Rules and protest question

[Brass]

Looking at case 107 is worthwhile,

I don't think it necessarily applies (looking at the photos) because by all appearance you had every reason to think that the schooner had seen you and planned to duck your stern.

You should probably ask yourself (and your crew) why no-one hailed her, and at what point it was obvious she was going to snag your back stay as this could be important in deciding whether you broke R14.

(personally I don't think you did, but that's only based on part of the evidence)

If Alan didn't see the Schooner until it was one boatlength astern, you can't very well say that 'he had every reason to think the schooner had seen you' let alone any reason to speculate what she planned to do.

The best he can say is that he did see her one boatlength astern, assessed that there was sufficient room for her to change course and keep clear and thus:

• it was not clear to him that the schooner was not keeping clear and thus under rule 14( a ), he was not required to take any action to avoid contact at that time; and
• had he changed course, he may have broken rule 16, and had no certainty of obviating contact in any case, thus, at that time, and thereafter, it was not reasonably possible for him to avoid contact.

 

[dinghydoc]

Fook me! You got run down sir. All they lacked were cannons. All those people on that schooner and they look like deer in headlights to me. Time to start looking for some new crew on that beast. That's not the photos you really want for your collection but they are pretty amazing. That mast hung on for a while too, before it snapped like it had to. Sickening.

 

[random]

No need for a committee, JB has made the call.

I can't see a PC apportioning any blame to the L36. A 'reasonable person' would understand that the direction the schooner came from is not one scanned that often and hail would have done nothing after seeing the pics.

 

[Cement_Shoes]

Allen's crew stated they saw the schooner before Allen did. So I don't think that Allen said he didn't see the schooner until shortly before the collision is as big a factor as otjers are making it out to be.

As a crew, Allen's boat, saw the schooner which looked to be taking their stern. They also saw members of schooner's crew including afterguard looking directly at their boat. They had every reason as the result of a reasonable lookout to expect there to be no incident.

Think about ot this way. If a passanger in a car approaching an interstection saw another car that looked to be slowing for a redlight while the car had a greenlight. And then the car with the redlight ran the light and hit the car with the greenlight, would we say the greenlight car was partially responsible because the passenger observed the other car and incorrectly assumed it was going to follow the rules? Because the greenlight car didn't yell, "Hey you have are redlight," at the other vehicle?

 

[Raked Aft\\]

Allen,

I'm in the ins biz, but as an independent agent so we don't represent Allstate.

That being said, I would be very surprised if they had a racing exclusion for a sailboat. ( certainly they do for power).

I feel, as many others, that you are in the right on this one.

Unfortunately, being a liability claim to the at fault yacht, a settlement from them could be a long time coming.

Your efforts at this time should be spent working with your own carrier on a first party basis, That's why you have the coverage!

Odds are Much higher that you will get a timely settlement and back on the water in a reasonable timeframe.

If they choose to subrogate the claim to the at fault party in the future, you may recover your deductible, and they may recover their payments for damage.

By that point you will have your boat back in one piece and happy again. To focus on the liability claim up front will lead you to much more unhappiness.

Good luck to you...

 

[aloha27]

^

This.;

It is not up to you to battle the schooner insurance company.

Let your insurer do it and get back to sailing as soon as you can.

Good luck.

 

[Presuming Ed]

Posting this here, mainly for future reference.

http://www.northu.northsails.com/RADUploads/PROTEST%20how%20to%20prepare.pdf

PROTEST how to prepare.pdf

 

[ftbinc]

Allen - Please read case 87 As pointed out in this case, you are not required to take action until you realize the other boat is not taking action...By your own admission, when you saw the other boat, you stayed up to avoid and did not change course, feeling this was your best chance to avoid a collision. Use the case as your defense on why you should be exonerated for breaking rule 14. It is clear from the photos that you did not break 15 or 16 (or 13 for that matter) Read the How to Prepare a Protest and a Defense above - and talk about boat speed, distance and time. Good luck,

CASE 87
Definitions, Keep Clear
Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
Rule 14(a), Avoiding Contact
A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is
clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.
Summary of the Facts
The angle of the starting line made it only just possible for a close-hauled
boat on starboard tack to cross the line, and most boats approached on port
tack. However, S approached on starboard tack from the right-hand end,
continually hailing ‘Starboard’ to port-tack boats as they approached.
P1 and P2 bore off below S. P3, however, made no attempt to avoid S and
struck her amidships at right angles, causing considerable damage. The
protest committee disqualified both boats, P3 under rule 10 and S under
rule 14. S appealed.
172
Decision
Rule 10 required P3 to keep clear of S. Rule 14 required each boat to avoid contact with the other boat if reasonably possible. In P3’s case, rule 14’s requirement to avoid contact with S was consistent with the broader requirement of rule 10 that she allow S to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear). P3 broke both rule 10 and rule 14.
In S’s case, while rule 10 required P3 to keep clear of her, at the same time S was required by rule 14 to avoid contact if it was ‘reasonably possible’ to do so. However, rule 14(a) allowed S to sail her course in the expectation that P3 would keep clear as required, until such time as it became clear that P3 would not do so. In this case, the diagram shows that P3 could readily have borne off and avoided S from a position very close to S. For that reason, the time between the moment it became clear that P3 would not keep clear and the time of the collision was a very brief interval, so brief that it was impossible for S to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14. S’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be reinstated.

 

[Locus]

Any updates on this that people can talk about? Such a unique case i am interested to hear the hearing findings and updates.

 

[allene222]

There has not been a hearing and if all goes as I expect there will not be. That said, my protest has not been withdrawn. I promise to update this thread.

 

[Locus]

Thanks Allen. I hope you can get everything sorted out. Like others i agree that you did what you could, but I am interested to see how the PC goes on the R14 issue. This is such an unusual incident, one i have found myself almost in a few times i will very much like to hear the outcome when it is appropriate. I will be patient.

Thanks for the Update.

 

[Grande Mastere Dreade]

"We are a large classic boat with limited maneuverability close to hard on the wind. A sudden luff to windward is a dangerous maneuver, bearing away requires preplanning and proper co-ordination among the crew. By her own admission a smaller more maneuverable vessel tacked in front of us giving us no more than 60 seconds to avoid a collision. An attempt was made to go to windward but this was an inadequate amount of time for us to take seamlike action to avoid her. It is clear from the testimony that the person in charge was not aware of our presence until after it was too late for either vessel to take action to avoid a collision."

.. which is a clear case of begin compelled to break RRS14 due to Boat A breaking RRS15.

and I would say, if you can't sail your boat, don't take it out..

 

[AJ Oliver]

Quote - ". . a smaller more maneuverable vessel tacked in front of us giving us no more than 60 seconds to avoid a collision."

Sixty seconds at 5 kts is 450 feet, roughly the closing speed between the two vessels.

Not enough time and space to avoid a collision?

Not buying it.

 

[MiddayGun]

Its an 82 foot Schooner not a bloody super tanker.

I can't believe that they couldn't make a small course alteration in less than 1 minute.

 

[Beer Can]

My insurance company is Allstate. A couple of years ago our club had a boat dismasted and my crew said you better call your insurance company and make sure you have racing insurance. I called and was assured that Allstate covers racing for sailboats although not for powerboats. I found a confirmation of that on the web. When I called my agent on Tuesday, he said, "racing, no coverage". I said that was not what his people told me when I asked and he said that well, we will cross that bridge when we come to it if the other party is not at fault. Fucker.

I was unable to find again online where Allstate says they cover sailing racing. Anyone have a link? Now, I have been with them for 27 years. Where did I put that policy???

Don't know about their sailboat insurance but when it comes to cars they fight everything (although not necessarily with their policyholders, I don't know about that). They are generally regarded as a royal pain in the ass as a simple fender bender can never get settled. They take everything to trial.

 

[Cement_Shoes]

Quote - ". . a smaller more maneuverable vessel tacked in front of us giving us no more than 60 seconds to avoid a collision."

Sixty seconds at 5 kts is 450 feet, roughly the closing speed between the two vessels.

Not enough time and space to avoid a collision?

Not buying it.

You don't leave a 60 second cushion between you and the car in front of you while driving?

 

[allene222]

Quote - ". . a smaller more maneuverable vessel tacked in front of us giving us no more than 60 seconds to avoid a collision."

Sixty seconds at 5 kts is 450 feet, roughly the closing speed between the two vessels.

Not enough time and space to avoid a collision?

Not buying it.

Boat going 9.5 knots travels 960 feet per minute. Fall off 1 degrees and it misses.

 

[AJ Oliver]

I was trying to estimate closing speed between the two vessels, not speed over ground.

I think in the "Room" that is what you want to talk about.

But I agree with you . .

 

[Tunnel Rat]

There has not been a hearing and if all goes as I expect there will not be. That said, my protest has not been withdrawn. I promise to update this thread.

Please can you explain these statements. How can a Race Committee not form a Protest Committee and hear a Protest? Are they not following the correct procedure, or have you agreed to defer the hearing indefinitely, and if so why?

 

[Dog Watch]

Tunnel Rat does ask a good question about procedure.

63.1 Requirement for a Hearing
A boat or competitor shall not be penalized without a protest hearing,
except as provided in rules 30.2, 30.3, 69, A5 and P2. A decision on
redress shall not be made without a hearing. The protest committee
shall hear all protests and requests for redress that have been
delivered to the race office unless it allows a protest or request to be
withdrawn.

All protests must be heard, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn by the protest committee.

In which case, if OP has not withdrawn, then there is no rule which allows this hearing to 'go away'.

If either party wants the hearing to go ahead, but there has not been a protest within 30 days, then Appendix R2.1 allows that party to appeal to the National Authority.

R2.1(b ) when the hearing required by rule 63.1 has not been held
within 30 days after a protest or request for redress was
delivered, the appellant shall, within a further 15 days, send an
appeal with a copy of the protest or request and any relevant
correspondence. The national authority shall extend the time if
there is good reason to do so;

The odd scenario is when both parties allow the protest to be delayed for some reason or another. This may be to gather evidence. It may be to attempt to come to an alternative arrangement. There may be many reasons why the hearing is delayed. Sometimes there is just not a convenient time to get all parties together. (Notice throughout the RRS, time limits are normally allowed to be 'extended if there is good reason to do so'.)

Sometimes though, the sport of sailing overflows to non-competitive and sporting issues, which grow larger and more important to the competitors than the competition, its results and the sport itself. That's a matter of fact. We hope not, but that's the reality.

Although not mentioned, Appendix R.21 suggests that essentially a party has a maximum of 45 days (30+15) before she could be considered to have waivered her rights to appeal against the 'absence of the hearing'. After that date, there could be no recourse if the hearing is not held for a party who wanted it to go ahead.

On the other hand, there is no time limit for a hearing to be held as far as I can see. If both parties decide to 'delay indefinitely' then so long as one won't complain after 45 days (i.e. both sides agree), then there is no reason why a hearing cannot be commenced any time in the future.

Hmmm... Does that place an absurd everlasting burden on an Organising Authority? What if the parties come back 5 years later and say, "We've been thinking about it for 5 years, and we want that port / starboard hearing afterall!"

DW