tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post8370146661308626983..comments2024-01-22T09:45:29.790+01:00Comments on Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward: (pillow)Case of the week (23/12) – 10Joshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-61780636047648238222012-06-09T02:28:31.119+02:002012-06-09T02:28:31.119+02:00Doesn't all this come down to the principle th...Doesn't all this come down to the principle that a protest committee needs to have an evidential basis to make a decision. <br /><br />In a situation like this, a bald assertion by an offending boat that someone else is to blame isn't enough. If that was enough, then many protestees could avoid disqualification simply by making such assertions. However, if there is evidence to support the contention that rule 64.1(c) applies (such as in aalberti's situation), then the protest committee would take that evidence into account. It isn't compulsory to have a successful protest against another boat, although the failure to protest could be another factor for the protest committee to consider.<br /><br />Naturally, the need to have an evidential basis is not the same as having a burden of proof.<br /><br />John GJohn Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-31443207608475144942012-06-06T05:10:04.133+02:002012-06-06T05:10:04.133+02:00I was involved in a protest 15 years ago in a nati...I was involved in a protest 15 years ago in a national youth championships. The black flag was flying before the start so rule 30.3 (or is predecessor) applied. Two boats were sitting just behind the line with less than a minute to go. A boat came up out of control from behind hitting one of the two in the stern and pushing her over the line. The boat pushed over protested the boat who hit from astern. As a committee we eventually concluded that she protested the wrong boat (there were several boats from the same club that all appeared the same). Eventually after quite a bit of testimony including an audio tape from the race committee we concluded that the incident had happened, the protesting boat was properly on the prestart side of the line until the she was hit and she was pushed over the line. We decided that we would exonerate her for breaking rule 30.3.aalbertihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10884431664297864613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-47198824885552441672012-06-05T21:38:20.104+02:002012-06-05T21:38:20.104+02:00I was involved in a protest about 15 years ago. T...I was involved in a protest about 15 years ago. The black flag was flying so RRS 30.3 was in effect (or its equivalent at the time). Two boats were sitting behind the line. Another boat came up from behind and bumped them hard enough to push them over. A protest was filed against what we eventually concluded was the wrong boat (it was a junior regatta and several boats had the same logos on them). After hearing the tape from the race officer we were convinced that the incident had happened and that the boat would not have been over in the minute before the start if the had not been hit from astern. We exonerated the protesting boat for her breach of 30.3.aalbertihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10884431664297864613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-76373853412349210632012-06-05T13:05:13.442+02:002012-06-05T13:05:13.442+02:00I have indeed been there a couple of times. Since ...I have indeed been there a couple of times. Since the third boat can not be identified no valid protest can be filed against her. See RRS 61.2 (a) which requires that the protestor and protestee be identified before the start of the hearing. <br /><br />The reason for that, of course, is found in RRS 63.3 (Right to be Present). A boat that seeks exoneration in accordance with RRS 64.1(c) as a result of being compelled to break a rule by a boat breaking a Rule, she has an obligation to file a valid protest against that boat.<br /><br />Imagine a protest against a boat under RRS 30.1 and the protestee's testimony is simply: <br /><br />- Yes, I hit the mark. <br />- No,I did not take a penalty because I was forced into the mark by another boat that did not give me enough room. <br />- No, I did not file a protest against the other boat even though I knew who he was.<br /><br />Decision = DSQ!<br /><br />WHy would the situation when the boat was not know be any different?Hugh Elliot - USAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-39853134029545154422012-06-05T11:30:56.943+02:002012-06-05T11:30:56.943+02:00About 20 years ago I was on a protest committee wh...About 20 years ago I was on a protest committee where there was a domino effect caused by an unidentified boat perhaps 6 or 7 boats away from the parties to the protest. Initially the give way boat in the hearing was penalised but on a re-opening, with further witnesses, she was exonerated and it ended up with no boat being penalised because the perceived culprit was never identified. This may have been irregular but was a just and sensible decision as far as identified boats were concerned.Terence Brownriggnoreply@blogger.com