The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1201 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
132 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
67 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
31 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
52 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
41 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
36 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
38 Posts
|
|
Event Management System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
128 Posts
|
|
Norme e Regolamenti - Italian Channel |
37 Posts
|
|
規則 - Traditional Chinese Channel |
0 Posts
|
... if they don't call a hearing, and publish the reason why they made the decision they did, they are not being transparent
...
It really feels to me like circumventing the foundation of providing due process to the competitor in the name of marginal efficiency. And that is the trade off allowed in administrative hearings, but I'm not seeing the fairness in the process.
Just thinking about this a bit more; ... the appearance of this bias is worse than the potential for abuse.
The issue is not the facts in relation to the incident. They may not be in dispute.
But the penalty is subjective and requires weighing the evidence and mitigation in relation to the discretionary penalty policy and requires a PC decision.
Perhaps the confusion is trying to distinguish the gathering evidence phase of a hearing from the deliberation phase. It's still a hearing even if no testimony is taken.
I'm at a loss to see how a PC could apply a DP
without a hearing and
without a written decision.
The "space" described in def:room must accommodate the boat's hull, crew and equipment in normal positions and the boat's sails properly trimmed for the point of sail and conditions.