Hail to the Flag!

>

------

Before there ...

Before there was chaos

Before there was awful darkness

Before there was THE room &THE judges

Before there was the sailor who tried to remember
the fifteenth windward leeward mark rounding at one o'clock
in the morning after three hours waiting and five hearings, in the
team race championship, to decide which team had scored seventeenth ..

After there was a response to any Yankee flag so a sailor could concentrate on the race and plan his strategy and tactics based on the rules, because
the other boat was obliged to follow them or do the penalty...

After there was a hearing straight after the match,

After there was THE umpire bringing solace

After there was bright light

After there was order

After there was

a Flag

------

>

________________________________________________________________
@@ Best Sailing Invention Ever? on Proper Course by Tillerman.

.

Amorita vs Sumurun | Settlement out of court

In March this year I wrote a post about a pending court case between two yacht owners. If you want to refresh your memory go here: Hear Yee, Hear Yee, ... Amorita vs Sumurun

I was interested why this incident, which was subject of a protest and two subsequent appeal hearings, ever ended up in court.


Amorita in full gear

On Monday in the Village Soup an article appeared announcing that the two parties had settled out of court. The post, written by Holly S. Anderson, has no information on the how and the what. Both sets of lawyers are keeping stumm, so to speak. And in the court records the settlement was not made public. You can read the whole post: Settlement reached in Sumurun lawsuit

I'm not surprised by a settlement. Sumurun was disqualified in the protest and both appeals were denied, but it would have been interesting to read what a court would have made of the whole case.

Now we will never know.

Magnetic Protest Boat Kit | 2

The package from the RYA arrived today. Sealed in a bubble envelope it took 12 days to be delivered. The Sales Invoice is dated 29/08/08 and I ordered them on 28/08/08.
(Magnetic Protest Boat Kit)

The boats are very nice and well crafted with a good 'sail' attachment. Exactly as promised, 12 boats of which three blank and three sets of three colored sailboats, yellow, blue and red. Four marks and two arrows, all together in a sturdy plastic zip bag.

Made in China (where else). Total costs (including postage and VAT) £ 27.24
Fair dinkum, as the people down-under would say.

In lieu of our protest-competition announced yesterday, TP52 Protest Writing Exercise, I have decided to donate this magnetic protest boat kit as the first prize.
The winner will receive the complete bag, send free of charge, by post.
So what are you waiting for, stop reading this blog, and start writing.

Entries must be send in by Email before 22 september 22:00 hours, preferbly in a word document, but pdf is fine too. Oh, please put your name in the filename, so I can keep track.

.

TP52 Protest Writing Exercise

In Scuttlebutt 2675 there was a link to a fairly unique set of photos. In the sequence seven boats were involved in at least three separate rules-issues at the weather mark:



Photographer Ian Roman provided this aerial of the windward mark action and accidents from last week's TP52 Audi MedCup event in Carthagena, Spain (click on image to enlarge).

I thought this was a opportunity to good to miss and asked and received permission to use these photo's in a blogpost.

First of all> This is definitely not meant to second guess any protest or non protest in the actual event. I'm interested if we can use the limited but detailed information on these photos, to write a protest. For instance, look at the wakes on the water!

We will name the boats A trough G from top to bottom according to the standing in the LAST photo! I can devise at least three separate rules issues; between C and D, between E and F and between F and G.
So here's the challenge:

1. Pick one pair (and one pair only);
2. Write a set of facts found about what you think has happened - does NOT have to be what actually happened, but must be to the point without any unnecessary facts and no conclusions;
3. Draw a conclusion and rules involved based on the facts found, as you have written;
4. Write a decision

This is exactly ( but with a drawing instead of photo's) what is asked of you in an International Judges Test after a seminar. There you will have to do it for two separate situations.

Send in your entries before the dead-line, which is two weeks from today, ending at 22:00 hours Monday the 22nd of September 2008.
I will subsequently post the submissions together in boat pairs. We will vote for the best written protest for each pair, they earn a place in the final. In that finale you can vote for the best of those three.
Remember, picking the easy pair might get you through the first round, but then you will have to compete with the other two. You may only write one protest for each pair.

Get the RRS open, download the Protest Conclusions & Decisions.xls file and get cracking.

Good luck!

.

Informing the boat within the time limit?

Received an Email from the Judge who keeps track of all the Jury reports and publishes them in the IJ-Report web site. He presented the following case:

Part of the IJ Report from the "International 420 & International 470 Open Junior European Championships" might be something you would consider for your blog....

"Two judges observed an incident involving a protest between two boats and gave evidence at the hearing. The two judges did not raise a jury protest about the incident as a protest had already been submitted by a competitor.

During the hearing the evidence of jury members and others made it apparent that a third boat, not referred to in the protest form and not present at the hearing, was involved in the incident. Accordingly the jury initiated a protest under rule 60.3(a)(2).

At the second hearing a party argued that the jury should not be permitted to initiate the jury protest. Jury members had observed the incident and thus the jury was obliged under rule 61.1(b) to inform the boat after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3 and had not done so.

In the view of the international jury
a) the jury could extend the protest time if there was good reason to do so.
b) In any event, rule 60.3(a)(2) was appropriate

However it could be argued that there is conflict between the provisions of 60.3(a)(2) and rule 61.1(b). It is intended that this issue be drawn to the attention of racing rules committee."

________________________________________________________________

In first response I have the following points.

1. First there has to be the intention to protest. Look at the first sentence of rule 61.1(b). In this case, because of the protest submitted by one of the boats, it is reasonable that there never was an intention by the jury to protest. The protest could be against all boats involved. Something which a hearing would establish.
2. If from the observations of the judges on the water it wasn't apparent that the third boat broke a rule, that this only became clear during the hearing, the jury was under no obligation to inform the boat under rule 61.1(b)
3. There's a separate rule (RRS 61.1(c)), in which a time to inform the boat is specified for protesting under rule 60.3(a)(2), so rule 61.1(b) does not apply.

If you have another opinion or want to comment, please don't hesitate to use the comments button.

'Justice stranded on the Beach'

- Think twice when you "reopen" a hearing -
by Adriaan Pels

This time we were on Barbados. The event was a world championship Mistral. The jury was busy with the last day hearings. As usual only a few protests, but protests which could influence the total score and the places on the podium.

Only one party came to the hearing

In one hearing the protestee did not show up. The chairman postponed the hearing and scheduled it at the bottom of the list and asked the protestor to do everything that he could to bring the other party to the jury room. But no success. At last the jury decided the protest after only hearing the protestor and decided to disqualify the protestee.

Later that day, during the dinner and prize giving party on the beach, with a lot of rum and coca cola and steel band music, the protestee accosted the jury chairman and told him why he was not present at the hearing. The chairman, always ready to help the sailors, decided he was unavoidably absent and sitting in the sand with one other jury member he ‘reopened’ the hearing. Or whatever you call it. Anyhow, the duo listened to the story of the protestee and decided now that he was in the right, no doubt. He should not be disqualified.

Score change

What to do in this situation? Call all jury members? Find the protestor? Look for a jury room? Too complicated and at the end the chairman, sure about what happened on the water and wanting to do justice, informed the result Johnny’s and the score was changed.

Next day, after breakfast, while he was waiting for transport to the airport, the eyes half open because of little sleep and much rum, the jury chairman was almost attacked by the protestor. After the man had seen the changed scoring list (he was not informed) and was told by somebody what happened, he was furious. "What you did is not allowed, I had the right to be present" ,and so on he said, not very friendly. Poor chairman, despite his good intentions, he made a big mistake by not to following the correct procedure.

Decision: back to the original score. But where were the result boys? Not there anymore, the event was over, flags down, offices closed. “I’ll write a letter”, were his last words, before he hit the taxi.....

Adriaan Pels.

________________________________________________________________

This is the second guest post by Adriaan. His first one you can find here:
Leg counting or How many beats did you sail?

If you have a story you think is of interest and would like to share, please mail me and send it in.

Rule2Blog

Visited a German blog the other day, written by Felix Kling called Rule2blog.
Asking him about that name he answered in a short mail:

Why rule 2? With this blog I want to promote fair sailing and generally sailing according to the RRS. I myself sail in the Star class and am a German National Judge & Umpire.
I’m a good friend of Willii Gohl and maybe you know my father Mufti Kling. He’s International Judge and also national Umpire.

Mufti and I have translates the English booklet “Rules Companion” from Bryan Willis into German and sell them in the German area. We have also done the AC booklet for the Cup in Valencia. Maybe you know some of these books? We know your blog very well and read them regularly.

I basically write the blog to report about our experience in the Star and about the RRS and their news. But also to promote our books ;-)

Today on his blog is a new link to a Synopsis RRS 2005 – 2008 with RRS 2009 – 2012 Version 1 (07/08) written by Willii Gohl. He compares the new rules to the old side by side. Nice work!

Protests vs Prize Giving; LTW Readers Q&A | 8

A dilemma faced by many protest committees: The time it takes to do proper hearings and the scheduled prize giving. I received a readers question from Steven about this issue. He wrote me in an email:

________________________________________________________________

Greetings from Barbados.

My name is Steven Kern, first president of the Grenada Sailing Association and National Judge for Grenada, residing now in Barbados and also member of the Barbados Sailing Association. The attached is a report to RC of a protest that occurred at Bequia Easter Regatta 2008.

The Race Committee (RC) were concerned that they were not called to the protest and more concerned that we conducted the protest which in doing so slightly delayed their last day’s prize giving ceremony.

Can you give us your thoughts on the need to call in RC as we had their report, i.e. no flag, and our decision to deem the protest valid on the word of protestor and a witness? Also input on writing facts found would be welcome.

Regards,
Steven Kern
________________________________________________________________

Bequia Easter Regatta 2008 Protest # 3 Padig vs Category 5

Protest within time limit – Yes

Protest valid – Yes

Protestor and witness acknowledged hail and flag at first reasonable opportunity. Protestor is bound by 61.1(a) and has an obligation to display the flag until she is no longer racing. There is no obligation on the Protestor to ensure that the R/C sees or acknowledges the flag at the finish. Protestor is “requested” to notify R/C of her intention to protest under SI 17.2 but this request is not an obligation or requirement. The jury is bound by 63.5 and the Protestor having met all the requirements, the protest is valid and the hearing shall be continued.

Notes: Jury found Protestor satisfied 61.1(a) and this was supported by a witness on the race course. This evidence was not disputed by the protestee. Jury having earlier called R/C received verbal report that R/C did not record the sighting of any protest flags at the finish of the race in question, and therefore Jury was well aware of R/C’s position.

Facts Found:

On the beat to the windward mark, Padig on port tack was sailing close hauled below the port lay line and was on a converging course with Category 5 on starboard tack.

At approximately 3 boat lengths to the mark, Category 5 on starboard tack, slightly above the starboard lay line, with boat speed of 7.5 knots, bore down to round the mark and became overlapped outside of Padig as the boats entered the 2 boat length zone.

Padig completed her tack onto starboard approximately 1/3 of a boat length clear ahead and a ¼ boat length to leeward of Category 5. Padig now close hauled with boat speed of 4 knots became overlapped inside of Category 5 as the boats entered the 2 boat length zone.

At 1 boat length to the mark Padig the slower boat now fully overlapped inside Category 5 began to luff to round the mark.

Category 5 responded to Padig’s luff and sailing faster broke the overlap and proceeded to bear away to set spinnaker for the next leg of the course.

No contact was made. Both boats rounded the mark and proceeded on the next leg of the course.

Conclusions and Rules that apply:

Category 5 outside overlapped boat at the zone continued to give Padig room to round the mark as obliged in Rule 18.2 (b). Padig having slowed through her luff and the cover from the overtaking boat, had to further luff above close hauled to round the mark.

Decision:

Protest dismissed – No rules were broken and scoring as per R/C stands.

________________________________________________________________

Who are the parties?

The RC is not a party to this hearing, only Padig and Category 5 are. Only parties have the right to be present throughout the hearing of all the evidence; RRS 63.2(a)

The RC can be a witness. But only if she is called to be so, by one of the parties or by the PC. If called as a witness by one of the parties, for instance by Category 5 to dispute the validity, then she must be heard; RRS 63.6 and M3.2 (fourth bullet). A party however is not obligated to call any witness. It is their decision.

The PC may also call a witness. In this case on validity, the obligations of the RC are dictated by RRS 63.5:

"At the beginning of the hearing the protest committee shall decide whether all requirements for the protest or request for redress have been met, after first taking any evidence it considers necessary."

There is no obligation to call any witness, the PC decides what it considers necessary to determine the validity. Since the fact that a protest flag was not recorded at the finish was already known, I see no need to repeat that in the hearing, save for the fact that parties might want to question the PC about that issue. But they are responsible themselves as well. Category 5 could have asked the PC as a witness to come to the hearing.

Incontrovertible Sailing Instructions?

Then there are the SI, specifically SI 17.2. I don't have the SI and can't read them on this point, but the PC did and they found that wording did not demand that the red flag was to been seen or acknowledged by the RC at the finish. If the RC want to make this a rule that must be adhered to, the wording in the SI should reflect that incontrovertible.

After the decision the RC could have filed a request for redress according to RRS 60.3(b) and then (as a party) try to convince the PC that they might have made an error interpreting SI 17.2.

Delay in the time of the prize giving is always a contended point between PC and RC. First of all the RC should allow the time after the last race to conduct one or two hearings in planning the prize giving ceremony. Protests are part of the regatta and not something bothersome to get rid off. They have a definite impact on standings, so should be part of the schedule.

Finish time of the last boat + protest time limit + 2 x 20 minutes for hearings = time to schedule prize giving. I can understand that the PC conduct the hearings, which have an impact on the prizes, first. After these have been decided, the prize giving can be held, with the PC continuing with other protests/boats.

The PC should make every effort to conduct the hearing in an efficient and timely manner. They can try to call the parties before end of protest time and do a hearing asap if everybody can attend. They don't have to wait, if all the evidence can be presented and witnesses heard.

For the sake of time the PC also may just give a decision and any penalties imposed. The other requirements of RRS 65.1, i.e. the facts found, the applicable rules and the reasons for it, can be done later. Promptly does not mean immediately.

Facts Found on validity should be included

I'm impressed by this PC because they have written down all the facts needed to come to a decision about validity. Something most PC forget to do. Especially when there's a contention about validity, it should always be part of the written protest. I would have put that part also in Facts Found and in the Decision, but that is just format.

The facts found about the actual incident are clear and precise enough to make a diagram. Only two minor points:

one: "....became overlapped .......as the boats entered the 2 boat length zone." is a little ambivalent. Either they were overlapped, or they were not.

two: "Padig having slowed through her luff and the cover from the overtaking boat, had to further luff above close hauled to round the mark."
This does not need to be put in the conclusion. You could add it in the facts, but rules-wise it has no impact. Once Padig completed her tack outside the zone and was r-o-w inside overlapped boat, she could go head-to-wind to round the mark if that was what was needed.

Luffing above close hauled is something you would use for a situation involving rule 18.3 and then only for the outside boat.... to indicate that the tacking inside boat broke that rule.

Different conclusion

I have more trouble with the conclusion. From the moment Padig completed her tack outside the two length zone she became right-of-way clear ahead boat. She fulfilled her obligations to keep clear while tacking under rule 13 and she gave room to Category 5 to keep clear, once she completed her tack, under rule 15.

She was thereafter r.o.w. boat. First under rule 12 and then rule 11. She was not only entitled to room, no, Category 5 had to keep clear during the whole rounding. Rule 18 only applies when that rule conflicts with the basic r-o-w rules and in this case it does not.

So I would have written in the conclusion:
Category 5 to windward kept clear of Padig to leeward during the mark rounding. (RRS 11) No rules broken.
It however does not make any difference in the decision, protest dismissed.

Thank you Steven, for bringing this protest to everybody's attention. I hope my observation are of use to you, but feel free to disagree. The comment button is just below.

Forumtalk about the RRS

In my continuing search for subjects I visit several forums. Sometimes just to read but also to comment and contribute in the discussions. There are several I visit regularly.

Sometimes a particular post brings a smile to my face and I copy & paste the piece to my notebook. Here are a couple I had saved. Mind, I did not write these, all credit goes to the original posters.
_____________________________________________________________
From the Sailing Anarchy Forum: by H I M:

Everyone knows it's a fundamental law of quantum nautical mathematics, that the length of "two boat lengths" is entirely fluid depending on many factors, including whether one is on the inside or the outside, whether one is attempting to gain, break, hold or hold off an overlap, the number of beers consumed and the size of the two skippers in the room. It has even been postulated that there are infinite parallel "circles" each of which represents the potential "zone" in the theoretical "brain" of the foredeck crew. The Paul's Exclusion principle, however, states that, if one size of circle is chosen by one of any foredeck crews and skippers involved, it is fundamentally impossible for this circle to be chosen by any of the others. Some people even believe that the two boat length zone is in fact a figment of the imagination, brought on by lack of rum.

But three boat lengths, like speed cameras, will make us all behave that much better!!
_____________________________________________________________

And from the Sailing Anarchy Forum: by CONDOR:

A story...

Around 40 years ago at a entry-level rules seminar, the instructor asked: If two boats are about to finish under spinnakers, and one lets the halyard go so the sail flies over the finish line before the other boat, has she finished?

A voice from the back of the room, "As long as someone on the boat yells, "Holy shit, the halyard!".

Have never forgotten the 'in normal position' since.
_____________________________________________________________
Just a couple sentences, to let you know there's interesting reading outside my blog......
Scuttlebutt Forum
Sailing Anarchy Forums
Yachts and Yachting Online Forum

iShares Cup Kiel Germany

Just before half way in the video you can see the crash between Holmatro and Team Origin.
It is at a leeward mark so rule 18 is applicable even though Holmatro is on starboard and Team Origin on port. Then Alinghi is there as well to windward. They had to keep clear of Holmatro...

We can't see the positions when they entered the two length zone, but the jury decided that Team Origin was to be scored average points for the remaining races.

The final event will be in Amsterdam on 19, 20 & 21 September. I'll be following the action at close quarters, chasing the Extreme 40's in an Umpire boat. I'll make notes so I can tell you about the calls afterwards.