Monday 17 May 2010

(pillow)Case of the Week (20) - 96

(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

image

CASE 96

Rule 30.3, Starting Penalties: Black Flag Rule

When after a general recall a boat learns from seeing her sail number displayed that she has been disqualified by the race committee under the second sentence of rule 30.3 and believes the race committee has made a mistake, her only option is not to start, and then to seek redress. However, if the race committee does not display her sail number and she sails in the restarted race, she should be scored BFD, and not DNE.

Assumed Facts

The race committee displayed the black flag as the preparatory signal for the start of a class. Boat A was identified in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. After the starting signal, the race committee signalled a general recall. The race committee disqualified Boat A without a hearing for breaking rule 30.3.

Question 1

If Boat A believes that the race committee made a mistake when it identified her in the triangle during the last minute, do the rules permit her to sail in the race when it is restarted and then request redress?

Answer 1

Rule 30.3 clearly requires boat A not to sail in the restarted race and states that her disqualification will become non-excludable if she does. Her only remedy is to request redress, which, if given in a series, would normally be based on her results in other races.

Additional Assumed Facts

The race committee failed to display A’s sail number before the next warning signal for the race, and A sailed in the race when it was restarted.

Question 2

Is A entitled to a finishing place?

Answer 2

No. Boat A should be disqualified as required by the second sentence of rule 30.3. However, because the race committee erred by not displaying her sail number between the general recall and the next warning signal for the race, she should be scored BFD (Disqualification under rule 30.3), and not DNE (Disqualification not excludable under rule 90.3(b)). If she requests redress claiming that she is entitled to a finishing place because the race committee erred by not displaying her sail number, her request should be denied.

While not displaying her sail number is an improper omission by the race committee, it is not the omission that deprived her of her finishing place, but the fact that she had been on the course side of the starting line in the minute before her starting signal. However, if she was scored DNE, redress should be granted to the extent of changing her score to BFD.

RYA 2000/1

blogcolorstripe

By not sailing the race after the general recall boat A does not acknowledge she agrees with the BFD. But the rules do not permit her to participate in the next race – if she does, she not only breaks the first part in rule 30.3 but also the second part.

Now, if she successfully can convince the PC that she was not over the line and that the RC made a mistake by identifying her as such, she can get redress.

Because of the rules dictating redress and the second part in rule 30.3 – (she shall not sail in the race) – you can, theoretically, find a ‘dilemma’ :

  1. In order to get redress the rules state that the score should NOT be made significantly worse through ‘no fault of her own’.
  2. By not sailing in the race – while she was convinced she was not BFD – it was, at least partly, because of her own decision, that she got no score.
  3. Rule 30.3 specifically states that she must be identified – she was not.
  4. Therefore the second part of rule 30.3 is not in effect. She should have raced
  5. No redress……

The wording in rule 30.3 is to clear enough to decide either way. Therefore I would always give the benefit of the doubt to the sailor in this case and grant redress.

J.

3 comments:

  1. Answer 2 is clear cut IF it was obvious to the infringing boat that she had been in the triangle in the minute before the start. However, when the boat has no reason to believe she broke rule 30.3 (if the RCs call was a matter of inches) then answer 4 of case 79 would appear to apply "A boat that has no reason to believe that she was on the course side of the line at her starting signal has the right to assume that she started correctly unless properly signalled to the contrary". In this case the proper signal was not made.

    So, if the boat can satisfy the jury that she was not in the triangle, and it is found as a fact that her number was not displayed, she should be entitled to have her race result stand and should not be penalised for sailing the race.

    Gordon

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rule 30.3 states that if "a boat breaks this rule and is IDENTIFIED, she shall be disqualified without a hearing."
    and
    "the race committee SHALL display her sail number before the next starting signal"

    By failing to do as required by the rule, the race committee has not IDENTIFIED the boat. Just being over the line is not sufficient under this rule to disqualify the boat. The race committee must follow the rules just as competitors must. A hail is not sufficient.

    A is not disqualifed under the rules and should sail the restarted race.

    Don D.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a 'gap' in the coverage of Answer 2. Answer 2 ohly covers when a boat requests redress because of the failure of the RC to display her number. It does not cover when the boat requests redress because of the improper action (mistake) of the RC in classifying her BFD in the previous start.

    For a boat that is not over early, but is mistakenly classified by the RC as BFD, there are four possible scenarios:

    1. Boat's number displayed
    1A. Boat starts in the restarted race
    1B. Boat does NOT start in the restarted race

    2. Boat's number NOT displayed
    2A. Boat starts in the restarted race
    2B. Boat does NOT start in the restartedrace

    1A. Boat's number displayed, Boat starts in the restarted race. Boat breaks rule 30.3 last part, awarded DNE and redress should not be given because sailing in the restarted race broke rule 30.3, thus a 'fault of her own'. (not expressly addressed in Case 96)

    1B. Boat's number displayed, boat does NOT start in the restarted race. Boat is entitled to redress probably average points (Case 96 Answer 1).

    2A. Boat's number NOT displayed, boat starts in the restarted race, and is scored DNE by the RC. If boat requests redress for RC improper action in scoring her BFD in the first start, she is entitled to redress, being her place in the restarted race (for reasons discussed by Gordon) If boat does not satisfy the protest committee that there was improper action by the RC in scoring her BFD in the first start, her redress is change DNE to BFD (Case 96 Answer 2)

    2B. Boat's number NOT displayed, boat does NOT start in the restarted race and is scored BFD by the RC. Boat does not know she was BFD, therefore has no reason to believe she was BFD in the previous start, therefore her failure to start in the restarted race will not be caused by the RC's improper action in classifying her BFD and will not be cased by the RC's improper action (if any) in not signalling her number. Her failure to start in the restarted race will not have been caused by any improper action of the RC. However, if the scoring system provides a significant difference between BFD and DNS, whe would be entitled to redress being change BFD to DNS.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...