Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • I strongly disagree with the following.

     A protest committee hearing takes place whenever there is a proceeding before at least one member of the protest committee who has the authority to make a decision regarding the matter in question. 

    That's well stated position that I think is worthy of hashing out.  (I would agree with your statement above, but would be interested to read opposing arguments)

    I can locate the following relevant definitions of 'hearing':

    English dictionary (Shorter Oxford)   2. The action of listening ... 3.  The listening to evidence and pleadings in a court of law;  the trial of a cause ...

    Legal dictionary (CCH Macquarie) A general term for the presentation of matter before a tribunal.

    As I enumerated in a previous post, there are a number of processes which, by the rules, the protest committee is expressly required to 'hear', and there are a number of decisions which the protest committee is empowered to take without 'hearing' from anybody, including:
    • to protest a boat (rule 60.3a)
    • to call a hearing to consider redress for a boat (rule 60.3b)
    • to call a hearing to consider whether a support person has broken a rule (rule 60.3d)
    • to reopen or not to reopen a hearing (rule 66)
    • to call a hearing to consider an alleged breach of rule 69.1 (rule 69.2b).

    It is pretty obvious that you don't hold a hearing to decide whether to call a hearing.

    The prerequisite decision of a protest committee to call a hearing under rule 69 is most definitely not a hearing.

    Rule 63 states a number of requirements for 'Hearings', including, in particular Notification of time and place of the hearing, and Right to be Present.

    These requirements do not apply to the decisions listed above.

    Not every decision to be taken by a protest committee is, or requires a hearing.
    Today 21:18
  • Alex, if you look at the images in the thread I linked to (below), you will see maybe another option and that's to make sure there is a well defined "escape route" (at least after racing).

    As you can see there is a Green Can 1SC.  For the finishes at the AYC clubhouse (which takes the races by the mooring field), 1SC is to be rounded to port (north side of the mark).  This leaves south of 1SC as a lane for non-racing traffic (finished racers and non-racers alike).

    If you do not have such a mark at the entrance, maybe a couple drop-marks to funnel competitors in a specific lane, and to create/protect an exit-route would be helpful.

    Today 15:45
  • So to the basic question "Should a boat be allowed to 'unretire'?"

    With the rules as they are currently written I would say "NO".  I do not think that the RC can justify that under the current rules no matter how much verbiage you apply.

    If the question is changed to "Should the RRS be changed so that a boat will be allowed to 'unretire'?"   I think that is an entirely different idea and cannot be decided by just a small group.
    Today 01:13
  • Graham, I'm not sure if you are still working on this project, but I see there was a recent release. I'm trying this after years of using TSS and I'm impressed. I'd love to see a couple enhancements if they are doable:

    1. The topper shape is very much like the scows we race. For the cat rigged scows, that's perfect. If I could have an option of that hull shape with a jib and asymmetric spinnaker, that would be awesome. 
    2. I often use a black and white laser printer when I'm hearing protests. I'd love to be able to put unique textures on the boats in tandem with or exclusive of boat color. 

    Yesterday 20:49
  • Recall that the first sentence of rule 64.2 requires the protest committee, in deciding what redress to give

    ... shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress.

    This presents the protest committee with two tasks:
    1. identifying all boats that may be affected;  and
    2. assessing the fairness of any redress contemplated for the requester, on each of those other boats.

    Just relying on evidence from one boat requesting redress, these tasks will be quite difficult for a protest committee, so that they would quite likely have doubt about their conclusions.

    I would suggest that what the RRS sentence is trying to do, without actually saying it, is to do what the US Sailing Prescription does, that is, tell the protest committee to give all boats in the race an opportunity to be heard.

    Sun 23:35