Middle Sea Race 2021

[TJSoCal]

If switching to the alternative finish line had moved Sunrise from 2nd overall to 1st overall instead of the reverse, would they be making the same argument "on principle"? Or would they take the first overall banner and run with it?

And for people (including the numerous IJs and rules experts supporting Sunrise) who insist that the SI is horribly written and obviously in error, where have you been for the several decades when that same SI has apparently been included?

 

[TJSoCal]

That's just the problem. The RC didn't follow the rules. Buy a rule book!

And while you're at it, get your IJ certification and spend years building the experience and reputation necessary to get yourself invited to sit on an international jury for a top tier event...

 

[Lynch]

I'm unlikely to be an IJ but I have been able to read since I was three (long time ago) The IJ clearly got this wrong - the SIs, which I had never looked at before, were badly written and clearly in conflict with RRS 32. Writing SIs for any event is a painstaking task which should not be undertaken lightly. It's not something you can knock off in half an hour. I guess that RMYC never asked an IJ to review their SIs as surely they would have picked up the potential for trouble with 11.2 

Equally the RRS are quite specific about the meaning of rules as being what they say, thus you cannot shorten the course after the first boat has finished. There can be no doubt in even the dimmest minds that this course was shortened.

It is interesting to speculate what Sunrise would do if the situation was reversed but that is idle speculation at best.

 

[DtM]

No matter what, no one sailed the shorter course.  Isn't that a problem?

 

[TJSoCal]

No matter what, no one sailed the shorter course.  Isn't that a problem?

No boat sailed it as the alternative line course description required it (round Valletta fairway buoy and then return and transit Comino strait east-to-west), but all boats sailed it the same way, and as the OA intended they should.

 

[DtM]

It may be the way the OA, conveniently now say it should have been, but that is not what the SI's said.

Just because it is convenient does not make it correct. 

 

[Fiji Bitter]

It may be the way the OA, conveniently now say it should have been, but that is not what the SI's said.

Just because it is convenient does not make it correct. 

And just because no one compained about it, does not make it correct either.

 

[shanghaisailor]

For the IJ do decide that switching from the longer, of two specified courses, to the shorter.., is not the same thing as "shortening the course" under RRS 32.., is drawing quite a fine distinction - I think too fine a distinction for yacht racing...

It's not clear to me how one can argue that they are obviously and objectively wrong - on what would you base that argument?

I guess common sense.., but when has that ever been important in any kind of legal, or legal-like, process?

Still, it's very common that SI's have more than one course available to the RC: W/L.., WL twice around and so on.

How about if the SI's specified available courses as W.., W/L.., W/L/W.., W/L/W/L...?

Could the RC just take all the times at each mark, and then decide after a few boats have finished.., that the course was W/L/W.., and not the W/L/W/L that they originally called?

seems like that would be okay...

Many events do list different courses and the course to be used for a particular race is often written up on a whiteboard on the stern of the committee boat (that action also included in the SI's and skipper's briefing) and perhaps also communicated using a dedicated channel on VHF with the need to carry a radio also in SIs and skipper's briefing. BUT the course is not changed part way through a race and DEFINITELY NOT after 2/3 of the fleet has finished  

If switching to the alternative finish line had moved Sunrise from 2nd overall to 1st overall instead of the reverse, would they be making the same argument "on principle"? Or would they take the first overall banner and run with it?

And for people (including the numerous IJs and rules experts supporting Sunrise) who insist that the SI is horribly written and obviously in error, where have you been for the several decades when that same SI has apparently been included?

Perhaps not. However it is likely that the only difference would be the name of the boat making the redress request and further comments. Does anyone really think with all the hot shots on Comanche that they would say nothing if the tables were turned? 

And while you're at it, get your IJ certification and spend years building the experience and reputation necessary to get yourself invited to sit on an international jury for a top tier event...

Yeah, I have to admit I am a relative beginner with only 800 and some races as umpire or on the water judge in my umpire log but in my comments I have sought advice/fact checked with a number of people who are IJ/IUs and who HAVE "spent years building the experience and reputation necessary" to officiate, be ChUmp and/or Chair at events much higher profile than this one.

No boat sailed it as the alternative line course description required it (round Valletta fairway buoy and then return and transit Comino strait east-to-west), but all boats sailed it the same way, and as the OA intended they should.

"Intent" has very little to do with it.. The Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions are, in effect, a contract between the organising authority and the competitors and it is what they ACTUALLY wrote which matters. Could you imagine a lawyer saying "that's not really what I meant when I wrote that in the contract" - he would be the laughing stock 

 

[Lynch]

Shanghai is spot on. The intentions of the OA are irrelevant, what matters are the RRS and the SIs. Their intention is not reflected in the SIs. I’d suggest they should have worded them as follows

1) The OA may declare the alternative finish line to be in use at any time before the last boat finishes the race(changes RRS 32).

2) When the alternative line is in use then each boat’s results shall be calculated using the time she crosses this line as her finish time.

3) When the alternative line is used then the last mark of the original course is omitted.  

4) The decision to use the alternative finish line shall not be subject to protest or request for redress.
 

 

[SeQuBu]

Shanghai is spot on. The intentions of the OA are irrelevant, what matters are the RRS and the SIs. Their intention is not reflected in the SIs. I’d suggest they should have worded them as follows

1) The OA may declare the alternative finish line to be in use at any time before the last boat finishes the race(changes RRS 32).

2) When the alternative line is in use then each boat’s results shall be calculated using the time she crosses this line as her finish time.

3) When the alternative line is used then the last mark of the original course is omitted.  

4) The decision to use the alternative finish line shall not be subject to protest or request for redress.
 

And thats EXACTLY what it will say in next years edition. 

 

[TJSoCal]

"Intent" has very little to do with it.. The Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions are, in effect, a contract between the organising authority and the competitors and it is what they ACTUALLY wrote which matters. Could you imagine a lawyer saying "that's not really what I meant when I wrote that in the contract" - he would be the laughing stock

OK. So having made a defective contract, the OA has made an unfixable error. Only fair result is abandonment. Congratulations to Rambler for retaining her course record. Nice sailing Comanche, Sunrise and everyone else but you get no result.

We good now?

 

[shanghaisailor]

OK. So having made a defective contract, the OA has made an unfixable error. Only fair result is abandonment. Congratulations to Rambler for retaining her course record. Nice sailing Comanche, Sunrise and everyone else but you get no result.

We good now?

Don't know were you got that from? There have been a number of much more sensible suggestions that that up threat.

Original results stand for the proper finishers and redress for the ones incorrectly finished early. None of them were even close to threatening the corrected times of the leading boats. Better to have approx 70% correct finishers than none surely

 

[DtM]

Correct Shang.

 

[TJSoCal]

Original results stand for the proper finishers and redress for the ones incorrectly finished early. None of them were even close to threatening the corrected times of the leading boats. Better to have approx 70% correct finishers than none surely

Firstly I'd say that when a PC is addressing a redress request due to an error or omission by the RC and trying to find a solution that is fairest for all boats, they should consider intent - what the RC/OA would like to have happened or what would have happened if the mistake had not been made.

So if OA had put in the same alternative finish line concept they've used since forever, remembered to delete the Valletta buoy and (for the purists) invoked it as a change to RRS 32, there would be no error and the results would be what they currently are, would they not?

That said, the suggestion above seems like it would also be a reasonable redress decision. I don't know if it's clearly superior to the decision reached by the IJ, and I expect Comanche and the other boats whose positions were improved by the IJ decision would disagree that your option is "most fair for all boats."

Any redress decision in this matter would be imperfect and some boats in the top 10 would be unhappy.

 

[DtM]

All of the long course finishers were perfectly happy until the OA stuffed the whole thing.

Go with the Shang solution.

 

[shanghaisailor]

Firstly I'd say that when a PC is addressing a redress request due to an error or omission by the RC and trying to find a solution that is fairest for all boats, they should consider intent - what the RC/OA would like to have happened or what would have happened if the mistake had not been made.

So if OA had put in the same alternative finish line concept they've used since forever, remembered to delete the Valletta buoy and (for the purists) invoked it as a change to RRS 32, there would be no error and the results would be what they currently are, would they not?

That said, the suggestion above seems like it would also be a reasonable redress decision. I don't know if it's clearly superior to the decision reached by the IJ, and I expect Comanche and the other boats whose positions were improved by the IJ decision would disagree that your option is "most fair for all boats."

Any redress decision in this matter would be imperfect and some boats in the top 10 would be unhappy.

Driver: "I am sorry officer, I forgot to take my foot off the gas. I didn't intend to break the speed limit!"

Highway Patrol: "That's OK Sir, I know you didn't mean it. I'll just rip up up this speeding ticket then."

You are right however that returning the results to those before the actions of the Race Committee would (in my opinion and those of the extremely experienced IU/IJ I have been communicating with) "as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected" - note especially AS POSSIBLE

The one thing I would say is writing watertight Sailing Instructions is NOT easy as evidenced by this sorry mess

 

[Boink]

 I don't know 

FIFY. 

We live in an imperfect world.

But this whole deal was a Cluster Fuck from the moment the RC decided to intervene.

It was flawed from much earlier. This would not be the first time SI's are found wanting. But everyone can be a genius with hindsight.

Lessons learned need to be applied rigorously around our sport.

 

[Dog Watch]

In my opinion there was nothing wrong with the SI, Race Officer's actions or the jury decision*.

The problem is that Sunrise has been given (or followed) some poor advice from some outspoken and emotionally charged commentators!  Sorry to all those who have spent hours arguing that the SI was wrong etc...  Time to move along.

Look, in the absence of SI11.3, if faced with the same weather circumstances, the RO would have no option but to abandon the race.  Ensuring the safety of the last few boats far outweighs the hopes and dreams of the boats already tucked up in the pens.

But we all would agree that abandonment would be most unsatisfactory for that race, in that situation.  It would just be unthinkable to have no result when so many have given so much time to it?  So an 'alternate line', which avoids the most likely 'crux' of the race (harbour entrance), is created.  That takes care of the the important requirement to consider all boats, by giving 'all boats another fair and safer line to cross'.

The SI simply was a combination of the principal that the RO may take drastic action (even abandon) in the name of safety (even after boats have finished), mixed in with a means to still get fair results by setting a 'line which all boats must cross and take times'.  The SI does not contradict, rely on or change any part of RRS32.  It merely draws upon some basic principals of RRS32, as well as the method to ensure results (create 'a line which all boats must cross and take times'.)  So, no need to call it an abandonment then - it's just a sailing instruction in place for bad weather.

The problem is the strong, but flawed assertion that this was a 'shortened course per RS32.2', and therefore could not be done after a boat had finished.  Duh!  Logic dictates that when race finishers span days rather than minutes, the weather may change over the course of boat's finishing.

RRS32.2 only applies to a course shortened using flags and signals. It says that in the first sentence.  The requirement at the end of RRS32.2 only applies to the 'shortened course' which is the subject of RRS32.2.  That's why they use the words 'the shortened course' in that sentence, not 'a shortened course'.  The SI11.3 was nothing of the sort.  Thus, the requirements of RRS32.2 don't apply here. End of.

Yes, there are lessons to be learnt.

The public statement from Sunrise describes the "familiar period of tension to see if some of the smaller boats still racing could beat our corrected time under IRC."  Maybe they forgot that the period of tension includes waiting to see if the weather changes enough for the RO to invoke SI11.3, since that may change the results further.  We do so much calculating of handicaps, and work out that no one can beat us, but did anyone calculate the 'alternate finish' corrections and say, "Hold on..."?  I guess not.

The race is not over until its over.

It's a real shame that this whole affair has been blown out of proportion.  Enough to get me out of retirement to post here.  Clearly there is a great deal of misunderstanding fuelling the situation too.

The SIs were fine.  They allow the race all the way to the harbour to be abandoned safely with a built-in means to still get a result for everything except the last 12 dangerous miles.  It has to be fair for the tail-end-charlies too.  With that in provision, the ROs decision to act in the name of safety was fine.  The jury were correct to judge that the SI is just an SI, not reliant or changing RRS32.

I do hope that some of those who adamantly cry foul sit back and think this through.

That's all.

DW

*(Except that they forgot to delete that last mark in SI11.3, but as we all know, that is largely moot since no boat, as far as I know, was worsened by that mistake.  Had one boat sailed per the SI, then it would be a difficult matter for sure!  The jury have touched on how they see the situation in the Case 6 decision, but really it amounts to nothing.  Bullet dodged!)

 

[DtM]

But your postscript is the real problem.

Not one boat sailed the alternate (shorter) course. No one sailed the alternate race in accordance with the SI's.

You quickly (and belatedly) brush past that simple fact.

It is not a situation where the question to be asked is, was anyone "worsened by that mistake". Not relevant.

 

[Dog Watch]

Actually, that wasn't belatedly brushed past.  In my first draft it was in my first sentence.  I moved it to the end because it is a rather minor point.

No one sailed the correct course, but everyone sailed as fast as they could to the 'alternate line'.

So, let the results stand, and tidy up the SI for next year. 

I really don't know how that is critical to this situation.  Please explain.