Judges Manual 2012

Together with the Race Management Manual, ISAF also published a new Judges Manual 2012
You can find it on this page: IJ Manual 2012

Both manuals have a lot in common and relevant text is printed in both. That's logical - a lot of issues are event related and should be treated the same way by all International Race Officials

But there are specific Judges sections. A few titbits:


K.12 Cautions in Evaluating Evidence
Protest committees can make judgements about the credibility of evidence based on style and presentation of evidence. Witnesses who express their opinions confidently are often given more weight than someone who is less forceful and less believable.
You should be aware of speech patterns that could lead juries to erroneous conclusions:

• Use of hedge words, such as “kind of”, “I think”, “If I’m not mistaken”, “it seems”; 
• Use of rising intonation in a declarative statement, suggesting that the speaker is seeking approval for the answer, e.g. in response to the question of “how fast”, the response “5 knots?”
• Repetition indicating insecurity;
• Intensifiers, such as “very close”, instead of “close”;
• High degree of direct quotation, indicating deference to authority; and
• Use of empty adjectives, such as “charming”, “cute”, “interesting”. 

Do not confuse confident witnesses with accurate ones because their confidence is based on more information than simply the information that determines its accuracy. Their confidence may not be at all related to the accuracy of their recall.

Picture on page 128:

And:

M.2 Damage
There is no definition of exactly what constitutes damage; however ISAF Case 19 makes some suggestions:

• was the market value diminished? 
• was an item or equipment made less functional? 
• was a crew member injured?

Under the ISAF Racing Rules Question and Answer Service Q&A 2010-31 J 013, although not binding, unlike ISAF Cases provides the following definition of Damage: Damage means physical harm caused in such a way as to impair the boat’s value, usefulness, or normal function. The only limitation in rule 31.1(a)(3) regarding the damage is that the damage must be obvious to the boats involved.

M.3 Serious Damage
This is not possible to define but a protest committee should ask:

• was the performance of the boat or crew seriously impaired? 
• was the market value of the boat significantly diminished?
• was a crew member seriously injured?

I did a quick search in both documents on 'social media' and on 'code of conduct'.
Results were 0 on the first one and 4 on the second. The latter all in either the coaches, parents or other support personal sections...... Nothing about blogging.

As with the RM-Manual, please inform me if you find content that is noteworthy.
J.

Obituary: Nick Burgin

With sadness I have to report the death of a friend and fellow race official: Nick Burgin.
ISAF published his obituary on 16/03/2012.

I met Nick at my first ISAF Seminar in 2004 in Hamble, UK and worked with him at several events when we were both in the International Jury or Umpire Team.

Like Sally wrote in his obituary, he was always a supportive and steady person in the group, willing to help others. I remember fierce rules discussions during diner at Kiel-week in which he was a calming factor.

I’m very sorry that we will not have his presence in the room or on the water any more.

My sincere condolences to his wife, family and friends.

J.

IJ Sub-Committee Minutes 2009

Each year in November ISAF holds it’s annual conference. Most committees have a meeting were members actual sit around a table and discuss issues. The rest of the year most committees only have meetings on-line and correspond by other means.
The minutes of those meetings are published in the ISAF-website and are giving a glimpse, to those not in any committee, in what has been done and what is planned.
I’ve downloaded the minutes for the IJ- & IU Sub Committee to have a look and to give you some of the issues (as I see them). To start with the minutes from the International Judges Sub Committee:
From the strategy and development chapter:

• The IJSC (and ROC) are working on a policy regarding ‘conflict of interest’. There was a draft circulated in the committee, so I suspect we’ll hear about this in not too long a time
• More time and energy will be devoted to develop Seminar programs in under-developed area of the globe and to recruit younger race officials. To do this a new education program for NJ has been developed that can help. Chili will probably have the first clinic in 2010.
• The IJSC is working on a performance reporting system under regulation 34 (I think this means we will have the opportunity to write our regatta reports on-line). Issues about what should be public and what should remain private are part of the discussions.

ISAF Jury Report Website

The communication between Protest-Committees / Juries in different events has been difficult at best. Only a few issues ever get discussed on a wider scale. Mostly it is the individual panels who have to decide the problems as best as they can.

A few bigger events - particularly World Cup events - have the luxury of a large group of IJs, NJs, IUs and NUs who can discuss issues, they have encountered in the past.
It is however expected that every IJ and IU hands in a report to the ISAF about an event he or she has attended. These reports are not only used to assist the ROC in finding difficulties with individual ROs, but also to have some feedback from the actual events under the ISAF-umbrella.


Since a couple of years excerpts of these Jury Reports are published on the Internet: ISAF JURY REPORT.

And instead of sending in a paper you can fill in the public sheet of the ISAF IJ Report directly on-line.
Every report is checked by the site-administrator (IJ-Report Editor) and a member of the International Judges Sub Committee before it is posted on-line. The site is also used to create a database with the numbers. (So and so many Request for Redress for OCS, or total number of hearings, etc.)

Example: From 2010 Rolex Miami OCR:

Judges were split on the new definition of party: does this new definition allow a jury to make a boat that may be affected by a redress decision a party to the hearing, when the jury is not considering redress for this boat?
Requirement for the three highest-ranked boats to wear coloured bibs: one team requested to be exempted from this requirement because of an existing contract with a team sponsor.
There were difficulties in some hearings to get in due time the race committee staff involved in the situation in question.
Too many support boats were not properly identified with national letters. The requirement for coach boats to stay clear of the starting line and its extensions was not popular but we believe this should be applied in all other Sailing World Cup regattas. The course designation based on the number of beats to windward to be sailed should be a standard. When three fleets are racing simultaneously on a trapezoid course the race committee decided to start them on an Outer-Inner-Inner sequence and this caused delays.

 
If you want to know what is happening at events and what special issues the Juries encounter, have a browse trough the reports. At least it is a glimpse into the IJ-world.
By clicking on the text on the front page you get  specific information and wich officials attended.


In case you want to keep up-to-date on the latest, (at least those of you who are using Google-reader) fill in this in your RSS reader: http://www.ijreport.org/ Google feed. This is a new feature of Google-Reader: You can track any changes to a website by letting Google create a feed for it

.

AC 33 | Rules and explanations – part 5

When AC 33 match two was postponed again and again last Sunday, everybody was dreading the moment that the PRO Harold Bennett would have to pull the plug and send the boats back in. Fortunately the wind filled in and just before the cut-off time of 16:30 he was able to start the match. But it took some doing!

For those of you who haven't heard about the difficulties he faced and what happened, here are some excerpts from different sources:


Later in the evening Scuttlebutt came out with an extra edition with some astonishing news:

SCUTTLEBUTT EXTRA 3 - Sunday, February 14, 2010 (An update to supplement Scuttlebutt 3028 (and Extra 1 and 2)
SCUTTLEBUTT EXCLUSIVE - BENNETT RISES ABOVE RIFF

By Cory E. Friedman, America’s Cup analyst
Valencia, Spain (February 14, 2010) - By now many ‘Buttheads know that challenger USA 17 crushed defender Alinghi 5 in both races to win the 33rd America’s Cup. However, reliable sources tell Scuttlebutt that even when you thought it could not get any worse - it did. The defense club – Société Nautique De Genève’s (SNG) - had their Race Committee actually go on strike and refuse to start Sunday’s race ordered by ISAF approved PRO Harold Bennett. To begin the second race of the Match, Bennett was forced to draft Golden Gate Yacht Club (GGYC) observer Tom Ehman and a Guardia Civil cop on board the RC boat and ordered them to run the flags as Bennett counted down himself.

 FROM SCUTTLEBUTT 3029

* From Thomas C. Price, Annapolis, MD:
I'm sorry but if what your Scuttlebutt Extra says is true, (SNG tried to manipulate the RC to their advantage) that calls for sanction by ISAF against Mr Bertarelli. This absolutely cannot be allowed to pass without resolution and it's clear that it's he ISAF who must resolve it! If true, no Alinghi team should ever sail a sanctioned event again! What a shame. After the awkward "Cumbaya" moment at the press conference, where the parties shook hands, this news is reprehensible.

* From George Morris, Inverness, Scotland, UK:
If the SNG race committee really did behave as described then this will surely require a Rule 69 referral to ISAF. If the RC members who refused to raise the flags are members of SNG then that club would surely be banned from holding any more yacht races and if they were acting on instructions from Alinghi then surely that team would be banned from all future competition. AC events are not quite the same thing as ordinary sailing club regattas but there is a point at which the two sports touch each other, and that is on the racecourse. If Alinghi attempted to fix the result by buying the race committee, then they have disqualified themselves from future competition. Tell me it isn't true.

From an interview with Harold Bennett in Sailingworld: The 33rd Americas Cup Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Harold, what happened on the boat when you tried to start Race 2? Is it true that the SNG members on the boat refused to perform their jobs?
We had a bit of a mutiny. I don't think SNG wanted to go, so they decided they weren't going to do flags. So Tom [Ehman, BMW Oracle Racing's head of external affairs] took the AP down and my boat driver, who's also an international umpire, he shot up forward and did the rest of the signals.

Does this stray into Rule 69 territory. Would you normal write a report for ISAF?
Yes I do have to and obviously that's going to be included in any report. That's what you do, you've got outline what's going on on the boat, whether it's good or bad.

What could've been their motivation? The wind was as light as it could get and still be stable.
We had a perfect breeze the way I saw it. I had good weather information from the Alinghi weather team. It was perfect, everything lined up, 8, 9 knots up the course. And it was like, well, let's do it.

Have you heard of a race committee at any regatta deciding they want to prevent the race being run?
No. Well I've certainly never experienced it. No. I've never heard of that before.

It has been a week since the match and some lively discussions have begun on the sailing forums. In this post I'll give you some of my personal notes and thoughts on this subject:
Lets have a look at the rules.

There's rule 85; Governing Rules

"The organizing authority, race committee and protest committee shall be governed by the rules in the conduct and judging of races"

And if you look at the definition of rules, they include: (g) any other document that govern the event.
Any, in the NoR, SI or other relevant document, regulated boundaries for wave and wind, become therefore rules according to the definition.


And rule 90.1;  Race Committee

"The race committee shall conduct races as directed by the organizing authority and as required by the rules."

There are no individual Race Committee members in the rules. The RC may consist of many people, doing different things, but in the rules they are all considered part on one ‘entity’, which is called the Race Committee.

The PRO/RO is responsible for everything his team does. If the mark boat has not recorded the rounding correctly – the RO gets the blame. If a flag setter on the committee boat doesn’t want to put up the flag, the PRO is the only one who can ‘fire’ him and find someone else to do the job.

The wave and wind limitations are part of the rules and should be discussed on the RC-boat. But in the end, only one person takes the decision - simply because it is his responsibility, and that is the RO.

If an individual RC-member does something that has an influence on the race – positive or negative - you cannot protest that individual. In fact, you cannot protest the RC at all. If you disagree with something that has happened because of the RC, the only thing you can do is request redress. And we all know that getting redress is not only depending on "The RC made a mistake or did not do something they should have done". There are other 'demands' before redress can be granted.

But if anything outside the rules in the RRS or the instructions in the NoR & SI is done by an individual RC-member, that has significantly influenced the results/score in a race or series, your only recourse is to request for redress. The Jury might find that you are indeed disadvantaged without any fault of your own and grant redress, but it cannot punish the RC as a whole nor the individual in question.

There is no provision in the rules to start an individual hearing against any member of the RC. You cannot disqualify a member of the RC. You cannot hold a rule 69 hearing against that person.

It becomes complicated if a connection between a competing boat and a RC-committee member can be found as fact. Then the Jury of that event can start a investigation and if appropriate start a rule 69 hearing, but only against the boat or persons competing, not against the RC-member.
An International Jury must be absolutely sure of the facts before it can decide in a rule 69 hearing against the competitor. And again, if appropriate, the Jury can only penalize the competitor, not the RC-member.

What about Interested Party?

The definition of Interested Party is only about a person who may gain or lose as a result of a protest committee's decision, or who has a close personal interest in the decision. The definition does not include someone on the race committee boat who has ties with a team or competitor.

Only when an actions or non actions influences the score in a significant way, and without any fault of the boat, that boat can request redress and get 'compensated' if necessary.

Since the match was sailed and the 'other' boat won, there's no redress possible.

That leaves only one rule.
That is rule 69.2; Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF

When someone - RC-member, coach, parent, or anybody who has anything to do with the event - does something that could be a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or might have conducted him/herself in such a manner that it brings the sport into disrepute, rule 69.2 gives the possibility to write a report and send it to the National Authority or to ISAF.

The MNA and/or ISAF can start an investigation and, when appropriate, conduct a hearing. It may then take any disciplinary action they think is appropriate against that person(s), team, or club.

Like Harold Bennett stated in the interview, a report will be send and the conduct of RC-members will be included. It is now up to the MNA or ISAF to decide what to do with that report.
Rule 69.2 gives them a choice. They may or they may not conduct an investigation and take this matter further.....

"¿Dónde están mis fresas?"

J.

AC 33 Jury | 5

The decision of the AC 33 Jury in the first hearing is now also available:

Jury Decision AC 33/02

Although this hearing was the first on Tuesday, the publication and subsequent numbering makes this the second Jury decision in AC33.

It's about measurement and water ballast.
With a deep sigh I've read the paper. And again, and again....
I'm still not sure what to make of it. I do not have enough understanding of the boats and the influence of ballast on the LWL.

In short: The AC 33 Jury believes in the Measurer and leaves it up to him. Requests denied.

Both requests in this hearing strike me as not being requests for redress at all.
Like the ones I posted about yesterday, more like being "requests for interpretation".
But since we don't have such a 'horse' in the rules....

I have tried to get my hands on a copy of "The Rules of Procedure for the Jury" but no luck so far. That is a document that outlines how the Jury works, and is a governing document for the conduct of the Jury. Perhaps a special section on Pre-Race disputes should be incorporated (or is, for al I know) in that document.

AC 33 Jury | 4

The AC 33 Jury has given their decision on the request(s) for redress from USA 17. The eight page published document gives us some insight in their thinking.
For those of you who want to read it first: Jury Decision AC33/001
The first issue is the validity. How can a request for redress be considered before a race has been sailed? Before there’s any score – let alone made significantly worse.
I wrote about this in an earlier post on LTW: Redress about amended AC33-NoR and SI?
The AC 33 Jury found a solution. Quoting:

9. The Jury determines that the words ‘possibility that a boat’s score’ used in RRS 62.1 permit the Jury to consider a Request for Redress before the race.

A nice clean solution.
Or is it?
In my opinion it does change rule RRS 62.1!
Instead of a score that “…has been made…” significantly worse, this now also is a score that … could be made … significantly worse.
This means that when a Notice of Race is published and/or the Sailing Instructions, boats now can request redress before any races and the Protest Committee/International Jury will have to conduct a hearing. There’s no issue with any time limit, a request for redress can be delivered within the protest time or two hours after the incident, whichever is later.
As long as it is in writing, the PC/IJ will have to look at it.
In my experience most Jury’s do not convene until just before the event and most PC’s are only formed after racing. The OA, the RC and the Jury/PC will all have to think about a different approach accordingly.
The AC 33 Jury considered five requests. I’ve copy-pasted the title and the decision from the document and then commented. If you want to read all reasons go back to: Jury Decision AC33/001

REQUEST 01-1: INCORRECT RULES PRECEDENCE
19. The Request is upheld. The OA/RC are directed to issue an amendment deleting NoR 1.2 and SI 1.2, and replacing them with ‘The Deed of Gift shall prevail over any other conflicting rule’.

This was the expected result. By removing the NoR and SI from the list the Jury made sure that in case of conflict they at least have a chance to find a solution that provides the fairest result for all boats affected. As is already written in the RRS.

REQUEST 01-2: CHANGING THE RULES TO OUTLAW WIND DETECTION EQUIPMENT.

25. Consequently, the Jury has allowed the request to be withdrawn (RRS 63.1).

OA and USA reached an agreement. There was no longer a need for the RfR and USA requested withdrawal, which the AC 33 Jury allowed.

REQUEST 01-3: FAILURE TO MUTUALLY AGREE ON THE START TIME FOR RACES.
38. The Request is denied.

Someone has to pick a time, otherwise there would not be a race. If parties can’t agree, that is the OA/ RC. To bad that in this particular series the Defender is also the OA.

REQUEST 01-4: IMPOSING WIND AND WAVE LIMITS THAT DIRECTLY
FAVOUR SNG’S OWN YACHT.
52. Redress is granted. The OA is directed to issue an amendment deleting NoR 6.7.
53. The Jury recognizes that the RC has the obligation to comply with
appropriate safety and legal obligations when making a decision to start or continue a race.

This one is a little strange. I don’t understand why the AC 33 Jury used the word “granted” instead of upheld. As in 01-1, the OA is directed to change the NoR and there’s not any score awarded to any boat…

REQUEST 01-5: IMPOSING RULES REGARDING SKIN FRICTION
REDUCTION.
61. For the purpose of SI 24, ‘trash’ does not include substances released into the water from a boat that are not in breach of any laws or regulations.
62. SI 24 has not reinstated RRS 53 and therefore there is no improper action by the OA and the Request is therefore denied.

This issue would normally be handled by one of the parties asking a written question to the Jury and they then would answer with the decision as printed above. I.e. sentence 61. Not really a request for redress at all, in my opinion. But that can also be said about 01-2
This makes two request denied, two upheld and one withdrawn.
I’m sure the spin-doctors of the parties will count differently.
J.

AC 33 Jury | 3.1

Jury Decision AC33/001

I haven't had time to study the document but will try to come up with some comments tomorrow.

AC 33 Jury | 3

From Scuttlebut Europe:
America's Cup Jury Denies BMW Oracle Request For Redress
The ISAF appointed international jury denied BMW Oracle's request for redress regarding measurement of the competing yachts
The ISAF International Jury for the America's Cup issued an interim decision late Tuesday night rejecting the challenger, BMW Oracle's latest complaint regarding the position and volume of the water ballast onboard the racing yachts during measurement.
"We are pleased that the jury upheld the New York Supreme Court and expert panel decision of November 2009. This is a positive step towards the America's Cup - we are glad that measurement can go ahead as scheduled and that the challenger's request for redress has been denied. With just a few days to go before the first race of the 33rd America's Cup, the team is fully focused on race training and preparations," said Grant Simmer, Alinghi design team coordinator.
* Summary Of Decision:
The Jury is satisfied that the Measurer has made a reasonable interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated November 19th 2009 in the published Measurement Procedures, and in the proposed implementation of those procedures as presented in the hearing. The procedures will include the Measurer being satisfied that the position and volume of water ballast on board when the boat is presented for measurement is consistent with that used for the purpose of enhancing racing performance.
The Jury interprets the term 'as much water ballast as might be used at any time during the race' to mean the maximum amount used for enhancing racing performance, at any time during any race.
Paragraph 20 of the Expert Panel's Opinion, adopted by the Supreme Court of the State of New York in its decision, applies only to multihulls and it is reasonable to conclude that this does not mean 'equally fore-and-aft' as that would also apply to monohulls.
The Jury therefore accepts as reasonable the interpretation used by the Measurer that 'distributed equally in the available ballast storage areas' is for the purpose of presenting the boat in an upright position, laterally, for measurement.
The Requests are therefore denied.
A full written decision will follow.

The International Jury is ready to hear Alinghi and BMW Oracle on the measurement issue.

Valencia, 2 February 2010. Photo copyright Pierre Orphanidis / Valencia Sailing

Other decisions reached by the AC 33 Jury:

• The (first) start time for races will be 10:06.
• Race Office Harold Bennett has been given the discretion to use his experience and judgement on what constitutes fair and safe conditions for racing.
  (this covers issues in wind speed as well as conditions (water, waves etc)
  
• GGYC’s yacht USA has also been cleared to use onboard wind-detection equipment.
• GGYC’s yacht USA has been cleared to use “fast and green” friction-reduction technologies.

.
See also: Statement GGYC 3 feb 2010

This leaves the issue about the order in the race documents and RRS....

AC 33 Jury | 2

Two statements regarding a decision of the AC 33 Jury appeared on the GGYC- and Alinghi website. They are about the use of water-ballast on board Alinghi.

"Competitors will be able to use water ballast in the coming 33rd America’s Cup commencing in Valencia on Monday, provided that the amount used to benefit performance is also in position when the boat is measured. "

This is to ensure that the maximum LWL (load water length) of 90 feet is not circumvented
Read more:
Statement by GGYC
Statement by Alinghi

As usual both parties have totally different approaches to the decision.
Hopefully the AC 33 Jury will publish the facts found, conclusion and decision soon, so we can have a look at their thinking. From the decision it is at least clear that all water-ballast that is to be used to enhanced performance, must be on board during measurement. It will be up to the measurer to make sure that it cannot be increased - and subsequently decreased - during racing.

Bring the wax and seal all pumps?

AC 33 Jury | 1

I had a hard time finding out which issues have to be decided by the AC33 Jury before the boats can go sailing next Monday. On the site from Yachting World, a series of posts is starting counting down the last seven days. According to today's post the following questions are before the Jury:

1. Skin friction issue - re-inserted Racing Rule 53 ('Skin Friction'). Alinghi/SNG obtained a New York Supreme Court ruling to delete it, BMW Oracle want this deletion to stay, especially now they have a super slippery surface on the underside of their tri.

2. Start time - Currently shown in Notice of Race at 10am. BMW Oracle/GGYC argue that Deed of Gift says the start time has to be by mutual consent. Alinghi claim that the start has be then in order to provide enough daylight time to run to the time limit of 7 hours.

3. Wind and wave limits - BMW Oracle/GGYC are unhappy that Alinghi/SNG has set wind limits to favour its own boat when no such wind limits exist in the Deed of Gift. Contrary to popular opinion, there were no fixed wind or wave limits in the last event. The decision to race came down to the race officer's discretion. New Zealand 2002/3 was the last time fixed wind limits were used and demonstrated that such limits were easier in theory than in practice.
There is nothing in the Deed of Gift about having stable winds, winds of more than a certain strength, or less than a certain strength.

4. Wind detection units - BMW Oracle/GGYC are unhappy that the Notice of Race now bans the use of certain wind detection units. The American team has a sophisticated laser wind spotter that the manufacturers claim can see gusts and shifts up to 1km ahead of the boat. Such equipment was permitted under earlier drafts of the NOR.

5. Notice of Race to overrule the Racing Rules of Sailing - Normally ISAF racing rules dictate proceedings, in America's Cup racing it's the Deed of Gift which states that the race will be conducted under the Defending yacht club's rules. The order in which various rules are and notices are applied has been re-arranged for this event. BMW Oracle/GGYC want to see the structure returned to normal with ISAF rules towards the top of the tree, just under the Deed of Gift.

On the Official 33rd America's Cup Website a page about the AC33 Jury has been published. Besides the names and short biography, no other official documents as of yet.

The Jury will be meeting today, hopefully some info will appear on the site as well.

UPDATE 01/02/10 - 23:26 h
A statement has been posted on the GGYC-website: STATEMENT 1 FEBRUARY 2010.pdf
Nothing on the Alinghi-Website nor the AC33-Jury page

Redress about amended AC33- NOR and SI?

From the Alinghi website; www.alinghi.com

SNG letter issuing SIs and amended NOR

33rd America's Cup Sailing Instructions_100119

Amended 33rd America's Cup Notice of Race_100119

From the Golden Gate Yacht club website; www.ggyc.com

Statement by Tom Ehman, GGYC Spokesperson:

Valencia (January 19, 2010) – The America’s Cup defender, Société Nautique de Genève, issued today a revised Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions for the 33rd America’s Cup Match set to begin on February 8th in the waters off Valencia, Spain.

Both documents are riddled with errors, and continue SNG’s practice of interpreting rules – or creating new ones – solely to favor Alinghi and harm the chances of the Challenger.

The Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions are heavily biased in favor of the Defender and its yacht despite input from GGYC and ISAF, the sport’s world governing body, during last week’s meeting in Singapore and a meeting in late December in Sydney. Therefore, today GGYC has made an application for redress to the International Jury, asking that the Jury be convened as soon as possible to negate or revise the biased provisions before the Match.

Specifically, SNG has:

• Effectively re-inserted Racing Rule 53 (“Skin Friction”) after obtaining a New York Supreme Court ruling to delete it.
  
• Set the starting time for the races despite the Deed of Gift’s requirement that this be agreed by mutual consent.
• Set wind and wave limits to favor its own yacht.
  
• Changed the latest draft of the Notice of Race to ban certain wind detection equipment now being used by BOR that, previously, was permitted under all earlier drafts of the NOR.
• Re-arranged the hierarchy of the applicable rules so that SNG’s Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions would, in the case of conflict, overrule the Racing Rules; this is highly irregular and contrary to normal practice in yacht racing.

It is clearer than ever that SNG is hell-bent on making the America’s Cup the Alinghi Cup.
We now look to the International Jury to reinstate the correct and proper rules and procedures.


Rule 61.1: A request for redress ... shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat's score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by
(a) an improper action or omission of the ... organizing authority....

Past tense: "been made"
Shouldn't there be a race, to have a result, before a score can been made significantly worse?


I can understand one party wanting to fix issues in the NOR or SI, it perceives as bias. Normally if you think the conditions in the NOR are not fair, you just don't enter in the race. But in the AC this is very difficult, as one party is also the OA and gets to write all the race documents.

But a request for redress is perhaps not appropriate in this regard. What is, I don't know.
Do you have any ideas?

Approved

The list of Race Officials successfully approved for ISAF International Race Official status in November 2009 has been published on the ISAF Race Officials microsite:
ISAF International Race Official Renewals And New Appointments For 2009

I had to re-applied for IJ this year and I'm happy to read that I was approved. You will have to bear with me for another four years. My group from the same first year (2005) started with 17 International Judges. Three Two have not re-applied or were not approved. That leaves 14 15 still hanging on. Keep it up!

In this post I also want to congratulate specially all those who were approved as an IJ, IU, IRO or IM for the first time this year. And of course to Chris, Adrian, Luigi, Angelo, Vic, Johannes, Jana, Angeline, Alan and Douglas; well done! Instead of worrying about tests and seminars, you can now start worrying about grouping and ISAF-appointments (Evil Grin)

Upcoming ISAF Seminars 2009

For International Judge:

21 Sep 09 - 23 Sep 09
International Judges Seminar, Uruguay
Yacht Club Uruguayo

For International Race Officer

25 Sep 09 - 27 Sep 09
Race Management Seminar, Austria
Austrian Sailing Federation, Neusiedl am See, Austria

02 Oct 09 - 04 Oct 09
Race Management Seminar, Argentina
Yacht Club Argentino, Buenos Aires - Argentina
23 Oct 09 - 25 Oct 09

Race Management Seminar, Belgium
Bloso SportsHotel - Ghent - Belgium

23 Nov 09 - 25 Nov 09
Race Management Seminar, Australia
Brisbane QLD, Australia

For International Umpire

07 Oct 09 - 11 Oct 09
International Umpire Seminar, Sweden
GKSS, Talattagatan 10, Langedrag, 426 76 Vastra Frolunda

18 Nov 09 - 22 Nov 09
International Umpire Seminar, Great Britain
Oxford Sailing Club, Great Britain

02 Dec 09 - 06 Dec 09
International Umpire Seminar, Argentina
Yacht Club Argentino, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Delta Lloyd Regatta 2009 | 01

From yesterday evening I am in Medemblik to take part as judge and umpire in the Delta Lloyd Regatta.
We have been very busy with preparations. It's a big team with 20 people. During the day we split up in a rule 42 Team and a Match Racing Team and in the evening we are assigned in several - even three if need be - panels.
This morning we had several meetings with the umpire group, with the skippers and crew and now with the complete jury.
I will get back to the blog as much as possible - the internet connection is fine here - but please give me some leeway. It promises to be a very busy event.

Paste & Copy for Judges Manual

From ISAF:

International Judges’ Manual
Edition 5 December 2008
Amendment Sheet No. 1

Issued April 2009

Please amend your copy of the Manual as shown below:
Section 5.4.1 First Paragraph
Restrictions to advertising, i.e. Category A
delete and insert
Restrictions to Advertising as stated in ISAF Regulation 20

Section 6.1.2
is observed e.g. rule 31.2
delete and insert
is observed e.g. rule 31

End

Audi Etchells Worlds 2009 Protests

For everybody who wants to have a look at how an International Jury writes up protests, have a look at: http://www.rbyc.org.au/sa/protest/default.aspx?ID=18897
In light of our exercises on Fact Finding Friday, a perfect way to read what is required.

Eleven protests were held during the Etchells Worlds 2009 and published on the official Jury notice board. Not only the particulars but the actual facts found. I've had a look and, although some of them are on the short side, all of the pertinent information is there.

And, as per usual, requests for redress take time the most…….

Here’s an example:

Protest Decision Protest Number: 02

Event: Audi Etchells Worlds 2009; Race Number: 2

Protesting Boat: Sail # 1219
Protested Boat: Sail # 994
Protest Details: 2nd windward beat

Facts Found

994 was contacted and declined to attend the hearing.
1219 was sailing to windward on starboard tack approx. 500 meters from the windward mark
994 was port tack on a converging course with 1219
994 hailed: "Cross or tack"
1219 did not respond to the hail
994 continued sailing to windward on port tack
1219 bore away to avoid contact with 994 and passed astern of her
There was no contact
Neither boat exonerated

Conclusion

994 on port tack was required by rule 10 to keep clear of 1219 and failed to do so. There was no obligation for 1219 to respond to the hail of 994. RRS 63.3 (b) applied

Rule(s) applicable

Decision

994 DSQ in Race 2

Jury Members

A. Wardle (Chairman), D. Sloan, E. Wold, I Kingsford-Smith & W. Bell .

I hope more and more event-web sites will have the facilities to publish this sort of protest information and that International Jury are willing to put in the extra effort of writing them on a computer.

Benelux Race Officials Seminar 2009 | 2

At the seminar last weekend we were given a presentation about the interaction between the different Race Officials and how to gain an advantage with interacting better.

At any (major) event there are several Race official (groups) who need to cooperate to make it a success; Race Officer (committee), Judges and or Umpires and Measurers.

If you are a Judge or Umpire, what do you know of the responsibilities of the Measurer? If you are a Race Officer, when do you ask a Jury member if you have an issue. If you are a Measurer can you disqualify a boat without the Jury?

I must admit that I have a fairly good picture of what a Race Officer can and cannot do, but almost no idea about the obligations or rights of a Measurer. At the seminar we were asked to consider what we would need to know of the others to perform our own task better. Not only arriving at an event but well before. Not what you think "they" should know. But what you think you need from them....

It begins with having respect for each others work.
Then we all need knowledge about the responsibilities and rights of each group and knowledge about procedures the others follow.
Furthermore we need to check that the documents each group prepares don't have contradictions, like in the last Olympics. Each document must also be screened by the other groups to know the impact on each others work.
It is sometimes frustrating for a Race Officer to get a paper from the Jury on the first day amending several rules in the Sailing Instructions. It is equally frustrating to have to do protest after protest because the SI haven't been properly written. Do you always read the Class Rules before you go to an event?

ISAF has/will develop more interaction between the Race Officials using Internet. They already have streamlined and build consistency in the four groups, by making several requirements to become an international Race Official, general applicable. All four have a sub-committee which are guided by the Race Official Committee. All four must follow a code of conduct and all four represent ISAF. It will take some time, but it is on the agenda.

Perhaps it would beneficial to do an event helping in the group you are not familiar with? I wouldn't mind helping out a Measurement Team for an event to learn about there responsibilities.

How about you? Do you know enough?

.

Judging the Olympics | 3

This week in our series on Olympic Judges, the answers I received from
Bill O'Hara. If you have attended any grade 1 in the last couple of years you must have met him. He's the judge who gave lectures and talks to sailors, coaches and judges on the rule 42 interpretations and helped others to get to a consistent (legal) level.

You can read the first part (and the intro) in: Judging the Olympics | 1 and the previous part (last week) in: Judging the Olympics | 2

 

Here's what Bill answered to the questions:

How long where you an International Judge before you were invited to go to an Olympic Event? Perhaps you can tell something about your experiences and what you think is needed to be an International Technical Official?

I got invited to my first Olympic event three years after becoming a judge.  I think I got my chance early because I had already attended 4 Olympics in various capacities ,so although in Athens I was short on judging experience compared to many members of the jury I had plenty of Olympic experience.   In Athens  I was on the  laser course and I remember feeling that although nervous I felt well prepared for it . I think the most important thing for an international Technical Official is to keep active and do as many grade 1 events and continental championships they can before the games. It improves your skills and knowledge and it gives the sailors confidence because you are a familiar face and they know what to expect from you.

Can you tell us about the differences between any Grade 1 event and the Olympic competition, from a Judges point of view

You are more resourced at the Olympics; its more important not to make a mistake; and you don't get to speak to the sailors and coaches.

In "normal" International events CAS does not get involved, but it has in the last two Olympics. Does it change the way you do a protest hearing?

CAS do get involved in normal events. The exception at the Olympics is that their is a standing CAS panel so its easier for teams to access. In the professional era appeals to higher authorities are more likely so its important not to take shortcuts and follow hearing procedures precisely.

The Olympic Sailing event is the most filmed and photographed event of all. What is the influence of that on your work?

The big difference for me was that I took my hat off when the Helicopters were overhead so that my kids would recognize me if they were watching the TV. Seriously it was a great help in hearings to have good quality video footage to consider.

What did you enjoyed the most about the Olympics and what disappointed you?

It was great working in a team who all took collective responsibility and didn't try to avoid difficult decisions. It is difficult to articulate how hard the Chinese worked to make the event a success and I can honestly say I wasn't disappointed in any way.

Do you want to do the next Olympic in 2012?

Yes. Its a responsibility and an honor  to  be at the  Olympics  and I am  going  to work hard for the next four years to give myself a chance to be selected.

Anything else about this Olympics you might want to share with readers of my blog?

I think all judges who want to go to the games should consider becoming umpires as more and more of the top events expect both skill sets.

Judging the Olympics | 2

This week part two in our series about Olympic Judges.
You can read the first part (and the intro) in last week's post : Judging the Olympics | 1
One of the world's youngest IJ's, Sofia Truchanowicz, was at the Olympics for the very first time in Qingdao. She is a very knowledgeable judge from Poland and a nice person to boot. This is what she wrote in answer to my questions:
Dear Jos,
Great idea! Please find my answers in red below.
Best regards, Sofia

Q1-- How long where you an International Judge before you were invited to go to an Olympic Event? Perhaps you can tell something about your experiences and what you think is needed to be an International Technical Official?
A1-- I have been appointed as an IJ in 2004 so I have never thought that 2008 will be the year of getting the Olympic experience. I think it is very important to have your goals and step by step improve yourself to finally achieve them. As long as you do it with passion you are on the best way to make your dreams, even those Olympic ones, come true.
Q2-- Can you tell us about the differences between any Grade 1 event and the Olympic competition, from a Judges point of view?
A2-- It is a tricky question. As to be perfectly honest I must admit that Grade 1 event or ISAF Worlds for AOC are much more difficult regattas in terms of your physical and timing engagement. Due to bigger size of the fleets, races are tougher and days on the water longer. On the contrary Olympic Games have totally different specifics. There is definitely more pressure in the air, as every move you make and every decision you take, have much more impact on the outcome of the game. It is a little bit like a whole world looking at your hands. Nevertheless, it is still the same job you have to do out there. Therefore as long as you behave as you would normally behave on any other event, you are not overwhelmed by psychological and outside factors.
Q3-- In "normal" International events CAS does not get involved, but it has in the last two Olympics. Does it change the way you do a protest hearing?
A3-- I was not involved in any of the later-on CAS hearings, but it is true that every hearing you have during the Games, is done as it could end up in the CAS. This in turn makes you more focused on the procedures and proper way to deal with them. I guess Olympic Games require your concentration one hundred fifty percent in this field. However, as long as you run a hearing according to the rules and required procedures, you can sleep calmly (at least in parts ).
Q4-- The Olympic Sailing event is the most filmed and photographed event of all. What is the influence of that on your work?
A4-- You cannot hear your own thoughts ( just joking.. ) Although the helicopter noise can be tiring. As long as you focus on your normal work you do not pay too much attention to their presence. Nevertheless, you still keep in mind that your move is filmed and it wouldn’t be nice to see yourself next to the pumping competitor with no reaction from judges point of view. It wouldn’t be too professional, I suppose....
Q5-- What did you enjoyed the most about the Olympics and what disappointed you?
A5-- Atmosphere! That was the best part. The people around you (see other Jury members ) were fantastic. We had time for work and time for laugh. You could always count on their support and criticism and that made you feel really comfortable. Our Chairman, David Tillett, has done a remarkable job to keep all the pressure away and to give us a feeling to be an important part of this regatta. I learnt a lot and I am very happy and grateful to have a chance to meet such a wonderful people. Disappointment? I guess only lack of wind, but it was known from a long time before so you cannot complain…
Q6-- Do you want to do the next Olympic in 2012?
A6-- I presume this is a rhetorical question? Of course I would like to, but only if I was good enough. I had my chance this year and no matter what will happen in 2012, I already have unforgettable memories.
Q7-- Anything else about this Olympics you might want to share with readers of my blog?
A7-- Guess just to say thank you… to all the Olympic Jury for showing us (Olympic beginners ) what real teamwork means.

.