OCS; Are we missing something?

OCS; Are we missing something?
A guest post by Mike Butterfield (IRO, IU, IJ) GBR

Boats that are OCS are one of the big problems for race officers. We do have a number of tools at our disposal to deal with it but I wonder if we are missing a trick.

At the moment our first line of defense is the raise the “X” with it’s sound signal and as an alternative we can have a general recall with “1st Sub” and it’s two sounds. It just depends on how confident (and quick) we are in identifying the boats OCS before we make the decision.

We know with “X” we have about 5 seconds and this year I had one start where it stretched to 13 and Redress was given to the sailors. Incidentally as they did not return (which would have taken time) and they were given a 20% place penalty by the RYA Appeals panel.

In our race management training we accept we will not identify all boats OCS and ask our pin, what they have, and they reply with two numbers, those they have as over and those they can identify. From this and our observations we see if we have most boats and make our decision “X” or “1st” sub.
Now we know ISAF have Race Management policies for the Olympics and ISAF events which covers this point. In these guidelines we are told “When the race management team is satisfied that all boats over the line have been identified, an Individual Recall will be signalled.”

Now we have just noted we differ from the guidelines, by our two number system, to get a good percentage of boats identified before we call Individual Recall. What may be needed for the ISAF events is not what we necessarily need to worry about for fair day to day racing.

ISAF say in their Race Management Policies:

 “The Race Management Team will not signal an individual recall and then a general Recall.”

Now I have never seen it done, and nothing is said of it in training race officers, so it appears to be universally accepted – BUT WHY?!

To me within the time constraints we have (and put at 5 seconds) we have little enough time on the average start line to enable us to decide if we have identified all or most of the boats that are OCS.
What we do know is that we have OCS boats so it seems sensible to call for an “X” with its signal so we have this option available and we may see who starts to return relative to the numbers identified.

If after we have consulted our ARO (pin) and DRO (on committee boat) we are not satisfied we have identified enough boats what is unfair in going for the 1st Sub at this point. There does not appear to be an issue of fairness as we have called them all back.

I can see no real downside to this approach and would like to advocate we adopt this as a sound race management practice, or at least open a discussion on it. Anything that might save a good start is worth trying, and we know often if we go for general recalls we are rewarding those who pull the start over and force us to move to the Black Flag.

I think this new approach could assist in our race management practices and I ask you to consider it.
If there are comments please  use the comment box below.

Mike Butterfield


If any of you want to discuss this privately with Mike, send an Email to the blog email and I'll forward you Mike's email address.

Back?

Published on the ISAF web site; 

International Sailing Federation
Guidelines for the Use of Social Media
by ISAF Race Officials 

I know it is hard in a "commission-run" federation, especially one that has to operate with people from all over the world and one that gets "new" commissions every four years. But I've been waiting for this since 2010. It took only four years to get to this one piece of paper.....
Here is the link: ROC Social Media Guidelines

Some excerpts:

1.2 Restricting the use of social media is not designed to inhibit freedom of speech or rights to privacy, but it is inevitable that appointment as a race official means the official must limit their use of such tools in order to comply with their duties as an official.

2.2 A competitor can say to the media that a decision is bad, the call was wrong, the race committee or the measurer made a mistake etc. But,except in authorised circumstances, a race official must not disclose confidential information. In particular:

(a) Except the official facts found, conclusion and decision, a judge serving on a panel should not disclose any other information about the hearing or the panel’s discussions.

3.1 The spirit of blogs in all sports should be to attract people towards our disciplines, explaining cases by authoritative judges, race officers, umpires and measurers, in order to offer a service at all level from the beginners to the professional competitors. Blogs are an interactive tool through which everybody can give an opinion and discuss interesting points (such as decisions or particular data) concerning the sport.
3.2 If an ISAF Race Official runs a blog, he should inform the ISAF Office of this fact.

4.4 It is acceptable for race officials to be Facebook friends with competitors (but not to be “fans” of their teams or organisations). However, race officials must be aware that information they put on their profile during an event must not give competitors who are Facebook friends an advantage or access to information which others do not have (see below).

4.5 No comments should be made about the performance of competitors at any time

List of things to do:

• Screen Facebook for "fanning". [check]
• Print these Guidelines and reread them before clicking on the Publish button of every post. [check]
• Never post about issues in a running regatta - wait until the issue has no longer any influence on the outcome - generalize the subject without revealing specific information (make it about the rules - not about the event) - and then write about it....
  Hmmm, I might run into some difficulty with 2.2(a), also in light of the "no time limit" in 2.1, because any opinion I might have, is coloured by the information, but I'll work on that. [......]
• Write to the ISAF office.(Guideline 3.2) [check]
• .....

Can I now get back to blogging, please?

J.

Judges Manual 2012

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

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

But there are specific Judges sections. A few titbits:


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

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

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

Picture on page 128:

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race Management Manual 2012

On the ISAF website I noticed the publication of the 'new' Race Management Manual and had quick look.

It is a whopper!

345 pages about Race Management, with subjects ranging from 'Dealing with the CAS, Crisis Management, Junior Sailors to Handling Misconduct and Dealing with the Media. A real big basic manual, covering everything, in first glance.

I'll be reading it in coming weeks - time permitting - and report back on interesting subjects, but it is already clear to me, that a lot of people have invested a lot of time to get it this extensive.

Illustration on page 335

If you are interested, you can download it on this page: RMManual2012.

Do me a favour, if you do and have read it, give me your tips on interesting parts....

I'm writing this post on Saturday evening, to be published on Sunday - after a day on the water. I was in Lelystad at the sailing centre of Team Heiner for stage 5 in their Match Race Winter series. Nice (and dry) sailing weather for the six teams participating. Tomorrow stage 6.

This means I will - in all likely hood - not be able to score the LTW 2012 Winter Challenge E 03/09 tomorrow. I did however publish the answers already - so you can have a look at what you fellow challengers wrote.

A hint, read rule 42 again and think about why you did not include that rule in your answer........ (save one)

Ohh, will the anonymous challenger who send me his/her answer already last Saturday, please tell me who you are? There are several possibilities and I hate to award a score to the wrong person.

International Umpire Sub Committee Minutes 2009

Like last Sunday, I would like to go over the IU-Sub Committee minutes from last Novembers Conference with you. To see what is in store for the coming year. I won't repeat the issues that already were on the agenda of the IJSC meeting. The following I found new and/or interesting:

• New damage policy document is being considered, with a regards to the number of hours it takes to repair a damage.The final draft will be considered by the IUSC and then distributed.
• The mentor system does not work very well. The IUSC suggested some changes in that Mentor and Mentee are appointed to the same event by ISAF. And perhaps that the Mentee should be able to choose a Mentor instead of beng appointed one. 
• There are not enough group 1 umpires. The IUSC is considering accelerating the grouping process and developing athletes into umpires.
• We can expect rewritten Match Race & Team Race Manuals by the end of the year.
• Perhaps we are going to wear bibs in the next Medal Races...

That's it actually. Not much new things I'm afraid. You can check by reading the complete minutes: IUSC Minutes November 2009

IJ Sub-Committee Minutes 2009

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

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

Paste & Copy for Judges Manual

From ISAF:

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

Issued April 2009

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

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

End

Race Management Manual

New on the Isaf Web site under documents and rules: Race Managment Manual.
I've been reading (browsing) in this document - specifically written for disabled sailing - and found many useful reminders and action points, whether for a disabled or a non-disabled event.

The jury appointed to IFDS-event has to deal with more issues.
The RRS have a basic premise that a person can operate a boat in a competent and seamanlike way. The PRO and his team have to create an 'environment' that this is also possible for disabled sailors.

I've never been to a specific IFDS-event, only to grade ones where disabled sailors also competed. Followed a couple of 2.4ms, a race or two. That is the extend of my experience.
How about you?

MATCH RACING PROTESTS

Just a page from the umpires manual; one you should learn by heart:

Who protests - how - for what ?
By a boat....... using a Y-flag...... against another boat [ rule C6.1(a) ]

• rule of Part 2, including
• Not keeping clear while taking a penalty [ C2.8 ]
• Interference from a boat not racing [ rule C2.9 ]
• Interference when taking a penalty [ C2.10 ]
• Interference on different legs [ C2.10 ]
• Interference from a boat in another match [ rule C2.11 ]
• o BUT NOT : for Rule 14
• o AND ONLY : if involved in the incident
  

By a boat..... using a red flag.... against another boat [ rule C6.1(b) ]
* All rules and sailing instructions, including rule 14 when damage results
EXCEPT:

• The Y-flag matters ( as above )
• Touching a mark [ rule 31 ]
• Propulsion [ rule 42 ]
• Incorrect position at preparatory signal [ rule C4.1 ]
• Not crossing the start line from the course side correctly [ C4.2 ]
• Not taking penalties correctly [ rule C7 ]

By the Umpires........ shall give a penalty: [ rule C8.2 ]
* Touching a mark [ rule 31 ]
* Propulsion [ rule 42 ]
* Incorrect position at preparatory signal [ rule C4.1 ]
* Not crossing the start line from the course side correctly [ rule C4.2 ]
* Not taking a second penalty as soon as reasonably possible [ rule C7.3(c) ]

By the Umpires........ may give a red flag penalty
* When the boat that broke a rule has gained a controlling position as a result of breaking a rule - and the umpires are not certain the conditions for an additional penalty have been fulfilled. [ C6.5(b) ]

By the Umpires........ may give a penalty OR a black flag
* Gained an advantage by breaking a rule after allowing for a penalty [ C8.3(a) ]
* Deliberately broken a rule [ rule C8.3(b) ]
* Committing a breach of good sportsmanship [ rule C8.3(c) ]

By the Umpires........ shall give a black flag
* If a boat has more than two outstanding penalties [ rule C7.2(f) ]

By the Umpires or Protest Committee.. through a hearing [ rule C8.4 ]
* All rules and sailing instructions
EXCEPT:

• The Y-flag matters ( as above )
• Matters which umpires can penalize on the water ( as above )

Umpires may black flag a boat after her opponent has started when they are satisfied that she will not start. [ rule C8.5 ]

RED Flag in Match Racing

In one of the comments on Helping Hands, Pat of Desert Sea - New Mexican Sailing asked about the use of the red flag in Match Racing.

Because it's not often used, there is - also among umpires - a lot of misunderstanding about when to apply it. First let me explain what it means. The red flag always has to be used by umpires together with a blue or yellow flag, never as a single flag. When red and blue are held up together it signals the blue boat they are penalized AND that they have to take the penalty as soon as reasonably possible, but not before starting. A normal blue penalty can be postponed until the blue boat thinks it is the best place or just before finishing. Not if the red flag is used. Then the blue boat has to take it directly!

You can classify this penalty as a little more than a 'normal' penalty, but a little less than a double penalty

	signal	penalty
1	colored flag (Y or B)	may be postponed
2	colored + red flag	shall taken as soon as reasonably possible
3	two colored flags	one may be postponed, second penalty shall be taken a.s.a. reasonably possible
4	three colored flags = colored + black flag	DSQ

When do you use a red flag:

From the ISAF Umpires and Match Racing Manual 5 Part B - Edition 6/05

Sometimes breaking a rule and getting penalized leaves a boat in a better position than she would have been if she had not broken a rule. In such cases the umpires have several options:

1. To give the penalty as a red flag penalty (C5.3).
2. To give an additional, umpire initiated penalty (C5.2)
3. To display a black flag (C5.4).

A brief delay in making a decision may be justified when judging whether a boat has gained control by breaking a rule. The umpires may want to give the boat a red flag penalty if she has gained control. (C5, C6.5(b) and C7.3(d)). The additional, umpire initiated penalty is meant to take away an advantage gained by a boat that broke a rule, especially if that advantage was gained through a deliberate breach of a rule at a critical time e.g. breaking a rule to avoid being OCS, barging at the start and denying an inside boat room at the mark. It may also be given to a boat that commits a breach of sportsmanship, and in such a case, the umpires may initiate the penalty without any flag Y from a competitor. (C8.3 and CALL MR 31)

Many umpires have been reluctant to give a boat two penalties. Often, two penalties given for one incident early in the match meant the end of any real competition between the boats. The boat that was penalized was several boat lengths behind and did not have a chance to catch up while sailing in the other’s control and in its bad air. A match for whom there is no hope of winning is boring for all concerned. However, it is important that when the conditions for an additional umpire initiated penalty have been fulfilled, the umpires give such a penalty. The sailors do take 'calculated risks' - they barge in at the start and expect to either get away with it, or to get a red flag penalty. In case of a red flag penalty under such circumstances, the outcome is that the sailor will have to take a penalty and after the penalty will find himself in the same spot as before the incident - but with no outstanding penalty. With a double penalty, the boat gets back to where she would have been without the breach, but she also has to carry a penalty for the breach.

The race starts and BMW Oracle are carrying a penalty and a red flag. They must immediately carry out one of the penalty turns. Valencia, 19 May 2007. Photo copyright Pierre Orphanidis / Valencia Sailing

When the umpires judge that a boat has gained control as a result of breaking a rule, but they are not certain that the conditions for an additional umpire initiated penalty have been met, they display a red flag with or soon after the penalty flag. The boat that gets the red flag penalty must take the penalty as soon as reasonably possible. If one boat has a penalty and the other receives a red flag penalty, the red flag penalty
does not cancel the outstanding penalty. (C7.2(e))

The red flag penalty is designed to restore the relative positions of the boats before the incident that resulted in the penalty. It does not relieve the other boat of an outstanding penalty the way that a double penalty (two penalties for the same incident) would.

If, after a boat has completed a red flag penalty, she still has an advantage, and the requirements in C6.5(b) are fulfilled, the umpires may give her another penalty, and this could be another red flag penalty. (C8.3)

Updated Judges & RO Manuals

ISAF has published updated version of the Judges Manual and of the Race Officers Manual
You can find the download links to the 2008 versions on this page

Arbitration or Protest?

Last couple of years we've been trying to introduce Arbitration at our local events, as an alternative way in handling rule infringements, in stead of a complete protest-hearing. There are a couple of requirements before a protest can be dealt with in this way. For instance, Arbitration cannot be used if there's damage or injury. ISAF has not long ago published an amendment to the IJ-manual on this subject; 06_IJ Manual_arbitration07 You can read how the whole process is to be handled.
Our introduction has not been very successful. For most sailors the whole protest-procedure is not very well know, let alone an alternative like arbitration.
There are classes and events who've been using arbitration for longer. I'm very interested in their findings. How many protest are handled by arbitration, what is the percentage used for penalty and do the sailors request arbitration? If you have experience, please mail me or leave a comment.

ISAF (1)

Learned a new abbreviation tonight. "NAIU" which stands for: "Newly Appointed International Umpire". ISAF informed me in a mail today that the grouping criteria are based on performance when acting as an International Umpire. NAIUs have not acted as IUs yet, and therefore the grouping criteria cannot be applied. For that reason I'm "ungroupable" until November next year.

IU's are grouped in one of three categories: group 1, group 2 and ungrouped. There's a short paragraph in the Umpire's manual about this grouping:
"The grouping system divides international umpires into groups that reflect their competence in top-level match racing events. The system was introduced to facilitate the process of selecting appropriate umpire teams for the events that ISAF appoints umpires to (listed in regulation 18.12) and to provide a basis for developing individual international umpires."

Hopefully the ISAF can get me a place into a Grade 1 event next year, but it they are now in the last stage of the appointments, so no guarantees.....