Another week, another Case. Only 101 more to go – if all goes to plan this study course will continue until week 11 in 2012……. But take heart, some are not that long nor hard to remember:
Case%20picture%5B4%5D.png "(pillow)Case picture")
CASE 102When a boat requests redress because of an incident she claims affected her score in a race, and thus in a series, the time limit for making the request is the time limit for the race, rather than a time limit based on the posting of the series results.Summary of the Facts
Scruples requested redress at the end of an eight-race series because of an incident that occurred in Race 5 of the series, which was sailed three weeks earlier. The protest committee found her request to be invalid because it was made after the time limit. She appealed, stating that it was not until the end of the series and the posting of the results that she knew that her score in Race 5 had affected her series score and that the time for her to make her request did not begin until after the series was completed and the results posted.
Decision
Scruples’s appeal is dismissed. Her request for redress was not valid because it was not delivered to the race office within the protest time limit that applied to Race 5 (see rule 62.2). The incident affected her score in the series only through its effect on her score in Race 5 and, therefore, the relevant time limit for requesting redress was the time limit that applied to that race.
RYA 2001/9
Duh! Was there a question?
ReplyDeleteDo I read this right? Scruples didn't know the race result for Race 5 till it was posted after the last race of the series? It is hard to understand how she could think she placed better and didn't find out where the RC placed her till 3 weeks later.
ReplyDeleteA protest must be filed within 2 hours after the last finisher in a race. Is there a requirement for the RC to post race results before the time limit expires for a protest or request for redress? Since the protest has to be submitted in writing, the results would need to be posted so that there is sufficient time to write one up.
Don D.
Thank you for posting this! I still have competitors angry with me because we did not grant redress in a situation exactly like this. They lost the regatta because the boat given redress in race 2 beat them in the last race. Had the other boat not been given redress, they would have won the regatta. When we asked why they did not say something when the redress was granted, they answered "we did not know they would beat us until the last race". Brilliant!
ReplyDeleteI can't understand why the time limit for protests is not tied to posting of the results. In USCF riles for bicycle races, any protest must be filed withing 15 minutes of the results being posted, after 15 minutes the results are final.
ReplyDeleteA sailor, under this 2 hour limit, might not know he got screwed till after time expired. Particularly if the incident was in the first race of two races sailed back to back.
If protests must be filed within 2 hours, where is the rule stating the time limit for the RC to post the results? How can it be fair to let the RC post results after the time for protests has expired?
Don D.
@ all
ReplyDeleteThe results of race five were posted after the race - three weeks earlier. But the boat claimed the effect on her series score did not become clear to her, until after the final race.
This case states that if you want redress for a race you need to file withing the time limit for that race.
Jos, thank you for the clarification, obviously if the results were posted after the race, Scruples is SOL.
ReplyDeleteI really think the 2 hour rule by default is problematic. There seems to be no rule stating that results must be posted within a time limit.
Secondly, many times when we sail back to back races, two hours has passed since finish of the first race before we, or the RC get back to the clubhouse. Essentially, the time limit has expired before the RC would even have a chance to post the results.
IMHO, the time limit should be tied to the posting of results rather than the finish time of the last boat. Say, 30 minutes after post time. Sailing instructions oould easily remedy this.
Don D.
Anon at Post 3,
ReplyDeleteEven if the losing boat had had a request for redress against the grant of redress to the winnign boat heard, it is likely she would have not been given redress because the score of the losing boat, rather than her placing, was not made worse.
In 2001-2004 rules the stem of rule 62.1 read:
"A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s finishing place in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse" (emphasis added).
In the 2002-2005 rules this was changed by replacing 'finishing place' with 'score', so that the rule read, as it does in the 2009 rules
"A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse" (emphasis added).
The effect of this change is highlighted in the 2008 ISAF Judges Manual Chap s9.30, page 90, which states:
"SCORE
For redress to apply it is a boats score in a race or series that must have been made significantly worse. The worsening of the position of a boat in a race or series is not grounds for redress.
EXAMPLE: A boats position in a series may be made worse if a race is abandoned in accordance with the rules, however, it would not be entitled to redress because its score has not been made worse by the abandonment as its score remains the same as it was before the race was abandoned."
Using the ISAF document search utility, I am unable to locate any submission, minute or other document that explains why this rule change was made, but perhaps it was made to 'head off' the problem described in the Judges Manual example.
I believe, however, that the change in the rule has had a serious and unfair consequence. There can be cases where a boat's place in a series can be made worse without her score being made worse:
• Grant of redress to another boat that gives that boat a higher score, without changing the score of the boat requesting redress;
• Penalisation of a boat so that a third boat gains a higher score in a particular race that enables the third boat to beat the disadvantaged boat on points in the series.
The Farrah Hall and Nancy Rios Olympic windsurfing selection trials case in the United States provides an example of how this could happen. Farrah Hall initially had the better score. Nancy Rios was given redress that made her score better. Although Farrah Hall failed to meet the requirements for a valid request for redress, had she done so, under the above interpretation, she would have been entitled to no redress, because her score, rather than her placing, was not made worse.
The time limit for redress is the same time limit for protests which is stated in the SIs most of the time. Redress also has the add - The request shall be in writing and be delivered to the race office no
ReplyDeletelater than the protest time limit or two hours after the incident, whichever is later.
So here it would have been 2 hours after the scores were posted
No, the posting of the scores is not 'the incident'. The incident is the occurrence of one of the things listed in rule 62.1.
ReplyDeleteIt might be that it was not possible for the requestor to be aware that the incident had occurred until the posting of the scores, in which case this would be a good reason to extend the protest time limit and the protest committee would be obliged to extend the protest time limit to a reasonable time (not just two hours after the posting of the results).
See US Sailing Appeal 90 for a discussion of obligation to post results and obligation to extend time and also see RYA Appeal 1989/9.
The key principle in this case is that a boat is not entitled to delay protest or redress actions until outcomes or effects become clear, but must act reasonably promptly after [becoming aware of] the incident.