Grounds for Redress? "Pin Boat" at a downwind start

[morrisre]

I think I've seen some where before that the preamble of a part is the specifically the preamble and not a rule of that part. Cant remember where though.

 

[JohnMB]

I think I've seen some where before that the preamble of a part is the specifically the preamble and not a rule of that part. Cant remember where though.

That's where I was starting from, but I couldnt find anything to back that up

 

[JohnMB]

We still don't have a definative "rule" for which the boat can be DSQ'd.

The 'rule' is the preamble to part 2, which is a rule by definition.

we may still have some questions over whether IRPCAS was actually broken and which part, but the rule invilved is definitley the preamble.

 

[Hobie Anarchy]

I think I've seen some where before that the preamble of a part is the specifically the preamble and not a rule of that part. Cant remember where though.

That's where I was starting from, but I couldnt find anything to back that up

From the definitions (in the back of the old book):

Rule (a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals,Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices,

but not titles;

There's an awful lot of derp in this thread (with the notable exception of Brass' well-reasoned responses).

• RC boats are NOT required to display anything that indicates they are RC boats (unless so stated in the SIs). ID's on RC/Judge/Umpire boats are to differentiate them from coach/spectator/media boats that aren't allowed in restricted areas. Most regattas don't need or use a separation scheme like that. Whoever invented the blue RC flag needs to be shot. It looks like the P flag (bad) or M (much worse) flag from a distance.
  
• Hitting a motorboat (anchored or not) is a bad thing.
  
• Damaging a motorboat that you hit is a worse thing.
  
• The RC probably wouldn't have protested if there wasn't damage.
  
• The boat that hit the powerboat is not entitled to redress - the RC didn't make an error and it was the boat's own fault they hit the powerboat.
  
• Since the RC did protest, the PC has to hear it.
  
• You can pretty much bet if you hit another boat causing damage, you're going to be tossed - it's only a matter of finding out the appropriate rule - which the PC obviously had a problem with here.
  

 

[JohnMB]

OK,

the problem with IRCPAS etc, is that in this situation we end up having to try and read the IRPCAS as if they where RRS rules, and they really arent written for that

I think I've seen some where before that the preamble of a part is the specifically the preamble and not a rule of that part. Cant remember where though.

That's where I was starting from, but I couldnt find anything to back that up

From the definitions (in the back of the old book):

Rule (a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals,Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices,

but not titles;

Yup got that I understand that the preambles are rules,

the question is does the preamble to part 2 count as "a rule in part 2" (for the purposes of R44)

my starting point was that I didnt think it did, i.e. it is the preamble to part 2, not a rule of part 2. (yes I know its a bit picky...)

as noted I couldnt find anything to back this up, so was interested that rcim though that this might be the case.

(see rcims quote... the idea is that a breach of the preamble might not qualift for a turns penalty)

As for the rest I think we all have a similar understanding that hitting an anchored boat is a bad thing, however the issue of finding an appropriate rule is pretty relevant here, case 109 makes it clear that even if a boat does something really dumb or illegal, they can only be protested if they actually break a rule.

(3) The definition Rule includes ‘(g) any other document governing the event.’ Such a document may include the text of a particular rule or rules from the IRPCAS or government rules (other than a right-of-way rule) that will apply to the event. Rules for crossing shipping lanes are often made available in such a document. To govern an event, a document must be listed in the notice of race (rule J1.1(3)), stating where or how it may be seen, and in the sailing instructions (rule J2.1(2)).A boat that breaks a rule of the IRPCAS or a government rule can always be prosecuted by an authority responsible for its enforcement, but a

protest may be made under such a rule only when the rule concerned ‘governs the event’.

(Note the IRPCAS always govern interactions between a boat racing and a boat not racing, because they are included in the premable.)

 

[Hobie Anarchy]

the question is does the preamble to part 2 count as "a rule in part 2" (for the purposes of R44)

my starting point was that I didnt think it did, i.e. it is the preamble to part 2, not a rule of part 2. (yes I know its a bit picky...)

as noted I couldnt find anything to back this up, so was interested that rcim though that this might be the case.

Answer 5 in Case 109 sheds some light on this:

A sailing instruction may only replace all the rules of Part 2 with all theright-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or government rules. Rule 86.1 states

that the sailing instructions shall not change Part 2, which includes its

preamble. Therefore, a wider or narrower range of replacements of right-

of-way rules that apply between competing boats is not permitted.

Therefore, I would argue that a breach of the IRPCAS as referenced by the preamble to Part 2 is subject to exoneration under rule 44.1. However, because there was "serious damage" in this case, exoneration is not available under 44.1(b ) - "her penalty shall be to retire." Since she didn't retire, the PC gave her a DSQ. Different rule, same result.

 

[JohnMB]

the question is does the preamble to part 2 count as "a rule in part 2" (for the purposes of R44)

my starting point was that I didnt think it did, i.e. it is the preamble to part 2, not a rule of part 2. (yes I know its a bit picky...)

as noted I couldnt find anything to back this up, so was interested that rcim though that this might be the case.

Answer 5 in Case 109 sheds some light on this:

A sailing instruction may only replace all the rules of Part 2 with all theright-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or government rules. Rule 86.1 states

that the sailing instructions shall not change Part 2, which includes its

preamble. Therefore, a wider or narrower range of replacements of right-

of-way rules that apply between competing boats is not permitted.

Therefore, I would argue that a breach of the IRPCAS as referenced by the preamble to Part 2 is subject to exoneration under rule 44.1. However, because there was "serious damage" in this case, exoneration is not available under 44.1(b ) - "her penalty shall be to retire." Since she didn't retire, the PC gave her a DSQ. Different rule, same result.

as I said

I'm not sure about this issue.

lets go point by point

1. I agree that the preamble is included in part 2

2. I agree that the preamble is a rule

what I am not sure about is whether the preamble is a "rule of part 2' (as opposed to 'the preamble of part 2") (N.B. rule is not italics in R44)

Now I agree that it probably is, but I dont think its 100% clear, and hence I was interested that rcim thought he had seen a quote somewhere which suggested that it is not.

Please NOTE I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that there is another way of looking at this, one which I initailly belived was correct,, and I now believe is probably not correct,

 

[Brass]

the question is does the preamble to part 2 count as "a rule in part 2" (for the purposes of R44)

my starting point was that I didnt think it did, i.e. it is the preamble to part 2, not a rule of part 2. (yes I know its a bit picky...)

as noted I couldnt find anything to back this up, so was interested that rcim though that this might be the case.

Answer 5 in Case 109 sheds some light on this:

A sailing instruction may only replace all the rules of Part 2 with all theright-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or government rules. Rule 86.1 states

that the sailing instructions shall not change Part 2, which includes its

preamble. Therefore, a wider or narrower range of replacements of right-

of-way rules that apply between competing boats is not permitted.

Therefore, I would argue that a breach of the IRPCAS as referenced by the preamble to Part 2 is subject to exoneration under rule 44.1. However, because there was "serious damage" in this case, exoneration is not available under 44.1(b ) - "her penalty shall be to retire." Since she didn't retire, the PC gave her a DSQ. Different rule, same result.

as I said

I'm not sure about this issue.

lets go point by point

1. I agree that the preamble is included in part 2

2. I agree that the preamble is a rule

what I am not sure about is whether the preamble is a "rule of part 2' (as opposed to 'the preamble of part 2") (N.B. rule is not italics in R44)

Now I agree that it probably is, but I dont think its 100% clear, and hence I was interested that rcim thought he had seen a quote somewhere which suggested that it is not.

Please NOTE I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that there is another way of looking at this, one which I initailly belived was correct,, and I now believe is probably not correct,

I cannot recollect ever seeing anything that even faintly suggests that a Preamble is not a 'rule of [a relevant] Part, and until ricm or someone else produces a Case to the contrary, I think that Case 109, helpfully quoted by HA above is binding.

I think you are trying to split a hair that is not there to be split.

Consider the following logic.

Part 2 includes its preamble (Case 109).

Therefore the preamble to Part 2 is included in Part 2.

A preamble is a rule (Definitions: rule).

Therefore the Preamble to Part 2 is a rule of Part 2.

I can't see a logical fault. Can you?

 

[JohnMB]

I think you are trying to split a hair that is not there to be split.

Im not trying to split any hair,

I think you are probably right

I was interested in rcims comment because it fit my initial view on this subject.... so I said so.

I'm try to explain why I though it was interesting, and where there is a possibility of some variation in intepretation....

I hate that its impossible to discuss areas which seem interesting and where there may be some ambiguities without feeling that the only permitted mode of discourse is combative argument

I have acknowledged ferquently that I my initial view is probably not correct, I have no interest in trying to proove that it is, because I suspect it probably isn't, but where is the space for us to acknowledge that some aspect of this is both interesting and potentially ambiguous.

the comment rcim referred to may not exist anywhere, but can you honestly say that you cannot imagine it being put forward in and ISAF case? (I have seem much more bizarre opinions in the Q&A's and cases) That is what is interetsing... to me at least.

as for the logic, doe you think it matters that r44.1 does not italicize the word rule. do you think this is an omission or do you think this was done deliberately.... if so , why? is there any difference between 'a rule of part 2' and 'a rule of part 2'?

 

[ftbinc]

Here is a copy, with the names redacted, of the protest findings...

I am interested in everyone's ideas on the findings... I found them interesting myself.

protest findings.pdf

 

[DA-WOODY]

Here is a copy, with the names redacted, of the protest findings...

I am interested in everyone's ideas on the findings... I found them interesting myself.

FACTS in a Good SA Thread

Are the proverbial Monkey wrench in the Gears of Heated Conversations

What can possibly save this thread now ???

 

[JohnMB]

what needed saving

its been an interesting discussion about an aspect of the rules I've never considered before, I've learned some new stuff, and had my initial views chnaged by the discussion.

whats not to like.

 

[Brass]

I think you are trying to split a hair that is not there to be split.

Im not trying to split any hair,

I think you are probably right

I was interested in rcims comment because it fit my initial view on this subject.... so I said so.

I'm try to explain why I though it was interesting, and where there is a possibility of some variation in intepretation....

I hate that its impossible to discuss areas which seem interesting and where there may be some ambiguities without feeling that the only permitted mode of discourse is combative argument

I have acknowledged ferquently that I my initial view is probably not correct, I have no interest in trying to proove that it is, because I suspect it probably isn't, but where is the space for us to acknowledge that some aspect of this is both interesting and potentially ambiguous.

the comment rcim referred to may not exist anywhere, but can you honestly say that you cannot imagine it being put forward in and ISAF case? (I have seem much more bizarre opinions in the Q&A's and cases) That is what is interetsing... to me at least.

as for the logic, doe you think it matters that r44.1 does not italicize the word rule. do you think this is an omission or do you think this was done deliberately.... if so , why? is there any difference between 'a rule of part 2' and 'a rule of part 2'?

JohnMB,

I'm sorry that you find syllogistic logic 'combative'. Others, like me just think of it as 'plain speaking'.

I, for one, am not in the business of proving that you are wrong: what I want to do is examine the facts, rules, Cases and arguments to see if they are valid, or, indeed whether there is some ambiguity in there that causes difficulty. If that means that we disagree, then I might try to persuade you to my point of view or not: so be it.

Secondly, there's a custom in legal argument that when confronted with a binding precedent that is directly in point, as Case 109 is in this case that you don't take up everybody's time attempting to 'buck the precedent', unless, of coures you can produce another precedent (or can differentiate your case) to the contrary. Those familiar with this custom, may get a little impatient when its not observed.

I certainaly can 'imagine' that ISAF Cases could be contradictory (I have just been studying Cases 31, 71 and 79: see how Case 71 Answer 2 reconciles with Cases 31 and 79), but if I have a case that I think is determinative, then until somebody produces a countervailing Case, or a good logical argument to the contrary, I'm not wasting my time speculating whether there might be another case somewhere.

As for italicisation in rule 44, I think that's an omission or an error, or possibly some sort of typographical convention. It cannot possibly be that there are any 'rules', using the term generally, that are contained in Part 2 that are not rules in the definitional sense, so I don't think it matters in any case.

I appreciate your input and arguments, in this thread as in others.

We learn and advance through argument, but we shouldn't take robust argument as personal attacks

On the other hand we don't have to take personal attacks as robust arguments <g>.

Regards

Brass

 

[ojfd]

Consider the following logic.
Part 2 includes its preamble (Case 109).

Therefore the preamble to Part 2 is included in Part 2.

A preamble is a rule (Definitions: rule).

Therefore the Preamble to Part 2 is a rule of Part 2.

I can't see a logical fault. Can you?

No, no fault.

RYA Case 2002/14 says the same:

DECISION......

The definition Rule includes preambles and so the preamble to Part 2of the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS) is a rule of Part 2.

The preamble states that the International Regulations for Preventing Collisionsat Sea (IRPCAS) apply between a boat sailing under the RRS and a vessel that is not.

RYA 2002-14.pdf

 

[Brass]

Here is a copy, with the names redacted, of the protest findings...

I am interested in everyone's ideas on the findings... I found them interesting myself.

Looks like a pretty good decision to me, bit verbose, would have liked it to observe the Facts, Conclusions, Decision structure, but quite OK.

So, seemingly rule 14 was the Race Committee's (protestor's) idea: the protest committee did not rely on it, and quite correctly relied on Preamble to Part 2.

I liked the rule 1.1 finding and also the rule 44.1( b ) finding.

I think the protestee was brave in requesting redress in the circumstances.

In view of the repeated hailing, and failure to stand by in accordance with rule 1.1, I think she's lucky she's not looking down the barrel of a rule 69.

Moral for everyone: you can't go around hitting other peoples boats, whether race committee, competitor or otherwise.

 

[DA-WOODY]

Here is a copy, with the names redacted, of the protest findings...

I am interested in everyone's ideas on the findings... I found them interesting myself.

Looks like a pretty good decision to me, bit verbose, would have liked it to observe the Facts, Conclusions, Decision structure, but quite OK.

So, seemingly rule 14 was the Race Committee's (protestor's) idea: the protest committee did not rely on it, and quite correctly relied on Preamble to Part 2.

I liked the rule 1.1 finding and also the rule 44.1( b ) finding.

I think the protestee was brave in requesting redress in the circumstances.

In view of the repeated hailing, and failure to stand by in accordance with rule 1.1, I think she's lucky she's not looking down the barrel of a rule 69.

Moral for everyone: you can't go around hitting other peoples boats, whether race committee, competitor or otherwise.

Amen !!!!!

 

[Steam Flyer]

....

... I would argue that a breach of the IRPCAS as referenced by the preamble to Part 2 is subject to exoneration under rule 44.1. However, because there was "serious damage" in this case, exoneration is not available under 44.1(b ) - "her penalty shall be to retire." Since she didn't retire, the PC gave her a DSQ. Different rule, same result.

The preamble says one cannot violate IRPCAS and/or gov't regulations.

Rule 44 doesn't say anything about exoneration for infractions of non-racing rules against non-racing boats, therefor one cannot exonerate an IRPCAS violation by doing a 720. Serious damage or no.

I would suggest that hitting a non-racing boat during a race means you're done, go home now.

FB- Doug

 

[DA-WOODY]

....

... I would argue that a breach of the IRPCAS as referenced by the preamble to Part 2 is subject to exoneration under rule 44.1. However, because there was "serious damage" in this case, exoneration is not available under 44.1(b ) - "her penalty shall be to retire." Since she didn't retire, the PC gave her a DSQ. Different rule, same result.

The preamble says one cannot violate IRPCAS and/or gov't regulations.

Rule 44 doesn't say anything about exoneration for infractions of non-racing rules against non-racing boats, therefor one cannot exonerate an IRPCAS violation by doing a 720. Serious damage or no.

I would suggest that hitting a non-racing boat during a race means you're done, go home now.

FB- Doug

what about Ripping Up a boat that just finished the race

Oh I don't know ...Let's say hypothetically @ the Pin End of the Finish-Line

 

[familysailor]

well...

interesting discussion, mostly based on the OP's list of facts and diagram.

Unfortunately those don't match the diagrams provided in the original protest and the request for redress.

500 feet?

No mention by the OP that the "black boat" was anchored.

Damage as described by the OP was considerably less than actual.

And this part is the best:

"It is my contention that Black, being a highly maneuverable powerboat had a duty to keep clear of the sailboat and that the Sailboat had no way of knowing the blackboat was an RC pin boat, since it's location was wrong to call anyone over early and there were no markings or flags. Once the Blue boat was sure no assistance was required, Blue continued on the race course. The RC protested blue under rule 14 and Blue asked for redress under rule 62? Blue was DSQ'ed."

The bold section is the most entertaining part!

 

[fastyacht]

Here is a copy, with the names redacted, of the protest findings...

I am interested in everyone's ideas on the findings... I found them interesting myself.

One wonders about the veracity of either party.

To believe the pin boat's account, they were very calm, and made no confusing statements to the sailboat, and the racing boat skipper callously ignored their condition.

To believe the racing boat's account, the pin boat crew were shrill, bossy and argumentative, making assertions which could could only be interepreted by the racing boat as to mean that the pin boat was a de facto mark of the course, to be considered as such from the standpoint of penalties and etc.

Perhaps something in between actually occurred.

It is worth noting the absurdity of the situation in the sense that if the pin boat had been a mark of the course, this collision would have simply resulted in penalty turns. Long gone are the days when you would have to immediately retire for hitting a committee boat. (I learned that the hard way some years back when I retired after trading paint. At the party, the committee chair came up to me and said, "you know, you didn't have to do that."

I bet that the in boat people were shrill. And they would certainly be out of line to be making any statements or claims at the time with respect to racing penalties considering that they were not in the race. Clearly, if they had been calmer and more proactive themselves, perhaps the racing boat's skipper would have been in the frame of mind to render assistance. As it was, the pin boat people probably presented their own situation as not serious--only realizing somewhat later, that it was. By that time, the racing boat had sailed to the committee boat, after having sailed a 720...

That's my take on it.