ISAF has published a new Q&A Booklet with all the current Q&A's.
Newest is Q&A 2011 019 J20, which provides an answer to the question in blogpost "Do you have a Pen"
I'm not altogether sure to agree with the answer the Q&A panel has given. Not that I will not follow this, but that the wording in the rules is not that clear. The answer is derived out of rule 62.1, in which a boat has to make the claim (or possibility that through no fault of her own, her score has been made significantly worse).
The panel has decided that this claim must be written down on the request for redress before it can be declared valid.
But then the proposed change in rule 62.2 to add the specific requirements of a request for redress is actually not necessary. We discussed this change in post "ISAF November Conference 2011".
Either the change is necessary and the answer should have been reversed or vice versa
At least the change will make it clearer.....
What do you think?
Newest is Q&A 2011 019 J20, which provides an answer to the question in blogpost "Do you have a Pen"
I'm not altogether sure to agree with the answer the Q&A panel has given. Not that I will not follow this, but that the wording in the rules is not that clear. The answer is derived out of rule 62.1, in which a boat has to make the claim (or possibility that through no fault of her own, her score has been made significantly worse).
The panel has decided that this claim must be written down on the request for redress before it can be declared valid.
But then the proposed change in rule 62.2 to add the specific requirements of a request for redress is actually not necessary. We discussed this change in post "ISAF November Conference 2011".
Either the change is necessary and the answer should have been reversed or vice versa
At least the change will make it clearer.....
What do you think?
If you assume a change is needed then this is OK.
ReplyDeleteIf you did not require some details there could be a set of appeals on requests not heard, and there could be a lot of trouble.
If you accept you do need details now then a clarification in the rules as written seems logical and is not needed to be portrayed as a real change.
The current interpretation gives a win win, and no change point.
Do not forget in the USA over the windsurfer redress matter leading to the US prescription, this is a danger area diffused by the interpretation.