• Redress for UFD Penalty Caused by Contact Before the Start: Protest Committee Responsibilities and Applicable Rules
  30 Comments
  Tiziano Menconi Yesterday 18:16
• A protests B, C & D; B protests A & C; C protests only D .. but not all valid
  44 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 12:20
• Best Scoring System to Select Champion Boat from multiple Divisions
  14 Comments
  John Allan Mon 18:02
• "Rules Governing the Duration of Flag D Display Ashore Before Start"
  32 Comments
  Tiziano Menconi Mon 12:07
• Consequences of an OA Breaking RRS 89.1 and Interaction of RRS 75
  38 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Fri 12:14

• Redress for UFD Penalty Caused by Contact Before the Start: Protest Committee Responsibilities and Applicable Rules
  John, I completely agree that if this a request for redress the jury cannot turn this into a protest hearing unless they learn of injury or serious damage given 60.4. And I very much appreciate the stance that you should not conclude that a boat broke a rule if you haven't heard from that boat.
  
  But let's say this is indeed a valid request for redress by Y, not a protest. The jury calls X in as a witness. X cannot be penalized through this hearing (60.5(b)). Let's say X freely admits that they hit Y's stern and pushed them over the line causing the UFD.
  
  It seems reasonable to me at this point for the jury to conclude that Y was compelled to break 30.3 because of X and thus the jury can affirm that they are exonerated under 43.1. As others have noted, this is backed up by Case 140.
  
  With that conclusion, while RC did what was proper at the time, they unknowingly broke 43.2 "shall not be penalized".
  
  RC breaking 43.2 would qualify to me as "score made significantly worse through no fault of her own" by an improper action of race committee, so 61.4(b)(1).
  
  Thus it seems reasonable to grant redress to Y without this being a protest hearing.
  
  I don't think Y would need to protest X to satisfy the "no fault of her own" language. She is exonerated of 30.3. RC marked her UFD. To me, those are the relevant elements and both are through no fault of her own. Granted it would take the jury affirming Y's exoneration for RC to correct the UFD, but I feel like requiring this to be a protest hearing is extending "no fault of her own" too far, even if it indeed would be wiser for Y to protest X.
  Giff Constable Today 15:10
• A protests B, C & D; B protests A & C; C protests only D .. but not all valid
  But that's nothing like the definition!
  Benjamin Harding Today 14:39
• "Rules Governing the Duration of Flag D Display Ashore Before Start"
  Thank you Roger.  Yes, I found that on the RYA website.  It's a great resource.
  John Allan Today 13:47
• Best Scoring System to Select Champion Boat from multiple Divisions
  Niko,
  
  You suggested:
  
  "Gotcha. Since they all have handicaps, would you consider scoring them based on their adjusted average speed over the night? Basically handicapping the whole fleet against each other.
  To me, that seems more fair than comparing them based on the place they finish within their fleet of completely different competitors."
  
  I like your suggestion and I plan to run some tests vs the method I have been using around the Most Competitive Fleet.
  
  Thank you.
  Jerry Thompson Yesterday 18:28
• Aggiornati i testi suggeriti in italiano per i verbali
  Perfetto
  Grazie Claudio
  Tiziano Menconi Yesterday 05:05

Forums Leader Board

This Month