Finished or not?

A boat in a short regatta (half an hour) crosses the finish line as 7th boat and just after her bow has passed the line, she touches the finish  mark. The Race Committee on the pin-end finish boat see the boat touch the mark. They inform the other finish boat and a note is put on the finish list.

The boat crosses over the line and some heated argument on board is heard by the RC-people. They lose sight of the boat and concentrate on the next boat(s).

The boat returns to the finish line a couple of minutes later and is seen to sail downwind through the line towards the last mark.

After five minutes the finish window (time limit) runs out and because the next race is scheduled to commence as soon as possible, the committee boats leave their station and go down to the starting area. While they motor down, they see that same boat beating upwind.

The next race is started twenty minutes later after a short postponement because of a wind shift and all boats participate.

After racing the scoring is published and the boat who had touched the finish mark is scored DNF. The PC receives a request for redress within the protest time limit from that same boat, claiming she had finished.

What should they do?
Is that boat finished or not, and what should their score be?

Definition: Finish A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment in nor­­mal position, crosses the finishing line in the direction of the course from the last mark, either for the first time or after taking a penalty under rule 44.2 or, after correcting an error made at the finishing line, under rule 28.1.

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.

(pillow)Case of the week (10/12) – 20

(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 20

Rule 1.1, Safety: Helping Those in Danger
Rule 62.1(c), Redress

When it is possible that a boat is in danger, another boat that gives help is entitled to redress, even if her help was not asked for or if it is later found that there was no danger.

Summary of the Facts

Dinghy A capsized during a race and seeing this dinghy B sailed over to her and offered help. A accepted help and B came alongside, taking the crew of two aboard. Then all hands worked for several minutes to right A, whose mast was stuck in the mud. Upon reaching shore, B requested redress under rule 62.1(c).

The protest committee considered several factors in its decision. First, A’s helmsman was a highly experienced sailor. Secondly, the wind was light, and the tide was rising and would shortly have lifted the mast free. Thirdly, she did not ask for help; it was offered. Therefore, since neither boat nor crew was in danger, redress was refused. B appealed, stating that rule 1.1 does not place any onus on a boat giving help to decide, or to defend, a decision that danger was involved.

Decision

B’s appeal is upheld. A boat in a position to help another that may be in danger is bound to do so. It is not relevant that a protest committee later decides that there was, in fact, no danger or that help was not requested. B is entitled to redress. The protest committee is directed to reopen the hearing and to grant appropriate redress following the requirements and advice given in rules 64.2 and A10.

RYA 1968/14

This appeal makes it clear that rule 1.1 is above all a safety rule. It MUST be adhered to. It is far better to grant redress to a boat that erred on the side of caution, in stead of having to punish a boat because she was reluctant to help. Let alone the possible injuries that are prevented or worse, lives that are spared.

Never hesitate to help a boat that can be in danger.

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

ISAF Q&A 2011 - 023 and 024

Published om the ISAF website; a couple of late 2011 Q&A's, both with 31 December 2011 as date of publishing.


ISAF Q&A 2011-023 K03 deals with Match Racing.
It is fairly common to have more than one windward mark and boats are shown a colored flag at the preparatory signal to indicate which windward mark to use for their match. This Q&A answers a question that many sailors and umpires have struggled with. And many different opinions were discussed.

What if both boats round the wrong windward mark?
Should the race be abandoned? Who should indicate this. Should the umpires penalize if a boat touches that (wrong) windward mark..... etc.


I'm not sure if I agree completely with the solution this Q&A gives. If both boats round the same mark it is a fair race, is it not? If touching the wrong mark is not penalized - by deduction it is therefor not a mark of the course - than boats NEVER go to the next leg of the course. They are still sailing on a beat although they are returning to the leeward mark. This means doing a penalty by tacking and bearing away is the wrong penalty.
Rule 17 gets very confusing! Proper course is to go to the correct windward mark. If, when sailing to the leeward mark, a leeward boat gets an overlap, she can luff up to head-to-wind... AND still be not be sailing above her proper course....


These are but a few first hand problems is see with the answer in this Q&A. Perhaps it should be the policy of the RC to abandon immediately when both boats round the wrong mark....

ISAF Q&A 2011-024 J023 deals with redress for a taking a penalty.
If a boat takes a penalty but protests the other boat and is found not to have broken any rules in the subsequent hearing, can it get redress for having taken the penalty? (having lost places in doing so)
The short answer is NO.

Not because it wasn't a disadvantage, not because she wasn't fouled.
Redress is unavailable because none of the criteria in rule 62.1 is applicable;

• The PC, RC or OA haven't made a mistake
• There was no damage or injury by a boat breaking a rule in part 2
• Nobody needed help in compliance for with rule 1.1
• There was no boat who was penalized under rule 2 or rule 69

We can also argue if it was - at least partly - her own fault. By taking a penalty you make sure, that if in the subsequent hearing the boat was found to have broken a rule, she would be exonerated.
But you don't have to take a penalty.!

It is the boats choice to do so. If she hadn't, the same outcome of the hearing would have exonerated her anyway.......

(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

(pillow)Case of the Week (3/11) - 55

(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.)

Case 55

Rule 70.1, Appeals and Requests to a National Authority
Definitions, Party

A boat cannot protest the race committee or the protest committee. However, she may request redress or, if she is a party to a hearing, request that it be reopened. A boat that was not a party to a hearing does not have the right to appeal. When she believes that her score has been made significantly worse by an improper action or omission of the race committee, her only remedy is to request redress. She may then appeal the decision of that hearing.

Summary of the Facts
A ‘protested’ the race committee because of inadequate rescue facilities in contravention of the club’s constitution. The race committee abandoned the completed race. B appealed.

Decision 

B’s appeal is refused because it cannot be heard under rule 70.1. B does not have the right to appeal because she was not a party to a hearing. Therefore her ‘appeal’ is in fact not an appeal but a request for redress that could have been addressed to and heard by the protest committee. The following points may assist in the understanding of this case:

1. There is no provision in the racing rules under which a boat can protest the race committee or protest committee. The only actions a boat can take against one of these committees are to request redress when she claims that her score in a race or a series of races has been made significantly worse by an improper action or omission of the race committee or protest committee, or to ask for a hearing to be reopened under rule 66 when she is a party to it. In this case, A made no such claim; her ‘protest’ was merely a criticism of the committee, having no standing under the racing rules.

2. Quite apart from the racing rules, a competitor is at liberty to point out to the race committee that it has made an error. When aware of its error, the race committee may try to have it taken into account by asking the protest committee to consider giving redress as permitted by rule 60.2(b).
3. If B had been a competitor in the race and had lodged a valid request for redress claiming that her score had been made significantly worse by the abandonment of the race, she would have been entitled to a redress hearing at which she would have been a party. She then could have appealed the decision of that hearing.

RYA 1982/11

If you feel aggrieved by anything the Organizing Authority, the Race Committee or the Protest Committee does or not does, you can ‘Request Redress’. Be aware however that, before the redress is granted, you also must show that it was trough no fault of your own and that this action (or non-action) had a significant negative impact on your score.

At most events it is usually more productive to go to the information desk and ask if you can have a word with the Race Officer or the PC-Chair. Just telling them about the issue you have, might have the effect you desire. If not, then you can still get a form and ask for redress. If the answer is still unsatisfactory you then have the opportunity to appeal the decision.

In a final note; The racing rules state that before the PC makes a decision on redress – especially before abandoning a race – it must consider the effect on all boats.

In the USA that is even brought a step further, because the US Sailing has issued a couple of prescriptions for RRA 60 & 63.2:

NEW PRESCRIPTION TO RULE 60
US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, any boat may participate in the hearing provided she makes a written request before the hearing begins. When she does so, the protest committee shall act under rule 60.3(b) to consider redress for her at that hearing.

That boat then in effect becomes a party to the hearing

NEW PRESCRIPTION TO RULE 63.2
US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, the protest committee shall make a reasonable attempt to notify all boats of the time and place of the hearing and the nature of the request or the grounds for considering redress. Before holding the hearing, the committee shall allow reasonable time for boats to make written requests to participate.

Mind, the PC will most likely just publish the protest hearing schedule, with the request for redress on it, on the notice board and consider that a reasonable attempt to notify all boats involved. Don’t expect the PC to go looking for boats and/or crews in the boat park!
J.

(pillow)Case of the Week (37/11) - 45

(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 45

Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Rule 64.2, Decisions: Decisions on Redress
Definitions, Finish

When a boat fails to finish correctly because of a race committee error, but none of the boats racing gains or loses as a result, an appropriate and fair form of redress is to score all the boats in the order they crossed the finishing line.

Summary of the Facts

During the day, the class sailed two races. After the first race, which the boats finished leaving Mark 1 to starboard, the wind became light. Accordingly, the race officer set a shorter second course and issued a change to the sailing instructions stating that, although Mark B was the last rounding mark, Mark 1 was to be left to starboard. The same mark was being used for the finishing line of another race, and the race officer had been advised not to set courses that might lead to different boats passing a finishing mark or crossing the finishing line in opposite directions.

X and two other boats finished leaving Mark 1 to port and were scored DNF. Y, followed by the rest of the fleet, sailed the course prescribed by the change to the sailing instructions, leaving Mark 1 to starboard. They thus sailed a ‘hook round’ finish as shown in the diagram.

X requested redress on the grounds that the race committee had not applied the definition Finish correctly when it awarded first place to Y, whereas X had been the first boat to finish as required by the definition.

The protest committee gave redress, agreeing that X and the other two boats had finished correctly, and reinstated them in the race. For boats not so finishing, the committee exercised its discretion under rule 64.2 to ‘make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected.’ It adjusted the race scores according to the order in which all the boats crossed the finishing line, without regard to the direction in which they crossed it.

X appealed against the new finishing order, claiming that the wording of the definition Finish was unequivocal and stating that such an arrangement would negate the definition and defeat its purpose, which, she believed, was to prevent ‘hook round’ finishes.

Decision

X’s appeal is dismissed. Because the sailing instruction that conflicted with the definition Finish was invalid, issuing it was an improper action of the race committee that qualified the three boats for consideration for redress under rule 62.1(a). None of the boats racing gained or lost as a result of the race committee error, so the redress awarded was appropriate.

It was also as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats, as required by rule 64.2.

RYA 1979/1

Do you remember the wording in the definition finish ?

Better look it up then………

J.

Do you have a pen?

In yesterdays post I wrote about the requirements of a Protest. I hope that most of you have thought about this and are willing to write a small comment. I realize that the example is perhaps a little far fetched for some of you, but I do assure you that it has happened when I was in a panel once or twice....

Anyway, today we continue with writing. Not a protest this time but a request for redress.
Rule 61.2 specifically deals with a protest. And looking at the definition,

An allegation made under rule 61.2 by a boat, a race committee or a protest committee that a boat has broken a rule.

 we can safely say, that a request for redress is something quite different. Rule 61.2 therefore does NOT apply.

But what then? What if a sailor comes to the desk a states he has a request for redress?
Would that be valid?

Looking at rule 62.2:

The request shall be in writing and be delivered to the race office no later than the protest time limit or two hours after the incident, whichever is later. The protest committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so. No red flag is required.

"...shall be in writing...." That is all. So a verbal request is not good enough, but written on a piece of paper is?

Does it have to describe the claim? Does it have to state who made the scoring of the boat significantly worse?
Should it describe the improper action or physical damage? Should it at least state when the incident took place?
How can the other party prepare if they don't know what it is about?

The rules give no definitive answer in my opinion, save it that in rule 62.1 it says ".... shall be based on a claim or possibility...... That might indicate that at least the claim should be written down.

Did you ever declare a request invalid because it didn't describe the claim?
Give me you opinion.

ESS 2011; Act 4: Boston, Race day 2

Contact!

Whenever there is contact between boats in this Extreme Sailing Series the umpires must do a couple things. First is the on the water part. After a Yankee flag from one of the boats, we go to the rules of part 2 and penalize one of the involved boats for breaking one of these rules.

Second comes after the race. The Umpires asses the damage. Like in Match Racing we have a scale of three levels; A, B or C. Level A has no consequences. Boats can still race and it has no influence on the performance of boat or crew. Level B is more serious. The boat can still race but only after some (temporary) repairs. Level C puts it out of commission – it’s structural damage that cannot be repaired on the water. Usually it will take a lot of work by the shore crew during the night – even lifting the boat out of the water.

Depending on the level the boat that has broken the rule is given penalty points.

After all racing on that day is done follows part three: A rule 14 hearing (for levels B or C) slash Request for Redress.

In that hearing we determine which boat has broken rule 14. If both, redress is not granted because it’s partly the boats own fault. If only the other boat, we can grant redress. Usually average points for the race(s) not sailed from all other that day (or previously sailed in the Act)

Today we had such an incident between Pindar and Red Bull. The last three races Red Bull couldn’t compete because of a broken rudder connection to the hull. They had to go ashore to do the repairs: Pindar minus 3 points.

The decision in the hearing: Redress granted, average points (rounded up to the nearest one decimal point) in race 12, 13 & 14, calculated from all races before Race 12. Which comes to 6,4 points.

Hopefully we will not have too many of these. But in Extreme Sailing crashes are not that uncommon…….

THIS HAPPENED IN ISTANBUL

(pillow)Case of the Week (45) - 68

(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 68

Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Definitions, Racing

The failure of a race committee to discover that a rating certificate is invalid does not entitle a boat to redress. A boat that may have broken a rule and that continues to race retains her rights under the racing rules, including her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her rights to protest and appeal, even if she is later disqualified.

Summary of the Facts
In a long distance race, boat A protested boat B under a rule of Part 2 and boat B was disqualified. B requested redress. She stated that it had come to light in a protest hearing after an earlier race that A had failed to revalidate her rating certificate and therefore had been ineligible to enter the long distance race. B further claimed that since A was ineligible when she entered that race she was not racing in it; therefore B had no reason to take a penalty or retire, nor did A have the right to protest under rule 60.1.
The protest committee denied B’s request for redress, stating that the invalidity of A’s rating certificate did not change the fact that she was racing within the terms of the definition and so was entitled to her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her right to protest under rule 60.1. B appealed.

Decision
B’s appeal is dismissed. The failure of the race committee to discover the invalidity of A’s rating certificate and prevent her from racing was not an improper omission which worsened B’s finishing place within the meaning of rule 62.1(a).

Therefore, the protest committee properly denied B’s request for redress. A was a boat ‘intending to race’ prior to her preparatory signal and a boat racing thereafter. The rules of Part 2 applied to her and to all other boats that were racing. The principles of sportsmanship require a boat to take a penalty when she realizes that she has broken a rule, but if she continues racing she retains her rights under the racing rules, including her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her rights to protest and appeal.
The rules of Part 2 govern all boats that are racing, whether or not one of them is later disqualified for some reason.

CYA 1978/40



Same is valid when someone starts to early. They score an OCS – long before the race has finished – or – even that boat is finished. But that still does not mean they can’t protest someone else or that that boat should not be kept clear of when she’s right of way boat.

The case does not state if the boat with the invalid certificate was disqualified after that was discovered. But I think not. A request for redress or a protest for that matter does not permit the PC to go outside the alleged incident.

For that to happen someone should protest her first.

Observers in Match Race Master de Espana

Today I umpired in Bayone, Spain for the Master de Espana, a grade 2 event.

This is the first time I worked with observers on board of the boats in stead of a wing boat. On the stern of these Beneteau boats an observer stands behind the backstay and signals clear, overlap or contact, using hand signals. An outstretched arm sideways, means clear, a raised arm means overlap and tapping on top of the head, means contact. After a few initial problems this system works well. You don't need to hear the wing, the signal is right in front of you and it is always there.

The observers are all girls/ladies who sail or even have match raced. They stand at the back holding on with one hand and signalling with the other. Some have hooked themselves to the boat, others use a line from side to side behind there backs. They all have an overlay-vest which is yellow or blue - just flip inside out and you have the other color. All have been issued with corrector weights so they are all equal.

Today was a light day with not so much wind so the manoeuvres were fairly slow. All the observers could do there work without a chance they would fall overboard. But what if the wind picks up and one of them would?
They are not part of the crew, so the rules governing a boat not to continue in the race without its crew, do not apply.  I bet however that the other boat - specially when loosing - would request redress. If only because of the weight difference. Also, a boat needs to help anybody in danger... But, most times the observers would probably be picked up fairly quick by an umpire, so how much danger can there be?

We discussed the issue among the umpires and decided we would only deal with this issue when it occured. But a little thinking before hand, is never wasted.

What do you think?

Should redress be granted to the looser, if an observer is missing from the winning boat because she fell in the water. Do the circumstances why she fell play a factor?
Or should we write a Sailing Instruction declaring that the observer should be regarded as part of the crew in reference to rule 47.2?

(pillow)Case of the Week (42) – 71; Redress

(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 71

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 29.1, Recalls: Individual Recall
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Rule 64.2, Decisions: Decisions on Redress

A hail is not the ‘sound signal’ required when flag X is displayed. Answers to questions arising from requests for redress after a procedural error by the race committee.

Summary of the Facts

Boats A and B were near the port end of the starting line and very close to the line at the starting signal. The race committee, believing that both had been on the course side of the line at their starting signal, displayed flag X and hailed both sail numbers.

Neither A nor B heard the hails or saw flag X but continued racing and their finishing places were recorded. Preliminary results were posted showing A and B scored as OCS.
A promptly requested redress, citing as grounds that the race committee failed to make the required sound signal and that she did not see a flag or have any other reason to believe that she did not start correctly. The protest committee heard A’s request. The committee did not find as fact whether or not A or B was on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal. However, when the committee learned that B was next to A, it gave redress to both boats, stating that they were to be scored in their finishing places and, where appropriate, other boats’ scores were to be adjusted downwards. This done, C, which had finished behind A and B, requested redress in her turn, claiming that the race committee’s omission of the required sound signal had made her score significantly worse by causing two boats which failed to start properly to be scored ahead of her. C’s request was denied and she appealed.
In commenting on the appeal the race committee asked several questions.

Question 1
Did the hail of sail numbers constitute a sound signal?

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.

(pillow)Case of the Week (34) – 79;

(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 79

Rule 29.1, Recalls: Individual Recall

When a boat has no reason to know that she crossed the starting line early and the race committee fails to promptly signal ‘Individual recall’ and scores her OCS, this is an error that significantly worsens the boat’s score through no fault of her own, and therefore entitles her to redress.

Assumed Facts
At the start of a race for one-design boats, ten boats near the middle of the starting line were slightly across the line at their starting signal. The race committee signalled ‘Individual recall’ by displaying flag X with one gun. However, these signals were made approximately 40 seconds after the starting signal. None of the boats returned to start, and several of them lodged requests for redress upon learning after the race that they had been scored OCS.

Question 1
In rule 29.1, what does ‘promptly display’ mean?

Answer 1
No specific amount of time will apply in all circumstances, but in this rule it means a very short time. A race committee should signal ‘Individual recall’ within a very few seconds of the starting signal. Forty seconds is well beyond the limits of acceptability


Question 2
Is it reasonable for a boat to request redress because of a less-than-prompt individual recall signal, even when she did not return to start?


Answer 2
Yes.

Question 3
Why should a boat be given redress because of the committee’s failure to signal promptly, when the rules say that failure to notify a boat that she is on the course side of the starting line at her starting signal does not relieve her of her obligation to start correctly?

Answer 3
The rules do not say this. Rule 29.1 obligates the committee to signal all boats that one or more of them are on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal. Rule 28.1 and, if it applies, rule 30.1 obligate each boat to return to the pre-start side of the line and then start, but this assumes that the signals, both visual and sound, have been made. When a signal is not made or, as in this case, when the signal is much too late, it places a boat that does not realize that she was slightly over the line at the starting signal at a significant disadvantage because she can not use the information the signal provides, in combination with her observations of her position relative to other boats at the time the signal is made, to decide whether or not to return to the pre-start side of the line.


Question 4
How can a boat that fails to start properly be entitled to redress when rule 62.1 requires that her score be made significantly worse ‘through no fault of her own’?

Answer 4
A boat that has no reason to believe that she was on the course side of the line at her starting signal has the right to assume that she started correctly unless properly signalled to the contrary.
As Answer 3 indicates, a boat can be significantly disadvantaged by a delay by the race committee in making the recall signal. That error is entirely the race committee’s fault, and not that of the disadvantaged boat. (See Case 31 for a discussion of appropriate redress in a similar situation.)


USSA 1992/285

Most sailors will state they did not know they were ‘over’ when asked. 
And in many cases I believe them. It’s very hard to judge when you are close to the line. So with a less then prompt signal, I tend to grant the redress.

However, when it is obvious that the boat was over, or even completely above the line, I do not permit redress for a less then prompt displayed recall flag and horn. The ‘through no fault of her own’ part of the rule kicks in and prevents this.

J.

Kiel 4; Day five

After an eleven hour day on the water umpiring yesterday and a 6 hour day today (cut-off time was 15:00 hours) we have a new Kieler Woche World Cup Match Race champion! Ekaterina Skudina and her crew managed to beat Claire Leroy and her crew in the finals 2-1. Congratulations to her, indeed. Coming up from the repacharge to win the tournament, shows some fighting spirit. Never giving up, never loosing hart. A well deserved win! And well done Katerina!

We are going in to the international part of Kiel Week, with many (more) competitors. I'll be going out on the water for rule 42 and do some hearings in the room. And perhaps some arbitration. Something for which they have a unique system here.

I've been scribbling in my notebooks and will no doubt find a few cases to share from the match race course, but for the next couple of post I will concentrate on the Jury-work
The first on I am telling you about is unique indeed:

A team sailing in Kiel-week in a different class handed in a request for redress two day's after the start of match racing, claiming that a wrong team was invited to come and that actually they should have been given the opportunity to sail according to the rules regarding invitations. With some preliminary reading of the NoR it was soon discovered, that indeed there might have been a mistake and that a wrong team was asked to come.
The reason why the team handed in the request was of course the missed oppertunity to earn ranking points.

But to stop the tournament for that? Impossible!
Was the request even valid? The party was not a competitor and time limit! Has anybody checked the time limit? If we hear it what can we do? This Internation Jury has no jurisdiction over ISAF's ranking list. Only over this particular World Cup Event.
Questions, obstacles, and hurdles......

Kiel 1 – Re-sail?

Ok, a short one then.

All umpires have or will have a moment when their rubberboot is in a wrong place at a wrong time. Be it because of their own inadequacies or because a match race boat makes an unexpected manoeuvre, sometimes their will be contact. The rules state that in such a case their is no redress – sailors cannot ask for that, only umpires can initiate a hearing and the PC may then grant redress.

Nevertheless, sailors will let you know that you were in their way. Sometimes by hoisting a red flag. Most Jury will then investigate, actually the will have to.

We had such a case – a boat stopping contact approximately two minutes before the start. After considering all the facts we decided that it did not have significant influence on the outcome of the match and redress was denied.

In the debrief our chief umpire suggested the following policy. Has there been contact and was that followed by a red flag by one of the sailors, ask the RC for an restart.

A pragmatic solution – for sure, one not directly in the rules, but quick, no hassle and ultimately more productive.

We discussed it again at a late diner before returning to our night lodgings. I wonder what you make of this solution. Considering all the implications, do you agree and would you follow or do you disagree and stick to the strict rules?

 

.

(pillow)Case of the Week (20) - 96

(This is an installment 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 96

Rule 30.3, Starting Penalties: Black Flag Rule

When after a general recall a boat learns from seeing her sail number displayed that she has been disqualified by the race committee under the second sentence of rule 30.3 and believes the race committee has made a mistake, her only option is not to start, and then to seek redress. However, if the race committee does not display her sail number and she sails in the restarted race, she should be scored BFD, and not DNE.

Assumed Facts

The race committee displayed the black flag as the preparatory signal for the start of a class. Boat A was identified in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. After the starting signal, the race committee signalled a general recall. The race committee disqualified Boat A without a hearing for breaking rule 30.3.

Question 1

If Boat A believes that the race committee made a mistake when it identified her in the triangle during the last minute, do the rules permit her to sail in the race when it is restarted and then request redress?

Answer 1

Rule 30.3 clearly requires boat A not to sail in the restarted race and states that her disqualification will become non-excludable if she does. Her only remedy is to request redress, which, if given in a series, would normally be based on her results in other races.

Additional Assumed Facts

The race committee failed to display A’s sail number before the next warning signal for the race, and A sailed in the race when it was restarted.

Question 2

Is A entitled to a finishing place?

Answer 2

No. Boat A should be disqualified as required by the second sentence of rule 30.3. However, because the race committee erred by not displaying her sail number between the general recall and the next warning signal for the race, she should be scored BFD (Disqualification under rule 30.3), and not DNE (Disqualification not excludable under rule 90.3(b)). If she requests redress claiming that she is entitled to a finishing place because the race committee erred by not displaying her sail number, her request should be denied.

While not displaying her sail number is an improper omission by the race committee, it is not the omission that deprived her of her finishing place, but the fact that she had been on the course side of the starting line in the minute before her starting signal. However, if she was scored DNE, redress should be granted to the extent of changing her score to BFD.

RYA 2000/1

By not sailing the race after the general recall boat A does not acknowledge she agrees with the BFD. But the rules do not permit her to participate in the next race – if she does, she not only breaks the first part in rule 30.3 but also the second part.

Now, if she successfully can convince the PC that she was not over the line and that the RC made a mistake by identifying her as such, she can get redress.

Because of the rules dictating redress and the second part in rule 30.3 – (she shall not sail in the race) – you can, theoretically, find a ‘dilemma’ :

1. In order to get redress the rules state that the score should NOT be made significantly worse through ‘no fault of her own’.
2. By not sailing in the race – while she was convinced she was not BFD – it was, at least partly, because of her own decision, that she got no score.
3. Rule 30.3 specifically states that she must be identified – she was not.
4. Therefore the second part of rule 30.3 is not in effect. She should have raced
5. No redress……

The wording in rule 30.3 is to clear enough to decide either way. Therefore I would always give the benefit of the doubt to the sailor in this case and grant redress.

J.

Score or Place: Threshold Test for Redress

A guest post by Brass

For those of you that have noticed the Farrah Hall v Nancy Rios dispute in the USA (*), here's a twist.  Even if Farrah Hall had had a request for redress against the grant of redress to Nancy Rios heard, it is likely she would have not been given redress because her score, rather than her placing, was not made worse.

In 2001-2004 rules the stem of rule 62.1 read:

A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s finishing place in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse (emphasis added).

In the 2002-2005 rules this was changed by replacing 'finishing place' with 'score, so that the rule read, as it does in the 2009 rules

A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse (emphasis added).

The effect of this change is highlighted in the 2008 ISAF Judges Manual Chap s9.30, page 90, which states:

SCORE
For redress to apply it is a boats score in a race or series that must have been made significantly worse. The worsening of the position of a boat in a race or series is not grounds for redress.

EXAMPLE: A boats position in a series may be made worse if a race is abandoned in accordance with the rules, however, it would not be entitled to redress because its score has not been made worse by the abandonment as its score remains the same as it was before the race was abandoned.

Using the ISAF document search utility, I am unable to locate any submission, minute or other document that explains why this rule change was made, but perhaps it was made to 'head off' the problem described in the Judges Manual example.

I believe, however, that the change in the rule has had a serious and unfair consequence.  There can be cases where a boat's place in a series can be made worse without her score being made worse:

• Grant of redress to another boat that gives her a higher score
• Penalisation of a boat so that a third boat gains a higher score in a particular race that enables the third boat to beat the disadvantaged boat on points in the series.

__________________________________________________________________(*) The Farrah Hall and Nancy Rios Olympic windsurfing selection trials case in the United States provides an example of how this could happen.  Farrah Hall initially had the better score.  Nancy Rios was given redress that made her score better.  Although Farrah Hall failed to meet the requirements for a valid request for redress, had she done so, under the above interpretation, she would not have been entitled to  redress, because her score, rather than her placing, was not made worse.

In light of Brass’ post I was wondering if the readers of LTW already have had dealings with this particular issue? If you have, please leave a comment.

Poll for Redress in Medal Race

One of my posts, Addendum Q changed in 2010 was published in Scuttlebutt. Since then several people have responded in the Scuttlebutt forum. In light of this I'm starting a poll.

You can vote on a simple question:
Should the Medal Race at the World Cup Events have the possibility for a Request for Redress - as written in the RRS - or not?
I'm leaving the poll up for a longer period. Say until we have a 1000 votes. That should give a clear picture.
As a judge I'm fairly neutral myself - although I'm leaning towards "Yes".

Please give me your answer in the poll at the top of the sidebar.