Forum: Match and Team Racing Rules

Match Race Umpires Manual or RRS?

Stavros Kouris
Nationality: Greece
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
Match Racing Umpire Manual says:
"If one of the boats in a match requests redress because of procedural matters or the conditions on the water, it is important to always include the other skipper as a party in that hearing"

RRS says:
"A party to a hearing is
a) for a protest hearing: a protestor, a protestee
b) for a request for redress: a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested, a race committee acting rule 60.2(b), a technical committee acting under rule 60.4(b)
c) for a request for redress under rule 62.1(a): the body alleged to have made an improper action or omission
d)...........
e).......

Since Appendix C does not change the definition "Party", what is the correct way to proceed?
Follow what the manual says or follow the Racing Rules of Sailing?
Created: 18-Aug-20 17:41

Comments

David Lees
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Stavros

I would always have the skipper of the other boat and as well as him or her the race officer or technical guy if that was relevant. You've got to remember that the whole idea in match racing protests is to keep things informal. The main thing is to make sure that everything is fair and that the right decision is made and everyone concerned knows about it and has a chance to have his or her say.
Created: 18-Aug-20 18:26
Tom Sollas
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0
The US rule book solves this issue with a prescription to 63.2 that effectively requires that any affected boat be allowed to attend the hearing, and additionally says that the PC shall request redress for any boats that do attend, effectively making them parties to the hearing.

I’m not an IJ or IU, but the way I read 60.3 and 62.1 suggests that’s there is no reason why a PC can’t consider redress for both boats in a match race even without the US prescriptions, at least formally.
Created: 18-Aug-20 19:47
Stavros Kouris
Nationality: Greece
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
1

You've got to remember that the whole idea in match racing protests is to keep things informal. The main thing is to make sure that everything is fair and that the right decision is made and everyone concerned knows about it and has a chance to have his or her say.

I will start by saying that i don't disagree in bringing the other skipper to the hearing...i am just saying that he could be present as an observer....
Regarding keeping things informal... the whole procedure to request redress by raising the red flag as soon as possible after she becomes aware ......, but no later than 2 minutes after finishing or retiring, doesn't seem so informal. That is why i think is not very consistent keeping informal the hearing (which also I don't think it is as the rules says the protest committee may take evidence in any way it considers appropriate and may communicate its decision orally, but still has to check the validity and hear the evidence given by the parties etc), but keep very formal the procedure for requesting a hearing....
Making a fair and right decision should be the same even if the other skipper is not a party to the hearing, and should be always the aim of the protest committee...

The US rule book solves this issue with a prescription to 63.2

US Sailing indeed has a prescription which is added to Rule 63.2...so yes it solves the issue with an addition....
Doesn't that mean that without that addition the issue remains?
Created: 18-Aug-21 07:15
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
0
Seems to me that as rule 64.2 requires a PC to "........make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected. ..", it would be negligent of a PC to not seek the evidence of the other boat in the match. I think what the manual is saying is that a PC should act in accordance with rule 63.6 and obtain ".......other evidence it considers necessary".

Phil.
Created: 18-Aug-21 08:00
Stavros Kouris
Nationality: Greece
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
1

Seems to me that as rule 64.2 requires a PC to "........make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected. ..", it would be negligent of a PC to not seek the evidence of the other boat in the match

Fairness is always the basic requirement.... but that does not make the other boat a party to a hearing....
Rule 64.2 apply also in fleet racing and when one boat requests redress the protest committee doesn't make parties all the other boats involved in the race... but rule 64.2 continue to apply and still that rule requires a PC to .... make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected...
The Umpires Manual is talking only about redress concerning procedural matters or the conditions on the water.... and not redress in general...Both these situations always will affect both boats
Created: 18-Aug-21 08:23
Thorsten Doebbeler
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
1
(b) says:

A protest committee may call a hearing to consider redress;

In my mind usually the PC calls a hearing with both skippers in match racing, as Tom said above.

Created: 18-Aug-21 10:43
Myrto Antonopoulou
Nationality: Greece
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0

Rule 64.2 requires the PC to make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress.

In my opinion, procedural matters or conditions on the water, in match race, most likely affect both boats.

However, since in order to grant redress, the PC shall determine individually for each of the boats if the rest of the conditions of 62.1 are met, the most fair arrangement would be to consider a redress for the other boat, under 60.3(b), calling her to a new hearing, after the adjournment of the initial hearing.

This is the procedure to be followed in fleet race, according to IJM K.29.2.

I believe this is also the meaning of MR Umpire Manual D.20, advising Umpires to always include the other skipper, under 60.3(b), as a party to the initial hearing of that request of redress, to save time and to reach faster to conclusions.

Created: 18-Aug-28 16:44
[You must be signed in to add a comment]