARO to write up, or at least giving the course mark-list in writing.

 

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

I'm assuming that the RC saw the incident and didn't rely on third-hand reports from another competitor, otherwise NSC should not have been assigned without a hearing.

Which rule or case says this?

It used to be a proud boast of US Judges that US Judge training emphasized not to put anything into the rules that wasn't actually written in the rule book.  Has that changed?:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brass said:

Supposing that the SI are similar to the sample I posted, I don't think this is the right interpretation of the SI.

I think the interpretation is that the 7, 1, and 3 numerals are to be substituted for the W, J, and L letters so that the race committee displays the list of marks to be rounded.  That's the common way for a blackboard/whiteboard course display to work.

I don't know about 'drive the point home'.  I would suggest that a bit more examination of race committee procedures and actions is warranted to approach the root cause of the problem.  For example, while the PRO might have a clear mental picture of the layout of the fixed marks, possibly the ARO who wrote up the course board didn't have such good visualization, so the 'obvious' error wasn't so obvious to him or her.   So maybe instead of blasting the race committee for carelessness or 'lack of attention to detail', it might be worthwhile to consider new procedures, such as the PRO marking up a course diagram with the intended course and giving it to the ARO to write up, or at least giving the course mark-list in writing.

 

You're probably right on the course notation, especially if that's the way they marked it for prior races. I'm not suggesting "blasting" the RC - they're people, they made a mistake. I'm just saying that they should recognize it and try to ensure they do better another time.

And I agree with Snowden that perhaps it would have been good for the competitor to point out the error to the RC so they could postpone and fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brass said:

Which rule or case says this?

It used to be a proud boast of US Judges that US Judge training emphasized not to put anything into the rules that wasn't actually written in the rule book.  Has that changed?:

Case 128 talks about "If the race committee observes..." and there have been some discussions in other places of the implications of the rules allowing the RC to assign a score of NSC without a hearing. NSC is different in kind from OCS and DNF where the RC are naturally in a position to directly observe a breach. A failure to sail the course (missing a mark or rounding the wrong direction, for example) may or may not be directly observed by the RC. I'm not sure this implication was fully appreciated by the drafters when they determined that NSC could be assigned without a hearing.

Would you be comfortable with RC scoring a boat NSC without a hearing based on another competitor (or support person or spectator) reporting "we saw boat X miss a mark"? As you say that would be allowed by the black letter rules, but is that what an RC should do?

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

Case 128 talks about "If the race committee observes..." and there have been some discussions in other places of the implications of the rules allowing the RC to assign a score of NSC without a hearing.

 

I think that only goes part of the way.  The fact scenario for Case 128 was that the race committee did directly observe the boat.  It says nothing about the case where the race committee did not directly observe the boat.

I remain of the view that if the race committee has sufficient evidence to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that a boat has not sailed the course, it should so score her, no matter what the source of the evidence (provided it is credible).  (And a race committee has no power to hold a 'hearing' of any kind).

7 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

NSC is different in kind from OCS and DNF where the RC are naturally in a position to directly observe a breach. A failure to sail the course (missing a mark or rounding the wrong direction, for example) may or may not be directly observed by the RC. I'm not sure this implication was fully appreciated by the drafters when they determined that NSC could be assigned without a hearing.

Yes, I understand that difference.

I think (though I was not a fly on the wall in the RRC meetings) that one of the reasons for introducing NSC was to cover the situation where there was substantial [video] evidence, which may have been widely published, that a boat had not sailed the course and, under the old rules the race committee's response when asked by the media was "We know but we can't do anything about because of the rules".

8 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

Would you be comfortable with RC scoring a boat NSC without a hearing based on another competitor (or support person or spectator) reporting "we saw boat X miss a mark"? As you say that would be allowed by the black letter rules, but is that what an RC should do?

Yes I would, provided that the race committee took proper account of any conflict of interest and its possible effect on evidence.

Problems with NSC scoring were specifically considered in the Submission 139-18 which was the submission supporting the introduction of NSC, and it was pointed out in the submission that any problems could easily be addressed by a request for redress.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

I'm not suggesting "blasting" the RC - they're people, they made a mistake. I'm just saying that they should recognize it and try to ensure they do better another time.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were the one suggesting the blasting.

8 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

And I agree with Snowden that perhaps it would have been good for the competitor to point out the error to the RC so they could postpone and fix.

Maybe, but it sounds a bit like blaming the victim to me.

A boat certainly has no obligation to try to fix what they think is a race committee mistake.

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

I think (though I was not a fly on the wall in the RRC meetings) that one of the reasons for introducing NSC was to cover the situation where there was substantial [video] evidence, which may have been widely published, that a boat had not sailed the course and, under the old rules the race committee's response when asked by the media was "We know but we can't do anything about because of the rules".

Why couldn't a race committee (or any boat) protest a boat in that circumstance, if informed by a person who did not have a conflict of interest? It's not information arising from an invalid protest or redress request, and it's not a breach of a Part 2 rule. If the protestor filed as soon as the video evidence became available to them, it seems like that would be a good enough reason for the PC to extend the time limit.

Quote

A boat certainly has no obligation to try to fix what they think is a race committee mistake.

No obligation, certainly. But if a competitor can make the RC aware of a potential error and give them an opportunity to fix it I think everybody wins. I've got to believe the RC in this incident would like to have that one back.

Quote

I remain of the view that if the race committee has sufficient evidence to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that a boat has not sailed the course, it should so score her, no matter what the source of the evidence (provided it is credible).  (And a race committee has no power to hold a 'hearing' of any kind).

I see your point and agree that's allowable but with respect I don't think I'd go that way. Particularly if it was another boat or a support person making the report I think I'd reply "you should protest them" and leave the fact-finding, probability-balancing and conclusion-making to the PC. And I think if I was on RC and got a credible report from a spectator I'd be more comfortable filing an RC protest and letting the witness (and the accused boat) tell their stories to the PC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2021 at 8:51 AM, Brass said:

and it was pointed out in the submission that any problems could easily be addressed by a request for redress

While this may be true, it is very much a guilty until proven innocent thing.  Having "on the balance of probabilities"  decided you haven't sailed the course, the onus then falls back on you to prove otherwise.  Any PC would invariably face a level of bias against and/or under value any new evidence presented in a protest room.  The first determination will have a greater bearing in their minds on the outcome. 

It's the same reason fake news sticks so well.  It's hard for someone to make a new determination on something once they have already learned or decided on an existing one.  Especially if that first determination comes from a "trusted source" .

And that's even before you get on to "Multiple witnesses"  the and the malleability of memory.  It just takes one boat to ask seemingly innocently "hey, did John miss the course?"  followed by a few assertive remarks that he did in fact miss the course for other witnesses around to suddenly *think* they saw John miss the course... 

On 6/23/2021 at 8:51 AM, Brass said:

I remain of the view that if the race committee has sufficient evidence to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that a boat has not sailed the course, it should so score her, no matter what the source of the evidence (provided it is credible).

IMHO any NSC based on hearsay, or is not backed by verifiable evidence at the hands of the RC, should be tested in the protest room before being so designated.   To do otherwise would unfairly disadvantage the competitor in question.

But maybe I'm overstating the issue *shrug*

I would like to think most competitors would RET if questioned and they have genuinely sailed the wrong course.   

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...