Forum: Rules 2 and 69

Rule 2 and Rule 69

Martin Manrique
Nationality: Argentina
Hi, I have questions regarding rules of "Sportsmanship". This happened on an OPTIMIST RACE, in Mexico's national regatta, which is very important because affects directly the 

During a final race, definition of the regatta, there are 2 boats (Boat A and Boat B) which are fighting for medal. In this last race if boat A scores 8th or more looses the medal, regardless the position of boat B. So Boat B goes in the start and during the whole upwind and sails directly a match race against A. I see no problem with the rules so far.

During the reach there is contact and protest from boat A, for rule 11. B's boom touches the mast of A being windward boat. B then recognizes his mistake saying "Ok" but continues sailing and covering boat A during the downwind. He didn't care about him being DSQ but on boat A being worse than 7th. There is another contact and protest for rule 11 during the downwind and again no penalization from boat B.

At the end boat A finished 8th, loosing the medal for one point.

We submitted 2 protests for rule 11 for both incidents and then as boat B decides to retire from the race (on land) we wrote a redress, knowing that the protest won't be valid since B had already retired from the race. The redress was over protest time since we could only write it when we see B retiring.

None of the protests nor the redress were said to be valid from the protest committee and the medal stayed with B.


According case 78 from call book if B intentionally broke a rule he may be penalized for rule 2 and 69. In the case that he didn't intentionally made contact with boat A, but he did not took the penalty and clearly (and intentionally) interfered with A race, and then even retired himself for the race, can he still be penalized for rule 2?

Was our procedure with protests good, or should we have protest for rule 2 directly instead of asking for redress??

This was very sad for me because they are young sailors (mine is 10 and was his first experience in the top sailors) and I think this kind of attitudes goes against everything i love on sailing.

Thanks and would be very happy to hear your thoughts and advice on how to proceed in the future.
Created: 17-May-25 22:34

Comments

P
Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Umpire
  • International Judge
  • National Judge
1
Case might help you understand Rule and a bit better.
Created: 17-May-25 23:43
Brent Draney
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
I personally would have filed 3 protests and all three protests would require a hail.
The first protest would be for rule 11.  The second protest would be for rule 2 (this
hail will give a competitor pause).  Then you are back to a 3rd hail for rule 11.

All three protests need to be filed timely and the protest for rule 2 should include your
request for redress.

The next question is why and under what grounds should you claim a rule 2 violation.

The Basic Principles section clearly states:

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire. 

In the case described the competitor broke this basic principle that they PROMPTLY take the penalty.  I would view this as intentionally breaking the basic principles of sailing and therefore breaking rule 2 of part 1.  As the Esteemed Paul Zupan points out case 138 is useful in this interpretation. 

As you know rule 2 allows you to pass an important gate for requesting redress.  I can think of no reason why you would have to wait to file for redress nor do I see any reason that you could not protest on the water and inform the competitor that you will file a protest for breaking rule 2.

This is my advice more from a competitor's view than a judges.  There are other ways that a rule 2 protest can get started but I believe that this path is your personal best shot to get it to happen.  An even better outcome would be for boat B to have done his penalty and either promptly spin or retire and I believe that a second hail of protest for rule 2 may have that effect.

I'm very curious as to how others would play out the logistics and if they think my logical progression holds.

Best of luck in the future and give your child a high-five for me.  He did outstanding.

Created: 17-May-25 23:43
Dick Rose
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
1

I assume that B's hail of protest for the first incident was made promptly and that a properly written protest (alleging that A broke rules 11 and 2) is delivered by the time limit for protests. If that is done, B's protest should be valid, and a hearing must be conducted even though A retired. B can also ask that her protest be considered a report to the protest committee that A may have broken rule 69.1(a). If A is found to have broken rule 2 or if she receives a warning or a penalty under rule 69.2(h) for breaking rule 69.1(a), then, under rule 62.1(d), B may request redress. So, there are several routes that can result in 'justice' for B.

Created: 17-May-26 00:44
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
If there were two alleged breaches of rule 11, both allegedly deliberate so as to gain an advantage, and the competitor did not manage to deliver any valid protests, then, at a National Championship level, they can hardly expect much sympathy.  Without validly conducting a protest hearing, from the jury's point of view, no rules were broken.

Had there been a successful protest against B, for breaking rule 2, then A would probably not have been eligible for redress because A's penalty should have been DNE, an non-excludable disqualification, which would have worsened B's series score.

A might have been successful with a report and request to the jury to hold a rule 69 hearing:  There are no validity requirements for a rule 69 hearing.


Created: 17-May-26 00:47
Brent Draney
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
I think there may be some question on whether or not the rule 2 violation is a separate incident (not promptly taking a penalty).  Do you think that both violations can be described in the same protest?  We just had a discussion on continuation and limits on a fishing expedition and that is why I'm seeking clarification on this point.

Created: 17-May-26 00:58
Dick Rose
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0

Brent,

More than one rule may be mentioned in a protest. No rule prohibits alleging breaches of both a Part 2 rule (such as rule 11) and rule 2 in a single incident.

Created: 17-May-26 01:02
Dick Rose
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0

Ooops. In my long comment, I see that I got my 'A's and 'B's mixed up. It's back to kindergarten for me.

Sorry about that.

Created: 17-May-26 01:05
Brent Draney
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
Under "V actions" on the right you can go back and edit it to swap A and B.
I had to clean up a bunch of my comment.
Created: 17-May-26 01:19
Gregory Hall
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
0
It sounds like the situation was of high interest, so I would suggest that it was appropriate to file the protests for each foul as soon as  the competitor hits shore, regardless of whether B withdraws or not. If B does withdraw later, then it could be worked out in the protest room, and the Rule 2 question would have been heard.

For consideration: Case 34 Discusses a similar situation wrt a boat that was knowingly OCS.
Created: 17-May-26 01:32
Bill Handley
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0
Whether or not the protests were valid would depend on whether or not the requirements of protest had been met under Rule 61 (hail, lodged in time, incident identified etc) and not whether or not one of the boats had retired. Whilst Rule 64 does preclude a boat from being penalised further if she has retired, 64.1(b) quite clearly states that this does not apply if the penalty for breaking a rule might be DNE which in the case of Rule 2 is an option.

There would only need to be one valid protest lodged and then the Jury should decide which rules have been broken in the incident. Assuming the facts are as described then the windward boat broke rule 11. The jury should then consider Rule 2. As has been pointed out the Basic Principles require a boat that has broken a rule to promptly take a penalty. The windward boat did not do so while acknowledging that she had broken a rule and so broke Rule 2. Since 1st Jan the jury has the option of DSQ or DNE for a breach of this rule. In this case where the boat had raced on to further cover the leeward boat I would see it as a particularly bad breach and penalise with DNE - the windward boat would now be counting a disqualification which should mean that her overall result is much worse than before.

The jury would then turn to the question of redress for the leeward boat whether it had asked for it or not, Action under Rule 62.1(d) usually has to be initiated by the jury as it is only after the protest hearing that it has been established that Rule 2 has been broken. The leeward boat would be entitled to redress but what that redress should be would be an interesting question. An average points solution would probably not be appropriate. Up the the point of the Rule 2 breach windward had been sailing leeward down the fleet quite legitimately so it is only for any further deterioration in the position after the breach that she is entitled to redress. My most probable decision would be to give her the position at the time of the incident as best determined by mark rounding counts or some similar estimates.

Only after the protest hearing has been concluded would the jury consider the question of Rule 69. Based on the facts of the protest they would consider whether or not further action under rule 69 would be appropriate. There would be many factors to consider, not least of all the attitude to rule breaking by the windward boat demonstrated in the protest hearing in deciding whether or not to call a Rule 69 hearing which should be totally separate from any protest hearing. The PC may well decide that a DNE which will effectively eliminate the chances of any kind of good result is sufficient penalty and not take any further action.
Created: 17-May-26 06:49
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
If we could accept B broke the rule 11 twice and knowingly did not retire, where does that take us.

With valid protests we can DNE (we are told this makes no difference) and consider redress.

This may be an example where there is a difference between score and place in the new rules.

Really the boat wants a lesser score but other boats not involved would be affected and they must be considered in any redress hearing.

To give A a medal and to deprive other then B may not be correct.

The protests (even if invalid) could be considered a report and RRS 69 invoked. I think there is misconduct, and the boat can be DSQ from enough races to ensure the other boat gets the medal it deserved. This reduces B's score but does not particularly affect the boats not involved.

Created: 17-May-26 10:18
P
Thomas Allard
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} -->

Martin,

Great question, and one with lots of variables which begs for more questions - and I'm sure the original PC had other information to consider as well.  That said and given the possible ramifications of what I believe would be a relatively simply case if the parties were adults, the first thing I would consider here is the age of the sailors.  This thinking goes against the mantra that the Racing Rules of Sailing are unilateral and should be applied equally to all racers, but it's a sensible approach and a 'real' one as there isn't a 10 year old on the planet who can comprehend the meaning and consequences of all that is RRS 2 and 69 - especially in a high profile regatta.  Having served on many hearings involving younger children, once inside the room they rarely know what Ocean they're on and after ten minutes they all just want a juice box and to go play laser tag.


If the parties in this case are closer to your child's age of 10, I would proceed with extreme caution and discretion.  The PC chair would be well advised to exercise some 'creativity' and involve the parents and coaches early in this process, as the only fact you can be 100% sure of is that a parent or coach was involved in the math and planning of Boat 'B's tactics and against Boat 'A'.  At that time and assuming it wasn't done as part of the registration process, the parents and coaches should be advised of the new definition of, "party" and, "support person" - and their relevance to the rules in this scenario.  Realizing that kids mature quickly these days and if the parties are closer to 14 or 15, I would still involve the parents, but will less finesse or sympathy.


For the sake of discussion, lets then assume the parties are adults and that the jury was not composed of IJ's per 70.5.  In this case, the decision of the PC to find your request for redress invalid (for what ever reason) is appealable per 70.1(a) and appendix R.  Beyond the first sentence of RRS 66, there is also a great but seldom utilized option where a PC can make the decision to invoke 70.2 and request a 'self-appeal' of it's own decision to the National (or regional) Authority.  If employed, self-appealing could then resolve a submission or validity issue where the Appeals Committee could either apply a directive, or ask the PC to re-open and consider more consequential action.


Otherwise, Paul Z. and Bill H. have provided you with good guidance in referencing Cases 34 and especially the new Case 138.  The decision of Case 34 concluded that, "Such a clear breach of of rule 2 should be dealt with severely" and, "The PC could have called a hearing under 69.2".   Worth noting here and what I feel should make this scenario crystal clear to all juries and parties in todays world is that Case 34 was derived from a qualifying event leading up to the 1984 Olympic Games - and that the recent removal of the word "gross" from the definition of misconduct would surely change the language in their conclusion from, "could have called a hearing under 69.2", to "shall" begin the new 69 protocol by appointing an investigator.  Either way, all would be a valid path to a what would hopefully be a more judicial and fair result.


Procedurally and as John A. pointed out, there are no validity requirements with RRS 69.  Just as an Olympic gold medalist can (and has) be disqualified from an event when blood doping is discovered years after the games took place, there are also no time constraints for filing a misconduct 'report' to the original PC.  Here again, the PC's decision to proceed or not proceed under RRS is also appealable per 71.2.


I hope this all perspective provides more answers than questions and that it does more good than harm, especially as you are interested in making things right and doing the sport 'right'.  You should be applauded for that.

Created: 17-May-28 22:52
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
0
Since we are on 69, I was looking around for applications and interpretations of "breach of good manners" in the rule.  I caught a couple recent judgements that involved actual threats of violence or physical assault, but that would appear WAY beyond "good manners".

Are there any published rulings (both affirmative and rejected) that rely solely upon "breach of good manners" that might help bound the understanding of what you're after?

Created: 17-May-30 19:42
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Where a word is used in the rules and is not a defined term, it is used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use (Introduction:  Terminology, last sentence).  That is, the sense shown in a dictionary, that is ordinarily used.

Case 138 provides the following non-definitive list of potential acts of misconduct
:
1. Engaging in any unlawful activity (for example, theft, assault, criminal damage)
2. Engaging in any activity which may bring the sport into disrepute
3. Bullying, discriminatory behaviour and intimidation
4. Physical or threatened violence
5. Acting recklessly or in manner that does, or is likely to, cause damage or injury
6. Disobeying the reasonable instructions of event officials
7. Intentionally breaking a rule or inciting others to break a rule
8. Interference with another competitor's equipment
9. Repeated breaches of a rule
10. Failing to act to prevent your boat or team breaking a rule when you are aware of that breach
11. Not telling the truth or the whole truth in a hearing
12. Other forms of cheating such as falsifying personal, class or measurement documents, entering a boat known not to measure, missing out a mark to gain places, etc.
13. Foul or abusive language that causes or may cause offence
14. Making abusive or disrespectful comments concerning race officials or their decisions (including via electronic means such as social media)

The most obvious example of a breach of good manners is foul language, but note that the Case 138 list qualifies foul language by requiring that it 'causes or may cause offence'.
Created: 17-May-30 23:34
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Thomas Allard said (and I have interlined some responses)

Great question, and one with lots of variables which begs for more questions - and I'm sure the original PC had other information to consider as well.  That said and given the possible ramifications of what I believe would be a relatively simply case if the parties were adults, the first thing I would consider here is the age of the sailors.



Well, I agree that the first thing that a judge should do at a junior event is consider the ages of the competitors and review the Guidance  on dealing with young competitors provided in Race Officials Manuals Common Sections, Section 4 and Judges Manual, Section D.


I would also be bearing in mind, at this particular event that it is a National Championship, in a highly competitive class.  Serious competitors in contention for a National title are entitled to strict and fair application of the rules.  This is not the Green Fleet.


The first thing to be considered in a protest hearing, for competitors whether young or old, as, seemingly the jury did, was validity.



This thinking goes against the mantra that the Racing Rules of Sailing are unilateral and should be applied equally to all racers, but it's a sensible approach and a 'real' one


The PC chair would be well advised to exercise some 'creativity'


 

I have never seen anywhere in the rules or the Judges Manual any suggestion that the rules and guidance there should be displaced by somebody’s perception of what is ‘real’ or ‘sensible’


 

Judges Manual D3 states:

 

Under no circumstances should sailors be allowed to feel minor breaches of the rules will be accepted because of their age. Strict and fair instruction at the start of a sailor’s career can have an important educational effect.


 

Race Officials Manuals Common Sections, Section 4 and Judges Manual, Section D provide extensive guidance on dealing with young competitors.  I cannot see any warrant for departing from the rules and written guidance provided.


 ...

as there isn't a 10 year old on the planet who can comprehend the meaning and consequences of all that is RRS 2 and 69 - especially in a high profile regatta.


I think this is greatly underestimating the inherent understanding of fair play to be found in quite young children.


In any case, understanding of the nuances of rule 2, or the complexity of rule 69 are somewhat irrelevant.


Either Boat B DID, one or more times, deliberately break rules to gain an advantage, or she DID NOT.


These are matters that are well within the understanding of many sailors 10 years and under.


The consequences in terms of possible DNE or exclusion are irrelevant to the conclusions about rule breaches.


Likewise, the level of the regatta is irrelevant to whether or not rules have been broken.


Having served on many hearings involving younger children, once inside the room they rarely know what Ocean they're on and after ten minutes they all just want a juice box and to go play laser tag.


If the parties in this case are closer to your child's age of 10, I would proceed with extreme caution and discretion.  The PC chair would be well advised to exercise some 'creativity' and involve the parents and coaches early in this process, as the only fact you can be 100% sure of is that a parent or coach was involved in the math and planning of Boat 'B's tactics and against Boat 'A'.


Unless and until there is a rule 69 hearing (where the person against whom an allegation has been made is entitled to have an advisor or representative (rule 69.2( e )(2)), there is no scope for parents or coaches to be involved in the protest process, except as observers in accordance with the usual rules for observers (and a large part of a protest committee’s job of making protest hearings unintimidating for junior competitors is keeping wannabe Perry Mason parents OUT of the action).


It is quite outrageous to assume that parents or coaches are necessarily involved in Boat A’s regatta strategy, and in particular, in any breaches of rules that may have occurred..


It is perfectly possible for a well coached competitor of 11 or 12 years to calculate regatta pointscores and make the logical deduction about a sail down the fleet strategy, which may well have been considered in previous coaching sessions.


Now, I’m pretty confident that Boat A sailed the way she did under coaching advice, but, if that was a matter of interest to the protest committee, it would have to be proved by evidence.


Where Thomas' argument seem to be travelling towards is rule 69 action against some support person, on some grounds such that advising a competitor to act the way Boat A acted was a breach of good sportsmanship or unethical behaviour.  All it would take would be for a support person to say ‘Certainly I advised Boat B to sail Boat A down the fleet so as to secure her medal position, but I at no time advised Boat B to break any rules.  I did nothing more than advise Boat B to do what Case 78 expressly permits her to do’, and, in the absence of some unusually persuasive controverting evidence, I could not be comfortably satisfied that the support person acted improperly.


Note that rule 2 applies only to ‘a boat’ (including her crew), and ‘her owner’.  It does not apply to Support Persons.  If it appears that a Support Person has acted in breach of good sportsmanship, the only avenue is through rule 69.



 At that time and assuming it wasn't done as part of the registration process, the parents and coaches should be advised of the new definition of, "party" and, "support person" - and their relevance to the rules in this scenario.



I don't agree that a protest committee suddenly becomes required to ‘advise’ competitor and support persons on the rules. Whether people were ‘advised’ or even ‘aware’ of specific provisions of the current rules is wholly irrelevant to whether or not they broke some rules.


Unless the event or class had a ‘track record’ of bad behaviour by support persons, I would regard anything other than the most diplomatic reference to compliance with support boat requirements and ‘tone’ and sportsmanlike behaviour at any briefing as quite discourteous and insulting.



Realizing that kids mature quickly these days and if the parties are closer to 14 or 15, I would still involve the parents, but will less finesse or sympathy.


For the sake of discussion, lets then assume the parties are adults and that the jury was not composed of IJ's per 70.5.  In this case, the decision of the PC to find your request for redress invalid (for what ever reason) is appealable per 70.1(a) and appendix R. Beyond the first sentence of RRS 66, there is also a great but seldom utilized option where a PC can make the decision to invoke 70.2 and request a 'self-appeal' of it's own decision to the National (or regional) Authority.  



Why is this relevant?
OP did not give any indication that they had any grounds to dispute [in]validity.



If employed, self-appealing could then resolve a submission or validity issue where the Appeals Committee could either apply a directive, or ask the PC to re-open and consider more consequential action.


Otherwise, Paul Z. and Bill H. have provided you with good guidance in referencing Cases 34 and especially the new Case 138.  The decision of Case 34 concluded that, "Such a clear breach of of rule 2 should be dealt with severely" and, "The PC could have called a hearing under 69.2".


I think there’s a significant difference of degree here. In Case 34, the race committee observed a blatant breach, acknowledged by a wave from the competitor, with no evident excuse.  In OP’s case, and on Boat A’s evidence alone at this stage, we have one breach of rule 11 with contact, allegedly acknowledged by the words ‘OK’ and sailing on.  I think this is a good deal softer than Case 34.


Worth noting here and what I feel should make this scenario crystal clear to all juries and parties in todays world is that Case 34 was derived from a qualifying event leading up to the 1984 Olympic Games - and that the recent removal of the word "gross" from the definition of misconduct would surely change the language in their conclusion from, "could have called a hearing under 69.2", to "shall" begin the new 69 protocol by appointing an investigator.


I think this is completely misconstruing the intent and meaning of the discretion of a protest committee ‘to decide whether or not to call a hearing’ given by rule 69.2( b) and ‘to consider appointing a person to investigate’ in rule 69.2( c ). Under no circumstances, ever, is a protest committee obliged to call a rule 69 hearing or appoint a person to investigate.  The protest committee’s discretion in these cases is absolute.



  Either way, all would be a valid path to a what would hopefully be a more judicial and fair result.


As far as we can see from OP, the protest committee was confronted with two invalid protests and one invalid request for redress. In all likelihood the written protests and request contained only sketchy details.  In those circumstances, I would suggest that the protest committee was perfectly judicial and fair in not taking any possible misconduct issues any further.


Procedurally and as John A. pointed out, there are no validity requirements with RRS 69.  Just as an Olympic gold medalist can (and has) be disqualified from an event when blood doping is discovered years after the games took place, there are also no time constraints for filing a misconduct 'report' to the original PC.


See rule 69.2( k ).



  Here again, the PC's decision to proceed or not proceed under RRS is also appealable per 71.2.


A protest committee’s decision to not proceed to call a hearing or not to appoint a person to investigate cannot be appealed because, unless the protest committee decides to call a hearing, there will be no person appointed (by the protest committee under rule 69.2( e )(2)) to present the allegation who would be a party with standing to bring an appeal. The person against whom an allegation has been made is hardly likely to appeal a decision not to proceed.


I hope this all perspective provides more answers than questions and that it does more good than harm, especially as you are interested in making things right and doing the sport 'right'.  You should be applauded for that.

Created: 17-May-30 23:57
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
0
Thanks John, I understand that words not defined are as ordinarily used and understood. "Good Manners" is so "squishy", I was wondering if you had any judgements that are published that were based solely on "good manners" standard, that could be reviewed to see how it has been applied (both judgements where a GM argument succeeded and failed).

Websters is of little help ..

manners plural :  social conduct or rules of conduct as shown in the prevalent customs. 

Created: 17-May-31 03:05
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
There was a very long thread in the Y&Y rules forum that discussed 'manners' (mainly foul language)

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9435&KW=rule+69&title=rule-69-whe...

There was en excellent paper presented by Bryan Willis back in 2006

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/min_RR_07_11_2006-%5b3055%5d.pdf

Some of the RYA guidance material is also useful background, For example

http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/RaceOfficials/Resource%20Cent...

Bear in mind that all this material is discussing the pre 2017 version based on gross breach of good manners.




Created: 17-Jun-01 01:13
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
0
Thanks John, that's the sort'a thing I was looking for.

So it would seem that general intent with the removal of "gross" and the ability to issue lesser penalties overall (references to graduations of penalties from warnings, thru DSQ and DNE and beyond) that organizers can use/reference 69 to help nip issue at the bud instead of waiting and using a limb saw.

Bob doesn't leave a boat enough inside room and bangs into them bending your stanchion.. "What the F*** Bob, what were you thinking?" .. in the heat of the moment is probably par for the course .. but "Bleep you Bob, you bleeping bleep .. what the bleep were you thinking you bleeping bleep" may rise to the occasion .. especially if there seems to be a pattern of such behavior from the same competitor/boat ... seems to be the general consensus.

Ang
Created: 17-Jun-01 11:36
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0

While the supposed intention of a rule is irrelevant to its application by a protest committee, here is the World Sailing Submissions for Change with rules text as finally approved
 

Submission 201-15
 
Rule 69, Appendices M & N
 
A submission from the Chairmen of the Constitution Committee, Race Officials Committee and Racing Rules Committee
 
Purpose or Objective
 
To update RRS 69 to remedy shortcomings based on experience since the current version was introduced, and in response to the undertaking to CAS to review the processes.
 
The rule should be updated to achieve the following:
 
(i) remove the concept of “Gross” misconduct as distinct to misconduct from this rule;
 
(ii) to reintroduce a rule of misconduct by supporters, coaches and similar;
 
(iii) to maintain the concept of increasing penalties determined by the severity of the misconduct;
 
(iv) to establish a higher threshold before the decision of a protest committee should be notified to a national authority or ISAF; and
 
(v) to remove from the rule the procedures to be followed by ISAF, which will be set out in a new or amended Regulation generally.
 
To improve the guidance to protest committees acting under rule 69.
 
To update RRS Appendix N (International Juries) in line with the new RRS 69 and to improve the guidance for the conduct of hearings. 229
 
Proposal 1
 
Delete rule 69 and replace as follows:
 
SECTION C
 
MISCONDUCT
 
69 MISCONDUCT
 
69.1 Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution
 

(a) A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.

 

( b ) Misconduct is:

 

(1) conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or

 

(2) conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.

 

© An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.

 
69.2 Action by a Protest Committee
 

(a) A protest committee acting under this rule shall have at least three members.

 

( b ) When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, believes a person may have broken rule 69.1(a), it shall decide whether or not to call a hearing.

 

© When the protest committee needs more information to make the decision to call a hearing, it shall consider appointing a person or persons to conduct an investigation. These investigators shall not be members of the protest committee that will decide the matter.

 

(d) When an investigator is appointed, all relevant information he gathers, favourable or unfavourable, shall be disclosed to the protest committee, and if the protest committee decides to call a hearing, to the parties.

 

(e) If the protest committee decides to call a hearing, it shall promptly inform the person in writing of the alleged breach and of the time and place of the hearing and follow the procedures in rules 63.2, 63.3(a), 63.4 and 63.6 except that:

 

(1) unless a person has been appointed by World Sailing, a person may be appointed by the protest committee to present the allegation.

 

(2) a person against whom an allegation has been made under this rule shall be entitled to have an advisor and a representative with him who may act on his behalf.

 

(f) If the person is unable to attend the hearing and

 

(1) provides good reason, the protest committee shall reschedule it; or

 

(2) does not provide good reason and does not come to it, the protest committee may conduct it without the person present.

 

(g) The standard of proof to be applied is the test of the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. However, if the standard of proof in this rule conflicts with the laws of a country, the national authority may, with the approval of World Sailing, change it with a prescription to this rule.

 

(h) When the protest committee decides that a competitor or boat owner has broken rule 69.1(a), it may take one or more of the following actions

 

(1) issue a warning;

 

(2) change their boat’s score in one or more races, including disqualification(s) that may or may not be excluded from her series score;

 

(3) exclude the person from the event or venue or remove any privileges or benefits; and

 

(4) take any other action within its jurisdiction as provided by the rules.

 

(i) When the protest committee decides that a support person has broken rule 69.1(a), rule 64.4 applies.

 

(j) If the protest committee

 

(1) imposes a penalty greater than one DNE;

 

(2) excludes the person from the event or venue; or

 

(3) in any other case if it considers it appropriate,

 

it shall report its findings, including the facts found, its conclusions and decision to the national authority of the person or, for specific international events listed in the World Sailing Regulations, to World Sailing. If the protest committee has acted under rule 69.2(f)(2), the report shall also include that fact and the reasons for it.

 

(k) If the protest committee decides not to conduct the hearing without the person present, or if the protest committee has left the event and a report alleging a breach of rule 69.1(a) is received, the race committee or organizing authority may appoint the same or a new protest committee to proceed under this rule. If it is impractical for the protest committee to conduct a hearing, it shall collect all available information and, if the allegation seems justified, make a report to the national authority of the person or, for specific international events listed in the World Sailing Regulations, to World Sailing.

 
69.3 Action by a National Authority and World Sailing
 
The disciplinary powers, procedures and responsibilities of national authorities and World Sailing that apply are specified in World Sailing Regulation 35, Disciplinary Code. National authorities and World Sailing may impose further penalties, including suspension of eligibility, under that regulation.
 
This submission, prepared by the Rule 69 Working Party, requires the submission 202-15 to add a definition of support person and new rule 3 to be approved.
 
A consequential submission regarding RRS 60 will be made separately.
 
Current Position
 
See current rule 69.
 
Reasons
 
1. The behaviour of coaches and parents has been the cause of considerable problems. The Rule 69 Working Party was tasked to resolve this. Changes in concept were presented in November 2014. This submission achieved that aim while taking into account views expressed last November and the current rule 69 does not provide means to handle these problems.
 
2. There has been considerable difficulty in determining what is and is not “gross” in the context of misconduct. Misconduct is misconduct, and if it is minor or severe the penalty will reflect that.
 
3. A general definition of misconduct is helpful in the RRS as there are many different views around the world as to what constitutes misconduct.
 
4. A Case has also been prepared and is submitted as submission 272-15. Depending on this proposal, the Case will require editing.
 
5. As the procedures for Rule 69 hearings are different from those of other hearings they should be clearly set out, both for the help of the committee and to avoid procedural error.
 
6. It should also be clear that when a protest committee appoints one of its members or any other person to act as the presenter of any case against a competitor, that individual has the same rights as a party to a protest.
 
7. It should be clear as to when a protest committees report should be forwarded to ISAF or MNA
 
8. It should also be clear what happens if either a competitor cannot attend a hearing or if the report prompting a hearing is only received after the event.
 
9. The proposed revised RRS 69 increases the threshold for reporting a breach of RRS 69 to ISAF or MNA to avoid reporting minor penalties. The grounds for this change are to avoid discouraging protest committees from taking action and to avoid MNAs/ISAF needing to handle inappropriate cases.
 
10. These changes were supported in principle by Council in November 2014.
 
Proposal 2
 
Amend rule M5 as follows:
 
M5 MISCONDUCT (rule 69)
 
M5.1 An action under this rule is not a protest, but the protest committee gives its allegations in writing to the competitor before the hearing. The hearing is conducted under rules similar to those governing a protest hearing but the protest committee must have at least three members (rule 69.2(a)). Use the greatest care to protect the competitor’s rights.
 
M5.2 A competitor or a boat cannot protest under rule 69, but the protest form of a competitor who tries to do so may be accepted as a report to the protest committee, which can then decide whether or not to call a hearing.
 
M5.3 Unless World Sailing has appointed a person for the role, the protest committee may appoint a person to present the allegation. This person might be a race official, the person making the allegation or other appropriate person. When no reasonable alternative person is available, a person who was appointed as a member of the protest committee may present the allegation.
 
M5.4 When it is desirable to call a hearing under rule 69 as a result of a Part 2 incident, it is important to hear any boat-vs.-boat protest in the normal way, deciding which boat, if any, broke which rule, before proceeding against the competitor under rule 69.
 
M5.5 Although action under rule 69 is taken against a competitor, boat owner or support person, and not a boat, a boat may also be penalized (rules 69.2(h)(2) and 64.4).
 
M5.6 When a protest committee upholds a rule 69 allegation it will need to consider if it is appropriate to report to either a national authority or World Sailing. Guidance on when to report may be found in the World Sailing Case Book. When the protest committee does make a report it may recommend whether or not further action should be taken.
 
M5.7 Unless the right of appeal is denied in accordance with rule 70.5, a party to a rule 69 hearing may appeal the decision of the protest committee.
 
M5.8 Further guidance for protest committees about misconduct may be found on the World Sailing website.
 
Reasons
 
1. These changes to Appendix M will help protest committees to conduct rule 69 matters in an appropriate manner and will also give any person subject to action under rule 69 confidence that the matter will be managed in an appropriate manner.
 
2. Following these guidelines will reduce the risk of procedural criticism should the case be appealed.
 
3. While this submission has been prepared by the Rule 69 Working Party to be consistent with the proposed changes to rule 69, Proposal 2 is a separate proposal as it is not dependent on Proposal 1 being approved. There is nothing in the current rule 69 that prohibit these procedural clarifications, except that reporting to national authorities or ISAF is different.
 
Proposal 3
1. To move rule N3.2 to N1.6 and renumber N1.6 and N1.7 appropriately.
 
2. Add new rule N4:
 
N4 MISCONDUCT (Rule 69)
 
N4 MISCONDUCT (Rule 69)
 
N4.1 World Sailing Regulation 35, Disciplinary Code, contains procedures that apply to specific international events with regard to the appointment of a person to conduct any investigation. These procedures override any conflicting provision of this appendix.
 
N4.2 A person shall be responsible for presenting to the hearing panel any allegations of misconduct under rule 69. This person shall not be a member of the hearing panel but may be a member of the jury. Such a person shall be required to make full disclosure of all material that may come into his possession in the course of his investigation to the person subject to allegations of a breach of rule 69.
 
N4.3 Prior to a hearing, the hearing panel, to the extent practically possible, shall not act as an investigator of any allegations made under rule 69. However, during the hearing the panel shall be entitled to ask any investigative questions it may see fit.
 
N4.4 If the panel decides to call a hearing, all material disclosed to the panel in order for them to make that decision must be disclosed to the person subject to the allegations before the hearing begins.
 
Reasons
 
1. Placing the current rule N3.2 into N1.6 brings all of the rules governing the requirements for constituting an international jury into one section.
 
2. An international jury conducting a hearing under rule 69 is subject to more stringent procedures than a non-international jury as an international jury decision is not subject to appeal. The more stringent procedures introduce a greater segregation of duties.

 



Created: 17-Jun-01 12:04
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
0
Perfect, great background .. thanks John. - Ang
Created: 17-Jun-01 12:29
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo Guarino said

 ... especially if there seems to be a pattern of such behavior from the same competitor/boat ... 
Of course a protest committee would need to be comfortably satisfied that each and every behaviour in the pattern had occurred before taking any account of it.
Created: 17-Jun-01 13:10
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
0
Roger .. got it.  Thanks for all the color. - Ang
Created: 17-Jun-01 15:16
Mark Clayton
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
0
Hi, New to the forum so if I am asking in the wrong place please let me know.

Involved in a basic water at the mark dispute today (dinghies in still conditions so the discussion was easy)- the usual we both thought we were correct. However, a 3 boat was also present with a clear view who then refused to give a view but was encouraging us to protest each other and they would then give evidence at the protest! Would this be considered unsporting?
Created: 18-Aug-19 18:52
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more