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.
Hearing and Evidence
You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a 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 – Kingston Kitten v London Lion
The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown.
Kingston Kitten is a semi-sports boat with asymmetrical spinnaker, about 10m LOA.
London Lion is a 30 Square Meter yacht, about 12m LOA.
(A 30 Square Meter yacht is a Scandinavian 'skerry-cruiser', similar in style to 'Meter' boats, but rated on Sail Area)
Wind conditions were 10kts, gusting 18kts. Sea conditions smooth.
The Hearing
Kingston Kitten's Description of the Incident
We were approaching the leeward mark on starboard tack. London Lion was approaching on port tack therefore she had no overlap.
I called for London Lion to keep clear as I was right of way boat. London Lion ignored my call and continued on port tack.
London Lion gybed at the mark, and I luffed up towards my new proper course as I was entitled to do.
London Lion hit Kingston Kitten about two meters from our stern.
Protest Committee's Questions to Kingston Kitten
Q. As you approached the leeward mark was London Lion clear astern of you at any stage?
A. No.
Q. Was there any damage?
A. No.
London Lion's Description of the Incident
I was steering London Lion. Both boats were coming into the leeward mark to be rounded to starboard, Kingston Kitten on starboard, London Lion on port.
London Lion had an inside overlap on Kingston Kitten.
Kingston Kitten hailed 'starboard'. I hailed 'room'.
I thought that Kingston Kitten was going to give me enough room to get round the mark.
Just as we completed our gybe and were rounding of the mark , Kingston Kitten hit London Lion on the after quarter.
Protest Committee Questions to London Lion
Q. How far apart were the boats when you gybed?
A. Two or three meters.
Q. Was there any damage?+
A. No.
Q. What action did you take to avoid contact?
A. When Kingston Kitten luffed towards me, there was no possible action I could take to avoid contact: 30 square meter yachts have long overhangs and if I had tried to luff clear of Kingston Kitten my stern would have swung into Kingston Kitten and made the situation worse.
Kingston Kitten Summing Up:
London Lion was on port and failed to keep clear of Kingston Kitten on starboard.
London Lion's Summing Up:
The definition of overlap says that boats can be overlapped when on opposite tacks downwind. Kingston Kitten and London Lion were overlapped approaching the leeward mark and when the first of us reached the zone, with London Lion inside Kingston Kitten. London Lion was entitled to mark-room. I sailed my proper course at the mark and Kingston Kitten changed course so as to deny me mark-room, and hit me.
Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence
Your fellow protest committee members note that the evidence of both parties seems generally consistent.
Facts found: the boats overlapped when the nearest to the mark reached the Zone. The boats were sailing more than 90 degrees from the true wind. Outside boat failed to give mark room to inside boat.
ReplyDeleteContact occurred between the boats but no damage caused or injury reported. Outside Boat sudden luff toward inside boat prevented inside from acting in a seamanlike way to avoid the contact.
Conclusions: The Outside Boat (KK)is ROW under rule 11 but is required under 18.2(b) to give inside Boat (LL) Mark room since boats were overlapped at the zone under the definition of Clear astern/clear ahead; Overlap (Rule 18 applies and the boats were sailing more than 90 degrees from the wind). Outside did not give inside mark room and violated 18.2(b) Outside boat broke rule 14 by colliding with Inside. Inside boat did not need to act to avoid contact until it was clear that Outside was not giving mark Room at which time it was too late for Inside to avoid contact. No penalty to Inside under rule 14 because there was no damage and no injury reported. KK is disqualified.
Rules applied. 18.2(b); 11, 14, definitions - overlap
Facts Found
ReplyDelete1. LL was running towards the leeward mark on port tack.
2. KK was broad reaching towards the same mark on starboard tack.
3. Both boats were to round the mark to starboard.
4. When LL and KK entered the zone, they were overlapped, and LL was the inside boat.
5. LL rounded the mark inside KK. She was then less than one boat length from the mark, and approximately one quarter of a boat length to starboard of KK.
6. As LL rounded the mark, she gybed onto starboard tack.
7. KK luffed and there was contact between the aft quarter of LL and the aft quarter of KK.
8. Neither boat suffered any damage.
9. Neither boat completed a penalty.
Conclusions
1. LL as the port tack boat, and later as the windward boat, was required to keep clear of KK, except that LL was entitled to sail to the mark and sail her proper course while at the mark.
2. KK failed to give LL room to sail her proper course while at the mark and thereby breached Rule 18.2.
3. LL, as the windward boat, failed to keep clear of KK and thereby breached Rule 11, but she is entitled to exoneration under Rule 18.5 because she broke Rule 11 only as a result of KK failing to give her mark room.
Rules Applicable
11, 18.2, 18.5, 64.1, definitions of mark room and overlap.
Decision
1. KK (being a party to the protest) is disqualified
2. LL is exonerated from breaching Rule 11.
Time taken: 45 minutes
Two points to make.
- If I was on the protest committee I would have asked some questions about whether LL did in fact sail its proper course at the mark. I found that she rounded less than a boat length away from the mark from the diagram, which wasn’t challenged by KK.
- My conclusion 1 was written bearing in mind that KK lodged the protest, and the conclusions answers KK’s argument. I don’t know whether it is appropriate to do that there.
Hearing the protest Kingston Kitten (KK) versus London Lion (LL) the protest committee found the following facts:
ReplyDelete- While sailing to the leeward mark, KK and LL entered overlapped the zone
- KK was the inside boat
- At the mark LL touched KK
Conclusion
- LL did not give KK mark-room and broke rule 18.2(a)
Decision
Protest upheld; LL disqualified.
At the beginning of the protest time limit I call my committee together to await the receipt of any protests. We receive one protest, filed by Kingston Kitten (KK) against London Lion (LL).
ReplyDeleteDuring our “prehearing” discussions we determine that we will want to hear testimony that will include relevance to rules, 11, 16.1, 14, and 18.2(b).
The Contessa has returned to her homeland to deal with the financial crisis so I have invited Fred “Grinning Bear” Smythe to be our scribe. “Grinning Bear” is an excellent scribe but, we have never been able to know why he is always smiling? They say that the inventor of the “Smiley Face” must have been inspired by Fred Smythe.
Time for “prehearing”, 5 minutes.
Time for hearing the evidence, 15 minutes.
Time for deliberations, 13 minutes.
FACTS FOUND:
1. KK and LL entered the zone with overlap.
2. KK was on starboard. LL was on port and inside KK.
3. At the mark, LL gybed to starboard, to windward of KK, to round the mark.
4. LL sailed between KK and the mark.
5. KK luffed and there was contact between LL and KK.
6. There was no damage to KK or LL due to the contact.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. KK was the ROW boat, rule 11.
2. LL was entitled to Mark Room, rule, 18.2(b).
3. LL to windward did not keep clear of KK to leeward. LL broke rule 11.
4. When KK, the right-of-way boat, changed course she did not give LL room to keep clear. KK broke rule 16.1.
5. KK, outside overlapped at the zone did not give LL mark room to sail her proper course at the mark. KK broke rule 18.2(b).
6. KK did not act to avoid contact with LL. KK was the right-of-way boat and the contact did not cause damage or injury. KK may not be penalized under rule 14.
7. It was not reasonably possible for LL to avoid contact with KK. LL did not break rule 14.
DECISION:
KK is DSQ, rules 16.1 and 18.2(b).
LL is exonerated for breaking rule 11 by rule 18.5(b).
Time to sort out and write the relevant facts, conclusions and decision, 29 minutes.
Time to read the decision, 2 minutes.
Total time, excluding “prehearing” time, 59 minutes.
Now I will go buy “Grinning Bear” some firewater and maybe he will tell me some Cowboys and Indians stories.
Facts Found:
ReplyDelete1. KK (starboard) and LL (port) approached the leeward mark, in flat seas and 10 knots of breeze gusting to 18.
2. LL was inside overlapped when each boat entered the zone.
3. LL gybed to starboard inside the zone.
4. KK luffed to round the mark.
5. After gybing ll made contact with KK's starboard aft quarter.
6. No damage was sustained by either boat.
7. Presumable both boats contained racing and finished.
Consclusions:
1. KK was required by 18.2(b) to give LL room, but failed to do so.
2. At the time KK failed to give LL room, it was not reasonably possible for LL to avoid contact with KK.
3. KK was required to avoide contact and failed to do so, breaking RRS 14.
4. After gybing, LL was required by RRS 11 to keep clear, but failed to do so.
5. LL's violation of RRS 11, is exonerated under 18.5(a).
Decision:
KK is disqualified for breaking RRS 14 and 18.2(b).
Time: 21 minutes.
The remaining question is how no damage could have been sustained in that much breeze with a relatively heavy boat making contact with a sport boat.
Sorry, I confused the parties, Herewith a new version.
ReplyDeleteHearing the protest Lion King (LL) versus Kingston King (KK) the protest committee found the following facts:
- While sailing to the leeward mark, KK and LL entered overlapped the zone
- LL was the inside boat
- At the mark KK touched LL
Conclusion
- KK did not give LL mark-room and broke rule 18.2(a)
Decision
Protest upheld; KK disqualified.
Welcome Wasabi, John G and John S.
ReplyDeleteAdriaan, thanks for the revised decision.
I'll post some more detailed comments later, but for now:
John S seems to have done the job in 166 words, but KK shall not be penalised under rule 14, because rule 14(b) applies.
Adriaan, did you have a reason for not covering rule 14?
@Brass
ReplyDeleteIn my view nobody broke rule 14, so there is no reason to pay attention to that rule.
But there is more. Years ago (only fleet races) we taught sailors to see right of way boats more or less as holy. Stay away of a starboard-tack boat; give an inside boat mark-room, etc.
In this protest (when my version is right, I am not good in the present rules) KK is very, very, very wrong. We must punish and teach him and not give him the idea that there is a little possibility that LL can be wrong too. Only when it is without doubt clear that LL was wrong, than the PC must take action.
I call attention to the post “The famous drama The Leeward Mark.” It is a persiflage, but also reality. That is what happens in races and as the poster says: the new rules 18, 19 and 20 can make increase the problems. This poster is no laughing matter, but surely for people with the job to maintain the rules, to cry.
Jos is one of the well trained PC-members at the Sneekweek (Dutch biggest regatta on a lake) and while he is waiting for protests, at the leeward mark you can see scenes of The famous drama The Leeward Mark and no penalties or protests. I’ve been there.
I think a start to change this, is to be to the point in protests like this. No theoretical discussions in conclusions which will be published.
Brass, now while writing, I reacted to your “A protest committee does not 'uphold' a protest. That is the function of an appeals committee which may 'uphold' a decision of a protest committee under rule 71.2.” Until now you did not answer. To underline my point: I think rule 71.2 limits the power of an appeal committee; it does not give the exclusive rights to use the word ‘upheld’ (and ‘dismissed’). See protest 4 (EP protest is upheld) and 8 (protest is upheld, TUR to be scored DSQ) in the Beijing Olympics and in the 2008 Laser Worlds: protest upheld, GBR is disqualified from race 6.
At the zone LL on port had an inside overlap on KK who was on starboard.
ReplyDeleteThe mark was to be rounded to starboard
LL sailed straight to the mark and when at the mark sailed her proper course to round it.
LL Gybed at the mark
A collision occurred.
Conclusion.
18.2.b KK failed to give LL mark room.
14. There was no damage and the boats were either ROW or entitled to mark room.
Decision
KK is disqualified.
10mins
General
ReplyDeleteIt would have helped if I had put in the problem that the protest committee members agreed that London Lion was sailing her proper course at the mark.
John S also asked how it was possible for contact to cause no damage in the conditions described. Good question. Maybe I over-simplified the problem. Maybe both parties took a generous view of 'damage'. If both parties are happy that there was no damage, I suggest the protest committee should not push the issue. In match racing, umpires would take a different view.
The Problem
At heart this is a mark-room problem.
London Lion was taking mark-room to which she was entitled under rule 18.2(b).
In doing so she broke rule 14 and rule 11.
London Lion is exonerated for breaking rule 11 under rule 18.5, and is protected from penalty for breaking rule 14 by rule 14(b).
Kingston Kitten is disqualified for not giving London Lion mark-room under rule 18.2(b).
Kingston Kitten also broke rule 14, but, as for London Lion, she is protected from penalty for breaking rule 14 by rule 14(b).
Responses
Responses varied greatly in length. Dick's ran to 259 words (without the Wild West part) and Mike B took only 79.
We seek ABC: Accuracy, Brevity and Completeness. I think Mike B crossed the line from Brief to Cryptic.
I strongly recommend the numbered paragraph style used by John G, Dick and John S. It is a little less brief, but it is much easier for readers to follow (and for the scribe to edit and check).
A number of responses did not deal with London Lion's rule 11 breach and rule 18.5 exoneration., and a couple did not deal with the rule 14 issue. Although it may seem laborious to write a conclusion that a boat broke a rule, then write another one that the boat is exonerated (or protected under rule 14(b)), I think that a protest committee should reach a conclusion about every rule that it sees is broken in an incident. This helps the parties understand the decision and promotes rules-knowledge generally.
A number of responses also included 'rules discussions' stating that this or that rule applied, or explaining how a rule applied. This is unnecessary, and leads to more words than necessary.
Conclusion
Thanks everyone for participating in this problem.
I hope this feedback is helpful. Please feel free to continue discussing any point that interests you.
@Brass – on which grounds do you base that LL broke rule 14? On the part of the not very convincing testimony of KK “London Lion hit Kingston Kitten …”?
ReplyDeleteThe only reliable information in the hearing I could find is the testimony of LL “…. I hailed 'room'. I thought that Kingston Kitten was going to give me enough room to get round the mark. … Just as we completed our gybe and were rounding of the mark, Kingston Kitten hit London Lion on the after quarter. When Kingston Kitten luffed towards me, there was no possible action I could take to avoid contact: 30 square meter yachts have long overhangs and if I had tried to luff clear of Kingston Kitten my stern would have swung into Kingston Kitten and made the situation worse.”
So rule 14 (“… if reasonably possible…”) and 14(a) applies and LL did not break 14.
Besides all this; do you really believe this summing up of being right of way boat and boat to keep clear at the very same moment (everything is possible in yacht racing) with explanations of exonerations and protections, helps the parties to understand the decision and promotes rules-knowledge generally? I do not. And I think a next time LL, as the protest committee convicted (rule 14) him too with a possibility he would be disqualified, will hesitate to lodge a protest. And KK can play his role in The famous drama The Leeward Mark.