tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post1470634629463281730..comments2024-01-22T09:45:29.790+01:00Comments on Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward: LTW Readers Q&A | 23 - RedressingJoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-17119493116698458072009-04-14T23:25:00.000+02:002009-04-14T23:25:00.000+02:00Dennis,
I think you misunderstand the way redress...Dennis,<br /><br />I think you misunderstand the way redress works.<br /><br />In this case, all but one boat have started together and had a fair race. They should not be denied the results of their racing by abandonment.<br /><br />The Judges Manual, page 50 tells us that abandonment is a last resort, and that where only a few boats deserve merit it is 'rarely the most equitable solution'.<br /><br />The Protest Committee's role is to grant redress to the boat deserving it, not punish and embarrass the Race Committee for its admitted mistake, particularly where abandoning would deprive the other competitors of their earned results.<br /><br />Bear in mind that abandonment, while equal to all competitors, may be unfair to particular competitors, for example by reducing the number of completed races, thus affecting discards, by depriving a competitor of a result needed for selection or another pointscore, or in a long series, by depriving boats that started of their deserved advantage over boats that did not compete.<br /><br />By the way, I agree with Mike B that adjusting the scores of all boats into second, third and so on was a poor, or even improper decision of the first protest committee. When giving a boat redress stick with rule A6.2 and leave the original results alone.<br /><br />Abandon only as a last resort!Brassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-42759490944684235872009-04-14T17:30:00.000+02:002009-04-14T17:30:00.000+02:00I would suggest you look to the minimum required s...I would suggest you look to the minimum required safety equipment. The Long Island Sound Yacht Racing Assocation generally requires VHF Radio under the Minimum Equipment Recommendations of the YRALIS. The fact that the first PC permitted the late start seems to ignore such a requirement (if one existed for the event).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-91718022444771331372009-04-14T15:53:00.000+02:002009-04-14T15:53:00.000+02:00I think most questions have been answered.
Sometim...I think most questions have been answered.<br />Sometimes you just cannot alter the results so they have to stand.<br />Here I would have considered an alternative.<br />I would not have altered the results of the boats that sailed correctly, and would have slotted the other finisher in without changing the other results.<br />This would have led to there being two first places here but all the other boats would have retained their places, this could have had a beneficial effect on the overall results problem.Mike Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-11859482643822123192009-04-14T07:49:00.000+02:002009-04-14T07:49:00.000+02:00This is a new request for redress. Procedurally i...This is a new request for redress. Procedurally it is nothing like a reopening, although the RC should, of course, have applied the principle of having as many of the original PC on the new PC as possible.<br /><br />I can't see anything wrong with average points here. It's the last race of the series, so the sample size is as as good as it is going to get. The 'sailed result' has all the objections that the boat requesting redress pointed out. I reckon there's a reason rule A10 gives examples of average points in order: that's because, it's a good way to give redress.<br /><br />Dick, before the RC requested redress for the late starter, first and second were quite happy with their results and the late starter was last. It was the boat that was displaced into second place by the first redress decision that made the second redress request.<br /><br />Suppose the late starter, having been reduced from first to average points by the second redress was aggrieved and wanted to lodge a third request for redress: she is at liberty to do so if her grounds is that the second PC made an improper action: she was not a party to either the first or second hearing: she was granted redress, but she did not <B><I>request</I></B> redress (definition of Party). Desirably the same protest committee should hear all the redresses, but there is no improper action if this does not happen.<br /><br />Where a RC requests redress under rule 62.1(a) for its own improper action the RC is a party, otherwise there is no party. See Definition of Party. Only parties stay for the whole hearing.Brassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-5076873314771196952009-04-14T04:50:00.000+02:002009-04-14T04:50:00.000+02:00criteria is the plural of criterion.criteria is the plural of criterion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-72473947181993906942009-04-14T01:52:00.000+02:002009-04-14T01:52:00.000+02:00There is a fundamental flaw in this. In granting ...There is a fundamental flaw in this. In granting redress, a PC must abide by all the other rules and regulations. It can not simply ignore rules whether it thinks them unfair or inconvenient or otherwise.<br /><br />One such circumstance is the notified time of start. There is no provision in the rules for a race committee to make verbal amendments to the notice of race (re starting times). The race committee has powers and procedures to postpone, resail, or abandon a race. It has no powers to start a race early.<br /><br />Clearly, the race should have been abandoned. Abandonment would have been fair to all competitors in the race as all competitiors would then have been treated equally.<br /><br />DennisDennishttp://a.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-38527208144281988872009-04-13T17:14:00.000+02:002009-04-13T17:14:00.000+02:00What would be the procedure when instead of the ra...What would be the procedure when instead of the race committee making the request for redress the boat that had finished second had made the request for redress? <BR/><BR/>Would the boat that had finished first then have been able to request redress on the PC decision? In which case could any new PC committee could hear that request?<BR/><BR/>Also. when a race committee makes a request for redress for a boat(s) who is the party? The race committee or the boat(s) the race committee is making the request for? And, who gets to sit in for the complete hearing and who is only a witness, the RC or the boats the RC says were affected?Dicknoreply@blogger.com