Jury Notices & Decisions Thread

[Indio]

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

JN052.pdf

 

[SimonN]

Thanks for starting this thread. I think your reasoning for it being a non runner is incorrect. The AR argument seems to be that while the jury has the powers you point out under 15.4(f), those powers do not extend to changing the class rules. AR are arguing that the jury decision is not an interpretation but a change in the rules. If they successfully argue that, then the decision in case AC16(JN051) is void.

I don't think it will succeed, but I can see the angle they are coming from. Where this will get interesting is that I am sure that ETNZ will submit that this wasn't a change in the rules, and, I suspect, so will LR. The question is what, if anything, OR will submit. I sense some real dirty tricks coming on, because what they are really trying to do is to screw ETNZ. This could get interesting!

 

[eric e]

remember

everyone wants to keep the AC out of the courts this time

unless, like ernie, there's some gaming to be done

 

[KiwiJoker]

Talk about a last-ditch stand. Under the Protocol there is no higher authority to appeal to so Artemis is flicking it back at the Jury together with copies to every party they can conjure up. The only parties they missed were MSP, Sailing Anarchy and the New York Times!

"The Application was filed on 22nd October 2012 by AR on [email protected] and sent to the Trustee, the Competitors, America’s Cup Race Management (ACRM), America’s Cup Event Authority (ACEA), the Chief Measurer and the Umpire Team Director (‘the Parties’)."

As I see it, the Jury could have rejected this appeal out of hand. "Our ruling is final!" However they have opened he door to a new round of submissions. It will be interesting to see what GGYC (the Trustee) has to say. And I suspect that Luna Rossa will weigh in with something more substantive this time.

I have a tough time seeing this as a change in the rules; thus, case dismissed!

 

[jaysper]

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.

This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.

If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.

 

[sunseeker]

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.

This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.

If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.

No just like designers have to design and builders have to build, rules guys have to submit stuff like this. It's just what they do.

 

[Indio]

Jury Decision being contested by AR:

DECISION

59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.

60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.

61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

JN051.pdf

 

[nav]

AR says that the Jury changed the rule when they said that ETNZ was right when they said that the MC changed the rule when they made a interpretation that AR asked for in the first place....

But they are wrong! :wacko:

Just wait.

 

[maxmini]

I can't understand why those lawyers make all that money when they are no where near as smart as we are . Just crazy I tell you

 

[Liquid Assett NZ]

Desperate times call for desperate measures basically. Just get on with it and settle this on the water.... I hate this crap It brings the whole sport into disrepute

 

[Daimond]

Jury Decision being contested by AR:

DECISION

59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.

60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.

61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

JN051.pdf

?

 

[Indio]

Desperate times call for desperate measures basically.

The desperation comes from OR who has their wrist up AR's butt pushing them. ORTUSA will have a response supporting AR's application very shortly: then we'll have ORTUSA lodging an application seeking relief for their repairs to OR17/1....

.... I hate this crap It brings the whole sport into disrepute

:lol: :lol: ..that sentiment went down the toilet about 20 years ago...

 

[estarzinger]

Jury Decision being contested by AR:

DECISION

59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.

60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.

61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

JN051.pdf

?

measurement water plane

 

[Indio]

AR's appeal against the Jury's decision in favour of ETNZ's application against PI22 stinks of desperation. They're clearly hanging their hat on 15.4:The Jury shall act both as a jury under the RRSAC and as an arbitral body, with the following powers:

(a) to resolve all matters of interpretation of the Rules other than the class rules in Article 13.1© except as provided in Article 15.4(f);

....

(f) where the Jury finds the Measurement Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction or broken a Rule, it may substitute its determination for the Measurement Committee’s;

15.4(f) provides the authority for the Jury to order the withdrawal of PI22 and substitute the MC's interpretation with their own - and AR have the audacity to claim the Jury "exceeded its jurisdiction"!

Given their current predicaments, I wonder whether ORTUSA will bother supporting the poodle in an action with potentially more downsides than upsides...

 

[Tornado-Cat]

The amusing part would be to see the poodle prevent his master from designing what he may now need.

 

[Indio]

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.

This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.

If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.

No just like designers have to design and builders have to build, rules guys have to submit stuff like this. It's just what they do.

How true. Melinda Erkelens' spending power from her days in OR and AC33 must have dropped a bit so she's racking up her billables to regain parity

 

[Indio]

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?

It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

 

[nav]

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?

It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

Is this what you are looking for? It went up about 5 days ago IIRC

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Measurement-Methodology-3-Material-Usage-Schedule.pdf