Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Invalid Protest. ¿May I have your opinion?
Juan Carlos Soneyra
Nationality: Argentina
Certifications:
- National Judge
- National Umpire
- National Race Officer
0
Grand Prix 2017
A principal event, held during two consecutive week-ends, for 19 classes in five racing areas.
I was designated RO on Race Area 1 - Laser Class (20 / Standard; 19 / Radial; 10 / 4.7; sucesive starts) - 6 races / 1 excluded score.
SI called for Apendix P enforcement, but there were no juries on the area.
We had had strong winds during the first four races. It was no occasion for kinectic.
Sunday, last racing day. I selected option b) as racecourse, WL4, marks to be left on port. I set the racecourse with the RCB 25 meters death downwind of the leeward mark in prevision of wind rotation to either side.
Race 5 was started with 6/8 knots, flat river. From the beginning of leg 2 the Standard front pack was body pumping. Radials front pack did the same. When each front pack were about to round the leeward mark I shouted them "Stop Pumping". On leg 4 they repeated their pumping so I wrote a list of competitors breaking the rule 42.2 b)(1).
At the finishing line I gave to each competitor in the list a formal oral warning for repeated breaks of rule 42, they were 11 Standards and 4 Radials.
Race 6 was started with 7/9 knots. On leg 2 they continued pumping so I checked them along the full lenght of the leg and when each one was turning the mark I called by sail number and shouted Protest. They were four Standards and three Radials.
Within the protest time limit I wrote and presented the seven protests.
The place and time of the audience were published on the Official Notice Board.
At the begining of the audience the PC found my protest invalid acording to rule 61.1 b), because if a RC intents to protest a boat... it shall inform her after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3.
After a while studing the rules (twenty minutes) I requested a reopening of the audience as permitted by rule 66. It was given.
I argued about my situation in front of the competitors. In this case I was not intenting to protest a boat, I have already protested a boat at the time and place of the incident, so I strongly thought this situation perfectly fits in the last sentence of rule 61.1 b). "In other cases the committee shall inform the boat of its intention to protest as soon as reasonably possible".
My reasoning was not admitted. Invalid Protest.
A principal event, held during two consecutive week-ends, for 19 classes in five racing areas.
I was designated RO on Race Area 1 - Laser Class (20 / Standard; 19 / Radial; 10 / 4.7; sucesive starts) - 6 races / 1 excluded score.
SI called for Apendix P enforcement, but there were no juries on the area.
We had had strong winds during the first four races. It was no occasion for kinectic.
Sunday, last racing day. I selected option b) as racecourse, WL4, marks to be left on port. I set the racecourse with the RCB 25 meters death downwind of the leeward mark in prevision of wind rotation to either side.
Race 5 was started with 6/8 knots, flat river. From the beginning of leg 2 the Standard front pack was body pumping. Radials front pack did the same. When each front pack were about to round the leeward mark I shouted them "Stop Pumping". On leg 4 they repeated their pumping so I wrote a list of competitors breaking the rule 42.2 b)(1).
At the finishing line I gave to each competitor in the list a formal oral warning for repeated breaks of rule 42, they were 11 Standards and 4 Radials.
Race 6 was started with 7/9 knots. On leg 2 they continued pumping so I checked them along the full lenght of the leg and when each one was turning the mark I called by sail number and shouted Protest. They were four Standards and three Radials.
Within the protest time limit I wrote and presented the seven protests.
The place and time of the audience were published on the Official Notice Board.
At the begining of the audience the PC found my protest invalid acording to rule 61.1 b), because if a RC intents to protest a boat... it shall inform her after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3.
After a while studing the rules (twenty minutes) I requested a reopening of the audience as permitted by rule 66. It was given.
I argued about my situation in front of the competitors. In this case I was not intenting to protest a boat, I have already protested a boat at the time and place of the incident, so I strongly thought this situation perfectly fits in the last sentence of rule 61.1 b). "In other cases the committee shall inform the boat of its intention to protest as soon as reasonably possible".
My reasoning was not admitted. Invalid Protest.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
The PC will not initiate protests in respect of boat on boat incidents, if the competitors do not want to protest that is up to them. The PC will be available as witnesses to any incident that they observe and that results in a protest. A member of the PC may give evidence even though they are sitting on the Protest Committee – see rule 63.6.
The exceptions to this policy will be where there is an incident that results in injury or serious damage and no valid protest is lodged. In those circumstances the PC may lodge it’s own protest – see rule 60.3(a)(1). Furthermore if the PC observes a boat breaking a rule unobserved by other competitors ( most likely rule 31 touching a mark or rule 28 failing to sail the course) it may lodge a protest -see rule 60.3(a). If that happens, although not required the PC will attempt to inform the boat at the time so that they can take the appropriate penalty but if unable to do so will inform the boat after racing – see rule 61.1(b).
Other than that, I think the only other time an RC should protest another boat (other than contact/damage) is if they witness a boat breaking a rule where other boats can't see the violation .. such as touching a mark. It is often, especially in larger boats, that the boat and its sails obscure competitors' view of a mark-touch .. or a boat so separated from the next competitor .. that the touch can't be decerned. In that case, if it is obvious that the boat is taking advantage of the fact that other competitors couldn't see the violation, I think it would be appropriate for the RC to protest.
I'm a bit of a hard-nose on this topic. If the violation was very obvious that the infringing boat had to have known they broke a rule (i.e crew physically pushing mark off boat as not to get tangled) .. and didn't take their penalty .. I think the RC should also toss Rule 2 in there as well.
How are you interpreting P1.2 differently?
PS (added after posting) ..
I think maybe I'm seeing your point Bill? .. maybe it's a chicken-n-egg issue. If the PC's appointed those on the water in/with the RC and support as PC "observers" prior to racing, maybe that's one thing. But maybe RC personell can't retroactively be appointed observers (or for that matter .. apoint themselves) after the fact? If that prior appointment didn't officially happen, then it just falls back to an RC's original powers?
I normally ask the RC to make a posting of intent to protest independent of the schedule of hearings (and it is indeed necessary if the schedule is not posted until after protest time ends), but 61.1(b) does not preclude the race committee informing the competitor orally, as long as it is done 'after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3.' There is no provision for a race committee (technical committee or jury) to inform a competitor of a protest during a race, barring sailing instructiions to that effect (fleet umpiring, for example).
Whether a race committee should protest a competitor is a matter of race committee policy, but if there is no other competitor available to protest I believe it is appropriate for a race committee (or jury) to act.
Interesting discussion
I note many of the posts use the “self-policing” statement as a basis. Sorry folks – refer to Basic Principles – Sportsmanship and the Rules - the rule has two parts. First, competitors “are expected to follow and enforce” the rules, and, when they break a rule to promptly take a penalty. It does not say “take a penalty only if protested”.
Neither of these happen when competitors break rules and protests are not made or penalties not taken – which, of course, means the competitors also broke the Basic Principle rule of our sport.
A passive official has accepted that competitors my break rules (cheat or bully) without consequence if the other competitors remain silent or do nothing.
As officials, are we not obligated to enforce the rules? Search “duties of a sports officials” and the first two duties listed are:
Officiate at sporting events, games, or competitions, to maintain standards of play and to ensure that game rules are observed.
Signal participants or other officials to make them aware of infractions or to otherwise regulate play or competition.
I have asked the question many times of my fellow officials – “Have you ever observed a race where you did not see at least one clear infraction of the rules of Part 2 and neither boat protested nor took a penalty?” I have yet to find an official who has said yes.
The self-policing argument dies!
The key thing is that the RC can't appoint anyone - P1.1 states that observers must be appointed by the PC.There is no maybe about it, this can't be retrospective as the observers would have to be kitted out with yellow flags and whistle to give penalties at the time. I suppose technically that the PC could appoint members of the RC afloat going about their various duties but I have never heard of this. In practice the observers are usually PC or jury members at every event I have ever judged at.if only for the reason that there must be a clear separation in the eyes of the competitors between the RC and PC.
Protests by the Jury on the Water
The jury will not usually protest for a breach of a rule of Part 2 or Part 3 (Rules 28 & 31) unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2). Examples of breaches, where the jury will consider protesting, include:
- deliberately or knowingly breaking a rule without justification for exoneration and not taking the appropriate penalty;
- intimidating other boats, often evidenced by unnecessary shouting or foul language;
- team tactics, sailing to benefit another boat to the detriment of your own position;
- reckless sailing that results in, or is likely to result in, damage or injury;
- obvious mark touch not followed by taking the appropriate penalty.
My experience has been that most IRO's won't initiate a protest unless it is for damage or injury (or requesting redress). And I wouild discourage a member of the RC from protesting except in exceptional circumstances, which clearly would not include RRS 42. It is impossible for any member of the RC to observe and penalize RRS 42 infractions in a uniform manner which would make it fair to all competitors, and the RC is not in a position to properly observe an infraction except by coincidence, which is certainly not fair to the competitor being penalized. It is a very common phenomon that boats, especially lasers, will break RRS 42 unless there are on-the-water observers. Once one boat starts doing it, the others have to do the same in order to preserve their position. But it is their game and the RC should not feel compelled to get involved. And I would be even more hesitant to enroll any member of the RC in penalizing for RRS 42 under Appendix P as there is an inherent conflict of interest in running the races and being a member of the PC. The PC should not get involved in RC matters and the RC should not be included on the PC. If nothing else, the optics are pretty bad...Thank you very much to all the members of this Forum for given your sincere opinion about the incident.
In no way my intention was to re-litigate. I was trying to get a point of view, and I have got several and quite different.
My personal position goes along with the opinión of Doug Bailey, Angelo Guarino, Warren Methercote, Leo Reise and John Thorne.
Unfortunately no one talk about the procedure in relation with rule 61.1 b) (last sentence).
At the completion of the sixth race I was not “intenting to protest”, I had already protested seven boats calling them for sail number and shouting Protest when rounding the leeward mark for the first time, as depicted in the last sentence of the rule. The protest was related to rule 42.2 b)(1), in no way I pretended to apply rule P1.2. So I filled the form, and presented it to the Race Oficce before PTL.
Again, I do really appreciate your concern.
Have a happy week-end!
The sentence you refer to in 61.1(b) starts by saying "in other circumstances". If the incident was "observed in the racing area" then it falls under the requirements of the first sentance and you cannot use the second sentance. If the incident was something from outwith the race area, perhaps a breach of some local SI or a measurement issue, then it would come under the second sentance.