Request Redress.

Rule 62.1 was changed specifically in 2013 to allow this.

Submission 172-11
Rule 62
A submission from the Chairman of the Racing Rules Committee
Purpose or Objective
To enable a boat to request redress when there is the possibility that an action of the race
committee, protest committee or organizing authority may make the boat’s scores in a race yet to
be sailed significantly worse.
Proposal
62 REDRESS
62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be
based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has been or may
be, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by
(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or
organizing authority, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat
was a party to the hearing;
(b) injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a
rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;
(c) giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with rule 1.1; or
(d) a boat against which a penalty has been imposed under rule 2 or disciplinary
action has been taken under rule 69.1(b).
62.2 A The request based on an incident in the racing area shall be in writing and be
delivered to the race office no later than the protest time limit or two hours after the
incident, whichever is later. Other requests shall be delivered as soon as reasonably
possible after learning of the grounds for making the request. The protest
committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so. No red flag is
required.
Current Position
As above.
Reasons
Before the first race of an event, or between races during an event, it is quite possible for the race
committee, the protest committee or the organizing authority to act in a way that may possibly
significantly worsen a boat’s score in a race that is yet to be sailed. Examples are easy to come
by. A rule in the notice of race or the sailing instructions, or an amendment to either of those
documents, may have been written ambiguously or may not be consistent with the racing rules,
the class rules or another document governing the event. After boats had prepared, entered and
travelled to an event, a rule in the notice of race may have been changed in a way that was
disadvantageous or unfair to one or more of the boats entered. [In the 2010 America’s Cup,
several such improper actions or omissions occurred.] If such an event occurs before the first
race of an event, then in the interest of fair competition, redress for such actions or omissions
should be given before the first race. If such an event occurs between races, then it may be
appropriate to conduct a redress hearing before additional races are sailed. It is frequently easy
for the protest committee to redress such actions or omissions by directing the organizing
authority or the race committee, as appropriate, to change one or more rules in the notice of race
or the sailing instructions. The proposed changes would enable requests for redress in such
situations to be made prospectively, and this would help to make competition fairer.

I agree with John Allan that redress can be sought.

It may also be an idea to report the matter to the relevant national or regional authority, who can give some guidance.

I may not totally understand what you mean by recourse. A competitor can always ask a written question to RC and that would be a kind way to point out an error while there was still time to unwind the damage pre race. Is this what you meant by recourse?

A lawsuit is also a recourse if there is financial damages (Being uninvited to a regatta after paying and being accepted) as just about any AC race can demonstrate.

After the race there is always redress.

Brent, maybe bad choice of words. Recourse meaning what could a competitor do before a race? Think the answers here provide an avenue which wasn’t appearant to me when I scoured the RRS.

Ang

PS: Thanks John for the background. Very helpful.

I was going for redress as well, like you can request redress for being excluded before the event under rule . The submission provided by John is very helpful as to provide the wording that allows for such requests before the event in a rule.

Brent,

The point of John's post is that redress is available before the race.

In practice, of course, it's difficult to get redress before the racing begins because the boat requesting it has to convince the protest committee that the boat's "score or place in a race or series ... may be ... made significantly worse" by the action of the RC (see RRS 62.1). So, if, for example, the SI fails to identify the rule it modifies, that's clearly an improper action by the RC because it breaks rule 85.1, but how does that hurt that particular boat? There are a lot of rules like this -- if the RC breaks them, there's really nothing that can be done because the error wouldn't significantly affect boats' scores.

On the other hand, if, say, class rules apply and the SIs delete or change the maximum crew weight limit as stated those class rules, a boat might easily claim she is disadvantaged because she showed up with a maximum-legal crew only to discover she may be racing against much heavier crews. In that case the standard that her score in the series "may be made worse" by the RC's illegal action is met, and the protest committee should definitely rule that she is entitled to redress and direct the RC to remove the offending SI.

Until the change to rule 62.1 to allow boats to request redress before the race, the boat described above would have had to go out and race, and then file for redress. If granted, the consequences of that redress would have been far greater because races already sailed would have had to be abandoned. When issues like this came up in the America's Cup in Valencia, the protest committee heard the redress request and granted redress before the event, even though the rule specifically forbade doing that. The problem was fixed in 2013.

Rob

PS. An amusing factoid is that, as we can see from John's post, the Submission to ISAF (now World Sailing) to change rule 62.1 came from the "Chairman of the [ISAF] Racing Rules Committee", who just happened to be the same guy who had been the chairman of the protest committee at the America's Cup that broke the existing rule.

Rob

Rob, thanks

So to be clear, my post is about a clear violation of RRS85-86 .. that in the SI’s the OA/RC changes a rule which is specifically forbidden from change.

John’s Post was very helpful in the context of an OD rules change that you can show a disadvantage, but what if an OA/RC puts something in the NOR/SI that, in effect, changes RRS 11 or the definition of “keep clear”?

Still the “redress avenue” is the option avail, but how to show YOU will be disadvantaged might be a challenge.

You end up being the fly in the soup!

Ang

With any reasonable RC I think playing "Jeopardy" and posting an official question to the RC, possibly anonymously to avoid being the fly in the ointment, asking if it was allowed under the rules to make the change under 85, 86 should be enough to get them to take a serious second look. Posting the question doesn't have a gate for score potentially made worse through no fault of their own.

The goat is to rectify the mistake before racing begins and I think this would mostly do it.

Brent, been there done that! (Though it may surprise many, but I am actually capable of employing a modicum of tact! LoL)

When it comes to these questions ... as it often does ...comes down to egos.

Hopefully the genesis of this inquiry will be resolved after gentle previous prodding.

Will see when the SI’s get published. ;-)

Ang

Good topic and comments, however, we need to remember that the OA, RC, and PC are separate bodies. I note comments such as directing the OA or the RC to change one or more rules in the NOR or the SIs. The PC can only recommend an amendment, or other actions, but can not direct or command them to take such actions. I have on occasion brought an issue to their attention with a recommendation to keep the event fair for all participants and they were pleased I did so, but I used respectful language. I expect this was the intention of the comment authors.

Tom. When a protest committee grants redress they are, in effect, making a direction. The race committee doesn't have an option whether or not to follow the protest committee's decision. They are not a court of appeal. If the race committee doesn't agree with the protest committee's decision, their options are to request a reopening or appeal to the National Authority - just like the competitors.

There is no reason why redress cannot be a change in the SIs or NoRs, so long as the grounds for redress are made out, and so long as that would be the most fair arrangement possible for all the boats affected, in terms of RRS 64.2.

The situation is different outside the context of a request for redress. Then it would normally be just as improper for a judge to give a direction to the race committee, on race management matters, as it would be improper for a race officer to direct a judge how to decide a protest. It would be like a judge in a court of law making an order without having a hearing. Recommendations can be made, but they need to be made through the proper channels and with circumspect.

John(s) (and Rob) ... back to your original reply and back to my original post .. (and to Rob's reply) ...

I definitely see in the submission, discussion of ...

...A rule in the notice of race or the sailing instructions, or an amendment to either of those
documents, may have been written ambiguously or may not be consistent with the racing rules...

But when we get to the actual wording of 62.1 ..

..redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse by .. an improper action or omission of the race committee ..

So, would we all agree that an SI that changes an RRS 'Definition' or an RRS of Part 2 would meet the criteria of 'improper action' ?? .. but that's only half of it ...

I'm curious, from a Competitor's POV, how one would argue that their ... 'boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse' ... when these changes would effect all competitors?

In that context, how does one show they are specifically disadvantaged?

For the sake of discussion (and let's not argue the merits of the change itself), let's say that this is a 'novice' fleet of cruisers and the RC wants to avoid close crossings .. so they figure they will just change "keep clear" in the SI's.

Keep Clear: A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat when she does not come within 1 boat-length of her.

How does a competitor argue that her 'score or place in a race or series ... may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse'?

Ang

PS .. you can see what I'm getting at .. that the nature of a generic RRS85/86 claim is such that maybe it needs to be a specific allowed-basis of claim ....

62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim that the SI's or NOR break RRS 85 or RRS 86, or based upon a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by ...

Rob Overton
said
The point of John's post is that redress is available before the race.

In practice, of course, it's difficult to get redress before the racing begins because the boat requesting it has to convince the protest committee that the boat's "score or place in a race or series ... may be ... made significantly worse" by the action of the RC (see RRS 62.1). So, if, for example, the SI fails to identify the rule it modifies, that's clearly an improper action by the RC because it breaks rule 85.1, but how does that hurt that particular boat? There are a lot of rules like this -- if the RC breaks them, there's really nothing that can be done because the error wouldn't significantly affect boats' scores.

On the other hand, if, say, class rules apply and the SIs delete or change the maximum crew weight limit as stated those class rules, a boat might easily claim she is disadvantaged because she showed up with a maximum-legal crew only to discover she may be racing against much heavier crews. In that case the standard that her score in the series "may be made worse" by the RC's illegal action is met, and the protest committee should definitely rule that she is entitled to redress and direct the RC to remove the offending SI.

I think this exaggerates the difficulty for a boat in establishing an entitlement to redress.

The formulation 'may be ... made significantly worse' sets a low bar.

In the above example, it would be sufficient for a boat to establish that if a competitor raced with a crew heavier than the unamended weight limit, she might be disadvantaged, to found an entitlement to redress. She would not have to prove that any other boat actually did have a larger crew weight.

The difficulty is for the protest committee to craft a decision that appropriately effects redress.

Angelo Guarino
said

For the sake of discussion (and let's not argue the merits of the change itself), let's say that this is a 'novice' fleet of cruisers and the RC wants to avoid close crossings .. so they figure they will just change "keep clear" in the SI's.

Keep Clear: A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat when she does not come within 1 boat-length of her.

How does a competitor argue that her 'score or place in a race or series ... may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse'?

As above: she simply points out that if she comes within one boat length of another boat, but otherwise keeps clear in accordance with the Definition in the rules, then she may be protested and penalised by the application of the improper SI


Tom Roberts
said

... we need to remember that the OA, RC, and PC are separate bodies. I note comments such as directing the OA or the RC to change one or more rules in the NOR or the SIs. The PC can only recommend an amendment, or other actions, but can not direct or command them to take such actions. I have on occasion brought an issue to their attention with a recommendation to keep the event fair for all participants and they were pleased I did so, but I used respectful language. I expect this was the intention of the comment authors.

John Grace
said

Tom. When a protest committee grants redress they are, in effect, making a direction. The race committee doesn't have an option whether or not to follow the protest committee's decision. They are not a court of appeal. If the race committee doesn't agree with the protest committee's decision, their options are to request a reopening or appeal to the National Authority - just like the competitors.

There is no reason why redress cannot be a change in the SIs or NoRs, so long as the grounds for redress are made out, and so long as that would be the most fair arrangement possible for all the boats affected, in terms of RRS 64.2.

Angelo Guarino
said

When it comes to these questions ... as it often does ...comes down to egos.

... employing a modicum of tact! LoL)

I agree with John Grace, and I think Angelo also has it right.

Where rule 64.2 provides that a protest committee 'shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected' then refers to 'some other arrangement' this means that the protest committee is empowered to make any arrangement that is as fair as possible to all boats: this does not exclude a direction.

I don't think the power of the protest committee extends to actually publishing amendments to the SI or NOR. Practically speaking if the protest committee starts amending these race documents, this is a recipe for bad document integrity and muddle: suffice for the protest committee to tell the race committee that they need to be amended.

The protest committee is responsible for maintaining good and harmonious relations with the race committee.

Bear in mind that the race committee will have been a party to the redress hearing, and the race committee representative will have heard the argument that establishes the impropriety of the action. The protest committee may well have the opportunity to obtain input from the race committee representative as to what would be an acceptable solution or direction to make by way of redress.

Protest committees should be very careful how they express their decision, in these cases: too much detail in the decision can lead to unintended consequences, and unnecessarily rob the race committee of its discretion, which is to be avoided.

A useful formulation of a direction that can be used is: 'The race committee is to amend the SI so as to conform with rule 85'.

This allows the race committee, say in the case of a permissible change to the rules that has omitted the magic words (this changes rule ...), to either insert the necessary words, or think better of the change and delete the offending SI.

A somewhat greater difficulty arises with a SI/NOR that is just plain unfair or unintelligible. In that case the protest committee should avoid trying to guess what the race committee intended, and their decision might well be that 'SI xx is void and unenforceable' and then leave it up to the race committee to either delete or amend the SI to fix the problem, which, once again will have come out in the evidence and conclusions of the protest hearing. It may assist the race committee if the chair of the protest committee has some discussions with the race committee outside the formal hearing.

Great reply John,

Ang: How does a competitor argue that her 'score or place in a race or series ... may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse'?

John: As above: she simply points out that if she comes within one boat length of another boat, but otherwise keeps clear in accordance with the Definition in the rules, then she may be protested and penalised by the application of the improper SI

OK .. I'll buy that. (PS: Though I do think that an 85/86 claim is so bounded and unique that it could be added as a defined basis-of-claim in 62.1)

Where rule 64.2 provides that a protest committee 'shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected' then refers to 'some other arrangement' this means that the protest committee is empowered to make any arrangement that is as fair as possible to all boats: this does not exclude a direction.

...... and their decision might well be that 'SI xx is void and unenforceable' and then leave it up to the race committee to either delete or amend the SI to fix the problem

.. and by extension the PC's "arrangement that is as fair as possible for all boats" can't be acceptance of a rule that breaks 85,86,87 stand for the event? ... or could they accept it if they felt is was fairest?


Using your weight-limit example .. out of 25 boats, 24 boats organized and arranged their crews based upon the assumption that the higher-weight ( non-RRS 87 compliant) would be used. One boat is 20# under the OD limit, but would be 100# under the higher limit.

To change back to the OD weight-rule would mean that 24 boats would be required to keep a person on the dock .. not only having to sail with 3 on board when 4 crew is typical, but also they would be on average 100# under the OD limit as well

Could a PC allow a rule that breaks RRS 87 to stand if they felt is was fairest?

Ang

I don't think so, Ang. Protest committees are subject to rule (from 2017 if I'm not mistaken). In my opinion, it prohibits a protest committee to take a decision against the rules. Letting a rule change pass as it is illegal (not permitted under RRS 85 to 87) definitively seems not judging complying with the rules, even though it may seem or be the fairest arrangement for all boats. The protest committee would err and open the way to redress and we're back on track as to explaining how the score may have been significantly made worse.

Baptiste .. yea .. that was my thought too .. but it's a tough-one.

Thinking about the above example, what do you think you would do or suggest the RC/OA do?

I think many of us (not as the PC necessarily but others involved in the race) would have the first inclination to talk to the 1 boat and see if they are going to force the issue .. explain the ramifications. I'm sure that boat would already feel tremendous pressure to not press their position. Even if they said "OK" .. and "didn't ruin it" for the other boats, I think it would be hard to separate the level of coercion that went into that boat's decision .. and if PC/RC has knowledge ... what to do even if all boats agree.

For the one boat, if they place highly under the true OD rules, it becomes a hollow victory knowing they were competing against boats light-handed and underweight.

Sure is a mess.

Ang

Angelo Guarino
said

... Though I do think that an 85/86 claim is so bounded and unique that it could be added as a defined basis-of-claim in 62.1

I don't quite get what you are driving at here. I don't see that rules 85/86 are at all difficult to apply (or indeed, difficult for the OA/RC to comply with in the first place).

... by extension the PC's "arrangement that is as fair as possible for all boats" can't be acceptance of a rule that breaks 85,86,87 stand for the event? ... or could they accept it if they felt is was fairest?

I agree with Baptiste: I don't think that you can ever say that knowing that a rule has been broken, applying that broken rule is fair.

In the absence of any request for redress, a protest committee, seeing a breach of rule 85 or 86, might choose to take no action, but once there is a request for redress, the protest committee must decide it.

What a protest committee might do is to conclude that there has been an improper action by the race committee and that a boat is entitled to redress, then decide that the fairest arrangement was to take no action at that time, allowing boats that raced and then claimed to have had their score made worse, to request redress again.

Using your weight-limit example .. out of 25 boats, 24 boats organized and arranged their crews based upon the assumption that the higher-weight ( non-RRS 87 compliant) would be used. One boat is 20# under the OD limit, but would be 100# under the higher limit.

To change back to the OD weight-rule would mean that 24 boats would be required to keep a person on the dock .. not only having to sail with 3 on board when 4 crew is typical, but also they would be on average 100# under the OD limit as well

Could a PC allow a rule that breaks RRS 87 to stand if they felt is was fairest?

Hard cases make bad law.

What do you think an Appeal Committee would make of a decision to 'allow a rule that breaks rule 87 to stand' if it went to Appeal?

To answer the last question: I think that a protest committee has a responsibility to Class Associations to protect the integrity of their Class Rules.

What the OA and RC might do to solve the problem is to amend the NOR and SI to specify in Classes to Race a 'Class very like Class XX, subject to all the Class Rules of Class XX, except Class Rule zz Weight Limits'.

This, of course may run into problems with rule 89.2( b ), adequate notice of change to NOR. Some discussion with the compliant boat might be appropriate. The OA might need to be prepared to refund entry fees, and offer other compensation, or might run races for the one-boat Class XX, AND for the 23 Like-a-Class XX boats.

If the protest committee hearing the original request for redress had been clever and asked the boat 'If the protest committee is minded to give redress, what redress do you think you should be given?' (which is always a good idea), the boat's answer might form the basis of the OA/RC remedial action.

I agree with your comments about coercion. Care needs to be taken about who talks to the competitor, and what is said.

Hey John ..

I don't quite get what you are driving at here. I don't see that rules 85/86 are at all difficult to apply

What I was trying to say was that having to couch a claim that an SI that breaks RRS 85/86 in terms of how one might be disadvantaged (as you quite effectively did for my "Keep Clear" example) seems a bit like a Kabuki Dance to me and might not be obvious for competitors (it wasn't obvious to me and I think about this stuff .. as you know). I think 62.1 could be written to allow competitor to simply claim that an SI breaks RRS 85/86 and say how ... i.e.

Redress Request: SI 1.6 "Keep Clear" breaks RRS 86.1(a) by changing the RRS Definition of "Keep Clear". RRS 86.1(a) does not permit terms under Definitions to be change.

How a boat might be disadvantaged seems besides the point in RRS 85/86 claims.

Hard cases make bad law.

I'm with you there and I'm not suggesting using this scenario to justify any changes (my 62.1 suggestion which has nothing to do with my "weight" example).

I worked really hard recently to make sure that above scenario couldn't happen .. but without a lot of herding cats (YC/OA/Nat'l OD Org/Local Fleet) it might not have come together.

I like your idea though of allowing the race to go forward some way and ask the redress-requesting boat what they thought would be fair.

Not sure what that could be? What's a potential -120# deficit worth in a 4-person boat? Maybe they get spotted (-1) each race? It's interesting to ponder what might work.

Ang

Angelo Guarino
said

What I was trying to say was that having to couch a claim that an SI that breaks RRS 85/86 in terms of how one might be disadvantaged (as you quite effectively did for my "Keep Clear" example) seems a bit like a Kabuki Dance to me and might not be obvious for competitors (it wasn't obvious to me and I think about this stuff .. as you know). I think 62.1 could be written to allow competitor to simply claim that an SI breaks RRS 85/86 and say how ... i.e.

Redress Request: SI 1.6 "Keep Clear" breaks RRS 86.1(a) by changing the RRS Definition of "Keep Clear". RRS 86.1(a) does not permit terms under Definitions to be change.

How a boat might be disadvantaged seems besides the point in RRS 85/86 claims.

The purpose of the request for redress procedure is to provide redress to a boat that has suffered, or may suffer a disadvantage. It is not to punish or embarrass the race committee or OA, or to purify or improve race documentation.

Actual or possible disadvantage is the threshold test that gives a boat standing to request redress.

Otherwise, every busybody and armchair critic could be getting involved.

Angelo Guarino
said

I like your idea though of allowing the race to go forward some way and ask the redress-requesting boat what they thought would be fair.

I was suggesting two different things:

1. in a redress hearing, asking the boat what redress they thought they deserved, which I think can be a very useful step in any redress hearing; and
2. in a pre-race redress hearing, concluding that there has been an improper action or omission and a boat is entitled to redress but giving redress by taking no action at that time, with a view to a further request for redress after one or more races (see discussion below)

Angelo Guarino
said

Not sure what that could be? What's a potential -120# deficit worth in a 4-person boat? Maybe they get spotted (-1) each race? It's interesting to ponder what might work.

OK, supposing that the OA/RC hasn't done anything to solve the problem as a result of the pre-race redress hearing:

• some boats race with their crew weights in excess of the Class Rules,
• some boats, having read the redress decision, drop a crew member and race substantially under weight; and
• one or more boats, including the boat that requested redress, having arranged their crew to conform with the Class Rules, races at optimum weight.

For starters, the boats that are conforming to the class rules, and knowing that the SI change in weight limits is invalid, can simply protest the overweight boats, and expect to succeed.

If the conforming boats are beaten by the overweight boats, they can request redress, for their actual disadvantage suffered as a result of the improper SI. OTOH, if the 'lightweights' beat the 'heavywieghts', they haven't had their scores made worse, and they have nothing to complain about (unless and until, in some subsequent race, they do get beaten)

If heavyweight boats were disqualified on protest, they might, in turn request redress for having been misled into breaking the class rule by the invalid SI.

I'd be inclined to treat such a request for redress sympathetically: I don't think that a failure to read, and understand all the implications of the original request for redress decision is a fault of their own that would preclude redress.

We then have the situation where some boats follow a 'correct' version of a SI, and some other boats follow an 'incorrect' version of the SI (with equal rigour). This often happens with ambiguous course descriptions.

• The boats that complied with the 'incorrect' version, have been protested and disqualified
• The boats that have complied with all the valid rules have then been scored 1, 2, 3 etc, up to n, the nth fully compliant boat.
• The boats that were disqualified may be given redress. They have had a fair race among themselves, under the common misinterpretation of the rules: their placing order, prior to their disqualification fairly represents their performance among themselves. They may be given redress, being scored n+1, n+2, n+3 ... etc.

Actual or possible disadvantage is the threshold test that gives a boat standing to request redress. ... It is not to punish or embarrass the race committee or OA, or to purify or improve race documentation.

I would doubt most in this situation .. that their motivation would be to punish or embarrass. I would imagine the motivations would be clarity of the rules they will sail under.

So, unless someone (before the race) can show how they may suffer a disadvantage, an SI/NOR that breaks RRS 85/86 should stand.

I agree that is precisely how 62.1 is written and what is required and you've done a great job explaining how one would couch a 62.1 claim to address this issue.

I just don't think it would be clear to many that is the avenue available.

Ang

John, interesting layout of the redress scenarios. Thanks. - Ang

John, we went around the oak tree several times, I think this is were we ended up.

Through our dialog and others' contributions, we had 2 different scenarios (borrowing how Rob broke apart the issues in his reply)

• Scenario #1 was an 86.1 violation in the SI's by redefining the Definition of "Keep Clear"
• Scenario #2 was an 87 violation in the OD rules

I agree with you John 100% that, as 62.1 is written now (along with the rest of the RRS's), a competitor would have to make a " ... may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse" case in both these instances. You've provided good examples of how to do both as well as interesting redress scenarios to consider.

I think where we ended-up differing in opinion is only as follows ..

As Rob put it in his reply .. regarding RRS 85-86 violations..

... but how does that hurt that particular boat? There are a lot of rules like this -- if the RC breaks them, there's really nothing that can be done because the error wouldn't significantly affect boats scores.

So, to my mind, the RRS's are there to promote fair-sailing (even playing field) and safe-sailing (keep us from running into each other). The RRS's provide safe-sailing by everyone agreeing to a set of rules and behaviors when boats meet each other on the water. If an RC puts in an SI that changes an RRS Definition or Part 2 (intentionally or unintentionally), I really don't see that as a fairness-issue (as Rob put it, it effects all boats the same), but rather it's a safety-issue as now we'll have boats potentially operating under different understandings of what the RRS's mean and what do to when they meet.

In Scenario #2 .. RRS 87 claims seem clear to me that these are "fairness" issues and naturally one would/could make a case on how the change may effect them negatively.
In Scenario #1 .. RRS 85/86 claims seem to be "safety" issues, where bringing fairness into it seems obscure and if a PC takes the tack of Rob's view, a PC might determine it effects all boats equally and dismiss.

So, I think that's the only place we differ.

If redress is the avenue for this to be brought-up by a competitor, then I think a potential change to 62.1 (as I outlined before) would make that clear that an 85/86 claim stands on it own .. for the sake of clarity of the rules when boats meet and thus safety, and not fairness.

I learned a lot. Thanks.

Ang