Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Paul has posed a number of questions, which as far as I can see require nothing more than the application of some procedural rules in RRS Part 5.

    But underlying this Paul seems to have concerns about fundamental fairness, and there may be some contention about the meaning of the word 'hearing'..

    Paul Zupan
    said Created: Yesterday 17:26
    ...  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.

    No rule requires a protest committee to be transparent.

    I've repeatedly said that in my opinion a protest committee should publish a written decision when it decides a DP under RRS 64, but no rule requires them to do so.

    'Due process' is an artefact of the US Constitution.  Other jurisdictions would recognise kindred, but less stringent concepts as 'natural justice' or 'basic procedural fairness'.

    Nothing in the RRS accords anybody a right to 'due process', and certainly not as a 'foundation',

    I don't agree that RRS achieves only marginal efficiency:  it enables a competitor who knows she has broken a rule for which a DP applies to 'make themselves good', relying on the protest committee's good judement.  If they are aggrieved by the protest committee's decision they can always get a full hearing by requesting redress.

    At the very worst, fairness can be achieved by the redress process.

    Paul Zupan
    Said Created: Yesterday 17:57
    Just thinking about this a bit more; ...  the appearance of this bias is worse than the potential for abuse.

    How come bias and abuse are suddenly coming into the discussion?

    You can't infer bias or abuse from lack of transparency.

    And how are bias and abuse, if any, specially problems with decisions made under RRS 64?

    Paul Zupan
    Said Created: Yesterday 02:44
    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.

    Certainly the protest committee is required to make a decision.  That's exactly what RRS 64 says.  To the extent that considerations leading to the decision are subjective, The Discretionary Penalties Guidance makes that a process of disciplined subjectivity.

    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 strongly disagree.

    A 'hearing' occurs when parties come before the protest committee and are 'heard' to bring evidence, question witnesses and present arguments.

    A meeting of a protest committee at which they may make decisions is not necessarily a 'hearing'.  Consider, for example
    • a meeting of a jury where the jury decides jury policies.
    • a decision to reopen a hearing without a request from a party in accordance with RRS 63.7(a)(2).
    • a decision of a protest committee whether to call a hearing concerning a support person in accordance with RRS RRS 62.1.
    • a decision of a protest committee whether or not to call a hearing about misconduct in accordance with RRS 69.2(b).

    I'm at a loss to see how a PC could apply a DP 

    •  without a hearing and

    By acting in accordance with RRS 64 and The Discretionary Penalties Guidance.

    •  without a written decision.

    Personally, while following the process of the The Discretionary Penalties Guidance, I would be writing things down, but nimbler minds than mine may well be able to apply those processes without writing things down.

    Writing things down is not invariably necessary to enable a person or committee to make a decision.

    I've said before that I think that a protest committee should write  and publish a decision, in the usual form when it makes a decision under RRS 64, but no rule requires the protest committee to do that, and no person has any entitlement to ask for or receive a written decision.
    Today 04:34
  • Jim .. yea .. that's why I phrased the OP questions  in terms of room and not mark room (though my example was a MR one).

    I think this standard would need to be applicable in, and to stand the test against, any application of room.

    I haven't thought of an application where it's a problem yet. 

    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.
    Today 03:55
  • Thank you Gordon.

    That's a change from the 2021 RRS.

    2021 RRS 63.1 said The protest committee shall hear all protests and requests for redress that have been delivered.  

    2025 RRS 63,2(a) now says The protest committee shall hear each protest or request delivered.

    I agree that  2025 RRS 63,2(a) includes requests to reopen.

    Yesterday 09:24
  • Greg re: "For anything short of such a blatant luff, I tell my fleet that it is pointless yelling "sail your proper course" to a boat slowly pushing you up, because it is never 17."

    Not only pointless ... but risky (since 17 doesn't covey room to the windward boat) and based on a false notion of PC and understanding of rule 17. 

    The words people use can be a window into their understanding. So many racers hold the concept in their heads as exemplified by your fleet members' statement "sail your proper course". I think the introduction of "choose" makes some progress in correcting it. 

    First  "sail your proper course!" illustrates the notion that there is single well-defined course (there often isn't).  Second it implies there is some rule which requires a boat to sail this course (there isn't). 

    I spend a lot of time trying to pry-free those 2 ideas.  
    Fri 20:29
  • Thanks Phil - got confused on this....

    25-Feb-12 19:36
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more