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.
Description of Incident
The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown. Wind conditions were about 10kts. Sea conditions smooth.
| | SI indicate gate is between Committee Vessel and a mark of the course. On the first lap we sailed between the Committee Vessel and the Finish Mark. At the end of the second lap we finished correctly between the Committee Vessel and the Finish Mark. We were scored DNF. There was another additional laid mark in the vicinity of the Gate/Finish Line as shown in the diagram. |
The Hearing
Anemone's Description of the Incident
As described in the protest form Anemone completed the course, passing through the gate as required at the end of the first lap and at the finish at the end of the second lap.
Anemone left the Laid Mark at the outer end of the Gate on the required side.
Race Officer's Description of the Incident
The Sailing Instructions say:
The Start Line, Finishing Line and Gate shall be between the flag mast displaying the Club Committee Flag on the Committee Vessel and the Laid Mark in the vicinity of Point Liberty.
Laid Marks shall be white inflatable cylinders with the sponsor's logo.
Two separate observation team on the Committee Vessel, whose duties were to observe and record boats passing through the gate at the end of the first lap, observed that Anemone passed outside the outer Laid Mark of the gate at the end of the first lap.
At the time when other boats were completing the second lap to finish, Anemone passed through the Finish Line/Gate. The Committee Vessel observation teams recorded this as Anemone passing through the gate for the first time and also recorded the time that Anemone passed through the Gate.
I have here the record sheets for these observations if the protest committee wishes to verify this.
The Committee Vessel remained on station until the time limit expired and Anemone did not pass through the gate a second time to finish.
Accordingly Anemone was scored DNF as required by rule A5 and ISAF Q&A 2009-026.
Protest Committee Questions to the Race Officer
Q. Please describe all racing marks in the vicinity of the Committee Vessel?
A. There were three racing marks in the vicinity of the Committee Vessel as follows:
- A permanent racing mark, a yellow spar buoy;
- The Laid Mark, a white inflatable cylinder with the sponsor's logo; and
- A racing mark laid by another club, a yellow and black inflatable mark.
Protest Committee Questions to Anemone
Q. Describe the 'Finish Mark' that you say you correctly passed at the end of the first lap?
A. It was yellow with a sponsor's logo.
Q. Please describe the 'Additional Mark' you have shown on your diagram?A. It was a white inflatable cylinder.
Anemone Summing Up
Anemone sailed the course correctly and finished in accordance with the definition of finish. Anemone should be scored with her finishing time.
Race Officer's Summing Up
Anemone sailed through the Gate only once and thereafter did not finish within the time limit.
Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence
Your fellow protest committee members agree that there is no inconsistency between the evidence of Anemone and the Race Officer.
Problem
Write Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable and the Decision for this request for redress.
Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.
Facts found
ReplyDelete1. The sailing instructions state that the start line, finish line and gate shall all be between the flag mast on the committee boat and a white laid mark.
2. There was only one white laid mark in the vicinity of the committee boat.
3. After starting correctly, Anemone mistook a yellow mark for the white laid mark. In so doing, she failed to pass inside the gate on her first lap of the course.
4. Anemone was scored DNF by the Race Committee.
5. Anemone seeks redress, claiming that she sailed the correct course and that she finished.
Conclusions
1. There was no improper act or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organising authority.
2. Anemone’s score was made significantly worse through her own fault.
Rules Applicable
62.1(a), 28.1, A5
Decision
Redress denied
Time taken: 25 minutes
012 Anemone- Request for Redress
ReplyDeleteFACTS FOUND
1. At the ends of both the first lap and the second lap, Anemone passed outside the additional mark and so passed between the additional mark and the Finish Mark on the diagram.
2. Regarding the diagram, the Protest Committee decides the additional mark as the Laid Mark and the Finish Mark as a permanent racing mark.
Because Anemone passed a yellow mark and the permanent racing mark was a “yellow” spar buoy.
3. Then the mark that Anemone recognized as the Finish Mark is considered as the permanent racing mark.
4. Anemone did not leave the Laid Mark on the required side at the end of the first lap.
But Anemone is not subject to penalty under rule 28.1 because the Race Committee did not protest against Anemone.
5. Anemone did not cross the finishing line. Then Anemone did not sail the course as required rule 28.1(a).
5. The Sailing Instructions says clearly that the Laid Marks shall be “white” inflatable cylinders with the sponsor’s logo. Then there was not an improper action and omission of the Race Committee under rule 62.1(a).
CONCLUSION AND RULES THAT APPLY
Anemone broke rule 28. The score DNF for Anemone is proper.
DECISION
Redress not given
Sen Yamaoka May 23, 2009
Conclusions.
ReplyDelete1. AA did not sail the course as required by rule 28.1. AA broke rule 28.1.
2. AA finished in accordance with the definition of finish.
Decision.
1. Redress is given to AA as follows. AA is to be scored in her finishing position.
2. AA cannot be protested for breaking rule 28.1 as a result of information arising from a request for redress hearing, per rule 60.3(a).
3. The protest committee chair will ask AA to consider retiring for her breach of rule 28.1.
Time to analyize the facts found and applicable rules, 16 minutes.
Time to write conclusions and decision using the Protest Wordings spreadsheet, 12 minutes.
Total time 28 minutes.
Oops forgot to include the facts found.
ReplyDeleteFacts Found.
1. The gate and finish line described in the SI’s are the same and are between a flag on the race committee boat and a ” Laid Mark” of the course described as; a white inflatable mark with the sponsors logo.
2. At the end of the first lap of the course AA did not pass through the gate as described in the SI’s.
3. At the end of the second lap of the course AA crossed the finish line in the direction of the course from the last mark.
Conclusions.
1. AA did not sail the course as required by rule 28.1 AA broke rule 28.1.
2. AA finished in accordance with the definition of finish.
Decision.
1. Redress is given to AA as follows. AA is to be scored in her finishing place.
2. AA cannot be protested for breaking rule 28.1 as a result information arising from a request for redress per rule 60.3(a).
3. The protest committee will ask AA to consider retiring for her breach of rule 28.1.
Time to review and analyze facts found and rules, 16 minutes.
Time to write conclusions using the Protest Wordings spreadsheet, 13 minutes.
Total time 29 minutes.
Dick,
ReplyDeleteCan you cite ISAF cases to support your view? If so what are they?
Dear Brass and Dick;
ReplyDeleteIt was sure that Anemone passed outside the outer Laid mark at the end of the first lap.
But it was not sure where Anemone passed at the end of the second lap.
Because there were two Race Officer’s descriptions as follows;
1. At the time when other boats were completing the second lap to finish, Anemone passed through the Finish line/Gate.
2. The Committee vessel remained on station until the time limit expired and Anemone did not pass through the gate at the second lap.
Which sentence is right?
I think Anemone did not passé through the gate at both laps.
Sen yamaoka
Sen,
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the first lap, Anemone passed outside the Laid Maark at the outer end of the Gate/Finishing Line, not through the gate.
When the other similar boats had completed their second lap (so perhaps Anemone had sailed her second lap), Anemone passed through the Gate.
The RO considered that this was Anemone passing through the gate at the end of the first lap, and thus that Anemone still needed to sail a second lap and pass through the finishing line to finish.
Anemone's evidence was that she sailed completely around both laps.
I think you correctly concluded that Anemone broke rule 28.
So the problem goes on from there.
Dick is right. See Case 80 and Rule A5. The Race Committee should have finished Animone and then potested her for breaking Rule 28.1
ReplyDeleteBrass,
ReplyDeleteI believe Case 80 supports my conclusions and decision. I am not aware of another Case that may be relevant. But, ISAF Q&A 2006-003 Answer 3 repeats Case 80 with regards to a boat being incorrectly scored DNF.
And, if AA refuses to do the right thing, I might have him take a peek at ISAF Q&A 2009-023 which I believe would also apply to a request for redress hearing as it does for an invalid protest.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder about rule A5, last sentance of which says 'Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat’s score.'.
Nice to be able to point to a rule that makes things clear, rather than a case. Case 112, Answer 2 repeats what is said in Case 80.
If the Organising Authority or the RC had wanted boats to be scored DNF without a hearing, for failing to pass through the gate, they could have provided for this in the SI. They did not do so, so the RC acted improperly.
Now, could we consider carefully the other requirement of rule 62.1: was Anemone's score made significantly worse through no fault of her own?
What _caused_ the RO to score Anemone DNF?
Didn't Anemone's breach of rule 28, in passing the wrong side of the Gate Laid Mark _cause_ the RO to score Anemone DNF?
Aha!. I have Anonymous in my corner. But, the Protest Committee, nor anyone else at this point, can protest Anemone for breaking rule 28.1. It’s too late for that.
ReplyDeleteIt will be up the protest committee chair to do a little sweet talkin’, or maybe a little arm twisting, along with a few drinks at the bar to persuade Anemone to do the right thing, to retire after finishing. If Anemone proves to be a stubborn sort the PC might want to consider his last option, calling for a rule 69 hearing.
I’m going to disagree with everyone over this.
ReplyDeleteI can’t see how case 80 helps very much. In that case there was no doubt that the boat actually “finished” (within the terms of the definition). That wasn’t so in the case of Anemone.
Isn’t the problem here that the line between the committee boat and the white bouy was both the finish line as well as the gate. We weren’t given a copy of the sailing instructions, but if they were written in the prescribed manner, they would have shown that the fleet was to cross the line twice – the first time it would be a gate and the second time it was the finish. Consequently, the mark that was rounded beforehand would only be the “last mark” (in terms of the definition of “Finish”) when used immediately before the boat crossed for the second time.
This is in accord with ISAF Q & A 2009/ 26.
One way to look at it would be to ask if Anemone could rectify things after crossing the line, if she had then realised her mistake. After crossing the line once, couldn’t Anemone have then just done another lap, saying that she had passed through the gate when she first crossed the line? If it was open to her to argue that, then wasn’t it open to the Race Committee to also decide that she had only crossed the gate, and in the absence of another lap, regard her as not having finished? If she hadn’t finished, the Race Committee did not worsen her score.
I also note that there may be nothing to stop the Race Committee still lodging a protest, depending on the SIs.
Anemone's Request for Redress - Did Anemone Finish?
ReplyDeleteISAF Q&A 2009-026 advises that a boat that completes fewer laps of a multi lap course than are required should not be regarded as finishing when she crosses the finish line.
Q&A 2009-026 applies when a boat sails fewer laps than required.
Its purpose is to avoid the potentially absurd decision that a boat which inadvertently or intentionally passes through a finish line, which may not be on the direct course between marks bounding a leg of the course, has there by 'finished' and ceased to race, even though she may thereafter complete the necessary lap again cross the finishing line.
It does not address the case when a boat does not sail a lap 'properly' in compliance with rule 28. This is expressly dealt with in Case 80 and Case 112 Answer to Question 2.
If taken generally the Q&A answer flatly contradicts Answer 2 in Case 112 and Case 80.
This request for redress is not the same situation as described in Q&A 2009-026. In this case, Anemone has completed both the laps required of her, and crossed the finish line in the direction of the course from the last mark. She may have broken rule 28.1 at the gate on the first lap, but she has complied with the definition of finish.
The representative of the RC submitted that the RC observed Anemone sail on the wrong side of the gate mark at the end of the first lap and that when Anemone sailed through the gate after having sailed the second lap, this was her first and only compliance with the requirement to sail through the gate at the end of the first lap, and that after that, the RC diligently observed the finish line until 16:30hr, the time limit prescribed in SI 15.1, and that Anemone did not again cross the finish line, and thus did not finish.
This is an artificial interpretation of the events. Anemone sailed around both laps of the course and finished in accordance with definition of finish. She may have broken rule 28.1 by passing on the wrong side of a mark, but that is not a warrant for the RC to refuse to record hear as having finished.
If the Organising Authority or the RC had wanted boats to be scored DNF without a hearing, for failing to pass through the gate, they could have provided for this in the SI. They did not do so, and there appears no reason why such a special provision needs to be included.
Case 80 specifically addresses this situation.
A hearing of a protest or a request for redress must be limited to the alleged incident, action or omission. Although a boat may be scored DAF if she does not finish according to that term’s definition, she may not be scored DNF for failing to sail the course correctly.Case 112 also specifically addresses this situation.
[If a] boat … leaves … [a] … mark of the course on the wrong side …[t]hen, without correcting her error, she sails the remainder of the course correctly and crosses the finishing line from the direction of the last mark [she] finishes provided that she crosses the finishing line in accordance with the definition Finish, whether or not a string representing her track complies with rule 28.1Instead of scoring Anemone DNF, the RC had the power to protest Anemone, under rule 60.2(a) but did not do so.
I think that scoring Anemone DNF was an improper action by the race committee.
The question remains whether Anemone's score was made worse through no fault of her own.
I think Anemone, by breaking rule 28.1 and passing outside the gate at the end of the first lap caused the Race Committee, albeit improperly, to score her DNF.
I conclude that Anemone's score was made worse through her own fault.
I would deny Anemone redress.
Anemone's Request for Redress - Can the RC still lodge a protest?
ReplyDeleteFirstly we need to remind ourselves that the function of a protest committee is to decide protests and requests for redress, if necessary penalising _boats_. The function of the protest committee is not to punish or embarrass the race committee, even when the RC makes mistakes. That said, sometimes the protest committee cannot save a race committee from its own mistakes.
John G noted that 'there may be nothting to stop the RC still lodging a protest depending on the SIs.'
Let's take it that the SI's have nothing unusual about protests. Of course there's nothing to stop the RC from lodging a protest, but:
* the RC will not have informed Anemone of it's intention to protest within the time limit of rule 61.3, as required by rule 61.1(b); and
* the protest will not have been delivered within the protest time limit as required by rule 61.3.
* the RC's ignorance or misunderstanding of rule A5 is not a good reason to extend the protest time limit.
So if the RC, at this late stage delivers a protest, it's going to be invalid.
Anemone's Request for Redress - 'Speaking' to the offender
ReplyDeleteDick suggested that after giving redress to Anemone, the protest committee chair might 'sweet-talk' Anemone into retiring, with 'maybe a little arm-twisting' (doubtless not physical arm-twisting).
As you can see, I think that redress should not be given in this situation, but sometimes a protest committee is faced with the 'no valid protest hearing - no penalisation' situation under rule 63.1.
I would strongly suggest that members of the protest committee do NOT enter into any persuasion, much less 'arm-twisting' with competitors after making a protest decision.
If the competior feels that they have been threatened or otherwise improperly coerced, they may well have a very good case that the conversation was an improper action. In the USA, they may well have a case under the Ted Stevens Act to step out of the sailing world and take a dispute to commercial arbitration.
I would suggest, as a general rule, if you are not empowered under the rules to do something in the protest hearing, then don't try to do it outside the protest room. It is, of course, quite proper to invite a party to a hearing to RAF, and thus terminate the hearing, as long as this is not accompanied by any improper threats or coercion. Far better to do this in your minuted protest hearing, with other protest committee members and parties as witnesses, than doing it elsewhere.
If you do think that a boat should be persuaded to RAF outside the protest room, then I suggest you find some 'elder statesman' of the club, either on the race committee, general committee or otherwise to make the approach.
To answer Brass's questions posed in his response to Anon.
ReplyDeleteBrass said. "Now, could we consider carefully the other requirement of rule 62.1: was Anemone's score made significantly worse through no fault of her own?"
Since Anemone finished in accordance with the definition of finish Anemone's score of DNF was through no fault of hers. It was the RO's error alone for the score of DNF.
Brass said. "What _caused_ the RO to score Anemone DNF?"
Apparently the RO mistakenly thought a boat had to meet the requirements of rule 28 in order to be finished.
Brass said. "Didn't Anemone's breach of rule 28, in passing the wrong side of the Gate Laid Mark _cause_ the RO to score Anemone DNF?"
Yes it did but that was an error and a misinterpretation of the rules by the RO.
There is another matter I'ld like to raise.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, we are determining an application for redress, rather than just deciding whether the Race Committee should have filed a protest.
That means that Anemone must establish all the ingrediants of rule 62.1(a), ie
1. That there was an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest comittee or organising authority;
2. That the improper act or omission made her score substantially worse;
3. That the score was made substantially worse through no fault of her own.
If she fails to establish all three ingrediants, then the protest committee has no authority to grant redress.
Dick,
ReplyDeleteI think you need to re-examine your logic.
Rule 62.1 requires (for redress to be granted for an improper action of the RC), that a boat's score be made significntly worse:
* by and improper action of the RC AND
* through no fault of her own.
An outcome (such as being scored DNF) can have more than one cause. In this case we are agreed that the following were causes of Anemone being scored DNF:
* Anemone breaking rule 28 by passing outside the gate mark; AND
* The RC mistakenly scoring her DNF contrary to rule A5.
Anemone's breach of rule 28.1 was a fault of her own.
Therefore her being scored DNF was caused:
* by a fault of her own; AND
* by an improper action of the RC.
Thus it cannot be said that her score being made worse was due to NO fault of her own.
So Anemone is not entitled to redress.
John G, Anemone's Redress
ReplyDeleteAs you will have seen above, I agree that Anemone's breach of rule 28 disentitles her to redress.
It was not the protest committee's job to decide whether the RC should or should not have filed a protest: that would be up to the RC.
I am a little concerned about your choice of words. You say "Anemone must establish all the ingredients ... If she fails to establish all three ingredients, then the protest committee hs no authority to grant redress'.
By your language, your are seeming to be re-introducing 'onus', which, as we recall, was removed from the RRS in the 1995-96 rewrite.
While a party that fails to completely argue her case and present all relevant evidence does so at her peril, it is the protest committee that is responsible to take all the evidence that it considers necessary (rule 63.6, first sentence).
Also, by the way, rule 62.1 requires that a boat's score be made _significantly_ worse, not 'substantially' worse. This is discussed in LTW here:
http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2009/02/ltw-readers-q-18-significantly.html
i do not understand properly the SI.So, I refer only to the "Finish"- consequently do not take into consideration the first lap. The drawing shows the finish line before the gate mark.
ReplyDeleteThe Definition state: "Finish: A boat finishes when any part of her hull......etc." How is it possible to require from a boat racing and passed the finish line,- therefore finished the race,- to go into the gate as well?
regards:Zsolt
I will make a final attempt to explain why I would disagree and say that Anemone is entitled to redress.
ReplyDeleteCase 80, Case 112, Question 2006-003 and Dave Perry, on page 65 of his 2009-2012 book “Understanding the Racing Rules of sailing”, all say that the RC cannot score a boat DNF if the boat finishes in accordance with the definition. Anemone has finished in accordance with the definition of finish.
Anemone’s breaking of rule 28 was certainly her own fault but she was not protested nor scored DSQ for that and did not seek redress for being scored DSQ for breaking rule 28. She sought redress for being scored DNF. I would argue that Anemone’s confusion about which mark was her gate mark does not excuse the RC from mistakenly scoring Anemone DNF, instead of protesting her for breaking 28. I also think it is improper to say that if the RC is confused by what a boat does on the course then that boat is at fault for a RC scoring error.
Suppose that the RC observed that Anemone did not round the windward mark and the RC scored her DNF for that. Would she be entitled to redress? I think so.
And, if the RC is going to score her DNF for breaking 28 has she been penalized without a hearing? Can a race committee score a boat DNF for breaking rule 31 or rule 10 or rule 29? Of course not. And likewise a boat cannot be scored DNF for breaking rule 28.
Anemone may not have sailed the course properly but cannot be scored DNF. Case 80 is unambiguous in this regard. The protest committee must find another way to score her which would be for Anemone to voluntarily retire or, through a rule 69 hearing as described in Q&A 2009-023.
Hi Tizso. Welcome.
ReplyDeleteThe SI prescribe that the line between the flag mast displaying the Club Committee Flag on the Committee Vessel and the white inflatable cylinder Laid Mark will be both the Gate and the Finishing Line.
The race consists of two laps. At the end of the first lap boats must pass through the Gate.
Anemone's diagram incorrectly labels the marks.
* The mark labeled 'Additional Mark' in the diagram, is the white inflatable Laid Mark marking the Gate/Finishing Line.
* The mark labeled 'Finish Mark' is one of the other yellow racing marks described in the Race Officer's evidence.
Anemone passes outside the Gate at the end of the first lap and correctly through the Gate/Finishing Line at the end of the second lap.
Dick,
ReplyDeleteI follow your arguments, but I don't think the rules support your approach.
Firstly, if we are agreed that Anemone, by breaking rule 28.1 caused the RC to improperly score her DNF, then the two conditions for giving redress (improper action AND through no fault of her own) required by rule 62.1 are not met, and the protest committee has no power to grant her redress.
Secondly, you seem to misconceive what a protest committee does when it decides to give redress.
As I have pointed out previously, the protest committee's job is not to penalise or punish the race committee. Nor does the protest committee review, remake or correct decisions of the race committee, even if they are wrong. The protest committee gives redress by _adjusting_ the scoring or finish times of boats, or taking the other courses listed in rule 64.2.
If the protest committee decided that Anemone was entitled to redress, that redress would not be to 'correct' the RC's erroneous decision to score her DNF. The redress is to adjust her finish time.
Just from a fairness point of view, I can't quite see what your are anxious about. Is it better to give the rule-breaking Anemone redress, then improperly twist her arm to make her retire, or not to give her redress in the first place?
This is to reluctantly and respectfully disagree and to support Dick.
ReplyDeleteWe are not agreed that Anemone by breaking rule 28 caused the RC to score her DNF. That was a RC error breaking A5 and is therefore subject to redress.
As far as protecting the RC, - Hang the Race Committee!! After all, the competitors are going to blame the protest committee members in any event.
Dick certainly does have a good, and I be practiced way of arm twisting.
I am not that polished. After giving the decision I would in a continuing face to face, eyeball to eyeball, dissertation explain The Basic Principal and Rule 2 and Anemone's responsibility.
Sorry for the delay, had trouble posting.
ReplyDeleteAnon, Anemone's Redress
ReplyDeleteI have said my piece about the unwisdom of protest committee members engaging in 'arm-twisting' above and will say no more about that.
There is a world of difference between 'not punishing' the race committee and 'protecting' the race committee. It is not the function of a protest committee to either 'protect' or 'punish' the race committee, merely to decide protests and requests for redress.
Rule 62.1 requires (for redress to be granted for an improper action of the RC), three conditions all to be met, namely that a boat's score be made worse:
* significantly; AND
* by and improper action of the RC; AND
* through no fault of her own.
That a boat's score is made significantly worse through an improper action of the RC, on its own, without a finding that the score was made worse through no fault of the boat's own, does not allow a protest committee to give redress.
Let me rehearse the logic about fault of Anemone.
An outcome (such as being scored DNF) can have more than one cause. In this case I think it is accurate to say:
* Anemone passed outside the gate at the end of the first lap, thus breaking rule 28; and
* this caused the Race Committee to score Anemone DNF (because the Race Committee misapplied the rules).
Therefore Anemone's breaking rule 28 (a fault), caused the race committee to score Anemone DNF. (When we are trying to prove causation, we can use the 'but-for test': If it is true that A would not have happened 'but for' B, then B caused A: Anemone would not have been scored DNF but for Anemone's passing outside the gate (Anemone's fault), therefore Anemone's passign outside the gate(Anemone's fault) caused the RC to score Anemone DNF.
Therefore Anemone's being scored DNF was through a fault of her own.
Therefore Anemone is not entitled to redress.
Please feel free to critique the logic above if you disagree with it, but I think it is consistent and correct.