• Does a competitor "see the incident" if they see it on a video?
  2 Comments
  Mark Townsend Today 18:39
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST RRS 63.3 (a) (1)
  4 Comments
  John Quirk Today 04:10
• Is There a Case in the Future for A Less-Formal Meditation Process
  12 Comments
  John Quirk Wed 14:00
• Happy Holidays!
  1 Comment
  Paul Zupan Tue 19:56
• Can a boat break RRS 2 while breaking RRS 23.1?
  25 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Tue 11:40

• Does a competitor "see the incident" if they see it on a video?
  I think the intent of the words "see the incident" means see it on the water when it happened. That also means that on the water RRS 44 Penalties at the time of an incident are still available to the competitor.
  Wayne Balsiger Today 19:09
• Is There a Case in the Future for A Less-Formal Meditation Process
  Angelo,
  
  I completely agree with you that Appendix T is best used in events where there are always a lot of hearing requests, especially if there is a mix of inexperienced and experienced sailors where you can often resolve a lot of hearing requests very quickly so saving everyone a lot of time. I also completely agree with you on your "quick-list" of :send straight to full hearings".
  
  The example I gave in my submission is where a judge is working alone with no other suitable PC members available in the venue and the internet too poor to allow you to use video conferencing. If you have to go to a full hearing you have to arrange for the other PC members to come to a venue probably the next day if not in several days (where you are involved in a series of races moving along a coast or up a narrow Straite, stopping at a different venue every 2-3 days, some of which can be very small islands with very poor facilities. I try to sort out what I can asap. (Yes it would be good to have a full PC or IJ available at each venue, but the cost is prohibitive).
  
  The NoR clauses I use are:
  1.       APPENDIX T (Arbitration)

  RRS Appendix T (Arbitration) will apply except that Appendix T1 and T2 are changed so that arbitration may be applied for breaches of other rules.
  
  2         PENALTIES FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF OTHER RULES 

  Penalties for infringements of rules other than those specified in the rule itself may be less than disqualification. Details of discretionary penalties will be published on the official Notice Board before the race. 
  
  SIs:
  1. RRS T1(b) is changed to: The post-race penalty for each infringement shall be determined by the arbitrator, however rule 44.1(a) applies.
  Roger Wilson Today 18:12
• Class breaks in handicap racing
  No handicap/rating system is 'fair'. There will always be loopholes, boats that are advantaged or disadvantaged by the system.
  One way to limit this is to use more than one handicap/rating system simultaneously. In Ireland, boats race under ECHO (a PHRF type system, with ratings modified according to a boat's performance in the previous race) and IRC (a measurement based system). Some classes for instance the J109s) even sail using Scratch, ECHO and IRC. There is a move to introduce ORC: at least in part because the J109s have improved so much sailing as, in effect, a one design fleet that they hoover up all the IRC prizes. I presume that there will still be one race, scored 3 times.
  
  As to splits: They will always be arbitrary, may not be unfair. If the OA announces splits too long in advance then boats may be reconfigured to gain a (perceived) advantage: often by a wish to be the fastest boat in a fleet. If the OA announces the splits too late there may be a perception that there is an attempt to advantage one or more boats. If a boat can convince the PC that a fleet split could make the boat's series score significantly worse by that split, then there may be a case for redress. The time limit for such a request is as soon as reasonably possible after the relevant information is available. The OA might consider adding a time limit for such requests in the NoR.
  Gordon Davies Today 13:15
• Can a boat break RRS 2 while breaking RRS 23.1?
  'overthinking' vs 'misthinking'
  
  As a Moderator of the forum, I'd like to (again) discourage everyone from using those terms in replies to others.
  
  There is no reason to characterize someone else's post or thought process as an over/under amount of thought.  If you disagree and want to make a counterpoint, make it directly. 
  
  The person characterizing others as such risks insulting the recipient of the characterization and that risks stifling participation on the forum. 
  Angelo Guarino Today 12:51
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST RRS 63.3 (a) (1)
  Hi John - under the umbrella-recognised by:
  §  Philippines Sailing Association (‘PSA’), as a permanent resident (‘SRRV’) of the Philippines: https://www.facebook.com/SailingPilipinas/

  §  Ocean Racing Club of Philippines (‘ORCP’) / Signature Yacht Race Series: https://www.facebook.com/groups/7266489670032513

  §  For my ongoing ‘Judge in Training’ program: for each and every race series (for past 2-seasons), am under the auspices and supervision of Chief Judge, ‘Leonard Chin’ MYS, and at times helped by IJ/OJ ‘Mark Pryke’ AUS. I follow the 
  
  

  Adhere to World Sailing Judges Manual, and Code of Conduct for World Sailing Race Officials: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingRaceOfficialCodeofConduct-%5b20776%5d.pdf
  
  

  For my sailing program: yacht ‘ALLUSIVE’ / ‘ALLUSIVE Youth Race Team’, now flying the ‘RNZYS’ colours – with their senior coach, ‘James Russell’ regularly coming to Philippines to race with and mentor the youth team. 
  
  
  John Quirk Today 11:03

Forums Leader Board

This Month