Score or Place: Threshold Test for Redress

A guest post by Brass

For those of you that have noticed the Farrah Hall v Nancy Rios dispute in the USA (*), here's a twist.  Even if Farrah Hall had had a request for redress against the grant of redress to Nancy Rios heard, it is likely she would have not been given redress because her score, 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 her a higher score
• 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 not have been entitled to  redress, because her score, rather than her placing, was not made worse.

In light of Brass’ post I was wondering if the readers of LTW already have had dealings with this particular issue? If you have, please leave a comment.

(pillow)Case of the Week (17) - 99

(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.)

CASE 99

Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 44.1, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a Penalty
Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule 14 to ‘avoid contact . . . if reasonably possible’ and the only way to do so is to crashgybe, she does not break the rule if she does not crash-gybe. When a boat’s penalty under rule 44.1(b) is to retire, and she
does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disqualified.

Summary of the Facts

Mumm 30s were racing in difficult conditions. Boat S was running at 10- 14 knots. Before Boat P reached position 1 she had broached and was out of control. P struck S amidships resulting in serious damage. Both boats retired. S protested P.

The protest committee found that S had made minor changes of course when the boats were well apart; that these were thwarted by the erratic motion of P, still out of control; and that when it became apparent that P was not going to keep clear the only action available to S was to crashgybe, which risked considerable damage to S.

The protest committee disqualified both boats, P for breaking rule 10 and S for breaking rule 14, stating that S should have been aware of the difficulties experienced by P and should have taken more significant action earlier. It referred its decision to the national authority for confirmation or correction.

Decision

The decisions of the protest committee are reversed. Both boats are to be
scored DNF.

Clearly, P broke rule 10. No rule justifies exonerating her, even though she was out of control. In breaking rule 10, P caused serious damage. Rule 10 is a rule of Part 2, and rule 44.1 permits a boat that breaks such a rule to take a penalty. Because P caused serious damage, the applicable penalty for her was to retire (see rule 44.1(b)). P did retire (whether because of choice or necessity does not matter) and was, therefore, exempt from disqualification (see rule 64.1(b)). Her disqualification is reversed, and she is to be scored DNF.

Turning to S, rule 14 makes special provisions in the case of a right-of-way boat. First, for her to be penalized, there must be contact that caused damage or injury. This is not in doubt. Second, she was not required to act to avoid contact until it was clear that P was not keeping clear. It was only at that time that rule 14 required her to avoid contact if reasonably possible. The protest committee found that, when it became clear to S that P was not going to keep clear, the only action available to S was to crashgybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That finding was equivalent to a finding that it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact.

Therefore, S did not break rule 14. Her disqualification is reversed, and
she too is to be scored DNF.

Finally, the protest committee should note that, in light of the changed
decision, rule 60.3(b) entitles it to call a hearing to consider giving S
redress under rule 62.1(b).

RYA 2001/7

As with Case 103 – no extra’s!

Poll for Redress in Medal Race

One of my posts, Addendum Q changed in 2010 was published in Scuttlebutt. Since then several people have responded in the Scuttlebutt forum. In light of this I'm starting a poll.

You can vote on a simple question:
Should the Medal Race at the World Cup Events have the possibility for a Request for Redress - as written in the RRS - or not?
I'm leaving the poll up for a longer period. Say until we have a 1000 votes. That should give a clear picture.
As a judge I'm fairly neutral myself - although I'm leaning towards "Yes".

Please give me your answer in the poll at the top of the sidebar.

Parties to a Redress Hearing

A guest post by Brass

Introduction

With effect from 1 January 2010, ISAF amended the definition of party, as shown:

Party    A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

As previously drafted, the definition of party, had the effect that boats that were considered for redress, but which had not, themselves, requested it (that is where redress was initiated by the race committee or protest committee under rules 60.2(b) or 60.3 (b)) had no right to:

• be present at the hearing under rule 63.3;
• to request the reopening of a hearing under rule 66;  or
• to appeal any decision of a hearing under rule 70.1.

This had the incongruous result that although a protest committee, in considering redress under rule 64.2 was required to 'make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress', those boats, unless they themselves had formally requested redress, were not entitled to be heard by the protest committee as to what a fair arrangement might be.

Transcriptburst > 2034-10-21-14:03:09-LTW-RRS-P17-Mech12-v-Harder^2

@Transcriptburst BEGIN>

Send 2034-10-21-14:03:09 > Received 2034-10-21-14:03:11 > Ident: LTW_RRS > Incident P17 Mech12 V Harder^2. !! Race2 in Series> Harlinger wad > Sailed 2034-10-20 > Club HWS > Arbiter: JMS

From> Psystem V12

To> All involved parties; Scoringtrack HWS; NatA; ISAF education & ROC.

% Data Received from Mech12, Tracking system ISAFv16.2, GPS/Satellite T56 > EUR/NED > Local.

% Data Received from Harder^2, Tracking system GEv12.3, Earth/Google v3 Satellite B1> EUR/EUR > diminished.*

*comp: No greater diversion then through measurement.

Incident solved according to rules in ERRS for Tracking Systems; Monitor and Arbiter involvement indicated as preferred by parties; meeting by snap phone- PC on 2034-10-21 from 13:44:01 till 13:52:34.

Attached course plot Mech12 during Race 2 from 2nd LWm (P11v4.track’d) till 3rd WWm P18v1.track’d) > attached course plot Harder^2, during same period.

Yachts breached safe distance on three occasions during leg; Incident 3 is being disputed by Harder^2. Exoneration for incident is asked and the automatic penalty should be deleted and awarded to Mech12. No further redress is requested.

Motivation given: Plot shows Harder^2 reached fixed 40 meter zone, three seconds earlier then Mech 12. Harder^2 had full rights within zone based on that. + All indicators on board showed green. Course change was impossible because of proximity of Mech12

Counter motivation: Plot on Mech 12 showed both yachts entering simul-taneously; Mech12 had three green and one yellow indicator. No course alteration was therefore necessary. System indicated red only after passing P11v4.track’d.

System analysis> Deviations within prescribed tolerances. GE functioning within 90% accuracy; ISAF within 88,9 %; No other glitches detected. Plot according to GE deemed more reliable as per ERRS 16.22;

Facts determining outcome> Harder ^2 reached fixed 40 meter zone before Mech12. Safety distance breach was below 70% threshold. No damage or personal injury*

* Liability and court findings overrule only financial components in any protest/arbitration hearing according to ERRS 100.2.

Dec> Per ERRS 64.12 Automatic penalty for Harder^2 to be deleted. No penalty awarded to Mech12

@ Transcriptburst END <

Tillerman asked about the changes in sailing in the next 25 years in this months group writing project; Sailing in the Second Space Age. To make a prediction. I’m sticking to the rules – per usual:

Tracking will change the the Racing Rules of Sailing dramatically. No longer will observations by sailors or witnesses be of value, other then to dispute glitches or malfunctions; All racing boats will have indicator lights for different situations ranging from OCS to Zone and be equipped with proximity-alerts.

The fixed wing sails will make it impossible to decide which tack a boat is on – on more then a few courses - and therefore the tracking system will be used to determine ROW.

E-rules will guide the outcome and penalties in the form of additions to time, will be automatically send to scoring.

What do you think?

ISAF Q&A 2010-014; National approval for PeeCees?

ISAF Racing Rules Question and Answer Service
N 002 Q&A 2010-14
Published: 19 April 2010

Question
Does a national authority have the right to prescribe that its approval is required for the appointment of a protest committee for races within its jurisdiction?
 
Answer
No. An addition to a rule is a change of a rule (see Terminology in the Introduction to the Racing Rules of Sailing). Rule 91(a) is a rule of Part 7 and rule 86.1(a) makes it clear that prescriptions cannot change a rule of Part 7.
This is different from rule 91(b), where a specific exception in the rule itself actually permits a national authority to prescribe that its approval is required for the appointment for an international jury for races within its jurisdiction (with some exceptions).


.

Addendum Q changed in 2010

Just recently Addendum Q has been changed.

For those of you who have never come accross this part of the rules: This is a special addendum that regulates the MEDAL races at World Cup and other Grade 1 events. First used in Miami and then subsequently in all World Cup Events

ISAF has published a new version in the website: Addendum Q February 2010 Update

What are the changes?
There is no difference in a voluntary or imposed penalties anymore. That means that most sailors will now just wait for an umpire decision before responding to a red flag.

The biggest change however, is that there's practically no redress for anything anymore. This was something that was asked by the "policy" makers at ISAF. "Imposed from above" was how my DT put it. The only exception is redress for rule 1.1.
Addendum Q has been cleaned up for that purpose

That means that if someone breaking a rule in part 2, damages your boat and that makes you lose speed or even makes you leave the racecourse - there's no redress possible! I'm afraid that has been sacrificed on the almighty altar of television.

The thinking in this is, that ideally the one sailing across the line first, should win first price. But that would mean starting with a new score in the Medal Race. Everybody has a chance. Forgetting the previous eight or ten races. A lot of drama, a lot of tension and very good television.

But, at this moment, this is even for ISAF one step to far. Looking at the 'trend' in the last decade, I think we will get there soon.
.

(pillow)Case of the Week (16) - 100

(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.)

CASE 100

Rule 41, Outside Help

When a boat asks for and receives tactical racing advice she receives outside help, even if she asks for and receives it on a public radio channel.

Summary of the Facts

Three large boats were to round a mark near coastal rocks and then sail into a 6-knot current. The wind was light. Boat A radioed to boat B, whose skipper was more familiar with the area, asking whether it was safe to anchor in the vicinity of the mark. Boat B replied that it was not safe to anchor. Boat C protested both boats under rule 41, for discussing what tactics were to be used for rounding the mark and sailing the next leg. The protest committee dismissed the protest against B and disqualified A for receiving outside help. It noted that she could have sailed or motored away from the mark in perfect safety at any time, and that the only reasons for anchoring at the mark were to overcome the adverse current and to win the race.

Boat A appealed, on the grounds that she did not believe she had received help, that she believed that advice given on a public radio channel was not outside help, and that a national authority should not condone disqualification for receiving safety information.

Decision

A’s appeal is dismissed. Boat A asked for help for tactical racing reasons and received it. It is irrelevant that A’s question and the information she received in response were broadcast on a public radio channel. The help A received did not come within the scope of the exceptions to rule 41, especially not rule 41(d) since she solicited the information. Therefore A broke rule 41. Even if she had needed help because she was in danger, the receipt of such help would have been a breach of rule 41.

RYA 2001/4

Note: The rule specifically is about receiving help, not about giving it. Boat B in this case was breaking no rules by answering the question of boat A.

.

(pillow)Case of the Week (15) - 101

(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.)

 

Almost didn’t make it this week. Has been a little hectic of late. Anyway here is:

CASE 101

Rule 20.1(b), Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding

When, in reply to her call for room to tack when close-hauled approaching an obstruction, a boat is hailed ‘You tack’, and when she does so and is then able to tack again to keep clear in a seamanlike way, the other boat has given the room required.

Summary of the Facts

A and B were International Dragons. A was approaching the shore close hauled on starboard tack, clear ahead and to leeward of B. A hailed for room to tack, and B replied ‘You tack.’ A tacked and B held her course. A was then on a collision course with B and tacked again. Both of A’s tacks were made in a normal, seamanlike way. After A’s second tack she was overlapped to leeward of B. Shortly afterwards B tacked and A did likewise. A protested B for not giving room as required by rule 20.1(b). The protest committee concluded that B failed to give A ‘room to tack and avoid her’, and disqualified B, stating that she had ‘failed to keep clear of A after her tack.’ B appealed.

Decision

B’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be reinstated. A’s actions show that she had room to tack and avoid B. B therefore met her obligation under rule 20.1(b).

It is important to distinguish a requirement to keep clear from a requirement to give room. When a boat with right of way is required to give another boat room for a maneuver, right of way does not transfer to the boat entitled to room. After A tacked onto port tack, B was not, as the protest committee evidently believed, required to keep clear of A; instead, it was A that was required by rule 10 to keep clear of B. B was only required by rule 20.1(b) to give A room to tack and avoid B, and B did so.

RYA 2001/11

 

This Case is VERY important in it’s basic premise:
Giving room to keep clear is NOT the same as having to keep clear. Giving room is a limitation on the right of way boat. Keeping clear is an obligation on the keep-clear boat.

I understand that in effect  - and what actually happens on the water – it sometimes feels like the same, but for sailors and PCs it should always be perfectly clear if a boat avoids another under a limitation or because of an obligation.

Scoring the Matches

I've already told you about my event in Hamburg during Easter. Out of it I'm sharing the following problem with you: 
After the Round Robin in Alster Act 17 we ended up with a five way tie!
One sailor winning all his matches, five sailors winning four matches each and two sailor losing all (but one) their matches: The scoring looked like this:

The rules in the book have a solution for this tie.
As a umpire you will be frequently asked by the RC to help or check the scoring in a case like this. The first thing the RC needs are the four sailors who will be going on to the Semi finals. And then you must calculate the places 5 trough 8. Please leave your solution in a comment.

I will wait publishing comments for three days, so you need to find to solution yourself.
Oooh, there's one more data sheet you need to solve this: The pairing list of the Round Robin.
Good luck!

Update for Boats Scenario (2010-04)

Thibaut has updated his program: He writes about this release:
Boats 201004 Released!

By boats on Sunday, April 4 2010, 20:42

Hello Everyone!
Time passes, regattas come and so do new versions of Boat Scenario. You will find all you need on the Download page.
This version brings:

• an improved User Interface for a more comfortable input on the scene
• PolyLines for obstructions or any other drawing you would want
• Bubbles are available for any object (boat, mark, point)
• Spinnaker on the keelboat
• and thanks to an even bigger list of translators we now have: Dutch, Danish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portugese, Polish Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish!

We keep the promises as usual:

• The tool is available for Windows, Linux and Mac.
• The old files work with this release and people can read the new files on the old versions (without the display for the new features of course).

Special thanks to the following translators that contributed for the first time to this release:
Jaap de Zeeuw (NED), Zvonko Hočevar (SLO), Anders Lund (DEN), Takaaki Kawata (JPN), Luigi Bertini (ITA), Armando Goularrt (POR), and Sofia Truchanowicz (POL). And thanks also to the usual contributors:: Tom Björkholm, JP Cordonnier, Modesto Fernandez Vasquez.

It is a real pleasure to see all of you contribute to the success of this tool.
Enjoy sailing!

I've fiddled around with the new features and again Thibaut has not disappointed me. This is an improvement. Specially the way boats are set in the track, makes it easier to get a proper scenario the first time.

I've returned from Hamburg. And hope to have some special footage for you soon. For some of the matches I was able to use a small camera fixed to my hat. After I've edited for the 'call' bits, you'll be able to see racing from an umpire point of view. Stay tuned!

(pillow)Case of the Week (14) - 102

(This is an instalment 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.)

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 102

Rule 62.2, Redress

When 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

The Finish Trap

In last weekends Match Race one of the matches ended in a boat 'fight' between the leading yellow boat and the trailing blue boat all the way to the finish line. Yellow had an outstanding penalty and slowed down as much as possible to get Blue to commit to a side and hook them. Blue did everything (and succeeded) in staying clear astern.
Finally at the finish line Yellow ended up almost next to the committee-boat end and had to luff hard to clear the anchor and line. Blue found a gap and went in , believing there was space to go.

Yellow did not gybe back an closed the gab, although she had entered the zone clear ahead and was entitled to mark room. Blue ran a great risk of going there, but as long as Yellow allowed it....

(this picture is from the rapid response call; Yellow and Blue are opposite to our match)

We discussed the incident at the debrief and I referred to Rapid Response Match Race Call 2009-005

After a two days I received an Email from one of the sailors asking about this incident.
What if the leading boat HAD closed the trap correctly, did sail a proper course to get to the finish? The trailing boat would then be breaking rule 18.2(b), and if Yankee'd by Yellow (in our case) get a penalty. That would cancel the Yellow boat's penalty and the match would be decided by whoever crossed the finish line first.

The question the sailor wanted answered was: If in that situation the trailing boat crossed the line first, and won the match, would that constitute an infringement according to C8.3 (a)? That is, gained an advantage by breaking a rule after allowing a penalty.

My first instinct was to answer no. Because of the outstanding penalty the trailing boat already had the advantage. But the more I think about it, the more I'm in doubt.
What do you think?


I've arrived in Hamburg for Alster Acts 16 & 17 at the Hamburger Sailing Club during Easter. Hope to post nevertheless.