Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Redress question

Mike Forbes
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
What is the considered opinion of the following.......

a boat (S) seeks Redress for severe damage and consequential retiral after a R10 collision.

The boat on Port (P) takes a penalty turn (although that does not enhonerate her because of Severe Damage), S does not Protest.

Is S entitled to Redress because of Severe Damage by P if there is no Protest, so no proof that P Broke a rule and caused Severe Damage?

How should the Redress Hearing proceed?
Created: 18-Sep-13 18:11

Comments

John Grills
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Umpire In Training
0
Rule 62.1b would cover that situation. It is not required that a boat file a protest on an incident in order to request 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 or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse by

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
Created: Fri 20:10
Grant Baldwin
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Mike, in these situations, I like to think about how the incident might get to the PC.
Your scenario helps make a few points:
  • First, your scenario drives me to the Basic Principle (Sportsmanship and the Rules). The competitor has been given the primary responsibility to both follow and enforce the rules. This includes the responsibility to protest in cases such as this. Further, one of these guys was likely obliged to retire upon learning of the serious damage (RRS 44.1(b.))
  • Second, RRS 60.3(a.) provides a PC the mechanism to initiate a protest, however, there are strict limitations under which such a protest may be validly lodged.
  • Finally (and this is a personal POV), I am loathe to reach into these incidents as a PC if the competitors cannot be bothered to properly file their own protests/RfR. Having said that, I have occasionally seen situations where the damage was so great and injuries so extensive that we had to file a Request for Redress on behalf of a competitor who was unable.
So my question to you is: How would your incident have gotten to the PC?
Created: Fri 20:44
Fields Gunsett
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
5
Consult Case 142.
Created: Sat 00:41
Baptiste Verniest
Nationality: France
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Umpire
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Furthermore, you were talking about proof of fault
If S request is valid, the protest Committee hears it and S has to show she fulfils the requirements of rule 62.1(b), in particular that P was required to keep clear, failed to do so and caused serious damage (in the incident or as a consequence). If S cannot prove it, S cannot be granted redress.
S can bring P as a witness in the redress hearing, or having other witnesses, make her case based on trackers and other physical evidence (video, damage).

S can protest P, but I believe that unless there is another penalty than retiring, for causing serious damage, the Protest Committee should either protest P or offer her the possibility to retire if she did not realise the damage before.

If S lodged only a request for redress and the Protest Committee does not write P as another party in this hearing on the hearing schedule, the Protest Committee will not hear any protest and cannot penalise P.
​​​
As mentioned by Fields Gunsett, case deals rather deeply with this question.
Created: Sat 04:33
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
0
Well said Grant.

Still on the matter of redress, what is the general opinion of judges regarding various proposals currently under consideration by WS to significantly revise, even delete, parts of the redress rules?

Phil.
Created: Sat 07:25
David Lees
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
0
I just want to comment on Phil's question. The answers on Mike's original question are all good and of course deal with it well . I think in practice in that situation, the boat on port, when she gets ashore, often realises what has happens and retires. If not she should be protested.
On the question of whether we allow too much redress, Phil and I have often had discussions. The argument in favour of reducing the right to redress is that in other sports people suffer and just lose out. I remember a case in an athletics race, when a girl (I forget her name, but she was South African and ran barefoot) was pushed into the inner line of the track and lost what probably would have been a gold medal.
There was a time when boats were much more delicate - wppd cracked, cotton tore, cotton ropes were weaker - and contact between boats really did cause unfair damage. The argument now is that if boats suffer because race officers make a mistake, or because of a contact, such as this example, the boat (and the helm and crew) should just put up with it and do better in the next race. I have a sympathy for that thinking.
I don't think there is any suggestion that a boat should not get redress if she goes to help someone in danger, of if she suffers from someone acting unfairly and thus breaking rule 2 or even rule 69.
I think any idea like this needs some testing before a change is made, but I think a test in a few regattas would be worth while.
Created: Sat 12:35
Mike Forbes
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
....... back to my original question..... if S did not Protest, would P be cited as a witness at a Redress Hearing? How would the Committee proceed if the Witness did not attend the Hearing? Would it accept the unchallenged testimony of S?





Created: Sat 12:51
Mike Forbes
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
I've just read case 142, which as Fields Gunsett says, deals with the issue.

Thankyou all.
Created: Sat 12:56
[You must be signed in to add a comment]