Recent Posts

• Is Crew Standing at the Shrouds Breaking any Rule?
  7 Comments
  Paul Zupan Yesterday 18:32
• Changing the Order of the Notice Board Documents List
  2 Comments
  Benjamin Harding Sat 13:10
• Protest Withdraw Request Process - Act? / Procedure? / “Brief-Hearing”?
  8 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Tue 00:50
• Is there any obligation by the RC to display flag L ?
  10 Comments
  Daniele Romano 19-Nov-10 14:58
• US Sailing Appeals 119, 120, 121 and 122 Were Posted
  0 Comments
  Paul Zupan 19-Nov-07 05:51

Recent Comments

• Is Crew Standing at the Shrouds Breaking any Rule?
  To Alan from FB ....you should send an inquiry to your local fleet Measurer (if you have one) or the OD’s Nat’l or International Tech Committee. That’s what they are there for (I’m both local and on Nat’l TC for the J/105s).  Most OD TC’s can issue Rule Interpretations to the entire fleet clarifying the question for everyone. - Ang
  Angelo Guarino Today 13:31
• Changing the Order of the Notice Board Documents List
  The sort feature on the Event Panel is enabled with javascript, so if you're blocking it on your browser, it won't work.  And notice it is just for the Event documents.  The order of the Common Documents is fixed.
  Paul Zupan Sat 19:56
• Stbd TR mark rounding - Tacking at the mark
  18.2.a applies for both fleet and team racing.
  Blue is entitled to room.
  The unusual team racing change to 18.2.b does not apply as it is the wrong boat that tacks it only applies when the boat clear astern tacks in the zone. This allows the boat ahead to set a mark trap and not be forced under the usual rules to give room.
  Michael Butterfield Fri 12:14
• Protest Withdraw Request Process - Act? / Procedure? / “Brief-Hearing”?
  Phil re: “it occurred to me that if a PC wants to revisit its allowance to a protest to be withdrawn, it can simply protest the boat that had withdrawn its protest under rule 60.3(a).”
  
  You should post that nugget at the end of the other thread so people following that one can find it.  
  
  Also, I can’t take credit for that thread’s idea.  That came from John Allan. 
  
  Paul, I like your addition of “coercion” to the tick-box list. I think it goes well along with “foul play” and concepts of “for good reason”.  Also your points on “hearing” make sense to me.
  
  I keep coming back to my list (adding “for good reason” questions). I’m not suggesting below is a fixed script,  but rather emblematic of information-gathering and process.  The info below can be obtained separately and pieced together.  Seems to me if the PC gets the info represented by the Q’s below, they have a basis that they conducted due diligence prior to a decision on withdraw-allowance. 
  
  

  1. Ask both parties: "Did the incident involve injury or damage?"
     1. If “yes” above, may need to assess “seriousness”
  2. Ask Protestor:
     1. “What is the reason that you are requesting to withdraw your protest?”
     2. “Are you being pressured or coerced in any way to make this request?”
  3. Ask Protestee: "The Protestor has requested to withdraw their protest against you.  Do you have any objections to the PC allowing this?”
     1. If "yes" above, "What is the basis of your objections?" 
  Angelo Guarino Wed 13:18
• Is there any obligation by the RC to display flag L ?
  Thanks for suggesting the numeral pennant for successive Notice postings.
  Another easily understood version might be to tie a streamer to the halyard below L for each additional Notice.
  (A ribbon, sail tie, surveyor's tape. any tape, or a bit of small rope.)
  Philip Hubbell Tue 21:25