• Interface Change to Expand/Collapse Section/Appx Index
  0 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 12:02
• WIND Rewards Winner for September
  0 Comments
  Paul Zupan Yesterday 04:04
• Record time decision is published
  11 Comments
  Andrew Alberti Mon 21:33
• US Sailing 2025 Appeals Updated on RRoS website
  0 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Mon 13:35
• Match race Change to rule 28 case
  33 Comments
  Anthony Pelletier Sun 19:13

• Match race Change to rule 28 case
  I do suspect you are, well, sailing to the wrong mark gentlemen. I freely admit, having umpired just one match race event in my life, I am in no position to offer informed opinion, but sometimes a new pair of eyes… 
  
  I submit that if teams sail to the wrong mark often enough that an amelioration is frequently included in SIs, then there is a fundamental problem in race management. 
  
  I take the point that “Part of the game is to pay attention to the start signals”, but I submit it's not an important part. Surely the object of the exercise is for two teams to have a fair contest racing their sailboats, and if one sails for the wrong mark there is no real contest, while if both sail for the wrong mark the contest is completely in vain. 
  
  So should you be setting your minds to the fundamental problem? After all, if no-one gets it wrong, everyone will have a better day on the water, and isn't that the point? 
  
  
  
  Jim Champ Yesterday 22:13
• RRS 63.2(c) - Changing The Type of Case If Appropriate
   Introduction
  
  

  RRS 63.2 (c) provides that 'If the validity requirements are met, the protest committee may change the type of case if it is appropriate to do so'. 
  
  

  The term 'case' is novel.  Seemingly it was introduced in the addition of then RRS 61.4(c) in the 2021 rewrite.  There is no submission explaining the reason for the addition. 
  
  

  The 'type of case' could be assigned on one of two possible bases: 
  
  

  • Which box or boxes were ticked on the Hearing Request form OR 
  • by applying the definition of protest and the normal meaning of 'Request for Redress' or 'Request for Reopening' to the content of the written document. 

  
  

  I think RRS 61.4(c) is directed at the situation where: 
  
  

  • the requestor simply ticks the wrong box on the Hearing Request Form, or 
  • Consideration of redress flows naturally from the decision of a protest, in particular an incident involving injury or serious damage. 
  • Or possibly where a protestor has not ticked the redress box but desires redress as a result of a protest. 

  
  

  It appears that the intention of the rule is to make it clear that protest committees are not constrained by a procedural straitjacket, and can, within the requirements of fairness, arrange their hearings as appropriate. 
  
  

  I suggest that it is wholly appropriate to do this where changes are to the benefit of competitors or parties, however, where a change may penalise a boat, such as by changing a request for redress hearing into a protest hearing, protest committees should be very careful not to erode the procedural safeguards for protestees. 
  
  

  Protests, Requests and Hearings called by the Protest Committee of its Own Motion 
  
  

  There are three types of document ('writing') that require a protest committee to call and conduct a hearing (RRS 63.2(a)): 
  
  

  • Protest 
  • Request for redress 
  • Request to reopen. 

  
  

  Each of these requests has a validity requirement. 
  
  

  Additionally, a protest committee can call a hearing of its own motion: 
  
  

  • To consider redress for a boat 
  • To consider a breach of a rule by a support person. 
  • To consider misconduct 

  
  

  There is no validity requirement attached to these hearings called by the protest committee. 
  
  

  Prerequisites to a Hearing 
  
  

  In addition to any applicable validity requirements, every hearing has some prerequisites 
  
  

  RRS 63.1 provides the following rights of parties: 
  
  

  (a) All parties to a hearing shall be 
  
  

  1. informed of the time and place of the hearing, 
  2. given access to the protest, request for redress, or report to be considered at the hearing, 
  3. allowed reasonable time to prepare for the hearing, 

  
  

  These requirements may be summarised as follows
  

  

  
  
  Changes Unlikely to Occur - Changing a Protest Hearing into a Reopening Hearing 
  
  

  I can't see how this can happen.  If you are in a protest hearing, what is there to reopen? 
  
  

  If, in a hearing of one protest, you get evidence that causes you to think you may have made a significant error in another protest already heard, then you can reopen that hearing, but that is the reopening of that hearing, not changing the type of hearing. 
  
  

  Changes Unlikely to Occur - Changing a Reopening Hearing into a Protest Hearing 
  
  

  I can't see how a request for reopening can change into a protest.  If the decision from the request was to reopen the protest hearing, then the protest hearing will be reopened, but the request for reopening doesn't change into a protest, 
  
  It may be that a protest committee might foresee that reopening is likely and schedule a Reopening Hearing back to back with the reopened Protest Hearing, but that is still two separate hearings.
  
  

  Again, I suppose it is possible for a witness from another boat to admit to having broken a rule, but yet again, that gives rise to a protest committee protest with notification and time to prepare:  it is a new protest:  the reopening hearing isn't changing into a protest hearing. 
  
  

   Changes Unlikely to Occur - Changing a Reopening Hearing into a Redress Hearing 
  
  

  I can see new evidence or new argument in a request for reopening telling the protest committee that they should consider redress.  The protest committee can consider redress without concerning itself with validity, but the power is to call a hearing to consider redress.  I think that is a new hearing, not changing the reopening hearing. 
  
  

  Change that can easily Occur - Changing a Redress Hearing into a Reopening Hearing 
  
  

  I can see a request for redress against a protest committee by a party to the original decision that fails under RRS 61.4(b)(1) last clause being appropriately changed into a request for reopening.  Another way of looking at this is that redress is given, redress being to reopen the hearing. 
  
  

  Changing a Protest Hearing into a Redress Hearing 
  
  

  Valid Protests 
  
  

  Sometimes, for example, in protests involving serious damage, protest committees run the hearing along into consideration for redress for the damaged boat.  Some of these will have both boxes on the protest form ticked, some won't.  Other examples are protests involving confusion about marks, which often require redress for some boats. 
  
  

  AFAIK, it is considered good practice not to do this but to conduct separate hearings. 
  
  

  I think it is always necessary to state the protest decision before proceeding to consider redress. This may just be a matter of document presentation in the written decision, or the protest committee may hear further from the parties to consider redress. 
  
  

  Possibly for the USA, the US Prescription may push you into one course or another 
  
  

  Invalid Protests 
  
  

  It may be that a protest that is found by the protest committee to be invalid, nevertheless identifies an incident that may give rise to an entitlement to redress, and is otherwise valid as a request for redress. 
  
  

  RRS 63.4(a)(1) requires that a hearing of a protest that is invalid shall be closed. 
  
  

  Where redress may involve boats other than the parties to the protest, it will be necessary to inform those other parties of any redress hearing. 
  
  

  The protest committee should close the protest hearing and call a Redress Hearing, not attempt to change the protest hearing. 
  
  

  Changing a Redress Hearing into a Protest Hearing 
  
  

  This appears to be the most contentious possible change. 
  
  

  A request for redress may very well identify a protestee and an incident, for example where it alleges that the race committee has failed to score a boat NSC.  It may not be apparent whether the requestor has merely ticked the wrong box or is deliberately trying to get the race committee to do her dirty work because she has not complied with the requirements for a valid protest.  
  
  

  The protest committee should deal with this intelligently:  for example, if the ‘informing the protestee’ boxes are filled in it would probably be sensible to schedule and notify it as a protest, and if invalid, change the hearing to a redress hearing. 
  
  

  What if you have a Hearing Request that complies with the definition of protest but has the redress box ticked and not the protest box?  Suppose it both identifies an incident in which a boat is alleged to have broken a rule and an allegation of an improper action or improper omission by a race committee etc. 
  
  

  In my opinion if it complies with the definition of protest, regardless of which box is ticked, it is a protest and must be heard in a protest hearing. 
  
  

  If it also complies with the [content] requirements for a request for redress, you must also hear the request for redress. 
  
  

  If you find it invalid as a protest, you could change it to a redress hearing, but you would probably run into notification problems. 
  
  

  Just as you must hear a protest, at least as far as validity, you must also hear a request for redress, which may have much less stringent validity requirements, even though it may be bound to fail in its grounds. 
  
  

  In other words, you should give the boat the benefit of the doubt and not hold them bound to the box they tick. 
  
  

  If a request for redress complies with the definition of protest, by identifying a protestee and a protestor and an incident in which it alleged the protestee broke a rule (including where the allegation is a reasonably clear implication from the description of the incident), then it is a protest and should be heard as such. 
  
  

  Before a protest can be heard the parties, in particular the protestee must be informed of the time and place of the hearing and given access to the protest and given time to prepare. 
  
  

  If the protest committee, just by seeing only the 'request for redress' box ticked, or otherwise, indicates in its notification to the parties that he hearing called is a Redress Hearing, that is to say, on the protest committee's inspection of the hearing request, it has failed to identify it as a protest, then it is not fair and reasonable for a boat implicated as having broken a rule to correctly identify it as a protest and prepare to defend a protest, rather than take part in a redress hearing. 
  
  

  A boat, coming to what has been notified as a redress hearing and finding herself required to defend herself against a protest has every right to complain of a procedural ambush. 
  
  

  In my opinion, if a protest committee has informed parties of a Redress hearing, and it wishes to hear the matter as a protest it should close the hearing and schedule a fresh protest hearing, except, possibly where, in the course of the hearing, the protest committee informs that protestee that it wishes to hear the protest and the protestee agrees that she has had sufficient time to prepare and consents to the hearing continuing as a protest hearing. 
  John Allan Yesterday 21:18
• Record time decision is published

  Ben,  I'm talking about correcting a couple of typos perhaps. 

  
  Roger Casement was hanged for a vergule.
  John Allan Tue 20:33
• Fair Play and Disputes: What Happens When Coaches Speak Disrespectfully?
  Totally agree with both John and Dan that proactive is the way to go at competitors' and coaches' meetings. I also agree that spectators/support persons verbal attacks on competitors are less likely in sailing. ( I always love trying to work with others sports at multisport games to explain how different our "field of play" is.) 
  
  Going back to the original question though, it is the disrespectful treatment of officials that is of concern. I see much, much less of it in sailing than in so many other sports. Let's do all we can (within RRS) to keep it that way.
  Greg Dargavel Sat 14:53
• WS 2025 Judges Manual Updated on RRoS.org
  Yea .. funny .. looks like I infected Paul with my abbreviation too! LOL
  
  Sorry for the confusion.  Maybe we should give the "Redwood Region Ornithological Society" some love and click on their link.  They have some nice pics of birds :-)
  Angelo Guarino Sat 11:47

Forums Leader Board

This Month