tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post7765168929206030456..comments2024-01-22T09:45:29.790+01:00Comments on Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward: LTW Readers Q&A (58); New Facts?Joshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-43848452910398660262012-01-23T17:17:26.172+01:002012-01-23T17:17:26.172+01:00No worries, Willii. I understand what you mean. An...No worries, Willii. I understand what you mean. And yes, let the panel discuss this and vote on the outcome. Good enough for me.Joshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-51801815728133223852012-01-23T16:38:36.892+01:002012-01-23T16:38:36.892+01:00Hi Jos, the red towel is not the best example, bec...Hi Jos, the red towel is not the best example, because it is a flag in the meaning of the rules, see Case 72!!<br />And about your 2nd pragraph, lets agree that we disagree. A jury will decide, perhaps 3 by 2, as a jury did in deciding the case mentioned in Q&A 2011-024.<br />Best regards, WilliiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-25670015162784945252012-01-21T22:28:48.140+01:002012-01-21T22:28:48.140+01:00Hello Willii, I principle I agree with you. But I ...Hello Willii, I principle I agree with you. But I see this more like this:<br />The rule says you must show a red flag if you want to protest. What if a boat does not show a red flag, but a red towel. Is that towel recognizable for the other boat as a protest flag? Yes. Her rights are not diminished, Protest valid, despite that it was not a red flag.<br /><br />In this particular case NONE of the rights of the protestee were taken away. She knew which incident it was, she had time to prepare, she could defend herself, etc. etc.<br />Only a clerical error in the race-number, that should and can be corrected.Joshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-61463988779143624162012-01-20T11:20:45.357+01:002012-01-20T11:20:45.357+01:00This Anonymous is Willii Gohl.
Jos, the jury has n...This Anonymous is Willii Gohl.<br />Jos, the jury has not to decide if there is no Q&A, the jury has to follow the WRITTEN rules, and not that, what the jury thinks could be the meaning of a rule.<br />Think of that what we have learned: which rule applies for your opinion?<br />1. The jury ruled the protest valid, no way out!<br />2. The jury learned after establishing facts, after their conclusion, and after their decision (before "publishing" the decision) that one of the main criterias on the written protest (where and when, which has to be met BEFORE the hearing) wasn´t met.<br />3. So the jury may have made an error, in the light of new evidence.<br />4. In my opinion the correct procedure is: 1. give the decision according to the "valid" protest!<br />5. The jury should reopen the the hearing (RRS 66) and then rule the protest "invalid", because the requirement of RRS 61.2(b) was not met! Whatever a jury thinks or feel, whatever parties tell, feel, think or agree: Only the WRITTEN rule applies!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-70620161449747999772012-01-19T23:28:33.786+01:002012-01-19T23:28:33.786+01:00If the Q&A does not give a clear answer, it is...If the Q&A does not give a clear answer, it is always up to the members of the panel to decide. <br />Like I stated in answer to the previous comment, I see no problem in declaring this a valid protest, because the underlying reason for insisting on an accurate description of the incident - both parties in the hearing are arguing the same incident - was not impeded.Joshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-88815359686643044592012-01-19T23:21:37.296+01:002012-01-19T23:21:37.296+01:00I must disagree with the recommendation that the i...I must disagree with the recommendation that the incorrectly identified race number can be corrected later. RRS 61.2(b) requires the time and place of the incident be identified in the protest; other aspects maybe added or corrected later ("However ..."). Then 63.5 requires, if the protest is found invalid, that the hearing be closed.<br />As pointed out, the Q&A doesn't really apply to this hypothetical case.<br />I don't see any way around these requirements.<br />Doug (CYA National judge)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-1820593954209671842012-01-19T14:38:45.521+01:002012-01-19T14:38:45.521+01:00The reason why the incident, including when and wh...The reason why the incident, including when and where, must be described in the protest, is that the protestee can identify the incident and prepare accordingly.<br />If - like in this case - all that was accomplished, save for a clerical error in the race number, why is this an invalid protest? All parties had the opportunity to tell their side of the incident, could question each other, could argue and defend themselves. Nobody was short changed and the basic premise that parties must be discussing the same incident where both of them were involved, was fulfilled. <br />The fact that they were wrong about in which race it happened, has in no way impeded the protestee or the protestor in the hearing.Joshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-85218991449672755772012-01-19T11:57:41.667+01:002012-01-19T11:57:41.667+01:00The thing was, that the jury tried to consolidate ...The thing was, that the jury tried to consolidate all information during the initial phase of the hearing. Both races were sailed on the same day, namely race 1 and 2. <br />And if the parties confirmed the information protestor provided, what else can a jury do to check? This one lies on the protestor.<br /><br />After the realisation of the error, jury decided to dismiss the protest as invalid, because it didn't identify the incident.<br /><br />Anonymous, which part of rules allows you to change the race number on the protest? 61.2(b) specifically demands such information to be exact. If the protest does not identify the incident, the other party cannot prepare for the incident and can also claim it didn't happen.<br /><br />You can correct the critical data (according to 61.2(b)) on the protest form before the protest time limit is over. It is analogue of filing another protest.Andražhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227730782637834707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-44275861151521389732012-01-19T11:34:28.992+01:002012-01-19T11:34:28.992+01:00I disagree with your answer on part of this.
I th...I disagree with your answer on part of this. <br />I think I am with you to Opinion 6.<br /> <br />I do not believe you could get redress, as if you did not read the form you would be to blame. <br />Also a bit like the scoring problems. You can correct race 2 but you may well have another incident and not be able to penalise race 1.<br /> <br />There would be a reopening with the Dsq in Race 1.Mike Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-16495965681637799062012-01-18T16:14:21.306+01:002012-01-18T16:14:21.306+01:00This happens more often the other way round - the ...This happens more often the other way round - the parties are talking about race 1 of the day, which may be race 2 of the series. This usually becomes clear during the hearing and can be corrected.<br /><br />I would propose askng a few questions to establish how the error came about and was not then spotted.<br /><br />GordonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-75404322544248625622012-01-18T07:58:20.624+01:002012-01-18T07:58:20.624+01:00Interesting, 61.2 requires ((b) the incident, incl...Interesting, 61.2 requires ((b) the incident, including where and when it occurred;) to be met and if it is met than other requirements need not be met until some point after the filling. even-though the hearing was heard, i would have to rule that the primary requirement of the protest was not met at the time of the hearing and before the time limit and therefore the protest was not valid.Peternoreply@blogger.com