Case might help you understand Rule and a bit better.

I personally would have filed 3 protests and all three protests would require a hail.
The first protest would be for rule 11.  The second protest would be for rule 2 (this
hail will give a competitor pause).  Then you are back to a 3rd hail for rule 11.

All three protests need to be filed timely and the protest for rule 2 should include your
request for redress.

The next question is why and under what grounds should you claim a rule 2 violation.

The Basic Principles section clearly states:

I assume that B's hail of protest for the first incident was made promptly and that a properly written protest (alleging that A broke rules 11 and 2) is delivered by the time limit for protests. If that is done, B's protest should be valid, and a hearing must be conducted even though A retired. B can also ask that her protest be considered a report to the protest committee that A may have broken rule 69.1(a). If A is found to have broken rule 2 or if she receives a warning or a penalty under rule 69.2(h) for breaking rule 69.1(a), then, under rule 62.1(d), B may request redress. So, there are several routes that can result in 'justice' for B.

If there were two alleged breaches of rule 11, both allegedly deliberate so as to gain an advantage, and the competitor did not manage to deliver any valid protests, then, at a National Championship level, they can hardly expect much sympathy.  Without validly conducting a protest hearing, from the jury's point of view, no rules were broken.

Had there been a successful protest against B, for breaking rule 2, then A would probably not have been eligible for redress because A's penalty should have been DNE, an non-excludable disqualification, which would have worsened B's series score.

A might have been successful with a report and request to the jury to hold a rule 69 hearing:  There are no validity requirements for a rule 69 hearing.

I think there may be some question on whether or not the rule 2 violation is a separate incident (not promptly taking a penalty).  Do you think that both violations can be described in the same protest?  We just had a discussion on continuation and limits on a fishing expedition and that is why I'm seeking clarification on this point.

Brent,

More than one rule may be mentioned in a protest. No rule prohibits alleging breaches of both a Part 2 rule (such as rule 11) and rule 2 in a single incident.

Ooops. In my long comment, I see that I got my 'A's and 'B's mixed up. It's back to kindergarten for me.

Sorry about that.

Under "V actions" on the right you can go back and edit it to swap A and B.
I had to clean up a bunch of my comment.

It sounds like the situation was of high interest, so I would suggest that it was appropriate to file the protests for each foul as soon as  the competitor hits shore, regardless of whether B withdraws or not. If B does withdraw later, then it could be worked out in the protest room, and the Rule 2 question would have been heard.

For consideration: Case 34 Discusses a similar situation wrt a boat that was knowingly OCS.

Whether or not the protests were valid would depend on whether or not the requirements of protest had been met under Rule 61 (hail, lodged in time, incident identified etc) and not whether or not one of the boats had retired. Whilst Rule 64 does preclude a boat from being penalised further if she has retired, 64.1(b) quite clearly states that this does not apply if the penalty for breaking a rule might be DNE which in the case of Rule 2 is an option.

There would only need to be one valid protest lodged and then the Jury should decide which rules have been broken in the incident. Assuming the facts are as described then the windward boat broke rule 11. The jury should then consider Rule 2. As has been pointed out the Basic Principles require a boat that has broken a rule to promptly take a penalty. The windward boat did not do so while acknowledging that she had broken a rule and so broke Rule 2. Since 1st Jan the jury has the option of DSQ or DNE for a breach of this rule. In this case where the boat had raced on to further cover the leeward boat I would see it as a particularly bad breach and penalise with DNE - the windward boat would now be counting a disqualification which should mean that her overall result is much worse than before.

The jury would then turn to the question of redress for the leeward boat whether it had asked for it or not, Action under Rule 62.1(d) usually has to be initiated by the jury as it is only after the protest hearing that it has been established that Rule 2 has been broken. The leeward boat would be entitled to redress but what that redress should be would be an interesting question. An average points solution would probably not be appropriate. Up the the point of the Rule 2 breach windward had been sailing leeward down the fleet quite legitimately so it is only for any further deterioration in the position after the breach that she is entitled to redress. My most probable decision would be to give her the position at the time of the incident as best determined by mark rounding counts or some similar estimates.

Only after the protest hearing has been concluded would the jury consider the question of Rule 69. Based on the facts of the protest they would consider whether or not further action under rule 69 would be appropriate. There would be many factors to consider, not least of all the attitude to rule breaking by the windward boat demonstrated in the protest hearing in deciding whether or not to call a Rule 69 hearing which should be totally separate from any protest hearing. The PC may well decide that a DNE which will effectively eliminate the chances of any kind of good result is sufficient penalty and not take any further action.

If we could accept B broke the rule 11 twice and knowingly did not retire, where does that take us.

With valid protests we can DNE (we are told this makes no difference) and consider redress.

This may be an example where there is a difference between score and place in the new rules.

Really the boat wants a lesser score but other boats not involved would be affected and they must be considered in any redress hearing.

To give A a medal and to deprive other then B may not be correct.

The protests (even if invalid) could be considered a report and RRS 69 invoked. I think there is misconduct, and the boat can be DSQ from enough races to ensure the other boat gets the medal it deserved. This reduces B's score but does not particularly affect the boats not involved.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} -->

Martin,

Great question, and one with lots of variables which begs for more questions - and I'm sure the original PC had other information to consider as well.  That said and given the possible ramifications of what I believe would be a relatively simply case if the parties were adults, the first thing I would consider here is the age of the sailors.  This thinking goes against the mantra that the Racing Rules of Sailing are unilateral and should be applied equally to all racers, but it's a sensible approach and a 'real' one as there isn't a 10 year old on the planet who can comprehend the meaning and consequences of all that is RRS 2 and 69 - especially in a high profile regatta.  Having served on many hearings involving younger children, once inside the room they rarely know what Ocean they're on and after ten minutes they all just want a juice box and to go play laser tag.

If the parties in this case are closer to your child's age of 10, I would proceed with extreme caution and discretion.  The PC chair would be well advised to exercise some 'creativity' and involve the parents and coaches early in this process, as the only fact you can be 100% sure of is that a parent or coach was involved in the math and planning of Boat 'B's tactics and against Boat 'A'.  At that time and assuming it wasn't done as part of the registration process, the parents and coaches should be advised of the new definition of, "party" and, "support person" - and their relevance to the rules in this scenario.  Realizing that kids mature quickly these days and if the parties are closer to 14 or 15, I would still involve the parents, but will less finesse or sympathy.

For the sake of discussion, lets then assume the parties are adults and that the jury was not composed of IJ's per 70.5.  In this case, the decision of the PC to find your request for redress invalid (for what ever reason) is appealable per 70.1(a) and appendix R.  Beyond the first sentence of RRS 66, there is also a great but seldom utilized option where a PC can make the decision to invoke 70.2 and request a 'self-appeal' of it's own decision to the National (or regional) Authority.  If employed, self-appealing could then resolve a submission or validity issue where the Appeals Committee could either apply a directive, or ask the PC to re-open and consider more consequential action.

Otherwise, Paul Z. and Bill H. have provided you with good guidance in referencing Cases 34 and especially the new Case 138.  The decision of Case 34 concluded that, "Such a clear breach of of rule 2 should be dealt with severely" and, "The PC could have called a hearing under 69.2".   Worth noting here and what I feel should make this scenario crystal clear to all juries and parties in todays world is that Case 34 was derived from a qualifying event leading up to the 1984 Olympic Games - and that the recent removal of the word "gross" from the definition of misconduct would surely change the language in their conclusion from, "could have called a hearing under 69.2", to "shall" begin the new 69 protocol by appointing an investigator.  Either way, all would be a valid path to a what would hopefully be a more judicial and fair result.

Procedurally and as John A. pointed out, there are no validity requirements with RRS 69.  Just as an Olympic gold medalist can (and has) be disqualified from an event when blood doping is discovered years after the games took place, there are also no time constraints for filing a misconduct 'report' to the original PC.  Here again, the PC's decision to proceed or not proceed under RRS is also appealable per 71.2.

I hope this all perspective provides more answers than questions and that it does more good than harm, especially as you are interested in making things right and doing the sport 'right'.  You should be applauded for that.

Since we are on 69, I was looking around for applications and interpretations of "breach of good manners" in the rule.  I caught a couple recent judgements that involved actual threats of violence or physical assault, but that would appear WAY beyond "good manners".

Are there any published rulings (both affirmative and rejected) that rely solely upon "breach of good manners" that might help bound the understanding of what you're after?

Where a word is used in the rules and is not a defined term, it is used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use (Introduction:  Terminology, last sentence).  That is, the sense shown in a dictionary, that is ordinarily used.

Case 138 provides the following non-definitive list of potential acts of misconduct
:

Thomas Allard said (and I have interlined some responses)

Great question, and one with lots of variables which begs for more questions - and I'm sure the original PC had other information to consider as well.  That said and given the possible ramifications of what I believe would be a relatively simply case if the parties were adults, the first thing I would consider here is the age of the sailors.

Well, I agree that the first thing that a judge should do at a junior event is consider the ages of the competitors and review the Guidance  on dealing with young competitors provided in Race Officials Manuals Common Sections, Section 4 and Judges Manual, Section D.

I would also be bearing in mind, at this particular event that it is a National Championship, in a highly competitive class.  Serious competitors in contention for a National title are entitled to strict and fair application of the rules.  This is not the Green Fleet.

The first thing to be considered in a protest hearing, for competitors whether young or old, as, seemingly the jury did, was validity.

This thinking goes against the mantra that the Racing Rules of Sailing are unilateral and should be applied equally to all racers, but it's a sensible approach and a 'real' one

The PC chair would be well advised to exercise some 'creativity'

 

I have never seen anywhere in the rules or the Judges Manual any suggestion that the rules and guidance there should be displaced by somebody’s perception of what is ‘real’ or ‘sensible’

 

Judges Manual D3 states:

 

Under no circumstances should sailors be allowed to feel minor breaches of the rules will be accepted because of their age. Strict and fair instruction at the start of a sailor’s career can have an important educational effect.

 

Race Officials Manuals Common Sections, Section 4 and Judges Manual, Section D provide extensive guidance on dealing with young competitors.  I cannot see any warrant for departing from the rules and written guidance provided.

 ...

as there isn't a 10 year old on the planet who can comprehend the meaning and consequences of all that is RRS 2 and 69 - especially in a high profile regatta.

I think this is greatly underestimating the inherent understanding of fair play to be found in quite young children.

In any case, understanding of the nuances of rule 2, or the complexity of rule 69 are somewhat irrelevant.

Either Boat B DID, one or more times, deliberately break rules to gain an advantage, or she DID NOT.

These are matters that are well within the understanding of many sailors 10 years and under.

The consequences in terms of possible DNE or exclusion are irrelevant to the conclusions about rule breaches.

Likewise, the level of the regatta is irrelevant to whether or not rules have been broken.

Having served on many hearings involving younger children, once inside the room they rarely know what Ocean they're on and after ten minutes they all just want a juice box and to go play laser tag.

If the parties in this case are closer to your child's age of 10, I would proceed with extreme caution and discretion.  The PC chair would be well advised to exercise some 'creativity' and involve the parents and coaches early in this process, as the only fact you can be 100% sure of is that a parent or coach was involved in the math and planning of Boat 'B's tactics and against Boat 'A'.

Unless and until there is a rule 69 hearing (where the person against whom an allegation has been made is entitled to have an advisor or representative (rule 69.2( e )(2)), there is no scope for parents or coaches to be involved in the protest process, except as observers in accordance with the usual rules for observers (and a large part of a protest committee’s job of making protest hearings unintimidating for junior competitors is keeping wannabe Perry Mason parents OUT of the action).

It is quite outrageous to assume that parents or coaches are necessarily involved in Boat A’s regatta strategy, and in particular, in any breaches of rules that may have occurred..

It is perfectly possible for a well coached competitor of 11 or 12 years to calculate regatta pointscores and make the logical deduction about a sail down the fleet strategy, which may well have been considered in previous coaching sessions.

Now, I’m pretty confident that Boat A sailed the way she did under coaching advice, but, if that was a matter of interest to the protest committee, it would have to be proved by evidence.

Where Thomas' argument seem to be travelling towards is rule 69 action against some support person, on some grounds such that advising a competitor to act the way Boat A acted was a breach of good sportsmanship or unethical behaviour.  All it would take would be for a support person to say ‘Certainly I advised Boat B to sail Boat A down the fleet so as to secure her medal position, but I at no time advised Boat B to break any rules.  I did nothing more than advise Boat B to do what Case 78 expressly permits her to do’, and, in the absence of some unusually persuasive controverting evidence, I could not be comfortably satisfied that the support person acted improperly.

Note that rule 2 applies only to ‘a boat’ (including her crew), and ‘her owner’.  It does not apply to Support Persons.  If it appears that a Support Person has acted in breach of good sportsmanship, the only avenue is through rule 69.

 At that time and assuming it wasn't done as part of the registration process, the parents and coaches should be advised of the new definition of, "party" and, "support person" - and their relevance to the rules in this scenario.

I don't agree that a protest committee suddenly becomes required to ‘advise’ competitor and support persons on the rules. Whether people were ‘advised’ or even ‘aware’ of specific provisions of the current rules is wholly irrelevant to whether or not they broke some rules.

Unless the event or class had a ‘track record’ of bad behaviour by support persons, I would regard anything other than the most diplomatic reference to compliance with support boat requirements and ‘tone’ and sportsmanlike behaviour at any briefing as quite discourteous and insulting.

Realizing that kids mature quickly these days and if the parties are closer to 14 or 15, I would still involve the parents, but will less finesse or sympathy.

For the sake of discussion, lets then assume the parties are adults and that the jury was not composed of IJ's per 70.5.  In this case, the decision of the PC to find your request for redress invalid (for what ever reason) is appealable per 70.1(a) and appendix R. Beyond the first sentence of RRS 66, there is also a great but seldom utilized option where a PC can make the decision to invoke 70.2 and request a 'self-appeal' of it's own decision to the National (or regional) Authority.  

Why is this relevant? OP did not give any indication that they had any grounds to dispute [in]validity.

If employed, self-appealing could then resolve a submission or validity issue where the Appeals Committee could either apply a directive, or ask the PC to re-open and consider more consequential action.

Otherwise, Paul Z. and Bill H. have provided you with good guidance in referencing Cases 34 and especially the new Case 138.  The decision of Case 34 concluded that, "Such a clear breach of of rule 2 should be dealt with severely" and, "The PC could have called a hearing under 69.2".

I think there’s a significant difference of degree here. In Case 34, the race committee observed a blatant breach, acknowledged by a wave from the competitor, with no evident excuse.  In OP’s case, and on Boat A’s evidence alone at this stage, we have one breach of rule 11 with contact, allegedly acknowledged by the words ‘OK’ and sailing on.  I think this is a good deal softer than Case 34.

Worth noting here and what I feel should make this scenario crystal clear to all juries and parties in todays world is that Case 34 was derived from a qualifying event leading up to the 1984 Olympic Games - and that the recent removal of the word "gross" from the definition of misconduct would surely change the language in their conclusion from, "could have called a hearing under 69.2", to "shall" begin the new 69 protocol by appointing an investigator.

I think this is completely misconstruing the intent and meaning of the discretion of a protest committee ‘to decide whether or not to call a hearing’ given by rule 69.2( b) and ‘to consider appointing a person to investigate’ in rule 69.2( c ). Under no circumstances, ever, is a protest committee obliged to call a rule 69 hearing or appoint a person to investigate.  The protest committee’s discretion in these cases is absolute.

  Either way, all would be a valid path to a what would hopefully be a more judicial and fair result.

As far as we can see from OP, the protest committee was confronted with two invalid protests and one invalid request for redress. In all likelihood the written protests and request contained only sketchy details.  In those circumstances, I would suggest that the protest committee was perfectly judicial and fair in not taking any possible misconduct issues any further.

Procedurally and as John A. pointed out, there are no validity requirements with RRS 69.  Just as an Olympic gold medalist can (and has) be disqualified from an event when blood doping is discovered years after the games took place, there are also no time constraints for filing a misconduct 'report' to the original PC.

See rule 69.2( k ).

  Here again, the PC's decision to proceed or not proceed under RRS is also appealable per 71.2.

A protest committee’s decision to not proceed to call a hearing or not to appoint a person to investigate cannot be appealed because, unless the protest committee decides to call a hearing, there will be no person appointed (by the protest committee under rule 69.2( e )(2)) to present the allegation who would be a party with standing to bring an appeal. The person against whom an allegation has been made is hardly likely to appeal a decision not to proceed.

I hope this all perspective provides more answers than questions and that it does more good than harm, especially as you are interested in making things right and doing the sport 'right'.  You should be applauded for that.

Thanks John, I understand that words not defined are as ordinarily used and understood. "Good Manners" is so "squishy", I was wondering if you had any judgements that are published that were based solely on "good manners" standard, that could be reviewed to see how it has been applied (both judgements where a GM argument succeeded and failed).

Websters is of little help ..

manners plural :  social conduct or rules of conduct as shown in the prevalent customs. 

There was a very long thread in the Y&Y rules forum that discussed 'manners' (mainly foul language)

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9435&KW=rule+69&title=rule-69-whe...

There was en excellent paper presented by Bryan Willis back in 2006

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/min_RR_07_11_2006-%5b3055%5d.pdf

Some of the RYA guidance material is also useful background, For example

http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/RaceOfficials/Resource%20Cent...

Bear in mind that all this material is discussing the pre 2017 version based on gross breach of good manners.



Thanks John, that's the sort'a thing I was looking for.

So it would seem that general intent with the removal of "gross" and the ability to issue lesser penalties overall (references to graduations of penalties from warnings, thru DSQ and DNE and beyond) that organizers can use/reference 69 to help nip issue at the bud instead of waiting and using a limb saw.

Bob doesn't leave a boat enough inside room and bangs into them bending your stanchion.. "What the F*** Bob, what were you thinking?" .. in the heat of the moment is probably par for the course .. but "Bleep you Bob, you bleeping bleep .. what the bleep were you thinking you bleeping bleep" may rise to the occasion .. especially if there seems to be a pattern of such behavior from the same competitor/boat ... seems to be the general consensus.

Ang

Perfect, great background .. thanks John. - Ang

Angelo Guarino said

 ... especially if there seems to be a pattern of such behavior from the same competitor/boat ... 

Of course a protest committee would need to be comfortably satisfied that each and every behaviour in the pattern had occurred before taking any account of it.

Roger .. got it.  Thanks for all the color. - Ang

Hi, New to the forum so if I am asking in the wrong place please let me know.

Involved in a basic water at the mark dispute today (dinghies in still conditions so the discussion was easy)- the usual we both thought we were correct. However, a 3 boat was also present with a clear view who then refused to give a view but was encouraging us to protest each other and they would then give evidence at the protest! Would this be considered unsporting?