LTW 2012 Winter Challenge E03/16

Today’s episode is about a situation send in by Eric Robbins from the US. I’ve only made some (small) textual changes and provided the animation. I’ve deleted the sail numbers and changed them to colours to identify the boats. (Red and Purple). (What is it with those two? They seem to be in an awful lot of protests!).

Protest #8:

In an eight-boat class, in the last race of the day, the first two Fireballs (17 feet long), leave the leeward mark to port, then reach across the bow of the finish boat to cross the finish line which was between the starboard shroud of a J-105 and a mark set off the starboard bow. The finish boat had a long anchor rode. The finish line was approximately 10 boats lengths from the leeward mark.

Fireball Purple rounded the leeward mark clear ahead of Red. Both were flying spinnakers on the reach to the finish, planing at about 10 knots. Fireball Red established an overlap to leeward and inside when Purple  was approximately two boat lengths from the anchor rode. Purple barely cleared the anchor rode, and finished overlapped, one-half length ahead of Red, but Red hooked the anchor rode with its rudder, with its bow just across the finish line. In the absence of the anchor rode, there would have been enough room for Red to pass between Purple and the finish boat.

Red was hung alongside, and touching, the finish boat, with the crew in the water hanging on the side of the Fireball, for over one minute, and had to cast off its rudder to get free. There was minor damage to both Red and the finish boat.

Red requested and received help from the finish boat and a mark boat to retrieve his rudder, then took a One-Turn Penalty, came back and re-finished in last place. At this point Red announced to the RC that he was protesting Purple. Red did not hail “protest” to Purple, but informed him on shore after the race. The protest was filed within the time limit. The skipper of Purple stated that he never saw Red get an overlap, as he was looking forward, but he did later see Red hung on the side of the finish boat.

The RC filed a protest against Red for breaking rule 41, outside help, also within the time limit.

What should the RC record for Red’s finish?
Is the protest by Red valid?
Write the protest with Facts Found, Rules that apply, Conclusions and a Decision

As always you have a limited number of questions, three in this episode, since there are three parties involved. But you can ask all three to the same party if you so want. Deadlines on Monday 23:59, Tuesday 23:59 and Wednesday 23:59. Final entry before Friday 23:59.

Score 02/24 LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

As most of you have found the Challenge in episode 02/24 was to choose.
The stories by both sailors (and diagrams) were the same, except in a crucial point:
Did Purple pass head to wind before or after Grey had to bear away to go behind?

Choose!

I've tried to give answers to the questions as if I was the representative of the boat(s). Both truthful and believing in their story, as much as possible.

The PC does not have the luxury to NOT decide an incident. They must choose and write down the facts found - thereby determining what has happened. Sometimes that can be different than what has actually occurred, but they must choose. If you can't, get the parties back in the room and continue the hearing.
A conclusion of "cannot decide" is unacceptable.

The presentation by the party can therefore make a huge difference. If a representative of the boat is able to convince the panel members of his side, they are more likely to go for his version. And since the outcome of a protest is usually very black and white (DSQ or not), that skill should be developed - as much as any sailing technique. It can cost you the race!

I'm happy to see that all of challengers did choose.

Scoring and comments are done with the comments in the original post:
LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 02/24:YES/NO

This is the new scoreboard:

No more ties at the moment. But if they occur, they will be resolved according to RRS A8.

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 03/09: Finished?

In today's episode of our LTW 2012 Winter Challenge you assignment is about a protest by the Race Committee.

During a regatta the finish committee witnesses a boat crossing the finish line, while one crew member is in the water being dragged by the boat. The committee score the boat and then report the incident to the RO who, after some thinking, decides to lodge a protest. The PC declares the protest valid.

In the subsequent hearing the skipper tells that the crew member fell overboard just 30 meters from the finish but managed to hang onto a rope (jib-sheet). The crew pulled himself towards the boat and with one hand on the rope and the other on a stanchion, the boat continued. The water was not cold and the crew was in no danger, according to him. He decided to continue sailing and help the crew back on board after crossing the line, as to not lose any places. The boat finished first in that race.

Write the facts found, draw a conclusion and analyse all rules involved. Then decide the protest.

As per usual, you can ask any question to either party, but only two in total. Deadline for question one is Monday 23:59 and for question two Wednesday also 23:59.


I'm doing a clinic on rules tonight and have a Match Race event tomorrow. Scoring on Episode 02/24 will be on Sunday - if nothing else happens. Don't forget the deadline for your submission: Midnight tonight.

Score 02/17 LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

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 27/01: Rolex Miami OCR 49er Crash

Right, this episode of the LTW 2012 Winter Challenge,  I'm using a You-Tube video of an incident in a 49er race at the Rolex Miami OCR.

I've checked and although there's is a protest on the board with AUT 070, I do not think it was this incident. BER 1042 is not mentioned and although the black spinnaker is an USA boat, I don't think it's 1222.
Anyway that protest was denied.

found on You Tube: HERE by asht2p

The film is short and taken from an aerial view (probably a helicopter) so you will need to see it several times.
The challenge is to write down the facts found, draw a conclusion and take a decision.
Don't get stuck in validity; assume all requirements have been fulfilled.

I also don't mind if different people have different set of facts found. The challenge is to write the facts as you see them and then draw consistent conclusions and decision. There was contact, so don't forget 14!

If you make a TSS or Boat Scenario file, send me a (one!) picture and I'll try to incorporate that into the posting. Since you can "make up" your own facts this time, there will be no questions. But the challengers who send me a picture of the situation, corresponding with their facts found, can earn two bonus points!

Deadline next Friday 03/02/12 23:59 (GMT+1) as per usual.

Scoring of Episode 20/01 to follow - probably Sunday.
Good luck,
J.

Score 13/01 in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

The score for the first episode:

And - as promised - my answer.

Conclusions

• (Blue complies with rule 10 by keeping clear as Port tack boat from Green as Starboard tack boat; Greens luff does not break 16.2 as Blue does not have to immediately change course to keep clear)
• (Green is keeping clear as tacking boat under rule 13, and then under 11 as windward boat; Blue does not have to give Green room under rule 15 as long as she maintains a straight course, because it was Green’s actions (her tack) that gave her right-of-way)
• (In position 3 Blue establishes a leeward overlap while Green as windward boat is still required to keep clear under rule 13, therefore rule 17 is not turned on)
• When Blue, as right-of-way boat, changed course between positions 3 & 4, she did not give Green enough room to keep clear, and broke rule 16.1.
• Green broke rule 11 by not keeping clear as windward boat from Blue, but was compelled to break this rule because of Blue change of course and subsequent infringement of rule 16.1 and is therefore exonerated under rule 64.1(c).
• Green did not break rule 14, because she was entitled to room from Blue (changing course) and by the time it was clear that Blue would not give that room, Green could not reasonably avoid the contact anymore.
• Blue could reasonably have avoided the contact even after it became clear that Green was not going to keep clear and broke rule 14. There was damage so as right-of-way boat she can be penalized. However Blue took the applicable penalty (rule 44.1(a)) and therefore rule 64.1(a) does not apply. Blue is exonerated under rule 64.1(b).

Decision
Both protests are dismissed

J.

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge - Episode 20/01

We have 12 contestants in the 2012 Winter Challenge at the moment. Unless you're very fast, you've missed the first episode (deadline is midnight tonight). But since the competition is to gather 100 points, perhaps you can catch up?


In the mean time here is Episode 20/01 in the
LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

Facts Found:

From positions 1 trough 3 boats are on opposite tacks, with Blue on Port tack, passing in front of Orange on Starboard tack. Orange is sailing about one boat length below the lay-line.

Blue luffs to tack in position 3.

Blue completes her tack to Starboard in the zone at a distance of one boat-length to windward and to the right of Orange, who luffs to head-to-wind to 'shoot' the mark.

Orange looses speed and after having passed the mark, bears off. Blue also bears off and gains speed. She is sailing a course that leaves about one boat-length space between the mark and her.
There is contact in position 5

Orange bears off even more and Blue is forced up.
Orange shouts protest in position 6 and displays a red flag in position 7

The contact caused no damage.
Neither boat took a penalty.

Rules of Part 2 involved: 10, 11, 13, 14, 16.1, 18.2(a), 18.3 and 18.5.

Winter Arrives in England; Broadway Tower, Fish Hill, Worcestershire

As a reminder, these are the Challenge Instructions again: (As AMENDED per 20/01/12 )
You are a member of the PC panel deciding the protest(s)

You are allowed ONE* question (so think about what you want to ask!) by using the comments button before the next Tuesday 08:00 GMT+01:00. (=my time)  After that, give me your conclusion and decision, within a week of posting, please. DEADLINE for this episode is 27/01/2012 23:59h.
(*if you ask more than one Q, I’ll answer only the first) & [and as a consequence I’ll edit your comment]

Questions will be answered in the order they are send in, after the deadline. Conclusions and Decisions will be published after one (and a bit) week. Points are awarded on consistency between conclusion and decision, and arguments used to reach them. The more succinct, the better!
[But they must be complete and refer to all rules involved]

Max 10 points per episode. First to reach 100 points wins a Sailors Quarrel Bag including a paper-plate with the Zone and Lay-lines [no second guessing or comments on scoring, please]
One entry per person – AND, you must use a NICKNAME to enter the competition – by sending an Email to me, with your email address, your real name and that nickname. rrs-study (at) home (dot) nl. Please put LTW 2012 Winter Challenge in the subject line. [If you want to remain anonymous use a nickname that isn’t the same or close to, your real name, but it is up to you]

To make it more equal, ISAF IJ’s or IU’s start with minus 25 points.

Good Luck.
Jos.

UPDATE 24/01/2012 08:52 (GMT+1)

Answers to all (seven) questions below in the comments. Welcome to Bowman - a new challenger.
Good luck to all. You have until Friday midnight to send in your entries.

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge – Episode 01/13

Facts Found:
Boats are one design 6.5 meter Keelboats, wind is steady, blowing force 3 Beaufort, calm water, close to shore, no big waves.
 
Position 1: Blue on Port tack and Green on Starboard tack sailing on a beat to windward. Blue is steering a course to pass astern of Green
 
Position 2: Green luffs preparatory to tacking, still on Starboard tack. Blue heads up, but is still steering to pass (close) astern of Green. Shortest distance between boats, when Blue passes astern, is 0,75 meter.


Position 3: Green has passed head to wind and now on Port tack. Blue heads up to close hauled and just after Green passed head to wind makes an overlap to leeward with Green from clear astern. Distance  between bow of Blue and starboard stern of Green, is 2 meters
 
Position 4: Green completes her tack to close hauled on Port. Blue continues to head up and is now above close hauled also on Port tack. Distance between boats is now less than 0,5 meter.


Position 5: There was contact between boats just after position 4. After that Blue bears away and Green heads up. Both boats protest. Half a minute after the collision Blue does two turns (with 2Gybes&2Tacks), Green does no turns. After coming back ashore Green discovers that there is nicked yell coat scratch amidships, starboard side.
Here’s the animation of the SLAM DUNK:

Rules of Part 2 involved: 10, 11, 13, 14, 16.1, 16.2 and 17.

THE CHALLENGE:

You are a member of the PC panel deciding the protest(s)
You are allowed ONE* question (so think about what you want to ask!) by using the comments button before the next Monday 08:00 GMT+01:00. (=my time)

After that give me your conclusion and decision, within a week of posting, please.
(*if you ask more than one Q, I’ll answer only the first)

Questions will be answered in the order they are send in, after the deadline. Conclusions and Decisions will be published after one week.

Points are awarded on consistency between conclusion and decision, and arguments used to reach them. The more succinct, the better!

Max 10 points per episode. First to reach 100 points wins a Sailors Quarrel Bag including a paper-plate with the Zone and Lay-lines

One entry per person – AND, you must use a NICKNAME to enter the competition – by sending an Email to me, with your email address, your real name and that nickname. rrs-study (at) home (dot) nl. Please put LTW 2012 Winter Challenge in the subject line.

Oooh, before I forget. To make it more equal, ISAF IJ’s or IU’s start with minus 25 points.

Are you up to the challenge?

UPDATE Monday 16/01/12 08:25;

Nine (ten) challengers have entered; Questions have been asked and answered;
Final Entries must be in by Friday 20/01/12 23:59
(I'm not sure what has happened with the timestamps on the comments > my blog is set on GMT+1. Why blogger uses 9 hours earlier, I do not know, but will try to find out)

UPDATE Friday 20/01/12 14:15;
Dear Competitors,
For those of you who haven’t yet send in their decisions and conclusion, the deadline for episode 01/13 is today 20/01/2012 at 23:59h. Earn your first (maximum) ten points and don’t be late!
Good luck! Jos

UPDATE Sunday 22/01/12 14:00;

All recieved answers to LTW 2012 Winter Challenge Episode 13/01 have been posted and scored. I've put my comments below each contestant's entry and the scoring (as well as my answer) in a separate post:
Score 13/01 in LTW  2012 Winter Challenge.

Fact Finding Friday Animation 11.6

Last weeks FFFA was only answered by one judge, hmmm
It is my own fault for not keeping up with the previuos FFFA's, I guess. I will try to sort out the mails and answer them, I promise....

This weeks animation is a little different. I've been experimenting with GIF and hope this works.
The episodes is titled:

Smiley's go Sailing

 Animation made from a Powerpoint presentation by Torgrim Log.
To see the whole PPS go HERE

Grey Smiley protests against Green Smiley for not giving her room for Orange Smiley
Orange Smiley protests Grey Smiley for not giving Mark- room
Pretty smart these Smiley's, don't you think?.

Give me the cold hard FACTS! (and a conclusion and decision)

I'm off to do a couple of protest at a National Championship (16 Kwadraat) and tomorrow I fly to Ireland for the Star European Championship.
J.

Fact Finding Friday Animation; Vol 11.5

A little late for Thursday,  but early enough to drop in your E-mail box on Friday.
Another instalment of the almost forgotten Fact Finding Friday Animation series....
This one is with Tornado's, remember them? They were  in the Olympics, once....

Please click on this link to get to the animation: 110826 F11.5

 
The animation is about a situation just before the starting gun. In position 5 the Tornado Class flag is lowered and the sound signal on the committee vessel is made. Nobody is OCS,
Pink and the Starting-vessel have contact in position 6 and Red and Pink also have a collision just after Pos 6.
Red stops racing and goes to the harbour to repair his boat. Pink does two turns just after having passed the starting line. Red AND the RC protests Pink. Red also requests redress.
You deal with all the parties in one hearing.

Please write down the Facts Found, a Conclusion (with rules applicable) and your Decision. You need to consider RRS 14 since there's multiple contact ....
Good luck.

As always I'll refrain from publishing your comments until the next one, so everybody has the same information.

I'm in Kiel this weekend, driving on Friday. Not sure if I find the time to post, but I will try.

Fact Finding Friday Animation; Vol 11.4

A day (and then some) late for Fact Finding Friday Animation, but here is instalment 4 at last.
You'll have to deal with Lasers this time. Yellow and Blue are approaching a windward mark to be left to starboard.

Please write down the Facts Found, a Conclusion (with rules applicable) and your Decision. You need to consider RRS 18.3 since one of them is subject to rule 13 in the zone....
Good luck.

As always I'll refrain from publishing your comments until the next one, so everybody has the same information.
Ooh, and also, the goal is not to have a 'right' answer, but to write facts that are supported by the animation, conclusions that are supported by the facts and a correct decision based on those conclusions.
J.

Fact Finding Friday Animation 11.3

Right. Lets combine a couple of things. I've made a animation from a incident on the water here in Muscat.
It was a little bit tricky because one boat hardly moves at all, but I did the best that I could.
The rules are under addendum Q direct judging and the Blue boat protested right after position 10. There was serious damage to the hull of Blue. The left top corner of the stern of the port hull was breached an a hole circa 5 centimetres was opened. They could finish the race, and it had no effect on their speed, but the boat had to be repaired before it could race again the next morning.

I'll give you one fact already. There was 5 to 6 seconds between completion of the tack by Blue and the collision.

Please write the facts found, a conclusion and a decision as if you were not on the water, but sitting in the protest committee, hearing about this incident after the races, in the room.
And don't forget about rule 14

Fact Finding Friday Animation; Vol 11.2

For answers to last weeks FFFAnimation, please have a look at the comments with that post. Some where spot on, in my opinion. The trouble with writing good facts is that you also need to include distances.

You must be able to redraw the situation from the facts found alone.
Anyway, onto this weeks episode: From Boris Kuzminov's Photoalbum on Facebook:

(click on picture to see the animation)

In position 7 Yellow is forced above close hauled. And yes, the zone is 4 BL.

Please write down Facts Found, Conclusion and Decision as if you were one of the members that hears Yellow's (valid) protest after the race.
Good luck!

UPDATE 14/02/2011
Like the first post in this series, I'll be waiting to publish the comments until next issue. That way everybody can do this without breaking rule 41, okay? That also gives me the opportunity to come up with some remarks on your entries.

Fact Finding Friday Animation; Vol 11.1

I'm starting a new series of posts. Derived from the popular Fact Finding Friday - posts by Brass - which were posted on LTW in the past, now with a added feature: Animations!
You'll be presented with a incident by a TSS or Boat Scenario Animation so you can give your opinion on the rules involved.

The first of this series was send by Vladimir Pavlov, Russia, Novorossiysk. He mailed me an animation with FOUR boats. You might need to watch this one a couple of times. :-)

Exercise
The purpose of this 'exercise' is to write down the facts found, a conclusion and a decision as if you were a member of the protest committee dealing with this incident.

If the animation does not appear, please load the picture in a separate window - that should bring it to 'life'

I'll give you one hint: In my opinion only one boat should be DSQ-ed.

I'll give you my solution next Friday, before the next issue of FFF Animation.
Good luck.

Fact Finding and Drawing Conclusions

or

- The difference between measured and derived facts and how to recognize them in a protest. -

and

- Is my conclusion deductive or inductive? -

a guest post by Beau Vrolyk

In response to this weeks (pillow)Case 104 I received a great explanation on facts and conclusions from Beau Vrolyk. Instead of putting it in the comments, it certainly deserved its own post. Beau agreed and therefore here is his guest post:

I agree, finding the "FACTS" is the toughest part of the hearing.

Regarding the Case above, here are some thoughts that might help people discern what sort of "FACT" they are talking about.  There is quite a body of work in Philosophy in this area, and I apologize in advance if I’m not representing it completely correctly.

First, I would suggest that there are two sorts of facts, Measured Facts (meaning they are physical events or conditions in the real world that can be or could have been quantitatively measured) and Derived Facts (meaning that they are logically derived deductively from Measured Facts and the rules of deductive logic.)

Second, there are two sorts of Conclusions.  Those which are derived from Measured Facts using Deductive Logic, and are thus provable beyond question (I would call these Derived Facts), and those that are derived from Measured Facts, Derived Facts, and various forms of interpretation or probability using Inductive Logic (I'd call these Conclusions).

The complexity comes in our use of language.  We say something is a Conclusion ambiguously.  It may be the conclusion of a line of deductive reasoning, in which case it has exactly the same power of truth as the Measured Facts upon which the logic is based, provided that the logic is valid.  We also say something is a Conclusion when it is concluded from Measured Facts and opinions or interpretations of probability.  To clarify this, something that would be helpful in the Jury Room, one might call the deduced facts Deductive Conclusions or Derived Facts and the induced facts Inductive Conclusions or simply Conclusions.  One can tell the two apart in a discussion by discovering the source of a Conclusion.

People frequently mix up and intermix deductively derived conclusions from those that are derived inductively.  For example, the reasoning:

1.        Two boats on the same tack are either overlapped or they are not.
2.        Therefore, the boats are either governed by RRS 11 or RRS 12, but not both.

Item #2 above is not a fact, it is derived as an inescapable conclusion to fact #1.  However, Juries will frequently use statements like #2 above as “Facts” rather than as deductively derived conclusions, or what I like to call Derived Facts.

For an example of a Inductive Conclusion, the reasoning:

1.        Boat A observed Boats C and D to be overlapped.
2.        Boat B observed Boats C and D to be overlapped.
3.        Therefore, Boats C and D are found to have been overlapped.

In this case there is some evidence that C and D are overlapped, and the Jury may decide that it has adequate empirical evidence to establish the truth of the conclusion in #3 above.  However, #3 is not a Fact, rather it is a inductively derived Conclusion.  This can be easily shown in a case where three quarters of the boats observing C and D say they are overlapped and one quarter of the observers say they were not.  The Jury may rightly conclude that #3 is still true, but it can never be a Fact.  It will always remain a Conclusion.

In my own jury activities I attempt to always check if something is a Fact by asking the following question: “Can I measure or quantify it.”  If I can measure the Fact in inches, meters, knots, or some other quantity, then it’s probably a Fact.  If however, I have to cite some sort of supporting data or logic, it’s probably a conclusion.  Once I’ve found that something is a Conclusion, then I attempt to determine if it’s a Derived or Deduced conclusion, based entirely on facts and the rules of deductive logic; or if it’s an Inductively derived conclusion based on Facts and various interpretations of events or some form of preponderance of opinion of what happened.

Hopefully, this clarified things and didn’t make it even more obscure.

Best,
Beau

What about the facts in your last protest?
Can you make the distinction in derived or deduced conclusion in the facts found?
Perhaps I should make this subject of a couple of exercises on LTW?
.
.

(pillow)Case of the Week (12) - 104

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

“Have you done your homework? Better go to bed 15 minutes earlier then, –otherwise you’ll run behind” said the schoolmarm wiggling her finger in my face.

Case 104

Rule 63.6, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding Facts
Rule 70.1, Appeals and Requests to a National Authority
Rule F5, Inadequate Facts; Reopening

Attempting to distinguish between facts and conclusions in a protest committee's findings is sometimes unsatisfactory because findings may be based partially on fact and partially on a conclusion. A national authority can change a protest committee’s decision and any other findings that involve reasoning or judgment, but not its findings of fact. A national authority may derive additional facts by logical deduction. Neither written facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other. Protest committees must resolve conflicts between facts when so required by a national authority.

Question 1
What criteria determine whether a finding in a protest committee's decision is subject to change on appeal? Are the criteria based on whether the finding is a ‘fact’ or a ‘conclusion’, whether it incorporates an interpretation of a rule, or something else?

Fact Finding Friday for die-hards

Sometimes you get lucky. In using a couple of new search words, Google kicked out a couple of nice finds! This post is for all who are studying the Racing Rules of Sailing in depth.

When studying the rules you are always on the look out for new cases, new protests, new material. And you can learn a lot from how Protest-committees have done things in the past in hearings, which rules they applied, which mistakes they made and what was done to correct those. Unfortunately most of that is only written on a piece of paper and not available to the public.

But sometimes a panel at an event gets the opportunity to properly publish their work. By using "request for redress" as a search parameter, I found many interesting pdf's, but the jewel was this site: http://www.kingscup.com/2009results/index.htm

Have a look yourself. Besides the abstracts of each protest you can also find the whole written protest form including Facts found, Rules, Conclusion and Decision.

My compliments to the International Jury of the Phuket King's Cup Regatta 2009. I wish more IJ's had the opportunity to use the internet this way.

Fact Finding Friday |015 Gullwing v Heron

From “The Room” by Brass

Introduction

The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence

You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses as shown.

Description of Incident

The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown.

Gullwing and Heron are 10m keelboats.

Wind conditions were about 10kts. Sea conditions are slight waves.

Gullwing responded to Flotsam who was shooting the finish mark. In the act of keeping clear of Flotsam, Gullwing collided with Heron, on port tack Gullwing protests Heron for failing to keep clear under rule 10. Contact occurred without damage or injury.

The Hearing

Gullwing's Description of the Incident:

I was steering Gullwing. We were on the starboard tack lay-line for the finish mark, with Flotsam to leeward, overlapped, advanced on us by about half a boat length. Heron had finished clear ahead of both of us.

About 10m from the mark Flotsam luffed moderately hard to shoot the finish mark, and I responded to keep clear. I saw Heron to windward and expected her to gather way and sail clear.

Heron seemed to be in confusion, and did not trim sails and sail away, remaining stalled in the same position.

I continued to keep clear of Flotsam and collided with Heron. There was no damage or injury.

I was unable to change course away from Heron because there was no room between me and Flotsam.

I hailed 'protest' and my crew immediately displayed a red flag.

Heron's Questions to Gullwing

Q. Was Heron clear ahead when she reached the zone?
A. Yes.

Q. For how long was Gullwing on a steady course before she hit Heron?
A. Gullwing was changing course when she hit Heron.

Protest Committee's Questions to Gullwing

Q. How far towards the wind did you alter course?
A. About 25 degrees above close hauled, but not as high as head to wind.

Q. Did you do any penalty turns in respect of the incident?
A. No.

Heron's Description of the Incident

Heron had finished about 30m ahead of Flotsam and Gullwing, and I tacked immediately I had crossed the line to get clear of the finish pin which Flotsam and Gullwing were aiming for.

In the tack my weather sheet jammed, my jib did not cross the boat, and I stalled and lost way with the headsail aback.

I saw Gullwing changing course towards me but I was unable to avoid her.

In any case I reached the zone clear ahead and Gullwing was required to give me room.

Gullwing's Questions to Heron

Q. Were you sailing towards the mark or away from the mark?
A. Away from the mark.

Q. How far from the mark were you when contact occurred?
A. About a boat length.

Protest Committee Questions to Heron

Q. Did you hail Gullwing to claim mark-room?
A. No.

Q. Was there any injury or damage?
A. No.

Q. Did you do any penalty turns in respect of the incident?
A. No.

Gullwing's witness evidence

I was the skipper of Flotsam.

We were just below the starboard tack lay-line for the finish mark, with Gullwing to windward, overlapped, with us advanced by about half a boat length. Heron had finished clear ahead of both of us.

About 10m from the mark I luffed to shoot the finish mark, and Gullwing responded and just kept clear.

I then heard sounds like contact between two boats, glanced to windward and saw Heron close to windward of Gullwing.

I then heard a hail of 'Protest'.

Protest Committee Questions to Gullwing's witness

Q. How far did you clear the finish mark by?
A. I just cleared it, not more than half a metre.

Q. How far was Gullwing from you when you cleared the mark?
A. About 1 metre or less.

Gullwing Summing Up

Gullwing was on starboard, Heron was on port. Heron did not keep clear.

Heron lost her right to mark-room when she passed head to wind.

Heron should be disqualified.

It was not reasonably possible for Gullwing to avoid contact with Heron.

Heron's Summing Up

Heron was entitled to mark-room which Gullwing failed to give.

Gullwing hit Heron while changing course and should also be disqualified under rule 16.

Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence

Your fellow protest committee members agree that the evidence given, and the diagram in the written protest is reasonably consistent.

Problem

Write Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable and the Decision for this protest.
Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.

Fact Finding Friday |014 Driftwood v Elver

From “The Room” by Brass

Introduction

The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence

You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, and have heard both parties and witnesses as shown.

Protest Form

The protest form is as shown.

The Hearing

Elver having been given proper notice by the Race Committee, did not attend the hearing.

Driftwood's Description of the Incident

I was steering Driftwood. I observed that Elver did not round the Liberty Point Mark as required by the Sailing Instructions.
When we next came within hail, I hailed 'Protest, you did not round the Point Liberty Mark'.
Elver gave no response.

Protest Committee's Questions to Driftwood

Q. Did you display a red flag?
A. No. I do not own a red flag..

Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence

Your fellow protest committee members agree that this should be a really easy protest to write up and suggest that you can do it in record time, but remind you that protestors can be really sensitive in cases like this, so don't make any mistakes..

Problem

Write Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable and the Decision for this protest.

Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.

Fact Finding Friday | 012 Anemone - Request for Redress

From “The Room” by Brass

Introduction

The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence

You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses as shown.

Description of Incident

The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown. Wind conditions were about 10kts. Sea conditions smooth.

SI indicate gate is between Committee Vessel and a mark of the course. On the first lap we sailed between the Committee Vessel and the Finish Mark. At the end of the second lap we finished correctly between the Committee Vessel and the Finish Mark. We were scored DNF. There was another additional laid mark in the vicinity of the Gate/Finish Line as shown in the diagram.

The Hearing

Anemone's Description of the Incident

As described in the protest form Anemone completed the course, passing through the gate as required at the end of the first lap and at the finish at the end of the second lap.

Anemone left the Laid Mark at the outer end of the Gate on the required side.

Race Officer's Description of the Incident

The Sailing Instructions say:

The Start Line, Finishing Line and Gate shall be between the flag mast displaying the Club Committee Flag on the Committee Vessel and the Laid Mark in the vicinity of Point Liberty.

Laid Marks shall be white inflatable cylinders with the sponsor's logo.

Two separate observation team on the Committee Vessel, whose duties were to observe and record boats passing through the gate at the end of the first lap, observed that Anemone passed outside the outer Laid Mark of the gate at the end of the first lap.

At the time when other boats were completing the second lap to finish, Anemone passed through the Finish Line/Gate. The Committee Vessel observation teams recorded this as Anemone passing through the gate for the first time and also recorded the time that Anemone passed through the Gate.

I have here the record sheets for these observations if the protest committee wishes to verify this.

The Committee Vessel remained on station until the time limit expired and Anemone did not pass through the gate a second time to finish.

Accordingly Anemone was scored DNF as required by rule A5 and ISAF Q&A 2009-026.

Protest Committee Questions to the Race Officer

Q. Please describe all racing marks in the vicinity of the Committee Vessel?
A. There were three racing marks in the vicinity of the Committee Vessel as follows:

• A permanent racing mark, a yellow spar buoy;
• The Laid Mark, a white inflatable cylinder with the sponsor's logo; and
• A racing mark laid by another club, a yellow and black inflatable mark.

Protest Committee Questions to Anemone

Q. Describe the 'Finish Mark' that you say you correctly passed at the end of the first lap?
A. It was yellow with a sponsor's logo.

Q. Please describe the 'Additional Mark' you have shown on your diagram?A. It was a white inflatable cylinder.

Anemone Summing Up

Anemone sailed the course correctly and finished in accordance with the definition of finish. Anemone should be scored with her finishing time.

Race Officer's Summing Up

Anemone sailed through the Gate only once and thereafter did not finish within the time limit.

Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence

Your fellow protest committee members agree that there is no inconsistency between the evidence of Anemone and the Race Officer.

Problem

Write Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable and the Decision for this request for redress.

Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.