Looks like green didn't give mark room to pink.

However, since no protest was made, incident closed.

Everyone sail to the bar.

Steve

Now with the protest, penalize green.

Although in the diagram it appears that pink did not keep clear of yellow, under the definition of Keep Clear she did not foul yellow because the latter was able to sail her course. If pink made contact with green "immediately" after changing course at 5, green failed to keep clear per Keep Clear (b). As there was no serious damage, green cannot be penalized in any case.

OK. Obviously I left the scenario off the hook too easily.

I’ll change the original post later but let’s assume that Pink protests Green under 18 and Green protests Pink under 16.

Scenario mod: At position #4, put Green 1/2 boat width further away from Pink. Does that change the ruling?

Rule does not apply to gates because of the definition of

Green likely broke a rule because of one of the following four three interpretations:

• Rule because she did not keep clear of red which is a leeward boat.
• Rule depending on how overlap occurred due to the fact that proper course could possibly mean that red intended to round the right mark after realizing how slow the yellow boat is going.
• Rule because yellow is an obstruction

Conditions: 6-8kts, slight chop.

• Yellow enters the zone clear ahead of Pink and Green.

(P)ink is required to give (Y)ellow mark-room.(rule 18.2b)

(G)reen is required to give Y mark-room (rule 18.2b)

• Pink and Green are overlapped when Green enters the zone

G is required to keep clear of P (rule 11)

G is required to give P mark-room (rule 18.2b)

• Yellow drops her spin at #1 and slows considerably
• Green and Pink drop their spins between #2 and #3 and carry more speed into the mark than Yellow

P is required to keep clear of Y (rule 11)

G is required to keep clear of Y (rule 11)

Rule 17 does not apply to Y or G. Can’t tell whether rule 17 applies to P with respect to G.

• , who is very slow as she starts to round at position #4
• As Yellow rounds the mark, her stern swings out directly in front of Pink at position #4, putting Pink on a collision course with Yellow's stern and external rudder

Then P and G need to take care that they comply with their obligations under rule 11 and rule 18.2b.

• At position #4, Pink turns abruptly to avoid Yellow and hits Green firmly just forward of midship, there is no damage or injury.

P keeps clear of Y and gives Y mark-room in accordance with rules 11 and 18.2b.

G does not keep clear of P. G breaks rule 11.

P, changing course does not give G room to keep clear. P breaks rule 16.1

P, sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled, is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 (rule 21).

G does not give P mark-room, being room to round the mark and to comply her obligations to Y. G breaks rule 18.2b.

It was not reasonably possible for P to avoid contact. P does not break rule 14.

Edit: Sorry, big slip-up

If P did not give G room to keep clear, with ample regardless of any room to windward, did not avoid contact when it was not reasonably possible to do sofor G to avoid contactt. G does not breaks rule 14.

• No protest was made.

Scenario mod: At position #4, put Green 1/2 boat width further away from Pink. Does that change the ruling?

So, this puts in question :

1. whether P, when she had separated from Y, and the mark by more than half a boat length was still sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, but also
2. whether P, now with half a boat length to cover before making contact with G broke rule 16.1 at all, or, had G acted promptly to steer away from P, she would have had enough space to keep clear; and
3. whether rule 17 applied between P and G, and if so, whether P sailed above her proper course.

A protest committee would need more information to determine these issues.

Allan, perfect break down! But, where did Daniel get the idea that RSS18 does not apply at gate marks??? Throw overboard whoever told you that! When boats are going to round one mark RRS 18 applies subject to restrictions and exceptions in the rule.

The first sentence of says "Rule 18 applies between boats when they are required to leave a mark on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone." There is not a "requirement" for red or green to both go around the left mark. Either boat could chose to leave the right mark to the right side (and never leave the left mark on the left side). Hence, rule does not apply.

Daniel, you cannot say generically that RRS 18 does not apply at a gate mark. As Allan shows above it does. There is a "non-sequitur" in jumping from being able to choose which mark to go to, to the rule not applying between boats going to the same mark after choosing.

Daniel .. if you go between 2 marks, no matter which one you decide to round, you've still passed both marks on the proper side.

Ang

Daniel,
Both of the gate marks have a required side, regardless of which mark a boat rounds. In the diagram, boats must leave the left mark to starboard in order to pass through the gate. Likewise, they must leave the right mark to port.
While you are correct in saying there is not a requirement for both red and green to "go around" the left mark (they can round either the left or right mark), they still must leave each of the two marks on the same sides. Therefore, rule 18 does apply.

John ..... great response as always...

G, with ample room to windward, did not avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so. G breaks rule 14.

What would you say to the arguments that,

1. between #4 to #5, G couldn't move to windward to avoid as turning up would only push her stern into P? .. or ..
2. G's close proximity is P's fault in that P should have been forcing G up further and earlier around #3? .. and thus G P not having enough room to avoid Y without hitting G P G is on G P? (this argument reflecting the idea G only has to give P room she is calling for at the moment and G doesn't have to foresee the room that G would have to provide P assuming Y's stern swing and P's avoiding move?).

A protest committee would need more information to determine these issues.

What questions would you like to ask?

Ang

At position 4 any action of G (ie move on windward or no move) did not avoid contact with P, so she is not keeping clear (RRS11), same for mark room (RRS18.2b), about the second scenario if the contact can be avodided to twist in the opposite direction so P move to leeward she fulfill to both the rule.
Claudio

Angelo Guarino
said

G, with ample room to windward, did not avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so. G breaks rule 14.

What would you say

Sorry, major slip-up. If P did not give G room to keep clear then it was not reasonably possible for G to avoid contact. G did not break rule 14.

to the arguments that,

1. between #4 to #5, G couldn't move to windward to avoid as turning up would only push her stern into P? .. or .

• even a boat with long overhangs can make gradual changes in course without appreciable stern-kicks
• how long actually was G's ovehand and, for the type of boat where was her pivot-point: is she really going to stern-kick a whole half boat length?
• did G respond 'promptly' to P's change in course?
• did P initially change course then hold a straight course before contact, or was P still changing course when contact occurred?

1. G's close proximity is P's fault in that P should have been forcing G up further and earlier around #3?

.. and thus G not having enough room to avoid Y without hitting G P is on G?Sorry, don't follow the G's P's and Y's. G is not required to avoid Y: she is required to keep clear of Y, but G has ample room to windward to stay away from Y, and we have no evidence that G failed to keep clear of Y.

(this argument reflecting the idea G only has to give P room she is calling for

'calling', 'hailing', or 'yelling' are absolutely irrelevant to whether a boat is required to give room and have no effect on the meaning of the definition of room in the sense of the amount of space that is required to be given.

at the moment and G doesn't have to foresee

nothing in rule 18 about only being required to give room if it is 'foreseeable'. The only get ouf of gaol card for a boat required to give mark-room is rule 18.2f, and that only applies to a boat that obtained an inside overlap from clear astern or by tacking to windward and is unable to give mark-room: does not apply to G here.

the room that G would have to provide assuming Y's stern swing and P's avoiding move?).

Why are we suddenly talking about Y's stern-kick? As long as she's sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled (which she obviously is), she can wave her stern wherever she llikes and the outside boats have to give her mark-room to do so.

A protest committee would need more information to determine these issues.

What questions would you like to ask?

Depends on the narrative provided by the parties in their evidence, but would include distances, how fast/hard boats changed course, when boats changed course and stopped changing course, characteristics of boats etc etc.

Murray that was a very clear explanation so I understand/agree now that rule 18 definitely applies between the yellow/red and yellow green pairs. Yellow reached the mark before either red/green so red/green cannot interfere with yellow trying to round the left mark.

I don't want to cause trouble but I am still unsure if rule 18 applies between the red/green pair in this particular situation for rounding the left mark. Here are my thoughts:

• Before red/green get close to the gate (more than 3 boat lengths away from either mark), green is windward of red.
  • Rule 11 says that green must keep clear of red
  • Rule 17 says that red must sail her proper course.
  • Reds proper course could be to round the left mark or the right mark. So he still has a choice.
• The moment either of the overlapped pair enters the zone of the left mark, does rule 18 overrule 11 and 17? Does rule 18 suddenly redefine proper course for red?
  • Red can use rule 18 against green to round the left mark
  • Green still subject to rules 11 and 17 and now 18 as well. I don't think she can use 18 to force red to round the left mark.

Does that make sense?

John et'al .. I just realized I got my P's and G's flipped in my #2 in "what would you say to the arguements" list. I've since corrected it above. It should read ..

What would you say to the arguement(s) that ... (2) G's close proximity is P's fault in that P should have been forcing G up further and earlier around #3? .. and thus G P not having enough room to avoid Y without hitting G P G is on G P? (this argument reflecting the idea G only has to give P room she is calling for at the moment and G doesn't have to foresee the room that G would have to provide P assuming Y's stern swing and P's avoiding move?).

I don't think it changes John's analysis .. so I don't think need to repost .. just wanted to correct it.

Thanks for all the detailed replies John. - Ang

Daniel ..

• Before red/green get close to the gate (more than 3 boat lengths away from either mark), green is windward of red. (yes)
  • Rule 11 says that green must keep clear of red (yes)
  • Rule 17 says that red must sail her proper course. (not exactly, RRS 17 puts restrictions on a leeward boat not to sail above its proper course under the specific circumstance that Red acquired her overlap with G from clear astern and within 2-HL's. There is no evidence that is the case therefore we can't apply 17 without other evidence. There is no RRS that requires a boat to sail her proper course).
  • Reds proper course could be to round the left mark or the right mark. So he still has a choice (yes, 18.4 provides Red the option to gybe for the left-gate or continue to the right-gate).
• The moment either of the overlapped pair enters the zone of the left mark, does rule 18 overrule 11 and 17? (17 doesn't apply and no, both Section A rules and 18 can exist at the same time) Does rule 18 suddenly redefine proper course for red? (No, Red is a ROW boat vs Green, therefore Red's proper course is what she would sail in the absence of Green and she can choose which gate is best for her)
  • Red can use rule 18 against green to round the left mark (18.2 gives mark-room to Red vs Green on the left. 18.4 and 11 allow Red to head to the right-gate).
  • Green still subject to rules 11 and 17 and now 18 as well. I don't think she can use 18 to force red to round the left mark. (17 isn't an issue, Red gets to choose which gate due to 18.4. If this was a STB rounded leeward-mark without a gate, Red would have to round based on the 1st sentence of 18.4).

Does that make sense? (?)

PS .. Daniel .. take a look at Case . It touches a lot of your questions. - Ang
PS PS .. also take a look at Case

That cleared up everything. Thank you very much!

What would you say to the arguement(s) that ... (2) G's close proximity is P's fault in that P should have been forcing G up further and earlier around #3? .. and thus G P not having enough room to avoid Y without hitting G P G is on G P? (this argument reflecting the idea G only has to give P room she is calling for at the moment and G doesn't have to foresee the room that G would have to provide P assuming Y's stern swing and P's avoiding move?).

At position 3, P and G are required to keep clear of Y and therefore Y is an obstruction to both boats. Rule 18 applies between all three boats. Because Y is not overlapped with each of P and G, rule 19 applies and G must give room to P under rule 19.2(b). P is keeping clear of Y. When Y changes course to round the mark, P must manoeuvre promptly in order to continue to keep clear of Y. Because there is contact between P and G, G has not given P room as required by 19.2(b).

Guys, rule 18.4 does not apply at a gate ((rule 18.4 last sentence).

Right of Way rules and other limitation rules are always independent of rule 17.

For example, a leeward overlapped boat can break rule 17, but the windward boat can also break rule 11: breach of rule 17 does not compel the windward boat to fail to keep clear (although a breach of rule 16.1 might) and the breach of rule 17 does not exonerate the breach of rule 11.

John, what I was saying was application of the 2nd sentence of 18.4 turns off 18.4 at the gate and thus allows Pink to choose the right gate as ROW boat. Yea.. not the best use of the English language.. I’ll give you that ..: but then again only by appyjng 18.4 can u determine that you shouldn’t apply it!- Ang

Daniel .. all kidding aside .. John makes a good point and being more careful in describing how RRS 18.4 effects the situation is important.

18.4 Gybing - When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark to sail her proper course, until she gybes she shall sail not further from the mark than needed to sail that course. Rule 18.4 does not apply at a gate mark.

So the proper way to think of 18.4 at the leeward marks is that 18.4 applies to single marks and not at gates. Its application at single leeward marks is what prevents a leeward, inside ROW boat that would normally gybe around the mark .. from sailing an overlapped, outside, keep-clear boat far away from the mark.

Since the 2nd sentence turns-off 18.4 at gates, the requirement that the ROW "shall sail not further from the mark than needed to sail that course" is gone, freeing that boat to sail past the mark she is near and head to the other mark of the gate. So with all that, here are my responses more properly worded applying (and not applying) 18.4 where appropriate with additional commentary. (Thanks John).

Daniel ..

• Before red/green get close to the gate (more than 3 boat lengths away from either mark), green is windward of red. (yes)
  • Rule 11 says that green must keep clear of red (yes)
  • Rule 17 says that red must sail her proper course. (not exactly, RRS 17 puts restrictions on a leeward boat not to sail above its proper course under the specific circumstance that Red acquired her overlap with G from clear astern and within 2-HL's. There is no evidence that is the case therefore we can't apply 17 without other evidence. There is no RRS that requires a boat to sail her proper course).
  • Reds proper course could be to round the left mark or the right mark. So he still has a choice (yes, since 18.4 does not apply at gates, 18.4's restrictions do not apply to Red and therefore Red has the option to gybe for the left-gate or continue to the right-gate).
• The moment either of the overlapped pair enters the zone of the left mark, does rule 18 overrule 11 and 17? (17 doesn't apply and no, both Section A & B rules and 18 can exist at the same time. As Case 75 states in the first sentence "When rule 18 applies, the rules of Sections A and B apply as well.") Does rule 18 suddenly redefine proper course for red? (No, Red is a ROW boat vs Green, therefore Red's proper course is what she would sail in the absence of Green and she can choose which gate is best for her because 18.4 does not apply at gates)
  • Red can use rule 18 against green to round the left mark (18.2 gives mark-room to Red vs Green on the left. With 18.4's restrictions not applying at gates, RRS 11 allows Red to head to the right-gate and Green would remain keep clear as long as she remains overlapped to windward of Red. Note that as they leave the zone of the left-gate and enter the zone of the right-gate, it is likely .. if their relative positions don't change much .. that Green will be the inside-overlapped boat at the right-gate and thus owed mark-room by Red).
  • Green still subject to rules 11 and 17 and now 18 as well. I don't think she can use 18 to force red to round the left mark. (17 isn't an issue, Red gets to choose which gate because 18.4's first sentence doesn't apply. If this was a STB rounded leeward-mark without a gate, Red would have to round based on the 1st sentence of 18.4).

PS .. Daniel .. take a look at Case 75. It touches a lot of your questions & also take a look at Case 114

Murray .. it's worth considering your RRS 19 argument ..

Obstruction: ... However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her
19.1 Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except ... (b) when rule 18 applies between boats and the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them.

So, looking at the drawings we need to look at each position.

• #1 neither Pink or Green is overlapped with Yellow and RRS 18 does not apply between Pink and Green
• #2 it's very close, but let's say neither Pink or Green is overlapped with Yellow, but RRS 18 now applies between Pink and Green (both P and G are keep-clear of Yellow by RRS 12)
• At position #3, if you look closely at the drawing, Green is overlapped with Y, but Pink is not. Green's overlap with Yellow does not create an overlap between Pink and Yellow. Only Green is overlapped with Yellow. (P is keep-clear by RRS 12 and G by RRS 11)
• At position #4, Pink is now inside-overlapped with Yellow and the Green/Yellow overlap is broken. Only Pink is overlapped with Yellow (P is keep clear by RRS 10 and Green by RRS 11. One might argue that since now Pink overlaps Yellow and Pink overlaps Green that the overlap of Yellow carries to Green. For that to work, Pink would have to be "between" Yellow and Green but actually at best it is Yellow that is between Pink and Green, but I think even that is a stretch of the meaning of "between". Therefore the overlap of Green/Yellow through Pink does not occur).
• At position #5, neither Pink or Green is overlapped with Yellow

So looking at the RRS 19 exception test .. Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except ... 19.1 (b)

1. when rule 18 applies between boats (yes, RRS 18 applies to Pink and Green from position #2-#5)
2. and the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them. (no, Yellow is not overlapped with "each of them", only one of them at any moment).

Since the 19.1(b) exception test uses the word "and", both need to be satisfied and so this scenario fails the exception test and therefore RRS 19 applies because both G & P were required to keep-clear of Yellow continuosly from #2-#4 via RRS 10, 11 & 12.

Yellow is an obstruction to Pink and Green.

Any objections to that conclusion? - Ang

PS: US Appeal 36 seems applicable

The first comment was correct; go to the Bar. There is no reason for Green to anticipate this action by pink responding to being too close to yellow. This is clearly a no call situation!
John Eilers

Angelo,
There is a difference between this scenario and US Appeal 36. Throughout this scenario, both P and G are required to keep clear of Y. P becomes overlapped with Y when Y gybes onto starboard tack (position 4). Rule 10 applies and requires P to keep clear of Y. Therefore Y is always an obstruction and rule 19 does not cease to apply when P becomes overlapped with Y.
G has not given P the room to manoeuvre to keep clear of Y and G breaks rule 19.2(b).
Because P has not been given room, it is not reasonably possible for P to avoid contact with G while avoiding Y. P does not break rule 14.

Yes, Murray was right. Rule 19 applies and G was required to give P room to pass between Y and G, as well as keeping clear of P and giving P mark-room.

Angelo,

Now go back and strike out each of the dot points for which, if Pat Healy was marking a decision writing exam, he would deduct marks because they were irrelevant to the conclusion.

John, I wasn't attempting to write a protest decision .. I was just having a discussion exploring the rules. - Ang

PS .. that said, though you might think some observations are "irrelevant", please do point out those which you find are incorrect.

Please, please, rather than colors, could we always use "I" inside, "M" middle, and "O" outside?
And "A" ahead, "B" behind?

Murry ..

There is a difference between this scenario and US Appeal 36.

Yea .. they are rarely a perfect match . .but I thought it was still a useful Appeal to read and think about nonetheless in this context.

Philip Hubbell
said Created: Today 01:50

Please, please, rather than colors, could we always use "I" inside, "M" middle, and "O" outside?
And "A" ahead, "B" behind?

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more.

The relational abbreviations and labels shown in the casebook are an arcane hangover from the days of black and white printing.

They are not, in fact, widely known or understood.

They are highly confusing when boats change position in relation to one another as a scenario develops.

Simple colour coding is far preferable.

If you are desperate for black and white reproduction, you can at least use Black,, White and Grey, as is done in the TR Call Book.

Angelo Guarino
said Created: Today 01:30

John, I wasn't attempting to write a protest decision .. I was just having a discussion exploring the rules. - Ang

PS .. that said, though you might think some observations are "irrelevant", please do point out those which you find are incorrect.

No problems with the correctness as far as I can see, but I do commend you to the exercise of deleting the irrelevant steps. It's a good technique for writing decisions.

No problems with the correctness as far as I can see .. deleting the irrelevant steps. It's a good technique for writing decisions.

Great to hear. It was a valuable exercise for me. I agree doing the decision and having it critiqued would be a good experience as well. Will definitely do. - Ang

Ok John . .have at me :-) ..

PRACTICE PROTEST DECISION FOR A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO BELOW. NOT AN ACTUAL PROTEST.


PARTIES AND WITNESSES

Party Protesting: Spin Keel - Pink Parties Being Protested: Spin Keel - Green

VALIDITY

Objection to Jury: No Within Time Limit: Within Time Limit Incident Identified: Yes Proper Hail: Protest hailed Red Flag Displayed: Yes DECISION: Protest Valid

FACTS FOUND

Conditions: Wind 6-8kts, slight chop

1. Yellow, Pink and Green approached the left leeward gate-mark on port tack all 3 under spinnaker
2. Yellow enters the zone clear ahead of both Pink and Green.
3. Yellow drops her spin at the edge of the zone and slows considerably relative to Pink and Green, who are still under spinnaker
4. When Green enters the zone, Pink is to leeward of Green and inside-overlapped with Green. There are no boats close to weather of Green or close to leeward of Pink.
5. Pink is directly behind Yellow and Green is 1/2 boat width to weather of both Pink and Yellow.
6. Green and Pink drop their spins inside the zone and carry more speed into the zone than Yellow, who is very slow as she starts to round the mark.
7. Green, maintaining her 1/2 boat-width separation with Pink, overtakes Yellow. Green becomes overlapped outside of Yellow while Pink converges on Yellow inline from astern.
8. As Yellow rounds the mark and gybes to starboard, her stern swings out directly in front of Pink, putting Pink, who is quickly converging on Yellow, on a collision course with Yellow's stern and external rudder
9. Pink turns abruptly to windward, avoids Yellow, but hits Green firmly just forward of mid-ship, there is no damage or injury.

Diagram: Diagram not endorsed

CONCLUSIONS AND RULES THAT APPLY

PS Note: #1-#6 were written under the mistaken notion that all rules that apply to a situation should be listed and reconciled as either broken or not. Based upon input later in this thread, these details are generally deemed extraneous and thus is not recommended and is even dissuaded from being listed in a Conclusion. Personally (just my opinion, but I'm not the one scoring the test!), I think #4-#6 are useful in understanding the conclusions and are concise (so I'm putting them in purple). I agree 100% that #1-#3 are the most superfluous as #4-#5 state the same info. - AG
-

1. Green being windward, must keep-clear of Pink and eventually Yellow, as required by RRS 11
2. Both Pink and Green must give mark-room to Yellow. Green must give mark-room to Pink, as required by RRS 18.2(b).
3. Pink, being clear astern of Yellow, must keep-clear of Yellow, as required by RRS 12 and later when Yellow gybes to starboard, both Pink and Green must keep-clear of Yellow as required by RRS 10.
4. Pink kept clear of Yellow as required by RRS 10 and RRS 12 and gave Yellow mark-room as required by 18.2(b).
5. Green kept clear of Yellow as required by RRS 10 and RRS 11 and gave Yellow mark-room as required by 18.2(b).
6. Since both Pink and Green must keep-clear of Yellow and Yellow is a boat not overlapped with both Pink and Green while RRS 18 applied between them, Yellow is an obstruction to both Pink and Green as defined by RRS 19.1(b)
7. Green, the outside boat at an obstruction, failed to give Pink room to pass Yellow, an obstruction, as required by RRS 19.2(b)
8. Green, as outside overlapped boat at the zone, failed to give Pink mark-room, as required by RRS 18.2(b)
9. Green to windward failed to keep clear of Pink to leeward, as required by RRS 11.
10. Pink, the leeward right-of-way boat, changed her course and failed to give Green, the windward boat, room to keep clear, as required by RRS 16.1, but Pink sailing within both the mark-room and obstruction-room she is entitled, is exonerated by RRS 21(a) as there was no injury or damage.
11. It was not reasonably possible for Pink, a right-of-way boat entitled to both room to pass an obstruction and mark-room, to avoid contact with Green when it was clear that Green was not giving either room to pass an obstruction or mark-room, therefore Pink does not break RRS 14.
12. It was not reasonably possible for Green to avoid contact with Pink, therefore Green does not break RRS 14.

DECISION

1. Protest Upheld. Green is DSQ'd in Race 1

Angelo,

Dammit, no, i'm not going to fall for that. This is an exercise for you.

Try these 'rules of thumb'.

Only state conclusions:

• that a boat broke a rule;
• if there was contact, whether or not each boat involved broke rule 14
• if a boat is exonerated, that she is exonerated;
• if it is alleged on the protest form, or during the hearing that a boat broke a rule and she did not, that the boat did not break that rule, or that a boat 'broke no rules'.

Looks like you are using the Decision Wordings in the Toolbox: that's a good idea.

Fall for that? You "commended" me to do it!

So, if this was a "real world" decision, I wouldn't have been as verbose. Certainly #1-#5 could be left off. That said, I have been told on more than one occasion that if a decision is being "scored" or "evaluated" that you might "loose points" if you don't list each rule that applies between the boats involved .. and then show how each of those rule obligations are resolved. That is the reason I put in #1-#5.

I put in #6 as I felt 19.1(b)'s application needed some support before declaring Yellow an obstruction while 18 applied.

So, yea, if that is actually not good guidance (that you should address and resolve each rule that might apply), then #1-#6 could be removed.

Yep .. I used Decision Wordings as the starting point for many of the lines.

OK .. so .. this IS NOT a real protest .. so I'll open it up to anyone else who would like to comment/correct/agree/disagree with my FF's/Conclusions/Decision .. or even how individual lines are stated.

Ang

I think there is some confusion here as to "identifying all the rules". It is my understanding that, especially IJ's, will indicate all the rules that apply when writing a decision. The common mistake I see however is listing rules that were not broken. I call this "stating the negative". It has been pointed out to me that it takes a fair amount of study and hearings to acquire the ability (and patience) to listen for the information needed to apply the right test whether a rule was broken. I agree completely. But learning this technique can be accelerated by reviewing each stated conclusion thinking in terms of; was there an obligation and was it broken. The only exception I can think of are the weasel words we use for RRS 14 for the right-of-way boat. That usually is required so as to indicate that the jury considered this issue.

So, for the above decision, I would say that conclusions #1 through #6 are "stating the negative." And #11 and #12 are stating the negative but are the weasel words we use for RRS 14. I would think that a concise conclusion would have only #7 through #12. And yes, I do recommend using the Suggested Wording as it really does make you think it terms of rules broken and limit your conclusion. There are some edge cases missing from the Suggested Wording, but you'll know it when it happens. Otherwise, if you're writing conclusions that are not in the Suggested Wording, you're probably not being concise enough.

Thanks Paul. Like I said, the context of those who said that it's a good idea to put items like #1-#6 was that of the decision being part of a certification test .. and that leaving those items off could cost one a couple points. With that guidance in my mind, I wrote it as if it were to be graded.

I wonder if anyone on the forum who scores tests might weigh-in whether or not, in the context of taking cert-tests, its better to list all the rules that apply and resolve each one (like I did for #1-#6) or be more concise and only list the ones which are broken? .. or worse as John Allan implied that some scorers might find the information "irrelevant" and risk actually marking-you-down for their presence?

Not in general practice mind you, but in the test taking context.

Ang

It's my understanding that scores are marked down for extraneous information on certification tests (albeit not as much as if information is left out, such as the wind speed, sea state and type of boats, if supplied in the question). I've not scored certification tests, so please correct me if I'm wrong about that...

John,

Only state conclusions ... if it is alleged on the protest form, or during the hearing that a boat broke a rule and she did not, that the boat did not break that rule, or that a boat 'broke no rules'.

In the context of not wanting to list rules-not-broken, how would you ID this conclusion of no-rule-broken such that it won't be deemed extraneous? (btw .. maybe "extraneous" is a better descriptor of these unneeded no-rule-broken conclusions, rather than "irrelevant"?). Something like ... ?

"[Boat A] met its obligations [to Boat B]/[under RRS #] and thus did not break [RRS #], as [Boat B/C] alleged in the [protest-filing/hearing]"

I disagree with this critique of the opinion. The opinion as written is a better learning tool for the participants and for everyone else when it is posted. John Eilers, Cowan Lake, Ohio

John E.,

It's important to remember that I wrote that Decision pretending it was going to be scored for certification, so it has been VERY useful to get the criticism and input that has been provided. It's valuable to understand what the standard is and it is no use to anyone (racers, judges, JIT's) for the standard to be a mystery or misunderstood, so I'm coming to the defense of the critique as it's what I asked for.

That said, I don't know if there has ever been a PC's decision overturned under appeal because superfluous (a better word than even "extraneous" I tihnk) no-rule-broken conclusions were included in the written copy of the decision, but it's not the proper or desired form.

Also, consider your circumstance and your audience as well. A written decision, especially at a local club-level event, is usually only provided upon request. If you find yourself on a PC and you quickly write-up something like I did in the room and use that to walk the parties though the decision, I don't think many here would poo-poo that, especially if this is a rare teaching moment for the parties.

On the other hand, if one of the parties asks for a written copy of the decision, especially if they are making sounds that they are going to appeal, then I think most here would suggest that the more concise approach is the desired form. - Ang

Angelo Guarino
said Created: Today 12:48

Only state conclusions ... if it is alleged on the protest form, or during the hearing that a boat broke a rule and she did not, that the boat did not break that rule, or that a boat 'broke no rules'.

In the context of not wanting to list rules-not-broken, how would you ID this conclusion of no-rule-broken such that it won't be deemed extraneous? (btw .. maybe "extraneous" is a better descriptor of these unneeded no-rule-broken conclusions, rather than "irrelevant"?). Something like ... ?

"[Boat A] met its obligations [to Boat B]/[under RRS #] and thus did not break [RRS #], as [Boat B/C] alleged in the [protest-filing/hearing]"

In an IJ exam, conclusions based on the above criterion would probably be considered superfluous and lose you marks. At events where you have an International Jury, competitors are expected to know the rules and, to an extent' to be able to 'read between the lines'.

However, at club level, If a party raises an issue about a rule, by number, by name, or by implication, then I think they deserve a direct, explicit answer.. That could very well save you an appeal.

I really would welcome any further discussion from others about this particular criterion and reasoning.

John Eilers
said Created: Today 14:28

I disagree with this critique of the opinion. The opinion as written is a better learning tool for the participants and for everyone else when it is posted.

A protest committee's written decision is a formal document recording and announcing the facts found, conclusions and decision of the protest committee (rule 65). It is not a 'learning tool'.

'Learning tools', in the form of the numerous rules commentary books, Cases and Appeals, and internet resources like this one are readily available.

Angelo Guarino
said Created: Today 16:10
...
That said, I don't know if there has ever been a PC's decision overturned under appeal because superfluous (a better word than even "extraneous" I tihnk) no-rule-broken conclusions were included in the written copy of the decision, but it's not the proper or desired form.

Neither have I, but the more you write in a decision, the more chance you have of making a mistake, which, even if irrelevant to the outcome, might encourage a party to appeal.

Also, consider your circumstance and your audience as well. A written decision, especially at a local club-level event, is usually only provided upon request.

I suggest that this is a really bad practice. Where I come from we invariably write the decision in full, usually on a laptop, before inviting the parties back into the room, when the written decision is read to the parties. Then, as a matter of course, the decision is emailed to the parties, and posted on the noticeboard.

Seeing a semi-illegible, scrawled, cramped, protest form page 2 posted, purporting to be a decision of a protest committee makes me feel embarrassed as a judge.

If you find yourself on a PC and you quickly write-up something like I did in the room

Facts Found were not too bad, although a couple could be deleted.

There were at least five conclusions that were unnecessary. Time spent in a protest room writing these would have been time ill-spent.

and use that to walk the parties though the decision, I don't think many here would poo-poo that,

Sorry, poo-poo.

If you presented 5 (out of 12) irrelevant conclusions to the parties before getting to the 'meat' of the conclusions, they would be highly likely to lose track or lose interest.

I don't agree that the protest committee should 'walk the parties through' the decision. All that is required is to read a carefully written decision.

especially if this is a rare teaching moment for the parties.

The primary purpose of a protest hearing and decision is to decide a dispute between the parties. Teaching rules is what coaches do.

On the other hand, if one of the parties asks for a written copy of the decision, especially if they are making sounds that they are going to appeal, then I think most here would suggest that the more concise approach is the desired form.

There can be only one best way to express a decision. Write the decision properly then read it to the parties.

.. great John .. thanks a lot .. now I can't stop trying to imagine what "poo-poo" sounds like in an Australian accent :-)

In a perfect world, racers learn the RRS from coaches and seminars put on by qualified Judges. Out of all the adults sailing at the club level though, the % that have ever had a coach in their lives or since they have been adults is, I would imagine, quite small. For better or for worse, from local club race officers in the protest room is where many, many sailors learn and most of those local Race Officers (sounds like John E is one of them) are happy for the opportunity, because they know the more people out there that know the RRS, the fewer people are going to get hurt or put themselves in dangerous situations.

Maybe I have sympathy for John E's POV because I know when I helped run a local all-PHRF program along with a rag-tag box of other misfit toys, we took every opportunity that came along. Maybe that was wrong, but people do their best with the opportunities they are given. Protests were few and far between and we were happy to take the extra time and walk them though it.

PS .. which FF's would you delete? I tried to be complete knowing I was going write it without authorizing a drawing. I'll go back and number the FF's too.

As to the above, this John E (Eilers) Has twice been certified as a Club Race officer and served as PRO for several Thistle regattas and a Lightening District Championship. He also attrnded the march 2017 seminar at St. Petersburg Y C. It is just that when Green is surprised at Pink's sudden move in a club race Pink should consider forgetting about it. We are having a hard enough time keeping the casual racers in the sport. Yes, in a major Regatta the experienced green should allow room and anticipate yellow's turn and a protest announced, and if necessary, filed,