From “the Room” by Brass
Introduction
The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations.
I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.
You might like to try using the Protest Decision Wording tool from LTW.
Problem
You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received the written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses as shown. Write Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and the Decision for this protest. Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.
Description of Incident – Edinburgh Evening v Freetown Forenoon
The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown.
Edinburgh Evening is a Sydney 38, 11.6m yacht.
Freetown Forenoon is a Sydney 47, 14.5m yacht.
The Hearing
Edinburgh Evening's Description of the Incident
I was steering Edinburgh Evening.
We were reaching slowly on starboard tack down the start line under easy sheets, about half a boat length back from the line and about three boat lengths from the pin with 10 seconds to the starting signal. We were doing about 3 knots.
First I heard is a hail 'Overlap'.
I turned and saw Freetown Forenoon clear astern of our port quarter about 2 to 3 meters to leeward and sailing faster than Edinburgh Evening. I hailed 'No overlap'
Freetown Forenoon became overlapped to leeward about 2.5 meters away and again hailed 'up'.
Freetown Forenoon then came up towards the wind and crashed into the stern of Edinburgh Evening, damaging the stern railing
From the first hail to the second hail, there was about 3 seconds.
On the second hail I went up.
Freetown Forenoon then came up and continued to come up until contact occurred.
I hailed 'protest' immediately and flew a red flag immediately after the boats were disentangled and Edinburgh Evening was safely under control.
Freetown Forenoon's Questions to Edinburgh Evening
Q. When did you bear away to stay below the line and the pin?
A. I did not bear away.
Freetown Forenoon's Description of the Incident
I was steering Freetown Forenoon for the pin end starting mark, from behind Edinburgh Evening, when Edinburgh Evening bore away to keep below the start line and became overlapped across the bow of Freetown Forenoon. I was unable to avoid collision.
Before the boats became overlapped Freetown Forenoon bore away to get more separation between the boats. Freetown Forenoon was doing about 5 knots.
Freetown Forenoon then came up again.
The overlap was caused by Edinburgh Evening bearing away.
Protest Committee Questions to Freetown Forenoon
Q. How far apart were the boats when they became overlapped?
A. Two or three meters.
Edinburgh Evening's witness evidence
I was trimming the mainsheet on Edinburgh Evening, sitting on the windward deck beside the wheel.
Edinburgh Evening was clear ahead of Freetown Forenoon.
Edinburgh Evening was sailing fairly slowly, reaching towards the pin.
Freetown Forenoon hailed Edinburgh Evening to go up.
Skipper of Edinburgh Evening replied 'make your call when you have an overlap'.
Freetown Forenoon bore away and accelerated.
Freetown Forenoon then came up and contact occurred between the bow of Freetown Forenoon and Edinburgh Evening half a meter forward of the transom.
Edinburgh Evening's questions to Edinburgh Evening's witness
Q. Did Edinburgh Evening bear away across the bow of Freetown Forenoon?
A. No.
Q. On completion of Edinburgh Evening's initial bear away, would collision have occurred if Freetown Forenoon had held her course without change?
A. No. Edinburgh Evening did not bear away.
Q. Once the boats became overlapped, did Edinburgh Evening take any action to keep clear of Freetown Forenoon?
A. The skipper of Edinburgh Evening started to steer the boat up, then when it was obvious that contact would occur, bore away to minimize impact.
Freetown Forenoon's questions to Edinburgh Evening's witness
Q. How long between when the overlap was established and the collision?
A. Between 2 and 4 seconds. There was a very short time between overlap and contact.
Protest Committee questions to Edinburgh Evening's witness
Q. At the instant the boats became overlapped, what was the distance apart of the boats?
A. Not more than 2.5 m.
Q. How long before the starting signal was the incident?
A. About 10 seconds.
Freetown Forenoon's Witnesses
I was tactician on Freetown Forenoon. I was positioned on the aft starboard deck.
Edinburgh Evening was positioned close to the start line and close to the pin mark, waiting to accelerate for the start.
Freetown Forenoon was reaching down the start line about two boat lengths back, with good speed. I intended to hook up to leeward of Edinburgh Evening and drive her over the start line early, then make a good on-time start.
As we approached Edinburgh Evening, I hailed 'you will need to keep up'.
When we became overlapped with Edinburgh Evening I hailed 'up', and I said to my skipper 'don't come up too hard', but Freetown Forenoon's bow kept coming up into the wind.
The boats made contact because Edinburgh Evening did not keep clear.
Protest Committee Questions to Freetown Forenoon's witness
Q. How far apart were the boats when they became overlapped?
A. Two or three meters.
Edinburgh Evening Summing Up
Freetown Forenoon was overtaking from clear astern.
As soon as Freetown Forenoon became overlapped he came up and I had no room to keep clear.
At the last moment I steered down to minimize impact.
Had Freetown Forenoon held a straight course she would have sailed clear to leeward of me.
Freetown Forenoon's Summing Up
After the overlap was established Freetown Forenoon did not come up.
The overlap was created by Edinburgh Evening bearing away.
Freetown Forenoon had only two seconds and could not avoid contact.
Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence
Your fellow protest committee members note that the evidence of Edinburgh Evening and her witness, was that Edinburgh Evening did not bear away until after the boats became overlapped and then only to minimize impact after contact was unavoidable. Freetown Forenoon's assertion that Edinburgh Evening bore away across her bow was not supported by any witness.
As I prepare for the hearing I have determined that it will be necessary for me to find facts so that I may conclude whether FF broke rue 15 or rule 16.1 or, if EE broke rule 11.
ReplyDeleteFortunately my scribe on the committee has done an excellent job of recording all the relevant testimony given during the hearing.
Facts Found:
1. The protest is valid.
2. EE is a Sydney 38, 11.6m in length.
3. FF is a Sydney 47, 14.5m in length.
4. FF was sailing at about 5 knots.
5. EE was sailing at about 3 knots.
6. EE was reaching along the start line on starboard tack.
7. EE was approximately one half-boat length from the start line and about 3 boat lengths from the pin end of the start line at approximately 10 seconds before the start.
8. FF, also sailing on starboard tack, was clear astern of EE and approximately 2-3 meters to leeward.
9. FF bore away before becoming overlapped with EE.
10. EE did not bare away before FF became overlapped.
11. FF, sailing faster, became overlapped to leeward of EE with about 2.5m separation between EE and FF.
12. FF started to come up when the overlap was established and continued to come up after FF’s tactician told his skipper “don’t come up to hard”.
13. EE initially responded to FF’s luff when FF became overlapped.
14. EE bore off when he thought contact with FF was inevitable.
14. There was contact between FF’s bow and EE’s stern about 1/2 meter forward of EE’s transom.
15. The contact occurred about 3 seconds after FF gained overlap.
16. The contact caused damage.
Conclusions:
1. The damage was not serious.
2. When FF acquired right of way she did not initially give EE room to keep clear. FF broke rule 15.
3. When FF, the right-of-way boat, changed course she did not give EE room to keep clear. FF broke rule 16.1.
4. It was reasonably possible for FF to avoid contact with EE. FF broke rule 14
5. It was not reasonably possible for EE to avoid contact with FF. EE did not break rule 14.
6. EE to windward did not keep clear of FF to leeward. EE broke rule 11.
Decision:
FF is DSQ’ed for breaking rules 15, 16.1 and 14.
EE is exonerated under 64.1(c) for breaking 11 due to FF’s breach of rules 16.1 and 15.1.
Time was about 3 hours to write the facts and make the conclusions. When I went to the bar to announce that we had a decision all that was there was a note that instructed me to turn out the lights and lock the doors when I was finished.
"about 3 hours to write the facts and make the conclusions"!
ReplyDeleteIs this not a case of bringing the noble art of judging into disrepute! One of the principal reasons for competitors not protesting is the time taken to obtain a decision. Surely (except in the most complicated cases such an multi-boat incidents or rating, class rules or (sometimes) unravelling sailng instruction problmes, then the target time for hearing a protest should be 15-30 minutes (maybe somewhat longer for an international jury who must (because there is no appeal) take a more "belts and braces" attitude.
Gordon
Hey Gordon,
ReplyDeleteSteady on. I hope you are not so quick and caustic to rush to judgment when you meet other protest committee members who lack you skill and experience face to face. Otherwise being on a protest committee with you might not be much fun.
How do you expect beginning judges to develop speed, if they don't practice in slow motion first?
Please also remember that in these exercises, the time taken has to allow for 'reading into' and analysing the problem: time which, in real life is the time taken in the actual protest hearing. Reflecting on my own experience, the interaction among the committee members also seems to speed up the time it takes to grasp the problem and arrive at words.
Please also remember that people have different learning and working styles, and more or less well-developed techniques for handling written questions (which may not be the same as those appropriate for use in a face to face protest hearing).
Do any experienced judges have any constructive suggestions that will help Dick get to the bar before closing time?
Gordon has a point. And it is one I concern myself with as I plunder down the road to gain the experience I need to become a juror.
ReplyDeleteAnd Brass has the solution. Fifteen Fact Finding exercises to provide me the opportunity to practice, practice, practice. Let’s see. Hearing, 18 minutes. Deliberations, 13 minutes. Write the Decision, on a laptop, 4 minutes. Read the decision, no interruptions please, 2 minutes. Total time 37 minutes. Priceless.
After reading the 10 written protest decisions of the International Jury at the Audi Etchell Worlds 2009 I wish to rewrite my decision for EE vs FF.
ReplyDeleteFacts Found:
1. EE was reaching along the start line on starboard tack at about 3 knots.
2. FF, also sailing on starboard tack and sailing at about 5 knots, was clear astern of EE and became overlapped to EE approximately 2-3 meters to leeward.
3. FF started to come up when the overlap was established and continued to come up until there was contact which occurred about 3 seconds after FF became overlapped.
4. The contact caused damage to FF’s bow and EE’s stern about 1/2 meter forward of EE’s transom.
Conclusions:
1. The damage was not serious.
2. When FF, the right-of-way boat, changed course she did not give EE room to keep clear. FF broke rule 16.1.
3. It was reasonably possible for FF to avoid contact with EE. FF broke rule 14
4. It was not reasonably possible for EE to avoid contact with FF. EE did not break rule 14.
5. EE to windward did not keep clear of FF to leeward. EE broke rule 11.
Decision:
FF is DSQ’ed for breaking rules 16.1 and 14.
EE is exonerated under 64.1(c) for breaking 11 due to FF’s breach of rules 16.1.
Hearing Time, 36 minutes. Deliberation time; a). sort out relevant facts from testimony 12 minutes, b). sort the relevant facts from conclusions, 3 minutes. c). discuss facts and conclusions and agree on decision 12 minutes. Write the facts necessary to make conclusions, and decision, 8 minutes. Read the decision. 16 seconds after everybody has taken their seat. Total time 1 hour 11 minutes 16 seconds. Now to the bar to have a few with Gordon and Brass and defend my decision to Freetown Forenoon's skipper.
This week I found a certificate that shows that I was an IJ for the period from January 1982 to December 1985. It was easier to be appointed as an IJ in that time than to become a member of a local protest committee nowadays, I learned. But that is another item. What I like to mention is that I think our procedure of a protest hearing was more efficient. Protests were received by a secretary (an expert but not a member of the PC) who investigated the validity (lodged in time, protest flag yes and at what time? Hailed? All obligatorily details written in it? Et cetera. If validity ok all jury members received a copy at the start of the hearing.
ReplyDeleteI was lucky to have a lot of times Bryan Willis as the chairman and Ken Ryan doing the minutes right during the hearing. Bryan was very efficient. He let the parties (and witnesses) tell there story, while he was steering the testimony in a good channel by asking relevant questions. Next he asked the jury members: is everything clear to you? if not they could ask additional questions, Next Brian asked the parties: do you have something to add or to stipulate and that was the hearing. Next step was he asked only one of the jury members (in turns and by name) what is your conclusion/comment and then the others: does everybody agree? If yes the discussion was over. And without any delay Ken Ryan mentioned the facts he wrote down during the whole procedure and when everybody agreed, the case was closed. In about thirty international jury’s all over the world I only can remember a very few protests that took us more than half an hour. Bryan’s favourite yell was “speed up gentlemen” and he expected short comments and no nonsense. When he noticed you were not a 100% rules expert, you were not invited next time. Bryan was always a full chairman. Most of the times he did not mention his own opinion, we had to ask, and as I remember he never looked in the rules book. He really was a living rules book himself.
Anonymous is right. When you need 3 hours to write the facts and make the conclusions you will have only a few customers in the future. Competitors will look for other solutions en be their own judges. 15 minutes must be an averige and half an hour the maximum. Keep on practising.
Bravo Dick,
ReplyDeleteGood answer. Glad to see the rule 15 disappeared: 2.5 m distance on the hook up wasn't close. You wasted some words on whether the damage was serious, which was irrelevant, and you invented a fact about damage to FF, about which there was no evidence, but that's by the by.
You have reduced your decision from 347 words to 196 words, and reduced your time taken by about half.
That's no coincidence. The less you write the shorter it takes.
Let's take a look at your process and compare what happened in your first attempt with your final one.
In your first attempt you spent time transcribing 16 Facts Found from your evidence notes. In the final version you managed with 4 paragraphs. You can never afford the time to write down all possible facts then select, then re-write the relevant ones.
We have to develop the knack of selectively writing only relevant facts. Tricks might include:
• get clear in our minds, before the evidence starts, what needs to be proved. See What We Need to Prove http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-do-we-need-to-prove.html
• If possible, prepare in advance: You could have had Facts 1, 2 and 4 written, except for the distances, off the protest form before the hearing started (have a look over an IJ's shoulder some time, before the hearing starts and see how much is 'pre-written'): youre working against the clock: take shortcuts.
• Use note-taking tricks: coloured pens, special column in your notes for Facts Found, whatever it takes.
• Explicitly divide responsibility among protest committee members during the hearing: One focuses and writes Facts Found, another writes exact key words and phrases from evidence, one maintains and dimensions diagrams and so on. See Efficient Protest Hearings http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2008/01/efficient-protest-hearings.html
I think the magic trick of all is, at the end of hearing evidence, Write your decision 'inside out':
• decide what rules are in play: that may or may not have been broken.
• Use the Protest Conclusions Wording Tool and choose the relevant conclusions.
• Then write the facts (supported by the evidence, of course) that are necessary to reach the conclusions (or rule out a conclusion).
• Lastly, write your decision 'X is disqualified', 'Y is exonerated'
Bear in mind that the purpose of the written decision is to show what the protest committee decided, not how they decided it, and not to 'discuss' the rules applied.
Discussion with your fellow protest committee members needs to be concurrent with the writing phase. And focusing on the facts necessary to prove selected conclusions, one at a time helps guide and focus the discussion. Being able to type onto a laptop is a bonus: it helps the jumping around between Fact Found and Conclusion that inevitably happens at this stage.
Thanks, Dick, for taking the effort to try this problem again, and providing us with such a graphic example of how we can cut down our times, and produce a good result.
Edinburgh Evening V Freetown Forenoon
ReplyDeleteFacts found:
EE was clear ahead of FF on starboard tack
FF sailing faster established a leeward overlap on EE 2.5m away.
EE immediately altered course to keep clear
FF altered course toward EE, and continued to do so.
Contact occurred 3 seconds after the overlap was established.
Prior to and when contact was inevitable EE bore away to minimise damage.
There was damage
Conclusions.
RRS 15 FF was required to give EE initially room to keep clear and failed to do so.
RRS16 FF Was required to give EE room to keep clear and failed to do so.
RRS14 FF failed to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to have done so when contact caused damage.
RRS14 It was not reasonable possible for EE to avoid contact.
Decision
FF is disqualified
Mike B
15mins
In my opinion in a protest meeting only two items are relevant: what happened and is there any rule broken. If yes, by whom. That is all. For the answers you start to establish the facts, without thinking of rules or what ever. There is nothing that has to be proved. Just concentrate on the facts. Facts lead automatically to a conclusion. Good facts, easy decision.
ReplyDeleteWhen you know the facts you have to decide whether there is a rule broken. Is the answer yes: which rule and by who. Mentioning all the applicable rules is superfluous; it is a protest hearing, not an exam.
As I indicated, I am a follower of Bryan Willis and his start point is always the plain facts. Have a look in his book The Rules in Practice: his explanation of the rules starts with a situation.
Yacht racing is in this no other sport than football, ice hockey, or what. A referee’s job is to observe and judge: what is happening and is somebody breaking a rule. That’s all. The situation comes first, the rules (surely rule numbers) after that.
And while writing the facts have your target group in mind and ask yourself why you write this or that. Does it matter? Can I delete it? Writing facts is not showing your knowledge of the rules. Be brief and to the point. The Etchells cases are a good example. Your duty is to deliver a text that is keeping the attention of the reader. If you do not, you’ll have no readers.