Saturday, 25 October 2008

Redress for a Rule 69 warning? - revisited

In a comment on my answer in yesterday's post Luigi said...
" Sorry Jos but a warning is an advice, not an action. The situation you described is under 60.3a. Jury can protest the trower at the hearing."

I thought it was worth posting about it so you can all join the discussion.

You can only protest the competitor who allegedly threw the can, in a rule 69 hearing. "Normal" protest are ALWAYS against a boat - not a person.

69.1(b) Final sentence: "If it decides that the competitor committed the alleged misconduct it shall either" .... and then continues with two possibilities:
(1) either warn
(2) or impose a penalty

In my opinion those are BOTH "disciplinary actions under rule 69.1(b)" as referred to in 62.1(d)

Someone can be disciplined by warning him or her. The disciplinary action is to set about a change in conduct, either by imposing a warning or a penalty.

Granted, most people would rather punish by a penalty...The "make them pay"-policy. But don't underestimate the social implications of being hauled in front of the protest committee on a rule 69 charge. A warning might serve better, if only not to incur rancor at an unnecessary (unjust) penalty.

If you limit the redress in 62.1(d) to only cases where the offender is penalized - by one way or another - you put undue pressure on the verdict if that is the only way for the PC to grant redress to the boat who has been damaged.

What are your thoughts on this subject?



  1. Interesting question about the use of or definition of action. The definition from Wordweb for action is "Something done (usually as opposed to something said)" This is an interesting conflict. Some times having a hearing and come to the conclusion that a warning is the right decision that one could conclude that this is an action. In a rule 69 hearing one is allowed to bring an advisor. This is a critical step if the individual is under age.

  2. I have had a quick look at this matter and see it slightly differently.
    A competitor is subject to RRS 69 but this can result in different outcomes.
    The competitor can
    a. Be warned
    b. receive another penalty such as being banned

    or A Boat can 69.1.b.2
    be disqualified for a race or the series.
    Redress can be given when a boat has received a penalty.62.1.d

    This there can only be redress when a boat has been disqualified for a race or the series.

  3. With respect, I disagree - that is not the wording of the rule.

    RRS 62.1(d) clearly states redress can be based on a penalty under rule 2 OR disciplinary action under rule 69.1(b).

    There is no requirement for a penalty under rule 69 to be applied before redress is considered. All that is required is that action was taken under rule 69.1(b) - namely a warning or some other form of penalty.


  4. RRS 62.1(d) states redress shall be based on a penalty under rule 2 or disciplinary action under rule 69.1(b).
    And RRS 69.1(b) includes both (1) Warn and (2) Penalty.
    A boat may request redress.

  5. Here I'm for my LAST comment about this.
    This question was one of the test question in the IJ Seminar in AUT last september.
    We discussed about after and the relevant fact is this: a penalty must consist in something that get you scoring or your position or possibility to win the race in a whorst situation than before the penalty.
    A warning is something like: "Hey you guy, don't do it again!". In which way this get my position whorst? No way...
    So .. no redress because there was no penalty.

  6. Luigi, I disagree with the answer in the test question. There's no redress for the penalized boat or for the warned boat. There should be a possibility for redress for the boat he damaged with his action....


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...