Monday, 2 April 2012

Score 03/23 LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

Scoring Episode 03/13 has been based on the following criteria:
  • Adequate facts found, leading to conclusions about;
  • Validity P1 (valid);
  • Validity P2 (not valid, for several reasons; P-time, flag and hail);
  • Use of rule 60.3(a)(2) by the PC;
  • Yellow's breach of rule 11;
  • Green's breach of rule 11, forcing Yellow's infringement of rule 11;
  • Exoneration of Yellow 64.1(c);
  • No Mark-room for Blue. Because 18.3 switches off 18.2
  • Mark-room for Yellow 18.2(b), Green did not give that, see Case 114
  • Decision to DSQ Green and exonerate Yellow;
All criteria - if solved correctly - earn you 1 point. (in total that makes 10).
Deductions were done if you brought up unnecessary rules: i.e. rule 16 or rule 17. Minus one point for each.
I can accept the use of 15, although I would not have done so.

Have a look at the second entry by Grey Bear.
That is what I would have written when being scribe in an actual panel. (Save conclusion 1)

This gives us the following scoreboard:

With probably one episode to go, it looks like numbers one, two and three are more or less decided.


  1. I think the point about rule 17 is that if a boat rounds a mark with a rule 17 obligation then she must immediately bear away to her new proper course and cannot stand on. This happens frequently at mark 2 in team racing where boats bear away from a port tack beam reach to a run.

    So rule 17 is always on my mental check list, as itcan often be forgotten (especially when TR umpiring and you are on your own dealing with 6 boats!)

    Rule 17 obligations are not switched off by any part of rule 18.

    In this case, IF Blue had had a rule 17 obligation she would have been required to bear away to her proper course at the mark - but then nobody asked what the proper course was! Blue could have broken rule 17, and thus be DSQ, at the same time as Yellow and Green were breaking rule 11.

    Grey Bear

    1. Yes, I understand. And I'm not saying you shouldn't tick it of your (mental) check list. But since the overlap was established in the tack, none of the criteria for rule 17 apply. So there's no need to mention it in conclusions...

  2. Jos

    You seem to be saying in your comments that "in the field" you would put less information in your protest decisions than what you have been expecting us to put in our answers in this challenge. To be honest, my own answers haven't been written in the manner that I would actually write up protest decisions either.

    Would the amount of information you put in protest decisions vary according to the nature of the regatta? So, would you write up a decision differently for an international jury than you would for a protest committee when there is a right of appeal? Would you write a decision for an optimist regatta up differently than you would for a regatta with professional sailors?

    1. I try not to make any distinction, but must admit it sometimes influences my length of writing.
      What I was trying to say is that if you get to that one issue that is pivotal for the incident, that one rule which is clearly broken and decides the outcome, you do not have to write every other (not broken) rule on the protest form. If 17 is not applicable - don't mention it. If a ROW boat changes course giving room to the keep clear boat - you don't have to put that in writing. If none of the boats does a penalty turn - you don't have to write that.
      Only those issues that decide the protest.

      As for the difference between writing in an International Jury and writing in a National (appeal-able) Protest Committee there are several factors to consider.
      I try to find the time to be as precise as can be. If a party indicates they want to appeal - I sometimes elaborate on what is already written in the subsequent written information. I do not change things, but maybe find better wording.
      In an IJ there's no appeal, so the information should be as clear as possible already. Especially since nowadays that goes on the internet more often as not. And it should be written so that everybody - who's willing to learn the basic rules - can understand why that decision is reached.

      The one trick I learned in my career is that one of the panel members should already be writing the facts found during the hearing. Have a list ready when parties are excused and then the others only have to agree - or disagree - with what is written. If everybody agrees, the rest (conclusion and decision) can be done very quickly.
      And stick to the wording as written in the rules....


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...