For individual comments see my remarks after your entries in the comments of the original post:
LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 02/17: Request for Redress
Key factor in this incident is to find as fact whether Red established the collision course before Purple became keep clear boat or after. In other words, was Red pointing at Purple before Purple passed head to wind or after. A lot of what you conclude is determined by that fact.
Option ONE
If before, Red has no restrictions under rule 16.1 since the course change was before she became ROW boat. And no restriction under 15 because she became ROW boat by Purple's actions. In this scenario Purple breaks rule 13 by not keeping clear as tacking boat and Purple breaks rule 14 because she shouldn't have tacked in that position. It was therefore reasonable possible for her to avoid the contact
Option TWO
If after, Red has a restriction under rule 16 (she changed course as ROW boat and established a collision course) and must give Red room to keep clear - which being a tacking multi hull - can take some time. Then you also must draw a conclusion on whether or not Purple did enough to keep clear. Could she have accelerated faster, getting out of that position in front of Red? If she could have done more, she breaks rule 13, if she couldn't have done more, she's exonerated because of Red's infringement of 16.1.
Could Purple avoid the collision? Once she was in that tack she could do little else than go forward asap. Did she do that? Another conclusion to be drawn. Remember, in option two she is a boat entitled to room, so under rule 14 she didn't need to act to avoid contact until it was clear that Red wasn't going to give her that room. I think not. Purple couldn't reasonably avoid contact any more and did not break rule 14.
When it became clear that Purple wasn't going to keep clear, was it reasonably possible for Red to avoid the collision? The fact that she "missed" hitting Purple only by ten centimetres, is more or less irrelevant. You must either conclude she reasonably could avoid or couldn't.
In my opinion she could. She broke rule 14. And that is completely separate from if you've found as fact option one or two.
Red did a two turns penalty. Is that an appropriate penalty for breaking RRS 14? That depends on the damage - was it serious or not. A boat that cannot continue is serious damage. So Red should have retired> Red DSQ.
If you think Purple is at fault, you nevertheless may not DSQ her. She is to be scored DNF.
She retired and that is an appropriate penalty. The reason for her retirement is irrelevant. (Case 99 & 107)
The protest is valid despite the fact a red flag was not shown. The damage was obvious to both and Red was informed before end of protest-time. RRS 61.1(a)(3)
If you concluded that Purple is to be exonerated for breaking rule 13 and did not break rule 14, she's entitled to redress. In all other scenarios it is more or less her own fault (at least partly) and she's therefore not entitled to redress.
If you give Redress you can give her her first place or an average of her 6 sailed races (excluding or including her discard). For that you need the total number of boats that sailed in the races. Nobody asked this question. But then only one of you granted redress.
This brings our score to:
Equal Points on first place.
I must decide on a way to resolve ties.....
Any suggestions?
.
LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 02/17: Request for Redress
Key factor in this incident is to find as fact whether Red established the collision course before Purple became keep clear boat or after. In other words, was Red pointing at Purple before Purple passed head to wind or after. A lot of what you conclude is determined by that fact.
Option ONE
If before, Red has no restrictions under rule 16.1 since the course change was before she became ROW boat. And no restriction under 15 because she became ROW boat by Purple's actions. In this scenario Purple breaks rule 13 by not keeping clear as tacking boat and Purple breaks rule 14 because she shouldn't have tacked in that position. It was therefore reasonable possible for her to avoid the contact
Option TWO
If after, Red has a restriction under rule 16 (she changed course as ROW boat and established a collision course) and must give Red room to keep clear - which being a tacking multi hull - can take some time. Then you also must draw a conclusion on whether or not Purple did enough to keep clear. Could she have accelerated faster, getting out of that position in front of Red? If she could have done more, she breaks rule 13, if she couldn't have done more, she's exonerated because of Red's infringement of 16.1.
Could Purple avoid the collision? Once she was in that tack she could do little else than go forward asap. Did she do that? Another conclusion to be drawn. Remember, in option two she is a boat entitled to room, so under rule 14 she didn't need to act to avoid contact until it was clear that Red wasn't going to give her that room. I think not. Purple couldn't reasonably avoid contact any more and did not break rule 14.
When it became clear that Purple wasn't going to keep clear, was it reasonably possible for Red to avoid the collision? The fact that she "missed" hitting Purple only by ten centimetres, is more or less irrelevant. You must either conclude she reasonably could avoid or couldn't.
In my opinion she could. She broke rule 14. And that is completely separate from if you've found as fact option one or two.
Red did a two turns penalty. Is that an appropriate penalty for breaking RRS 14? That depends on the damage - was it serious or not. A boat that cannot continue is serious damage. So Red should have retired> Red DSQ.
If you think Purple is at fault, you nevertheless may not DSQ her. She is to be scored DNF.
She retired and that is an appropriate penalty. The reason for her retirement is irrelevant. (Case 99 & 107)
The protest is valid despite the fact a red flag was not shown. The damage was obvious to both and Red was informed before end of protest-time. RRS 61.1(a)(3)
If you concluded that Purple is to be exonerated for breaking rule 13 and did not break rule 14, she's entitled to redress. In all other scenarios it is more or less her own fault (at least partly) and she's therefore not entitled to redress.
If you give Redress you can give her her first place or an average of her 6 sailed races (excluding or including her discard). For that you need the total number of boats that sailed in the races. Nobody asked this question. But then only one of you granted redress.
This brings our score to:
Equal Points on first place.
I must decide on a way to resolve ties.....
Any suggestions?
.
Resolving ties: take away the best and worst score, if still tied the second best and second worst etc....
ReplyDeleteI was thinking to use the tie breaking as written in the RRS...
DeleteJos, thanks for the scoring and all the comments!
ReplyDeleteI feel a bit uneasy about the fact that two contradictory solutions are acepted, especially that they overturn the results of a national championship. Writing up consistent FF is one thing, but finding out what really happened is a different animal altogehter and this is the difficult part.
If this is based on a real case, what were the FF established by the PC and what statement of the parties tipped the balanced?
It is not a real case.
DeleteBut you are absolutely right that finding out what has happened is at least as difficult sometimes, as drawing the correct conclusions and decision.
Unfortunately this part - in my opinion - is severely under rated in all literature and clinics.
In the room you need the skills of a experienced interrogator who can ask the right questions.
RRS tie breaking system would be quite apt.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe we just keep doing challenges until the tie is broken?