When a penalty isn't a penalty?
- Thread starter Couta
- Start date
dtoc
New member
- 39
- 2
What was not clear in the original post is whether B347 was willing to accept the arbitration penalty. If so, then there is more sense in the Jury just deciding that the 30% is the right penalty to apply. The 4 points wasn't an arbitrary number that just kept the boat having 1st place.
Last edited by a moderator:
TJSoCal
Super Anarchist
Of course it does. But in this case the violator was found to have broken a rule and a penalty was assessed. The PC can't really help the boat that got screwed, all they can do is penalize the other fellow.
Last edited by a moderator:
TJSoCal
Super Anarchist
Sounds to me more like 9930 was unwilling to withdraw the protest even though the arbitrator opined (incorrectly, as it turned out) that it would fail on validity.
LB 15
Cunt
If it was a presiding Juror who offered that opinion prior to the hearing then they make the system look pretty foolish.
I would appeal. An appeal is only considered on the basis of the Facts found - and this case they are very straight ahead that B347 broke Rule 10.
It sets an awful precedent if upheld as a fair result.
I totally disagree with any posters above who seem to think that it's only a little nuisance. This is a major, if not THE major rule in the RRS. If we say, oh that one doesn't matter, then where do we draw the line?
If it was as blatant as it seems, B347 is lucky they weren't score DNE, as they broke Rule 2 by not taking a penalty.
Unfortunately however the time for an appeal may have already passed.
It sets an awful precedent if upheld as a fair result.
I totally disagree with any posters above who seem to think that it's only a little nuisance. This is a major, if not THE major rule in the RRS. If we say, oh that one doesn't matter, then where do we draw the line?
If it was as blatant as it seems, B347 is lucky they weren't score DNE, as they broke Rule 2 by not taking a penalty.
Unfortunately however the time for an appeal may have already passed.
LB 15
Cunt
'Blatant' is in the eyes of the beer holder. Also I don't think the extent of the penalty is grounds for an appeal. I may be wrong however. I often am.
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
Something was a bit shitty with the handicapping at SPS. Sister ships given vastly different handicaps put in different divisions. Then after 2 races, the boat in the lower division took a massive handicap hit +0.119
dtoc
New member
- 39
- 2
That is extreme. There is no basis to say that because someone didn't do turns that they violated Rule 2 Fair Sailing. This happens all of the time and very likely B347 didn't feel that an alteration was needed / they kept clear.
I'm not saying that it was "only a little nuisance" but to get to Rule 2 the violation has to be much greater and intentional with the possibility of getting witnesses to falsify their statements.
Anyway, the impact to 9930 is very unlikely to be corrected. It is a very high bar to get redress from a foul where you can keep sailing.
30% per NoR/SI based on arbitration level and move on. This was not the Etchells Worlds or Olympics qualifier. It was a regional fun regatta under handicap just after long COVID "pauses"
TJSoCal
Super Anarchist
If B347 had taken their on-the-water turns penalty would/should 9930 still have protested? Would B347 have finished 4 places worse if she'd done turns 2 minutes into the race? (who knows?)
If B347 had accepted a 30% scoring penalty in arbitration would 9930 have withdrawn her protest or insisted on her right to a hearing?
In either case, wouldn't the jury have likely concluded that B347 had taken an appropriate penalty for breaking rule 10 and not further penalized her?
If B347 had accepted a 30% scoring penalty in arbitration would 9930 have withdrawn her protest or insisted on her right to a hearing?
In either case, wouldn't the jury have likely concluded that B347 had taken an appropriate penalty for breaking rule 10 and not further penalized her?
LB 15
Cunt
If a yacht is found that they blatantly broke Rule 10 - heard the hail, saw the other change direction, and then didn't take a penalty, then it is not drawing a long bow to consider rule 2, as they are also breaking RRS 44.1. Th attitude of the protestee would come in to it.
As far as "This was not the Etchells Worlds or Olympics qualifier. It was a regional fun regatta under handicap just after long COVID "pauses" -so you are saying, then unless it is a major regatta then the rules don't matter? Look at how many entrants there were, and what trophies were awarded - far more than a "fun regatta".
Arbitration is not meant to force protestors to withdraw their protest. I am not a fan of Arbitration as I feel it belittles the process. To me that is what happened in this case.
As far as "This was not the Etchells Worlds or Olympics qualifier. It was a regional fun regatta under handicap just after long COVID "pauses" -so you are saying, then unless it is a major regatta then the rules don't matter? Look at how many entrants there were, and what trophies were awarded - far more than a "fun regatta".
Arbitration is not meant to force protestors to withdraw their protest. I am not a fan of Arbitration as I feel it belittles the process. To me that is what happened in this case.
LB 15
Cunt
Again that is the whole point of the RRS - if a yacht breaks a rule they take a penalty. If the protestee had done their turns then 9930 could have asked for their protest to be withdrawn, and it probably would have been.
Yes, if B347 had taken an appropriate penalty, which in this case would have only been a "one-turn" penalty, then she could not be further penalised, again that's why the RRS are written the way they are - to encourage yachts to do the right thing.
shanghaisailor
Super Anarchist
OK - dug a little deeper. Fleet was 13.
According to Couta SI's included alternative penalties.
B347 lost the protest but was awarded an alternative penalty.
Scoring penalty according to RRS 44.3 scoring penalty would be 20% of DNF = 14 *20% with rounding to nearest whole number.
So 2.8 rounded to 3. 30% = 4.2 rounded down to 4 - as per the rules and SIs
My understanding is that if arbitration is accepted then the 30% alternative comes into play
It needs to be remembered the scoring penalty is on the race in question and the performance in the race not the regatta.
So given that, the committee doesn't appear to have been 'gentle' to the rule breaker.
My previous comment appears to have been a bit 'knee jerk' and incorrect.
You break the rule - DSQ unless you take an alternative penalty, the RRS already allow for such an alternative - the number of turns in the SIs. Why do we bother with alternative alternatives?
In my view lesser penalties only encourage rule breaking because the penalty (note the word comes from the Latin for 'pain') causes less pain to the guilty party and is open to interpretation.
One of the faults in this situation is that the arbitrator - basically a jury of one - gave an opinion that the larger jury disagreed with perhaps cassing doubts in the protestor's mind.
@mccroc Your comment is only correct if B347 knew and believed they broke a rule and didn't take a penalty. I have seen multiple occasions where a P boat ducks the S boat and is confident they kept clear but the term 'reasonable apprehension' comes into play (see Case 50)
Play the tape mentally - 2 boats on S, Leeward one believes they can tack and duck W. It becomes P & S.
P ducks but S doesn't think there is space so luffs to avoid, P crosses 1m behind believing his manoeuvre kept him clear - Perhaps still RRS 10 but no RRS 2 at all.
HOWEVER, if we then dig into Appendix T - Arbitration we find a different slant.
T 1(a) states that a boat may take an alternative penalty AT ANY TIME UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF A PROTEST HEARING.
It does appear that if the protest goes to the full protest hearing the option of an alternative penalty is withdrawn therefore the awarding of a 4 point addition to the score is incorrect.
I haven't seen this interpretation tested so am unsure, i am just reading what the RRS states.
Just my opinion.
What'cha think?
SS
According to Couta SI's included alternative penalties.
B347 lost the protest but was awarded an alternative penalty.
Scoring penalty according to RRS 44.3 scoring penalty would be 20% of DNF = 14 *20% with rounding to nearest whole number.
So 2.8 rounded to 3. 30% = 4.2 rounded down to 4 - as per the rules and SIs
My understanding is that if arbitration is accepted then the 30% alternative comes into play
It needs to be remembered the scoring penalty is on the race in question and the performance in the race not the regatta.
So given that, the committee doesn't appear to have been 'gentle' to the rule breaker.
My previous comment appears to have been a bit 'knee jerk' and incorrect.
You break the rule - DSQ unless you take an alternative penalty, the RRS already allow for such an alternative - the number of turns in the SIs. Why do we bother with alternative alternatives?
In my view lesser penalties only encourage rule breaking because the penalty (note the word comes from the Latin for 'pain') causes less pain to the guilty party and is open to interpretation.
One of the faults in this situation is that the arbitrator - basically a jury of one - gave an opinion that the larger jury disagreed with perhaps cassing doubts in the protestor's mind.
@mccroc Your comment is only correct if B347 knew and believed they broke a rule and didn't take a penalty. I have seen multiple occasions where a P boat ducks the S boat and is confident they kept clear but the term 'reasonable apprehension' comes into play (see Case 50)
Play the tape mentally - 2 boats on S, Leeward one believes they can tack and duck W. It becomes P & S.
P ducks but S doesn't think there is space so luffs to avoid, P crosses 1m behind believing his manoeuvre kept him clear - Perhaps still RRS 10 but no RRS 2 at all.
HOWEVER, if we then dig into Appendix T - Arbitration we find a different slant.
T 1(a) states that a boat may take an alternative penalty AT ANY TIME UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF A PROTEST HEARING.
It does appear that if the protest goes to the full protest hearing the option of an alternative penalty is withdrawn therefore the awarding of a 4 point addition to the score is incorrect.
I haven't seen this interpretation tested so am unsure, i am just reading what the RRS states.
Just my opinion.
What'cha think?
SS
- Thread starter
- #38
Thanks for the feedback and opinion - to be clear, our boat was in a clear air stbd line up with a plan to maintain stbd tack and the LHS of course....the incident forced us to luff near head to wind to avoid serious contact. Our recovery to stbd tack left us in a fleet of bad air and forced us to tack to clear it....clear loss of advantage.
I think we've flogged this dead horse long enough...the point was that the process of arbitration felt very much like bullying by the jury representative to withdraw...and the penalty was not reflective of the seriousness of the fundamental rule breech. A collision was very narrowly avoided by our quick action...as the facts found confirm. Also...Port tacker acknowkledged breech and hailed..."We owe you one!". They stated that in the room. So...no effective penalty for gross breach of fundamental rule.
As I said in the OP, I've never encountered this before.
I think we've flogged this dead horse long enough...the point was that the process of arbitration felt very much like bullying by the jury representative to withdraw...and the penalty was not reflective of the seriousness of the fundamental rule breech. A collision was very narrowly avoided by our quick action...as the facts found confirm. Also...Port tacker acknowkledged breech and hailed..."We owe you one!". They stated that in the room. So...no effective penalty for gross breach of fundamental rule.
As I said in the OP, I've never encountered this before.
Last edited by a moderator:
jackattack
Anarchist
The SIs specifically allow for the arbitration penalty to be applied by the PC
10 ARBITRATION
10.1 Arbitration in accordance with RRS Appendix “T” will be used.
10.2 Protests not resolved by Arbitration, for any subsequent protest hearing the penalty given for a breach of a rule of Part 2 may be the arbitration penalty.
10.3 The arbitrator may be a member of any subsequent protest committee or may observe and give testimony to the protest committee. This changes RRS 63.3(a).
Good description, and my reading of Appendix T is the same - that option of alternative penalty disappears if it goes to Protest.
Your response to me I agree with, but when the facts found say that B347 tacked within a boat length of 9930, then they were close and should have been more aware of their responsibilities.
