Tuesday, 4 October 2011

ISAF November Conference 2011

I've been going over the papers that have been published for the November Conference. Partly to have an idea about the changes that are coming in the 2013 - 2016 rules, but partly also to see if some of them will already have an effect next year. There are a few that might "make" it.

For instance late submissions 270-11 and 271-11:
The first one adds the measures or equipment inspector to the list in rule 62.1(a) so if they make a mistake or omission a boat is able to request redress for that. I'm all in favor and hope it will be incorporated in 2012 already.

The second one is an answer to a question that came out of the Olympic Test Event. I wrote about it in this post: Do You Have a Pen?
The Q&A Panel has not answered the question that was sent in, but instead made sure there was a submission to change the rule:

Reporting Committee – Racing Rules; Other Committee – Race Officials
Late Submission: 271-11 Racing Rules of Sailing; Rule 62.2
A late submission from the Chairman of the Racing Rules Committee

Purpose or Objective
To correct a problem that can arise because of the omission of certain requirements in rule 62.2.

62.2 The request shall be in writing, identify the incident, including where and when it occurred, and be delivered to the race office no later than the protest time limit or two hours after the incident, whichever is later. The protest committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so. No red flag is required.

Current Position
As above.

In discussing a question recently sent to the Q&A Panel, the panel identified an omission in rule
62.2. Nowhere in that rule or in any other rule is there a requirement that a written request for
redress identify the incident on which the request is based, nor is there a requirement to state
where and when the incident occurred. Many such requests include that information even though it is not required by a rule.

However, some requests do not include that information, and when that information is omitted, it is impossible for the protest committee to properly notify all the parties to the hearing of the hearing’s time and place and to allow the parties to the hearing reasonable time to prepare for it, as required by rule 63.2.
The proposed change in rule 62.2 solves this problem by establishing a requirement for written
requests for redress that is essentially identical to the requirement in rule 61.2(b) that applies to
written protests.
This submission should definitely be approved and the rule should be changed as soon as possible, in my opinion

On a side note:  The Umpires Sub-Committee has the use of social media (like my blog) on the agenda, but the Judges Sub-Committee has not, nor the Race Officials Committee.......
7. Conflict of Interest/Code of Conduct,
(c) Code for the Use of Social Media
To discuss development of a set of guidelines for the use of social media by international umpires during and outside events.


  1. The change to the requirements for a written request for redress has a massive problem: frequently a boat will be able to identify an improper action by the race committee such as scoring a boat incorrectly, but it will be totally impossible for the boat to know when and where the improper action occurred: on the RC Boat when recording the finishing places and times, in the mobile phone call transmitting places and times to the scorer ashore, or in the scorer ashore entering data on the final result sheets, or somem corruption in an electronic scoring system.

    A brief dexcription of the 'incident' is not unreasonable. Time and place 'if known' is desirable, but should not be mandatory.

  2. Good point Brass! I'll pass it along to our MNA's racing rules committee member.

  3. Surely it would be sufficient for the request to identify the incident. This may include time and place if this is relevant to identifying the incident.

  4. Gordon, this is where we need to be careful.

    A boat may be able to identify an outcome (wrongly scored), but not able to identify the incident that caused that outcome, which may have taken place in the inner workings of the race committee or regatta office.

    While we want competitors to cooperate in identifying details about redress incidents, we don't want to bar redress just because the boat did not write down something she did not or could not know.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...