Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
"The protest committee is never a party" vs. "A protest committee may protest a boat"
Catalan Benaros
Nationality: Argentina
0
Hi friends !! Here I go again
If a protest committee may protest a boat, is a protestor ? .....a protestor is a party......
HELP !!!!!
Cheers Cata
Created: 24-Mar-12 10:46
Comments
Graham Louth
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
Regional Umpire
International Judge
National Race Officer
1
Whilst sub-para (a) of the definition of Party in the RRS says that a protestor is a party to a hearing (if the hearing is a protest), the final sentence in the definition of Party over-rides that (it starts "However") by saying that the protest committee is never a party.
So the protest committee can be a protestor, but they are never a party.
Created: 24-Mar-12 11:08
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
International Judge
International Umpire
International Race Officer
3
Why do the protest committee need to be a paety? What rights do you get by being a party. 63.3 right to know of hearing 63.3 right to be present 64.2 ONLY A BOAT can be protested. 65.1 informing parties 66.2 reopening
I do not see any need for a pc being a party.
Mike
Created: 24-Mar-12 11:27
Catalan Benaros
Nationality: Argentina
0
It´s only like a "words joke".....PC may protest, a protestor is a party and the PC is not a party.
Now is clear for me.
As @Graham Louth said: "So the protest committee can be a protestor, but they are never a party."
Created: 24-Mar-12 12:09
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Judge In Training
0
Catalan, I believe the rule of thumb is that a protest committee is a party 50% of the time, and a disappointment the other times. It is always a 50-50 shot to enter the room.
Created: 24-Mar-12 15:35
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Interestingly, that last sentence specifically excluding the PC from “party” didn’t show up until the 2013 quad.
It might have been a last minute addition because the 2013 study version doesn’t seem to show the sentence in the linked submissions related to the change of the def: Party.
It would be interesting to know what scenario was presented/thought-of that the WSRC thought it was an important addition.
Created: 24-Mar-12 20:34
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Definition Party went through a few changes after 2008.
2008 RRS
Definition Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress; a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).
62 REDRESS 62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority;
2009 RRS with 2010 update (2010 addition in bold unitalics)
Definition Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).
62 REDRESS 62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;
2013 RRS
Submission 270/11
Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee, or organizing authority or equipment inspector or measurer for an event in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).
Final Rule
Party A party to a hearing is (a) for a protest hearing: a protestor, a protestee; (b) for a request for redress: a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested, a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); (c) for a request for redress under rule 62.1(a): the body alleged to have made an improper action or omission; (d) a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.2. However, the protest committee is never a party.
'Protestor' and 'protestee' are not defined.
Presumably when the Submission went to Council, someone thought it could be improved by breaking it up into subparagraphs and noticed that logically, if a protest committee protested a boat it would become a 'protestor'.
Created: 24-Mar-12 22:22
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John re: “if a protest committee protested a boat it would become a 'protestor'.”
Mike did a nice job listing all the reasons it’s not necessary for a PC to be party, because they have their abilities independently delineated (adding to Mike’s list, access to the Appeals process through rule 70.2).
What negative thing(s) happen if a PC is a party? In other words, what does the sentence protect against?
Created: 24-Mar-13 12:25
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Ang, what does the sentence protect against? Agree, Mike covered the ground. There doesn't appear to be any actual problem.
Consider these changes, which I quoted but did not discuss in my previous post
2008 RRS 62 REDRESS 62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority;
2009 RRS with 2010 update (2010 addition in bold unitalics) 62 REDRESS 62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;
There was concern at that time that boats were using requests for redress against the protest committee to relitigate decided protests.
I'd hazard a guess that making the protest committee never a party seemed to the drafters to be a good idea associated with that.
Created: 24-Mar-13 20:39
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Last Updated
Rules
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2013-2016; Version 6
December 2015
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2017-2020
August 2017
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2021-2024
December 2020
Prescriptions
Australia
July 2017
Canada
November 2019
Great Britain - RYA has declined to grant a license for prescriptions and cases.
November 2019
New Zealand
July 2017
United States
February 2017
Cases
World Sailing Cases
February 2022
World Sailing Q&As
March 2022
Match Race Calls
January 2020
Match Race Rapid Response Calls
October 2018
Team Race Calls
December 2018
Team Race Rapid Response Calls
February 2016
CAN Cases
October 2017
RYA Cases
November 2019
US Appeals
November 2019
Manuals
World Sailing Judges Manual
December 2019
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more
So the protest committee can be a protestor, but they are never a party.
63.3 right to know of hearing
63.3 right to be present
64.2 ONLY A BOAT can be protested.
65.1 informing parties
66.2 reopening
I do not see any need for a pc being a party.
Mike
Now is clear for me.
As @Graham Louth said:
"So the protest committee can be a protestor, but they are never a party."
It is always a 50-50 shot to enter the room.
It might have been a last minute addition because the 2013 study version doesn’t seem to show the sentence in the linked submissions related to the change of the def: Party.
It would be interesting to know what scenario was presented/thought-of that the WSRC thought it was an important addition.
2008 RRS
Definition Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress; a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).
62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority;
2009 RRS with 2010 update (2010 addition in bold unitalics)
Definition Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).
62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;
2013 RRS
Submission 270/11
Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee, or organizing authority or equipment inspector or measurer for an event in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).
Final Rule
Party A party to a hearing is
(a) for a protest hearing: a protestor, a protestee;
(b) for a request for redress: a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested, a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b);
(c) for a request for redress under rule 62.1(a): the body alleged to have made an improper action or omission;
(d) a boat or a competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.2.
However, the protest committee is never a party.
'Protestor' and 'protestee' are not defined.
Presumably when the Submission went to Council, someone thought it could be improved by breaking it up into subparagraphs and noticed that logically, if a protest committee protested a boat it would become a 'protestor'.
Mike did a nice job listing all the reasons it’s not necessary for a PC to be party, because they have their abilities independently delineated (adding to Mike’s list, access to the Appeals process through rule 70.2).
What negative thing(s) happen if a PC is a party? In other words, what does the sentence protect against?
Agree, Mike covered the ground. There doesn't appear to be any actual problem.
Consider these changes, which I quoted but did not discuss in my previous post
2008 RRS
62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority;
2009 RRS with 2010 update (2010 addition in bold unitalics)
62 REDRESS
62.1(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;
There was concern at that time that boats were using requests for redress against the protest committee to relitigate decided protests.
I'd hazard a guess that making the protest committee never a party seemed to the drafters to be a good idea associated with that.