Changes in Rule 69; part Two

The second change in rule 69 is about the 'standard of proof' that should be used on the evidence:

Rule 69.2(b):
……. If it is established to the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that the competitor has broken rule 69.1(a), it shall either…...

I have had a very hard time finding out what 'comfortable satisfaction' means. The Casebook working party is preparing a Case to explain to protest committees what the “comfortable satisfaction” standard means and how they should apply it. But that will take - according to my sources - several more weeks, before that is finalized.

Search results

A search on the Internet spewed out several doping cases where this 'standard of proof ' is discussed;

A couple of quotes from an article by Daniel Dawer, with the title: Leveling the Playing Field: Why the USADA Must Adopt a Criminal Burden of Proof in Anti-Doping Proceedings

Article 3.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, states that such a standard "is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.“

Accordingly, the WADA established a burden of proof “greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”: namely, prosecutors must establish an athlete’s guilt “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body.” The standard’s ambiguity emerges from a failure to define “comfortable satisfaction.” Is it closer to preponderance of evidence—the evidentiary standard in civil proceedings—or closer to beyond reasonable doubt?

And from an article by Angel R. Puerta: Uncomfortable Satisfaction

Athletes need no longer be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in doping cases - a near impossibility in many instances - but rather they must be proven guilty "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the panels hearing their cases.

The new standard brings common sense into the pursuit of a level playing field. Obvious cheaters can no longer hide beyond a "we have never tested positive" gimmick that is built upon clever drugs and astute event and training schedules.

From an article on Velo News: Dick Pound talks Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong and the system

“Absolutely,” Pound said. “You can do a lot more with a confession like that and allegations and information that they can provide than you can ever do with results that come from the odd guy who pees in a bottle. In principle, I am very comfortable with it.”

In criminal trials, he said, “you can hang people even without bloodstained clothes. It’s a matter of having the kind of panels and the people on those panels who are in a position to weigh the evidence and arrive at the level of proof — to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel — that CAS has adopted as the standard of proof.”

Pound added that the more rigorous “comfortable satisfaction” standard is applied to anti-doping authorities when presenting their evidence “but the athlete must only meet a ‘balance of probabilities’ standard (when submitting evidence in their defense). It really is all well calibrated.”

Citing a hypothetical example of someone charged with distribution of 300 syringes of Aranesp, Pound said: “You don’t need the actual syringes to make the case. Eyewitness testimony of a delivery, credit card receipts … all of that is admissible and it’s up to the panel to weigh that evidence.”

The legal standards of proof can be found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
I've compiled a table and placed 'comfortable satisfaction' where I think it should be, which is level 8

Sportsmanship in other Sports

I'm currently looking at other sports to see how they handle 'verbal' abuse of the referee/umpire in a field of play. I think I might need some help.

The rugby rules are pretty straightforward. From the IRB Laws of Rugby Union 2012:

(s) All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle except at a kick-off or at a penalty kick following admonishment, temporary suspension, or send-off.

Sanction: Penalty kick

 I've been told that this works extremely well in Rugby. If you only look crosseyed towards a referee you'll get a penalty.

In Tennis, from 2012 FRIEND AT COURT, The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations: Misconduct:

• Visible or audible profanity or obscenity
• Abuse of racket, balls, or equipment
• Verbal or physical abuse of a player or official
• Receipt of coaching
• Abusive conduct by a player or a person associated with a player (USTA Regulation IV.C.10. refers to this situation)
• Retaliatory calls (obviously bad calls made in retaliation for the opponent’s calls)
• Unsportsmanlike conduct (any other conduct that is abusive or detrimental to the sport)
• Failure to follow the instructions of an official (Violation of any USTA Tournament Regulation (USTA Regulation IV.C.20.)

Violations shall be penalized as follows: First Offense: Point, Second Offense: Game, Third Offense: Default

If there are any of you who - besides Sailing -  participate in other sports where a referee or umpire is taking decisions in a field of play, please have a look at your rulebook and tell me what is written  about verbal abuse towards officials.

Final Score in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

WE HAVE A WINNER!

Scoring this final episode of our LTW 2012 Winter Challenge brought one contestant over the 100 points, and therefore he's declared as the winner. Congratulations Grey Bear, well done!
Your coveted prize will be banged in the post asap….

As to our final Episode, most of you did arrive at the 'correct' answer. Tiger was within the rules to try to improve her series score by making sure Hamilton Eleven finished after other boat(s).

The fact that the score of another boat was improved is more or less the point. If you sail someone to the back of the fleet - early in the race - a lot of boats benefit. The fact that is was only one, makes you think it was done for another reason. It's prudent to investigate the relation between the two boats benefiting from this manoeuvre, but even - like in our case - you can find such a connection, actual team racing is very very hard to prove.

You have to investigate all rules in the incident, because although the protest is about rule 2 and or 69, rule 2 can be infringed if you break a rule of part 2 using this tactic of improving your score. Tiger broke no rules, she was entitled to sail to the mark (18.2(b)), she was right of way boat (11) and Hamilton Eleven had to keep clear, therefore it was no rule 2 infringement nor a rule 69 issue.

Hamilton Eleven should have crossed astern as soon as Tiger luffed and defended her position instead of trying to pass to windward…. But that is hindsight.

Everybody who used Case 78 was deducted one point, it has been withdrawn from the book (well spotted Zaphod). But if you used Q&A 2011-022 you got a bonus point.

Scoring was based on the following criteria:
Adequate facts found? 2 points;
Rule 18 & rule 11 mentioned? 1 point;
Improved scoring (series) for Tiger? 1 point;
No rules broken by Tiger? 1 point;
No rules broken by Banks? 1 point;
Conclusion about rule 2 and 69? 2 points;
Dismissal of the protest? 2 points

Bonus or Malus points
Using Case 78? -1 point
Using Q&A 2011-022? +1 point
(redress 62.1(d)) only for Goomer two +1 point

Which gives us the final result:

I also have to congratulate Zaphod on his (almost) catching up and second place. And Dauphine who - despite not having entered in this last episode - managed to hang on to third place. (I did check the spam box!)

There will be an Epilogue to this series. I'm cooking it, but time is scarce, so it will take (at least) another week before it's ready.

ISAF Executive Statement: RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie: CLOSED

ISAF Executive Statement:
International Sailing Federation

16/03/2012

 

The ISAF Executive Committee has met to consider the reports from the International Jury of the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships and the RYA Tribunal. The role of ISAF under Racing Rule of Sailing 69.2(a) is to first determine whether or not it is appropriate to conduct a further hearing into the reports received.

 

The Executive Committee has reviewed the decisions of the International Jury and the RYA Tribunal, the video evidence of the incident, other relevant documentation from Perth and has taken legal advice. Mr Ainslie was asked to comment and did so.

The Executive Committee supports the decision and the report of the International Jury and the report of the RYA Tribunal that found that Mr Ainslie committed Gross Misconduct and believes that the penalties imposed to date are appropriate. Accordingly, ISAF does not regard it as appropriate to conduct a further hearing into the incident and no further action will therefore be taken.

The issue of Media Boats is a separate matter from the decision issued today. The ISAF Media policies were clear and the issue of adherence will be considered separately.

All three parties in rule 69.1(c) have now investigated this matter according to rule 69.2(a):

69.2 Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF

(a) When a national authority or the ISAF receives a report alleging a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, a report alleging conduct that has brought the sport into disrepute, or a report required by rule 69.1(c) or 69.1(e), it may conduct an investigation and, when appropriate, shall conduct a hearing. It may then take any disciplinary action within its jurisdiction it considers appropriate against the competitor or boat, or other person involved, including suspending eligibility, permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event held within its jurisdiction, and suspending ISAF eligibility under ISAF Regulation 19.

The MNA of the sailor, (the owner of the boat) and the location, and now the ISAF have issued a statement. There will be no further action. This matter is now CLOSED. Yachting Australia and ISAF didn't find it was appropriate to conduct a hearing. The statement of the RYA does not specify if it did or did not conduct a hearing, but in any case, the RYA tribunal concluded that no further penalty was appropriate.

I'm a bit unsure about the difference between an investigation and a hearing, when for instance the person involved is asked to give comments, but rest the statement by ISAF makes it clear that they still regarded that as an investigation.

Perhaps the definition of a hearing is that all parties involved are physically brought together in one meeting, like in a protest hearing?

Ben Ainslie can now prepare, without this 'Damocles sword' hanging over his participation in the OG.

Yachting Australia statement; RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie

Media Release: Yachting Australia statement regarding Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship incident

Yachting Australia agrees any action on Ben Ainslie's incident that occurred at the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships is a matter for ISAF.

Thursday 16 February 2012
On 10 December 2011 Yachting Australia received a report from the Chairman of the International Jury at the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships. This report was provided under RRS 69.1(c) and related to an incident involving Ben Ainslie (GBR) at the event.

The matter was reported to the Royal Yachting Association (RYA), as the competitors’ Member National Authority (MNA), ISAF and Yachting Australia, as the MNA in whose jurisdiction the event was held.

Yachting Australia has considered the matter. It is the view of Yachting Australia that, given the incident occurred at an ISAF event and that the matter has been formally reported to ISAF, any further penalty should now be considered and determined by ISAF.

"Yachting Australia does not consider that this a matter for us to deal with," explained Phil Jones, Yachting Australia CEO. "This was an international event that happens to have been held in Australia and involved a competitor from another country. Whilst under the Racing Rules of Sailing we have the authority to investigate and conduct a hearing, it would clearly inappropriate."

Accordingly Yachting Australia will not be taking any further action in relation to the matter.

Craig Heydon
Yachting Australia

Now there is only one left: ISAF

RYA Tribunal Decision: RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie

Press release:

RYA Tribunal proceedings relating to Ben Ainslie conclude:


The RYA Tribunal met on 9 February 2012 to consider a report dated 14 December 2011 received pursuant to the Racing Rules of Sailing Rule 69.1(c) from the International Jury at the ISAF Sailing World Championships held in Perth in December 2011.

The Tribunal agreed with the decision of the International Jury that the behaviour of Mr Ben Ainslie amounted to a gross breach of good manners and conduct that brought the sport into disrepute.

Having considered all the evidence put before it, the Tribunal was satisfied that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to impose a penalty over and above that imposed by the International Jury at the event.

In reaching its decision the Tribunal acknowledged that the effect of the penalty imposed by the International Jury was to deny Mr Ainslie the possibility of taking part in the medal race for the event.  
The Tribunal also recognised that there was an apparent lack of active management of media boats at this and previous events leading to repeated infringements of the provisions of the event media boat guidelines. In addition, formal rights of redress against official boats were not available to competitors.

The Tribunal noted that it had had an opportunity to view evidence that was not available to the International Jury during the hearing at the event.

The RYA, as the ISAF Member National Authority for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has jurisdiction under Rule 69.2 to take action in response to reports made to it under Rule 69.1 relating to British sailors and the Council of the RYA has delegated its authority in such matters to the RYA Tribunal. 

Article Published: February 10, 2012 15:01

It is now up to ISAF (and Yachting Australia) to decide if they want to pursue this matter. It is remarkably hard to find any jurisprudence in rule 69 matters. Most MNA's and ISAF do not publish records on these [sensitive] issues.

PERTH 2011; Case 48; RRS 69.1 against Ainslie

From the Perth 2011 Jury Notice Board: Case 48.pdf:

DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL JURY IN CASE 48

Rule 69.1 Hearing based on report from Organizing Authority
Ben Ainslie (Finn GBR 3)

Facts Found

As the first two boats in Finn Race 9 rounded the gate for the second beat and headed towards the shore, a media boat followed close to leeward of the leader. This caused wash for GBR 3, who attempted to wave the media boat off.
When the leaders passed through the gate and headed towards the finishing line, the same media boat followed the leader to the finishing line leaving a large wake, which again affected GBR 3's race.

The media boat crossed the finishing line and then stopped in front of GBR 3 after GBR 3 finished. As GBR 3 came alongside, the skipper jumped aboard the media boat.

The skipper grabbed and shook the boat driver, shouting 'You have no respect!' He then walked towards another member of the media boat's crew, but made no contact with him. He then jumped into the water, swam to his boat and sailed away.

On coming ashore, the skipper of GBR 3 wrote a letter of apology and delivered it to the media boat driver. The media boat driver accepted that apology and apologised in a letter for disturbance during the race.

Conclusion

The action of jumping on a media boat with anger and grabbing the driver constitutes physical aggression. Such behaviour is never an acceptable response. Such behaviour not only constitutes a gross breach of good manners but also, coming from a top athlete at a world championship, brings the sport of sailing into disrepute.

However, the repeated nature of the media boats interference over multiple legs is a mitigating circumstance, as is the prompt and unsolicited written apology given to the boat driver.

Decision

GBR 3 is to be scored DGM (disqualification non-excludable for gross misconduct) for Races 9 and 10.

 

Decision given at 22:40 December 9, 2011
International Jury: Bernard Bonneau (Chairman), Jim Capron, Josje Hofland, Ana Sanchez, Marianne Middelthon

The matter has been dealt with at the event. Is it now over?

Reading Rule 69.1(c):

The protest committee shall promptly report a penalty, but not a warning, to the national authorities of the venue, of the competitor and of the boat owner. If the protest committee is an international jury appointed by the ISAF under rule 89.2(b), it shall send a copy of the report to the ISAF.

That means that four ‘higher’ authorities will be send a report. The Australian MNA: Yachting Australia (because the venue was Perth), the RYA (Ainslie is from GBR), the MNA of the boat-owner (if that is an MNA other than from Australia or Great Britain) and the ISAF.

In all likely hood Yachting Australia and the ISAF will defer from investigating and leave the matter in the hands of the RYA. They are now the first to respond. But if the decision of the RYA is not appropriate in the eyes of either YA or the ISAF, they can then start there own investigation and decide on whether an additional sanction is warranted.

(pillow)Case of the week (35/11) – 47

(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.)

CASE 47

Rule 2, Fair Sailing

A boat that deliberately hails ‘Starboard’ when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly, and has broken rule 2.

Assumed Facts

An experienced helmsman of a port-tack boat hails ‘Starboard’ to a beginner who, although on starboard tack, not being sure of himself and probably being scared of having his boat holed, tacks to port to avoid a collision. No protest is lodged.

One school of thought argues that it is fair game, because if a helmsman does not know the rules, that is his own hard luck. The other school rejects this argument, on the grounds that it is quite contrary to the spirit of the rules to deceive a competitor in that way. It is known that such a trick is often played, particularly when novices are involved.

Question

In such a case, has the port-tack boat broken rule 2?

Answer

A boat that deliberately hails ‘Starboard’ when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly and has broken rule 2. The protest committee might also consider taking action under rule 69.

RYA 1980/1

 

Bullying should not be tolerated. That’s what this is.

It does happen more often than we know. The problem is to catch someone, because there’s never a ‘policeman’ around when the bully does this.

But wait, all sailors are also policemen! They also have to enforce the rules….

So, please consider seriously to protest behaviour like this, if you come across anything similar!

 

I’ve returned from Kiel-Schilksee, from the Match Race Clinic I was “rules-advising”. We had good wind and could sail the whole program. Hopefully the participants will have some benefit from the ideas we introduced.

Kiel sure does look different without the whole Kiel-week circus.

And no free wire-less available. But that you must have already guessed from the lack of posts.

J.

(pillow)Case of the Week (07) - 51

(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.)

CASE 51

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A protest committee must exonerate boats when, as a result of another boat’s breach of a rule, they are all compelled to break a rule.

Summary of the Facts


The diagram shows the tracks of four large boats from approximately thirty seconds before their starting signal until fifteen seconds before. At position 2, MW was forced to bear away to avoid collision with W, and almost immediately afterwards ML and L were also forced to bear away to avoid the boat to windward. There was no contact between any of the boats. Had W steered a course to keep clear, she would have crossed the starting line before her starting signal. Each boat to leeward hailed the boat to windward, and each protested the boat or boats to windward of her.


The protest committee disqualified W, MW, and ML and justified its action with respect to the middle boats by stating that ‘failure to do so would limit the effectiveness of rule 11 because all boats, except the most windward one, would be immune from disqualification.’ MW and ML both appealed.



Decision 

Both appeals are upheld. MW and ML are to be reinstated. Both of them, by their hails, attempted to avoid having to bear away, and neither bore away before becoming obligated to do so to avoid contact with the boat immediately to windward. Rule 14 required them to avoid contact if it was ‘reasonably possible’ to do so, and they complied with the rule. Each of them broke rule 11, but each was compelled to do so because W broke rule 11. Therefore, each of them is entitled to exoneration under rule 64.1(c).

USSA 1950/37



W – the terrible – should have been DSQ’d twice, no three times, don’t you think? >-)
But no, there’s only one penalty in the rules. At times I wish it was possible to do less and – as with this case – sometimes I wish to do more.

Is this a Gross Breach of a rule?

Unfortunately I see this all the time when on the committee boat, but :-# as PRO


J.

(pillow)Case of the Week (48) - 65

(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.)

CASE 65

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 30.3, Starting Penalties: Black Flag Rule
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Committee

When a boat knows that she has broken the Black Flag rule, she is obliged to retire promptly. When she does not do so and then deliberately hinders another boat in the race, she commits a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.

Summary of the Facts 

At the start of race 4, A was clearly about three to four hull lengths on the course side of the starting line. Rule 30.3 was in effect, so the race committee disqualified her without a hearing. A, although she knew she was over the line at her starting signal, continued to race and covered B for the first part of the first beat. B protested A for breaking rule 2.

The protest committee confirmed the disqualification of A under rule 30.3. It also decided that, by continuing to race and cover B when she knew that she had broken rule 30.3, A broke rule 2.
As required by rule 90.3(b), it penalized her by making her disqualification not excludable. Later the same day, acting under rule 69.1, it called a hearing alleging that the behaviour of A’s helmsman in hindering B was a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2. It decided that the helmsman had committed the alleged gross breaches, and excluded him and disqualified A from all races of the series. A appealed the protest committee’s decisions.


Decision 

A’s appeal is dismissed.

A was correctly disqualified from race 4 for breaking rule 30.3. The protest committee found as fact that A’s helmsman knew that he had been on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal; that he had broken rule 30.3; that he was, therefore, already disqualified; and that he had seriously hindered another boat in the race.

A clearly committed a gross breach of sportsmanship (see Sportsmanship and the Rules) and of rule 2, and the protest committee acted properly under rule 69.1 in excluding A’s helmsman and disqualifying A from all races of the series.


RYA 1984/7




What is the difference between a boat that has started to soon and is OCS, with this boat, you might ask? Both are already DSQ-ed from the beginning – never having started the race.

The difference is in the knowledge of the helmsman/crew of this boat. He knew he was breaking a rule and still covered another boat. If you cover someone you better make sure you haven’t broken or do not break any rule, because if you do it is ‘go directly to rule 2’ for the PC.

Please go back to Case 78 – if you have doubt about that.
And it happens at professional sailing events. See this post: X40 Trapani 2010 – Team Racing?

(pillow)Case of the Week (46) - 67

(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.)

CASE 67

Part 2 Preamble
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Committee

When a boat is racing and meets a vessel that is not, both are bound by the government right-of-way rules. When, under those rules, the boat racing is required to keep clear but intentionally hits the other boat, she may be penalized for gross misconduct.

Summary of the Facts

Under the government right-of-way rules applicable, W, a boat that was racing, was required to keep clear of a sailing vessel to leeward, L, that was not racing. W wished to sail a lower course to a mark and hailed L, which refused to respond. W then intentionally hit L by bumping her boom against L several times, thereby causing damage.
L informed the race committee of W’s behaviour. The race committee protested W, and a hearing was called. W was disqualified for breaking rules 11 and 14. W appealed on the grounds that the racing rules did not apply, and consequently the protest committee was not entitled to disqualify her.

Decision 

W’s appeal is dismissed. The preamble to Part 2 of the racing rules makes it clear that, when W met L, W was required to comply with the government right-of-way rules. Moreover, W was also subject to the racing rules other than those of Part 2. W did not comply with the government rules and, by intentionally hitting and damaging L, committed a gross breach of not only a rule but of good manners as well.
The decision of the protest committee is upheld, but W is disqualified under the government rule applicable and not under racing rule 11 or rule 14. Both those rules are rules of Part 2, which would have applied only if both boats had been intending to race, were racing, or had been racing. W also committed a gross breach of the government rule and a gross breach of good manners, so the protest committee would have been entitled to call a hearing under rule 69.1.

KNWV 2/1982



One from the Lowlands; KNWV is the abbreviation of Koninklijk Nederlands Watersport Verbond.

It has been and still is sometimes very crowded on the inland lakes here in Friesland. Racing boats must share the water with all kinds of tourist - and recreational boats. It must be clear that the applicable government right-of-way rules are in effect between those two groups.

When I have a look on the water however, the shouting and cussing sometimes gives me the impression that racing sailors think they are entitled to the water all by themselves.

Beware, what was valid 30 years ago still applies!

When is a DSQ not enough?

The protest committee sometimes has the obligation to look beyond a DSQ. During this year’s edition of the SNEEKWEEK we encountered some examples. It is sometimes not easy to decide nor think about this issue, during the hearing.

Here is what happened:

Someone sailing at the back of the fleet decides to skip not one, not two, but four marks in order to get just behind the front of the fleet. The PC decided - in absence of the party, who did not come to the hearing - that this must have been deliberate and goes to rule 2. The DSQ becomes a DNE.
An eight meter keel-boat sails above the layline to the mark and approaches on Port-tack the mark to be left to port. There are more the a few boats already approaching on Starboard and more then a few already rounded and on a reaching course to the next mark. While some see the port boat approaching they start to avoid her and keep a little higher other still follow the ‘train’ downwind.

The port boat (red) sails into the triangle in the hope she can find a space in between:

And this was what happened after that :http://sneekweekjournaal.klikenco.nl/


The committee found in the subsequent protest that indeed the port boat did not keep clear, but no penalty could be given, because the boat retired from the race (due to the extensive serious damage).

They did not consider going beyond that.

But should they have?

Is this reckless behaviour with serious damage and not a small change off personal injury, not something that should be at least or even more penalized then someone who skips a couple of marks?

The first argument that presents itself is about intent. Was the infringement deliberate? In case of the marks it was – according to the PC, but couldn’t the same be argued about sailing into such a impossible situation?

Is there a rule in the book that can do this?
The PC is still discussing 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.

ISAF Q&A 2009-023

A discussion about different aspects of a situation when a boat learns, in an invalid hearing, that she has broken a rule. ISAF Q&A 2009-023

This is pretty fundamental. Reading the premise of the questions I was at first answering differently then the Q&A-panel. Of course should the competitor retire! If he wouldn't, a protest by the PC would be appropriate.

The Q&A answers differently. No protest may be lodged from information gained through an invalid protest. From the Q&A:
"Rule 60.3(a) allows a protest committee to protest for what it learns from a report from the representative of the boat, but not for what it learns from an invalid protest."

And continues:
"If the protest committee believe a competitor may have deliberately broken a rule, or has chosen not to retire or take a penalty despite knowing that he/she has broken a rule, the protest committee should speak with the competitor. If after that discussion the competitor declines to take a penalty despite knowing that he/she has broken a rule, the protest committee should consider acting under rule 69. If, on the other hand, the protest committee believes the competitor may have deliberately broken a rule, the protest committee should act under rule 69."

Pretty steep, don't you think?
If you run across a case like this, you'd better get all the facts straight and be up to par with your rule 69 knowledge in procedures.....

The Last of the Royal Snooty Nose

A guest post by Brass.

Bad Manners at the Royal Snooty Nose presented a simple rule 69 problem, and Mike B gave a very complete answer at Snooty Nose 2.

Thank you Jos for drawing attention to the recently published RYA Misconduct Guidance.

People other than RYA members might find the old RYA guidance material more succinct and containing less RYA procedural matter that may not apply elsewhere.

Here are some notes, highlighting the things I had in mind when I wrote the problem.

Questions were:
Question 1: What do you do next?
Question 2:  Supposing the PC has decided to call a rule 69 hearing:

1. Analyze the allegations and rule 69.1 and list what will need to be proved if the PC is to penalize Brass Spiderman.
2. Draft the written information that the PC is required to give to Brass Spiderman under rule 69.1(a).

What do you do before calling a hearing?

There were two Questions. The first one was 'What do you do next after showing the complaint to other protest committee members?'

The key issue here is that the protest committee, as a group must make a decision whether or not to call a hearing, before taking any further action, such as giving a notice to a competitor. It might help you to clarify issues if you do the analysis of what needs to be proved, and perhaps prepare a draft notice before you have that meeting, but you must not pre-empt the decisions of you fellow protest committee members about whether or not to call a hearing. As we saw, if Mike B and I had been on the protest committee we would have had different opinions about whether to call a hearing or not.

There was a little side issue in the first question, which Mike B picked up, which was the effect of one of the protest committee members being the son of the Commodore. Clearly he is an interested party and should be asked to remove himself from the protest committee for all considerations of this matter. Fortunately in this case, there are three protest committee members still left, so there is no problem. If you had less than three protest committee members left, it would be necessary to find a third member for any hearing, but I think you could safely proceed to make the preliminary decision whether or not to call a hearing with just two members.

Analyse the elements that need to be proved

Once you have decided to call a hearing, it will be necessary to give a written notice to the competitor, but before you do that, you must get clear in your mind, so that you can include proper details in the notice, what it is that the competitor is alleged to have done, and how that may have been a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or may have brought the sport into disrepute, and exactly which one or more of these breaches are alleged.

Mike B quite rightly listed three elements

1. Was a competitor
2. Was during the event
3. Had committed an actionable breach. Rule, Good Manners or Sportsmanship, or sport into disrepute.

Mike also listed some other important considerations, but I don't think these are things that the protest committee needs to seek proof of.

Note that if the incident had not been at the event venue and during the event, it would be necessary to prove that the incident was sufficiently associated or connected with the event to be subject to a rule 69 hearing by the protest committee. Guidance on this is contained in the RYA Misconduct Guidance, Section 8.

I would go a bit further than Mike on the third element.

Firstly you must identify which one of these it is:

1. is it a breach of a rule, if so which rule?
2. is it a breach of good manners?
3. is it a breach of sportsmanship?
4. is it some action that may have brought the sport into disrepute?

It is unlikely to be all four, and probably will be only one. It is not fair in a notice to the competitor, or in a hearing to say 'You are alleged to have committed a breach of a rule, good manners, or sportsmanship, or maybe have brought the sport into disrepute: we don't know, or won't tell you which: now defend yourself'. Different evidence and facts will probably be required to prove each different sort of rule 69 breach.

At the Royal Snooty Nose, no sailing rule was broken and there was no effect on the competition, so it's not a breach of a rule or sportsmanship. The incident was wholly within the yacht club, and arguably is only noticeable because of the high standards of the yacht club, so it's unlikely to bring the sport into disrepute. If it's anything, it's a breach of good manners only.

Secondly, if it is a breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, that the breach was so 'gross' as to warrant rule 69 action. This may pose some difficulties. It is going to need some sort of examination of standards or norms.

To make a fair decision about 'good manners', I think we have to do just a bit more analysis:

• What does 'good manners' mean? I can find a dictionary definition of 'manners' which is The prevailing customs, social conduct, and norms of a specific group.
• What behavior is alleged to have breached good manners? Mike B, in the draft notice identified the following:
  • improper sexual advances to the Commodore's wife and daughter,
  • an assault on the Club’s doorman, and
  • remarks concerning international judges

I would be inclined to include 'getting falling down drunk' in there as well.

Maybe we could set this up in a table as follows. Fill in the blanks in the Norms columns, then you can test Brass Spiderman's behavior as established by the evidence against the norms. To establish the norms, consider the protest committees own experience and standards, and relevant evidence from, say the Commodore, and possibly other club officers, members, or staff.

Behavior	Norms - Generally	Norms - At RSNYC
Drinking
Interaction with persons of the opposite sex  asking for sexual favors
Interaction with persons of the opposite sex touching
Interactions with persons associated with authority Flag officers and their families
Interactions with persons associated with authority Yacht Club Staff
Interactions with persons associated with authority International Judges

This may seem over-elaborate, and in this case, you might be content with relying on your own opinion, but remember, in a more difficult case, you might be considering behavior that could earn a competitor a one or two year ban, or alternatively could be hotly contested on appeal or in a Court or an Arbitration.

Draft a notice to the competitor

Once you have clarified what the competitor is alleged to have done, you are in a position to write the notice informing the competitor of the alleged misconduct and the time and place of the hearing. Of course, you will schedule the hearing so that there is sufficient time for the competitor to prepare for the hearing after being given the notice.

Mike B has used the form provided in the RYA Misconduct Guidance Appendix J1.1. If you belong to the RYA, you should use this form. I have a concern that the form, in referring to Gross Misconduct, does not sufficiently specify whether the alleged breach is a breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, in a way that is fair to the competitor. I would suggest a somewhat shorter notice as follows

Dear Brass Spiderman,

NOTICE OF HEARING UNDER RULE 69.1

The protest committee of the Snooty Nose Cup Regatta believes that, while a competitor in the Regatta, you may have committed gross breaches of good manners and has decided to call a hearing under rule 69.1

The breaches of good manners alleged are that, between about 10:30pm and 11:00pm on 21 February 2009, at the Royal Snooty Nose Yacht Club you:

• Were drunk
• Used abusive language
• Made improper sexual advances to Madame Van Snoot
• Made improper sexual advances to Ms Van Snoot
• Were openly disrespectful of International Judges
• Sang out of tune

You are required to attend the hearing at TTT on DDD at PPPP.

The hearing is to decide if these allegations are true, and if so, what action to take. Possible action is specified in rule 69.1(b).

(Signed)
Protest Committee Chair

I could be persuaded to omit the last two dot points.

Conclusion

I hope that you have enjoyed this adventure of Brass Spiderman. Who knows there may be further adventures of Brass Spiderman, in America or at the Upper Kumbucta Sportsboat and Mud Wrestling Club.

Hopefully, you have exercised your mind about what to do if an unwelcome rule 69 situation comes your way.

Bad Manners at the Royal Snooty Nose | 2

I received an answer to the RRS69- case against Brass Spiderman from Mike. He send me the following:

To prove:

1. Was a competitor
2. Was during the event
3. Had committed an actionable breach. Rule, Good Manners or Sportsmanship, or sport into disrepute.
4. Protest committee of 3
5. Correct information to competitor
6. Time given for preparation
7. Notification given of time and place of hearing.

Notice:

Dear Brass Spiderman,

NOTIFICATION OF ACTION UNDER RULE 69.1

I am writing to inform you that the Protest Committee of this event has received a report under rule 69.1 alleging that you have committed Gross Misconduct under the Racing Rules of Sailing.

The report alleges that you made improper sexual advances to the Commodores’s wife and daughter, followed by an assault on the Club’s doorman, and made remarks concerning international judges.

The Protest Committee has decided to conduct a hearing under rule 69.1 to determine if these allegations are true, and if so, to decide what action to take.

You are required to attend a hearing on [date] at [time] in [location].

You may bring someone to represent you at the hearing. You are also entitled to call our own witnesses, but it is your responsibility to ensure that the witnesses are present at the time of the hearing.

If you have any questions concerning the hearing or any other aspect of the rule 69 process, please ask the chairman.

Yours,

Comment:

For the actions stated, I would not have considered a hearing unless repeated. The actions in the bar are regrettable, and can be dealt with by the house committee.

The struggle was not vindictive, and the comments on the Jury were generic rather than directed to the event jury or individuals.

If there was to be a hearing then the interested party (relative) should be excluded, this still leaves 3 and the committee member who was a witness could remain.

If my view was in the minority (and it must have been if there was a hearing) then, a suitable result would be:

• A voluntary apology (which would not need to be reported)
• At worst a warning
• I believe the finding could have been a gross breach of good manners, but not bringing the sport into disrepute.

This does not comply with what the House committee recommended but the protest committee should not be influenced by this. With respect to future events their club can adopt RRS 76 to exclude and they could be advised of this.

Mike B

Bad Manners at the Royal Snooty Nose; Simple Rule 69 Bad Manners Problem.

A guest post by Brass.

Introduction

Rule 69 has recently been debated quite hotly elsewhere on the web. There are a number of issues raised that should be of interest to judges. We might all unexpectedly become involved in a rule 69 situation at short notice. Here’s an opportunity to think about how we should deal with a simple situation.

Scenario

You are the chair of the PC for the annual Snooty Nose Cup regatta, run over three days at the Royal Snooty Nose Yacht Club (RSNYC).

E-mail from the Commodore

On the second day of the regatta you receive the following email from the Commodore of the RSNYC:

Dear Protest Committee Chair,

After racing last night Brass Spiderman, who is a competitor in the Snooty Nose Cup regatta, and who had been drinking heavily in the bar of the RSNYC and was quite drunk made unwelcome sexual advances to my wife on the dance floor. He embraced her tightly. He said ‘come to bed with me’. He patted her bottom, then went back to the bar. About twenty minutes later he made the same advances to my seventeen year old daughter.

He then fell down the stairs and wrestled with the RSNYC doorman. The police arrived and he was hauled off in a police van singing ‘All International Judges are bastards’ at the top of his voice.

I am outraged as this gross breach of good manners and abuse of the hospitality of the RSNYC. The matter has been considered by the RSNYC House Committee which has decided that Brass Spiderman will not be admitted to the RSNYC Clubhouse and recommended that action be taken to ensure that he does not attend any venues or event of the RSNYC from this time onwards.

I attach written statements from Billy Beer the barman and Danny Door the doorman.

I request that the PC takes strong action against Brass Spiderman so as to immediately exclude him from further participation in the Snooty Nose Cup regatta.

ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT BY BILLY BEER THE BARMAN

I was the barman on duty at the RSNYC last night. About 6:00pm a man came up to me at the bar. He said ‘Hullo, I’m Brass Spiderman, and I’m competing in the Snooty Nose Cup regatta. May I have a beer please?’

I served him a beer.

Between 6:00pm and 10:30pm I served him beer and other drinks. About 10:40pm I saw Brass Spiderman take the Commodore’s wife onto the dance floor. I saw him embrace her tightly. As they danced past the bar hatch I heard him speak to her. He said ‘Come to bed with me.’ I saw him pat her on the bottom.

About 11:00pm I saw Brass Spiderman take the Commodore’s daughter onto the dance floor. I saw him embrace her tightly. As they danced past the bar hatch I heard him speak to her.

He said ‘You’re better looking than your mother, Come to bed with me.’ I saw him pat her on the bottom. I saw the Commodore come up to him and speak to him. I saw him walk towards the stairs then fall down the stairs.

I am prepared to give this evidence under oath should I be required.

ATTACHMENT 2 – STATEMENT BY DANNY DOOR THE DOORMAN

I was on duty as the doorman at the RSNYC last night.

About 11:05pm I saw a man fall down the club stairs from the bar and dancefloor into the lobby, apparently drunk. I called the police and asked them to attend and remove the drunk. I saw the man stagger to his feed.

He said ‘I’m Brass Spiderman and I hate International Judges’.

He then fell towards me, grasped me with his arms and dragged me to the floor. I wrestled to get away from him. The police arrived and took him away in a van. As they drove away I heard him singing ‘All International Judges are bastards’.

I am prepared to give this evidence under oath should I be required.

The Protest Committee

The PC consists of four members, one of whom is the son of the Commodore of the RSNYC.

You show the email and statements to the other members of the PC. One of the PC members, who is not the son of the Commodore says ‘I was in the RSNYC clubhouse last night about 11:00pm, sipping camomile tea and reading the ISAF Judges Manual, and I heard shouting and singing and looking up I saw the competitor Brass Spiderman falling down the stairs’.

You read carefully the RYA Guidance on Rule 69, or any material you have from your MNA or elsewhere. You recall that you have seen a helpful posting about What We Need to Prove on the Look to Windward Blog.

Question 1: What do you do next?

Question 2: Supposing the PC has decided to call a rule 69 hearing:

1. Analyze the allegations and rule 69.1 and list what will need to be proved if the PC is to penalize Brass Spiderman.
2. Draft the written information that the PC is required to give to Brass Spiderman under rule 69.1(a).

Just last week I received an Email from Jon Napier drawing my attention to a new paper from the RYA's Fair Sailing Team. You will have no time reading this when an actual case of misconduct presents itself, so I suggest you do it sometime before. Perhaps it will also help you answer this case?

Here is the link: RYA Misconduct Guidance.pdf

Most judges will - fortunately - seldom have to be involved in a Rule 69, but because of the serious and far reaching consequences it can have, some preparation would not be amiss.

.

RYA Conference 2009

Mike send me an email drawing my attention to the 2009 RYA Race Officials Conference.
The presentations are all available on the RYA website.

Looks like a lot of information for us to go trough. I haven't had time to study them, but will try to do that in coming weeks. Here's the list:

Presentation	Given by
1. Course Design	David Campbell James and Peter Bentley
2. Course Data	David Campbell James
3. Rules Submissions	David Lees and Richard Thompson
4. Overview of Mark Laying Courses	Ed Stevens and Drew Stanley
5. Match and Team Racing Management	John Burgoine
6. Portsmouth Yardstick Scheme	Bas Edmonds
7. Working with Volunteers	Jackie Bennetts
8. Dinghy Safety Fleet Management	Roger Wilson
9. Competitor Misconduct	John Napier
10. Rules Changes and writing Sailing Instructions	Trevor Lewis
11. Tactics and the new rules	Chris Gowers
12. Medal Racing	John Doerr

Please don't hesitate to draw attention to highlights if you find them.

.

Redress for a Rule 69 warning? - revisited

In a comment on my answer in yesterday's post Luigi said...
" Sorry Jos but a warning is an advice, not an action. The situation you described is under 60.3a. Jury can protest the trower at the hearing."

I thought it was worth posting about it so you can all join the discussion.

@Luigi.
You can only protest the competitor who allegedly threw the can, in a rule 69 hearing. "Normal" protest are ALWAYS against a boat - not a person.

69.1(b) Final sentence: "If it decides that the competitor committed the alleged misconduct it shall either" .... and then continues with two possibilities:
(1) either warn
(2) or impose a penalty

In my opinion those are BOTH "disciplinary actions under rule 69.1(b)" as referred to in 62.1(d)

Someone can be disciplined by warning him or her. The disciplinary action is to set about a change in conduct, either by imposing a warning or a penalty.

Granted, most people would rather punish by a penalty...The "make them pay"-policy. But don't underestimate the social implications of being hauled in front of the protest committee on a rule 69 charge. A warning might serve better, if only not to incur rancor at an unnecessary (unjust) penalty.

If you limit the redress in 62.1(d) to only cases where the offender is penalized - by one way or another - you put undue pressure on the verdict if that is the only way for the PC to grant redress to the boat who has been damaged.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

.

Seminar Preparations | 10

How much time did it take you to come up with the answer from yesterday's question?
Be honest - longer than you thought!

In my opinion rule 62.1 (d) does permit redress for a warning under rule 69 against a competitor. The wording used in the rule is "disciplinary action"! Not "a penalty" or "has been penalized". A warning is a disciplinary action against a competitor who has committed the alleged misconduct.

Perhaps an example?
A young sailor trows a soft drink can in anger away in the boat park. It hits a boat and holes the deck. That boat has to go to the repair shop and cannot sail in the race the next day.

The competitor who has thrown the can is called into a hearing under rule 69, admits he threw the can and is sincerely sorry, apologizes and offers to pay for the damage. In light of the age of the sailor, his admitting of the facts and his remorse, not to mention his offer to pay, the PC decides to give him a warning instead of a DGM.
The boat that missed the race the next day can ask for redress because the outcome of the Rule 69 hearing confirmed the misconduct and disciplined the culprit with a warning.

This concludes the posting series on Seminar Preparation.