LTW 2012 Winter Challenge E03/30; Last Episode!

In all likelihood this will be the last in the series. Two contestants have a good chance to reach over 100 points if they participate in this one. I still have to score the previous episode but that should bring them over 90 points..... And looking at there average the 100 is within reach.

Today's episode is with an animation. There are three boats involved, but only Purple protests, against both others. Boats are 11:Metre One Design in a Class championship. The incident happens in race 2. One race is scheduled every day for a total of 6 days.
The Grey boat is called Banks, the Red has the name Tiger and the Purple one has been named Hamilton Eleven.

The skipper of  Hamilton Eleven writes on his protest form:
"I protest against Tiger and Banks for helping each other. Tiger prevented me from finishing, so that Banks could finish before me. This is team racing and very unsporting. I protest on rule 2 and rule 69."

The incident happened at the finish. The RC recorded Tiger as having finished 4th, Banks as 5th and Hamilton Eleven as 6th in race 2.

You are a member of the Protest Committee panel and have been assigned as scribe. All three parties come to the hearing and you are allowed to ask three questions. One question to each of the boats. All questions before Tuesday 23:59 hours. They will be answered ASAP.

Your assignment is to write Facts Found, Conclusions & rules involved and a Decision.
Deadline is THURSDAY 23:59 hours, so as to be able to score on Friday April 6th and announce a winner for the LTW 2012 Winter Challenge before Easter.
Good luck,
J.

Score LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 03/16

You are not making this easy!

First of all I must confess that I had some difficulties deciding this incident myself. I would have liked have had the opportunity to discuss the rules involved in a panel to reach the most equatable solution. By having a panel with more persons (read opinions) you get a better balance.

Most of you decided that Red's protest was invalid because she didn't hail 'protest'. I can't say that this is wrong, but would like to point out that the rule states she must do so 'at the first reasonable opportunity for each'. So my question to you is: "What has to happen before you decide that hailing has not to be done immediately?"

For instance: If both the helmsman and the crew were thrown overboard by the sudden deceleration, would any of you have insisted on Red yelling protest to Purple?
I think not. By the time they were able to get back on board Purple would have long gone and hailing would have been pointless. Then 61.1(a)(1) would have allowed the protest to be validated.

In our situation only the crew was thrown overboard. The skipper was still aboard. But picture what the situation was. A spinnaker flying in front of the boat, the mainsail full, the boat about to be smashed against the committee vessel, you crew in the water and you yourself recovering from having been thrown forward by the sudden deceleration. Would you have the wherewithal to clear your head and, before starting to keep your boat out of danger and check your crew was okay, yell protest?

At least a consideration.
In these circumstances it is in my view not 'wrong' to allow the validity to be decided in favor of the sailor.

Because of declaring the protest of Red invalid we never go to the issue if Purple did keep clear and or give enough mark-room. In my opinion she did. Boats should be able to pass marks - even if if they are committee boats -  very close. Or if that is not possible because of anchor-lines or such, at least clearly marked where or where not to pass.

In my opinion the shallowness of the anchor-rode coupled with the lack of clearly marking the save point of passage, was an improper action of the RC. So redress is possible for Red. She should have been able to pass the committee vessel safely without any chance of getting entangled in the line.

Did any of you ask if she wanted redress? It was not on the original protest-form.....
Most International Jury's have a policy decided beforehand. To offer redress if it is appropriate when not asked and talk with the representative of the boat what it should be. Or not to do this. It should be - at least - consistent for all competitors in the event.

Then there's the issue with rule 41. Rule 41(b) allows members of the RC-boat to help in getting clear. Most of you concluded this. Good. Then the rubber-boat brought back the rudder. Almost all of you concluded that was not permitted under rule 41. Also correct. But what about rule 1.1?

A boat or competitor shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger

Was Red in danger?
In my opinion you can answer with yes. Without her rudder there was a real possibility she would have ended up on the rocks. Could she continue in the race after getting that help? That is depending on what was written in the sailing instructions. Why do you think the RC brought this protest?

None of you asked if there was a provision in the SI allowing a boat to get help as long as it didn't involved progress in the race......

I was reminded not long ago by one of my friends (who's also a judge) that you are allowed to find a solution that is within the rules, that gives the best outcome for the competitor.

I've scored the entries according to this criteria:

• Format and consistency between facts found and conclusion: 2 points;
• Answer on finishing: 1 point;
• Validity decision: 1 point for each protest;
• Restricted the second protest on the issue: 1 point;
• Decision on rule 41: 1 point.
• Decision on redress: 1 points; Giving back finish position (2e) to Red: 1 point
• Decision on rule 31 (mark touching) and exoneration: 1 point.
• If you managed to get to rule 1.1 you earn 2 bonus points.

Except for the bonus points, I haven't looked at if you had the same outcome as me, only if your decision was based on valid grounds and arguments.

This has resulted in the following score:

Still very close at the top, but no ties at the moment.

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge E03/16

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

Protest #8:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Score 02/24 LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

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

Choose!

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

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

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

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

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

This is the new scoreboard:

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

Score 02/17 LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

For individual comments see my remarks after your entries in the comments of the original post:
LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 02/17: Request for Redress

Key factor in this incident is to find as fact whether Red established the collision course before Purple became keep clear boat or after. In other words, was Red pointing at Purple before Purple passed head to wind or after. A lot of what you conclude is determined by that fact.

Option ONE
If before, Red has no restrictions under rule 16.1 since the course change was before she became ROW boat. And no restriction under 15 because she became ROW boat by Purple's actions. In this scenario Purple breaks rule 13 by not keeping clear as tacking boat and Purple breaks rule 14 because she shouldn't have tacked in that position. It was therefore reasonable possible for her to avoid the contact

Option TWO
If after, Red has a restriction under rule 16 (she changed course as ROW boat and established a collision course) and must give Red room to keep clear - which being a tacking multi hull - can take some time. Then you also must draw a conclusion on whether or not Purple did enough to keep clear. Could she have accelerated faster, getting out of that position in front of Red? If she could have done more, she breaks rule 13, if she couldn't have done more, she's exonerated because of Red's infringement of 16.1.

Could Purple avoid the collision? Once she was in that tack she could do little else than go forward asap. Did she do that? Another conclusion to be drawn. Remember, in option two she is a boat entitled to room, so under rule 14 she didn't need to act to avoid contact until it was clear that Red wasn't going to give her that room. I think not. Purple couldn't reasonably avoid contact any more and did not break rule 14.

When it became clear that Purple wasn't going to keep clear, was it reasonably possible for Red to avoid the collision? The fact that she "missed" hitting Purple only by ten centimetres, is more or less irrelevant. You must either conclude she reasonably could avoid or couldn't.
In my opinion she could. She broke rule 14. And that is completely separate from if you've found as fact option one or two.

Red did a two turns penalty. Is that an appropriate penalty for breaking RRS 14? That depends on the damage - was it serious or not. A boat that cannot continue is serious damage. So Red should have retired> Red DSQ.

If you think Purple is at fault, you nevertheless may not DSQ her. She is to be scored DNF.
She retired and that is an appropriate penalty. The reason for her retirement is irrelevant. (Case 99 & 107)

The protest is valid despite the fact a red flag was not shown. The damage was obvious to both and Red was informed before end of protest-time. RRS 61.1(a)(3)

If you concluded that Purple is to be exonerated for breaking rule 13 and did not break rule 14, she's entitled to redress. In all other scenarios it is more or less her own fault (at least partly) and she's therefore not entitled to redress.

If you give Redress you can give her her first place or an average of her 6 sailed races (excluding or including her discard). For that you need the total number of boats that sailed in the races. Nobody asked this question. But then only one of you granted redress.

This brings our score to:

Equal Points on first place.

I must decide on a way to resolve ties.....
Any suggestions?

.

(pillow)Case of the week (08/12) – 22

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

CASE 22

Rule 61.2(c), Protest Requirements: Protest Contents
Rule 63.5, Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress
Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest committee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.

Summary of the Facts

After a collision near a mark, S protested P, citing rule 18 on her protest form as required by rule 61.2(c). The protest committee declared the protest invalid and refused to proceed with the hearing, because it said the protest should have cited rule 10 rather than rule 18. Had the hearing gone ahead and the parties been questioned, the protest committee said, the protest might have been upheld. S appealed.

Decision

Rule 61.2(c) requires the protest to identify any rule the protestor believes was broken. There is no requirement that the rule or rules identified must be the rule or rules that are later determined to have been broken, and it is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of the protest that the protestor cited a rule that will very likely not be the applicable rule.

It is the protest committee, after finding the facts, that determines the applicable rule. Rule 64.1(a) states that a disqualification or other penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest. It is unimportant that the protestor made a mistake in citing the rule.

The appeal is upheld to the extent that the protest committee is instructed to hold a new hearing.

FIV 1967/4 촀⩚늂

Everybody gets a ‘freebie’ as far as citing the correct rule is concerned. This practice probably came about after some protests were thrown out because of using the wrong rule. And to be denied justice, because one forgot that port-starboard was rule 10 and not 11, was most likely perceived as very unfair. Can’t argue with that, can you?

In practise this means however, that whatever the protestee puts in the box gets ignored. And the general side effect is that sailors don’t even look-up the correct rule anymore.

”I am right and the other one is wrong and the PC can sort it out…..

In my opinion this ‘freebie’ has contributed to the general decline in rules knowledge. Let alone skill in the room. The phrase “He hasn’t won on the water” comes to mind. Wining a protest is somehow a little ‘dirty’.

As long as there are no referees on the water – judging every incident and acting independently – our sailing sport will be a self-policing sport. Competitors are expected not only to follow but to enforce the rules.

And that starts with knowing the rules. Including which rule number!
They are on your bloody phone as an APP, are they not?
It takes five seconds to look it up….

Get rid of the ‘freebies’, bring knowledge back!

Get Up, Stand Up, Fight for your Rights!

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge E02/17: Request for Redress

Request for Redress

During a port-starboard incident in a fleet race for Tornado's, there's a collision between Red and Purple. Red's starboard bow hits the starboard rudder of Purple and sheers it completely off. Purple cannot finish the race but manages to sail home with one rudder. Red does a two turn penalty. Purple hands in a protest form with the attached situation-drawing and asks for redress.

In the hearing you find as fact that Purple NOT displayed a red flag, but did hail 'Protest'
The incident happened in the one but final race. Both boats have equal points (out of 6 races) and both already have a discard. Purple discards a BFD and Red a DNF. The boat winning this protest is most likely to win the event. (A National Championship).

 Animation E02/17

Picture from RED

Write the facts found, draw conclusions and decide the protest & the request for redress.

You may ask two questions related to what happened on the water, before Monday 23:59 which will be answered on Tuesday. And you may ask two questions related to the request for redress, before Wednesday 23:59, which will be answered on Thursday.

Deadline for FF, C and D, as per usual Friday 23:59

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 02/10: Questions

This episode of our Friday LTW 2012 Winter Challenge series is all about questions.

Two stories
Two parties, one witness
Five questions, each worth one point.
FF, C&D also worth five points.

I'm giving you two stories from two parties. Your challenge is to come up with good questions to get to what really happened. You are allowed one question a day, each with a deadline (midnight) . They will be answered the next morning. If you don't ask a question, your turn is forfeited for that day.

On Tuesday there's is a extra story by a witness, who then also can be asked questions. But again only one question per day per challenger. Don't rush in with five questions; sometimes the answers to your fellow challengers questions can help you. Think about what you want to know! At the end you have to write down Facts Found, Conclusion and Decision, like always. The shorter, the better.



This time there's only ONE solution. Better make those questions count!

Deadlines:
Question 1 Sunday 23:59
Question 2 Monday 23:59
Question 3 Tuesday 23:59
Question 4 Wednesday 23:59
Question 5 Thursday 23:59
Facts Found, Conclusion & Decision Friday 23:59

On the protest-form: End of Protest time 18:00 hours, Protest delivered (by Red) at 17:44 hours. Protestor Tornado Red - Protestee Tornado Purple - Witness Tornado Grey. Incident in Race 3, halfway up the second beat to Mark 1, at appr. 15:05 hours. Rule(s) infringed: 10.

Red's story:
On the beat to the second windward mark I was on starboard. Purple came on port and wanted to pass in front of me. My crew saw them coming and shouted "Starboard", but they continued. When they were halfway passed my starboard bow, I eased my sheet and bore away to go behind them.

Purple's story:
I agree with everything he said, only he didn't have to bear away. We would have passed in front easily. He didn't have to change course at all. We would have cleared with room to spare. We crossed twice already in that beat and both times we were in front.

Good luck!


J.
NB: Scoring Episode 02/03 will probably be on Sunday again.


UPDATE 14-02-12; Witness Grey boat:

I was on starboard to windward and in front of Red. I saw that RED bore off to pass astern of Purple. Then Purple passed behind me. Nobody did a penalty.

Score 27/01 in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

Episode 27/01 has been scored. There are a couple of late entries added.

This was an interesting exercise.
I will not post my view, because the challenge was not to find out what happened, but to see how consistent the challengers wrote. The readers of LTW can pick the one they think most came near what actually happened. As long as they are aware that finding facts out of a 43 second video is very tricky without any statements from sailors involved. That is more than obvious, after you’ve read the different facts found, the challengers came up with.

Instead of publishing the specific entries in the comments after the LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 27/01: Rolex Miami OCR 49er Crash post, I’ve copied them all in this post and commented on them as well.
That way I can add the pictures that were send in by some of the challengers.
(There are a couple of comments in the original post, but those are from non contestants and published after the deadline)

So in order to read what the Challengers send in for this episode:

Score 13/01 in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

The score for the first episode:

And - as promised - my answer.

Conclusions

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

Decision
Both protests are dismissed

J.

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge – Episode 01/13

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


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


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

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

THE CHALLENGE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you up to the challenge?

UPDATE Monday 16/01/12 08:25;

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

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

UPDATE Sunday 22/01/12 14:00;

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

Protest 1 in Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race 2011

The line honour winner of the 2011 Sydney – Hobart Race was protested by the RC for a possible infringement of rule 41 and sailing instruction 49.1.

Up until now it is the only protest lodged in this years race – according to the website. The International Jury published there findings: RSHYR11_Protest_Decision_1.pdf.

To understand you might also want to have a look at the Sailing Instructions:
RSHYR11_SI.pdf

The case hinges on the questions asked by a crew member of the winning boat to a helicopter pilot not long after start of the race and if the answers could be considered “race information”. In other words, were the answers helping the asking boat in there their race, tactically or otherwise?


The International Jury concluded that there was a clear commercial and personal interest by the crew-member in asking these questions, and of no ‘help’ as provided in rule 41 to the boat.

But even if that question was answered with yes by the IJ, the penalty would have been at their discretion. (SI 49.3).

Lets assume, for the sake of discussion, that there was no personal interest. Then I would ask the following questions:

• Rule 41 clearly provides for unsolicited information, so asking information is already breaking that rule, is it not?.
• Also, is information about which sail a opponent is using to be considered “race information”?
• Does it help the boat tactically or otherwise and break SI 49.2?
• What kind of discretionary penalty would you impose, if you answered yes to the previous question?

This is NOT to seconds-guess any Jury decision. I completely agree with there findings. Its is just to get some feedback on the issue. An issue that might be before your PC-panel in the next regatta…….

Please, give me your opinion.

Feed me, Seymour!

(pillow)Case of the week (50/11) – 31

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

I’m catching up this week because I realized I’m out of sync with the actual week numbers…..

CASE 31

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 26, Starting Races
Rule 29.1, Recalls: Individual Recall
Rule 64.2, Decisions: Decisions on Redress
Race Signals, X

When the correct visual recall signal for individual recall is made but the required sound signal is not, and when a recalled boat in a position to hear a sound signal does not see the visual signal and does not return, she is entitled to redress. However, if she realizes she is over the line she must return and start correctly.

Summary of the Facts

At the start of a race the visual individual recall signal required by rule 29.1 was correctly made, but the required sound signal was not. One of the recalled boats, A, did not return and later requested redress on the grounds that she started simultaneously with the starting signal and heard no recall sound signal.

The protest committee found that A was not entirely on the pre-start side of the starting line at the starting signal. It gave A a finishing position as redress because of the absence of the sound signal. Another boat, B, then asked for redress, claiming that her finishing position was affected by what she believed to have been an improper decision to give a finishing position to A. B was not given redress, and she appealed on the grounds that rule 26 states: ‘the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded’.

Decision

B’s appeal is dismissed. The protest committee’s decision to give redress to A is upheld. The requirement in rule 29.1 and in Race Signals regarding the making of a sound signal when flag X is displayed is essential to call the attention of boats to the fact that one or more of them are being recalled.

When the sound signal is omitted from an individual recall, and a recalled boat in a position to hear a sound signal does not see the visual signal and does not return, she is entitled to redress. (If the redress given is to adjust the boat’s race score, it should reflect the fact that, generally, when a recalled boat returns to the pre-course side of the line after her starting signal, she usually starts some time after boats that were not recalled. An allowance for that time should be made.) However, a boat that realizes that she was over the line is not entitled to redress, and she must comply with rules 28.1 and, if it applies, rule 30.1. If she fails to do so, she breaks rule 2 and fails to comply with the Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules.

Concerning Boat B’s request, the provision of Rule 26 that ‘the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded’ applies only to the warning, preparatory, one-minute and starting signals. When the individual recall signal is made, both the visual and sound signals are required unless the sailing instructions state otherwise.

RYA 1974/7

To decide on a request for redress you need to answer a couple of essential questions. I’ve set up the following flow diagram to guide you:

In Case 31 the answer to the first question is YES; Boat A was scored OCS which is significantly worse than any place she had sailed.

The answer to the second question is also YES; She was not aware she was over the line. Had she been aware, this question would have to be answered NO; because then not returning would have been (partly) her own fault.

As to the cause in Case 31; not giving a sound signal is covered by 62.1(a); that was an omission by the Race Committee.

We arrive at the outcome: Redress granted

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.

Fact Finding Friday Animation; Vol 11.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penalty taken?

Today's second post is also about hitting the pin-end committee boat. No damage this time, the rubberboat could withstand the soft touch.(>.<)

No, it is about taking the penalty. I've drawn a diagram and you will have to tell me if this boat has or has not taken a one turn penalty according to rule 44.2?

The Race committee has protested the boat for hitting a mark and your panel has to decide if this boat has exonerated herself or not. Bring me the arguments you would use to convince your fellow Jury-members,

PS: Read the rule again before you answer!

KIEL 2011 International Part; Day 8, 9 & End

I was ashore for today and helped prepare some protest issues for later that day. In the afternoon we started to do the protest. In Kiel we can run up to four simultaneous panels. I was in panel 1 and we did hearings pretty much one after the other from 17:00 – 20:45. Nothing very special, save for one issue:

Let me explain:

There’s a protest, and the facts are pretty much the same as told by both parties. The boat breaking a rule has taken a penalty and did her two turns.
There’s damage but both boats finish the race. The right of way boat did not break rule 14

There are two ways to write the decision:

1. Protest dismissed
2. Protest upheld, but Boat X is not further penalized because she complied with 44.1

In my opinion only protest were no rule has been broken should be dismissed. If there was an infringement it should be upheld, regardless if the boat took a penalty or not.

Please leave a comment regarding this issue.

The last day in Kiel went very quickly. One race on the water, back to shore and a couple of protest to do – actually a reopening of the day before is all we did in panel one.

I drove home that evening and hit my pillow late – or early in the morning.

It’s now Monday evening and I’ve sorted out my luggage and started on getting ready for the next event. I leave on Wednesday for Boston USA for an Extreme Sailing Series event.

Fact Finding Friday Animation; Vol 11.2

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

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

(click on picture to see the animation)

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

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

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

Fact Finding Friday Animation; Vol 11.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiel 4; Day five - REVISITED

When I was in Kiel I wrote a post about a request for redress by one of the teams in Woman Match racing. You can read the original here:
Kiel 4; Day five

Because of a mistake in the invitations the second Swedish team who should have been invited according to the NOR amendment #1 (the Sailing World Cup Standard NOR) was not, instead DEN2 was invited and they accepted.

Two days into the event SWE2 lodged a request for redress, claiming that their series scores in the World Cup was significantly worsened by not being able to sail in Kiel.

A lot of comments on the original post declared this request to be invalid because of two factors: SWE2 was no competitor and it should have been filed before racing started or within a reasonable time after the entry list was finalized.

Swe2 might not have been a competitor in this event, but she was certainly a competitor in the World Cup Series. If she would have requested participation before racing had started, there would have been no issue in validity in that regard.

So that leaves extending the time. The Jury decided that SWE2 filed the request as soon as she became aware of the mistake and extended the time limit accordingly.

The most difficult was to find out what the redress should be.

We couldn’t stop the tournament, kick out DEN2 (who had done nothing wrong) and start again. We couldn’t add another competitor to sail this late in the round robins. And, perhaps the biggest hurdle, we had no jurisdiction over the World Cup ranking list.

You can read the solution the International Jury came up with, if you have a look at Protest 29 SWE2 v OA.pdf.