Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

TLE vs. DNF when starting/finish line is open

Daniel Dalgleish
Nationality: United States of America
A hypothetical situation cropped up in my head that I want to ask to everyone.

SI's state a time limit for finishing after the first boat finishes and TLE is number of finishers + 1.  Course is a triangle.  Starting/finish line is open.

Four boats think the pin of the starting line is the gybe mark and fail to round the gybe mark (conditions are rough so buoys are tricky to see).  They think they "finish" when they sail through the finish line upwind and get no sound.  The remainder of the fleet rounds all marks properly and get sounds.

Race committee initially scores the four boats that did not sail properly as DNF.  One of the four sailors sees the scores and later seeks redress in an effort to be scored TLE rather than DNF for damage control.

Since the line was open would TLE apply in this situation?
Created: 19-Jul-16 14:03

Comments

Clifford Black
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
1
As you have set the scenario, procedurally the RC is to protest the four boats alleging that RRS 28 was not complied with. A5 SCORES DETERMINED BY THE RACE COMMITTEE, limits the rules under which the RC may score a boat without a hearing.
Created: 19-Jul-16 14:27
Heiko Falch
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
-1
Counterquestion: Did the four boats finish?
Created: 19-Jul-16 14:45
Peter van Muyden
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
1
The boats met the definition of Finish.  The race committee made an error by scoring the boats DNF, should have scored the boats in position and maybe protested them.

It's not known if the boats finished within the finish time limit window.  If they did, the TLE would not come in to play.  


Created: 19-Jul-16 14:53
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
  • International Race Officer
3
The four boats that gybe around the starting line and sail through the finish line upwind, should have been scored in their finishing positions by the race committee. See definition of finish. "A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment in normal position, crosses the finishing line from the course side. ..." Note, there is no requirement to sail the course in order to finish.

If the boats know they sailed the wrong course and broke RRS 28, they should retire. See Basic Principles in the rule book. " A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire."

The four boats could request redress from the race committee for being scored DNF instead of being scored in their finishing positions. The end result would likely be that the DNF would become a DSQ, after a redress hearing and subsequent protest.

Created: 19-Jul-16 14:57
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
If the boats finish per the definition and RC is aware that they didn't sail the correct course then RC should score them in place and protest. Otherwise case 128 says they must be awarded finish points.

Seems to me if the boats become aware that they didn't sail the course correctly (broke 28) and weren't protested they should retire.

What do the SIs say about earning a TLE? Do they require a boat to finish after the time limit, or is it just awarded to all boats that haven't finished when time expires  and nev finish (in  which case what's the difference between TLE and DNF?) 

Created: 19-Jul-16 15:04
Warren Collier
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
TLE doesn't apply if they "finished" within the time limit.
As others point out - the RC would be in error if they scored the boats DNF. They should give them a finish time and file a protest with the PC under rule 28 if they saw the boats not sail the correct course. PC can then of course decide to penalize them with DSQ or whatever other penalty might be available.
Created: 19-Jul-16 15:04
Clifford Black
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Mark,
Your closing procedure is flawed.
As you have set the scenario, “after a redress hearing and subsequent protest”, is not procedurally correct under RRS 60.2(a) and 60.3(a), “... but not as a result of information arising from a request for redress ...”.
Created: 19-Jul-16 15:24
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
  • International Race Officer
1
Cliff, I agree with your comment about the protest committee not being able to file a protest "as a result of information arising from a request for redress".  See RRS 60.1(a). I had assumed that either the race committee or a boat would file after the redress hearing. However, having thought through that scenario further it presents an interesting challenge.

Assuming that the race committee has scored the four boats DNF instead of in their finishing positions and the four boats have subsequently filed for redress and been given their finishing positions.

The protest committee cannot file a protest "as a result of information arising from a request for redress". See RRS 60.1(a). The protest committee can certainly encourage the four boats to retire, but if they refuse the protest committee would not appear to have another option. 

The race committee could file a protest, as the information about the four boats breaking RRS 28 was not "as a result of information arising from a request for redress". The race committee knew the four boats sailed the wrong course before the redress, which is why they incorrectly scored them DNF. However, the race committee protest would probably be found to be invalid because it was late and there doesn't appear to be a valid reason to extend the time limit.

A boat could also file a protest against the four boats for breaking RRS 28, provided they were aware that the four boats sailed the wrong course before the redress and didn't initially file a protest against the four boats as the results showed them all scored DNF. The protest committee could then consider extending the protest time limit and allowing the late protest .

Alternatively once the redress results reinstating the four boats is posted the other boats could file for redress against the race committee for scoring the four boats DNF and see how it plays out.
Created: 19-Jul-16 17:08
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
So Cliff, I think what you're saying is that if the boats are incorrectly scored DNF, nobody protests the 28 breach and the boats request redress to be scored TLE, the redress hearing could/should give them finishing places instead. 

Mark, I agree that extending the protest time limit after the redress results were posted would be warranted. But a boat filing a protest would need to be able to offer firsthand testimony of the breach (60.1a), would they not? If they just "heard about it " I don't know that the protest would be valid. 
Created: 19-Jul-16 17:13
Clifford Black
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
1
Tim,
I cannot imagine under what Facts Found redress would be given. 
Not implying or suggesting that resolve, it goes beyond assigning a DNF or TLE score as originally presented in the scenario.
The RC and PC function under the RRS, and as chair of my regional appeals committee we have seen procedural errors carried out by the RC and PC.
I have begun my responses, "As you have set the scenario", consider this as parallel to the Facts Found. With limited Facts Found, my responses reflect what is possible under the RRS.
Let's change that up a bit and suggest mitigating conditions to the scenario presented:
- RC mark boat monitoring mark rounding discovering some boats did not sail the course and reports to PRO, RC reports finish crossing results and files protests citing RRS 28 and the boats involved
- PC on the water observes boats not sailing the course and reports to PRO, RC reports finish crossing results and files protests citing RRS 28 and the boats involved (This procedure is the most appropriate procedure in the RRS Part 3 Conduct of a Race is administered by the RC)
- Competitors observe boats not sailing the course and files protest citing RRS 28 and the boats involved
- Competitors realize they did not sail the course properly and retire after finishing
With Conduct of a Race under RRS Part 3 being covered by RC, Part 5 Protests, Redress, Hearings, Misconduct and Appeals is largely the responsibility of the PC.
The RC, PC, and competitors each have responsibilities and limitations to be pursue under the RRS.
As all race officials have learned, "it depends".   
Created: 19-Jul-16 17:59
Warren Collier
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
-So if the PC goes back to the RC and says why did you score them DNF and the RC says because they didn't sail the course and the PC correctly says - you can't do that, you had to protest them and the PC then makes a decision - 
can the RC then correct their original error by filing the Protest they should have filed in the first place since they had the information prior to the request for Redress? 

As said above, it does depend on whether the PC agrees to extend the time limit - but it would seem to me that it should given the RC made an error that the PC has to fix in the long run, the PC would do so since the information was obtained first hand prior to the Redress Request.
Created: 19-Jul-16 18:53
Clifford Black
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Among the rules to consider RRS 90.3, 60.2, 60.3

Created: 19-Jul-16 19:44
Daniel Dalgleish
Nationality: United States of America
0
Clifford thank you for all of the information you've given so far.  I think after seeing all of these responses I now understand a lot more about the process and the different ways it could go which is what I was looking for.
Created: 19-Jul-16 19:54
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark T

"Assuming that the race committee has scored the four boats DNF instead of in their finishing positions and the four boats have subsequently filed for redress and been given their finishing positions."

I think one of the scenarios here being asked is, given the original FF's and scenario as presented, could the boats request their score be adjusted NOT to their finish place, but rather TLE.  In other words, they want the PC to consider that after they crossed the line, that they, "continued to sail the course" (Def Finish.3).   They might argue, "What's the difference?".  The marks bounding the finish-line not being marks bounding the leg they are on, could traverse it in either direction as long as they "continue to sail the course". (as PC's in a redress situation, often ask the requester what redress they are asking for).

That's actually an interesting question, for if they did "continue to sail the course" and if RRS28 was adhered to, they could have crossed the finish line a 2nd time and that would be fine .. or they could have continued racing and run out of time (TLE).

As we all know, there is no rule which requires a boat to sail her "proper course" .. so if a boat having made this premature finish-line crossing .. could purposely drop anchor midway to the next proper mark and run out the clock .. or sail really anywhere and run out the clock.

So it boils down to who determines if a boat is continuing to sail the course? .. and without any requirement to sail a "proper course", what is the standard other than the word of the competitor?

Ang
Created: 19-Jul-16 21:09
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Ang, this goes to my earlier question. I don't see TLE defined in Appendix A, but would assume that it's reserved for boats that finish (according to the definition) after the time limit. A boat that continues to "sail the course" would not be eligible unless they later returned and finished. A boat that never finished, time limit or no, would be DNF and scored accordingly. 
Created: 19-Jul-16 22:46
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
  • International Race Officer
0
I think you are confusing the definition "proper course" with RRS 28 Sailing the Course.

Proper Course - Proper Course
RRS 28 Sailing the Course 28 
Created: 19-Jul-16 23:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark, I’m not confusing it, I’m just trying to make a subtle point and I’m not doing an effective job of it. Lemme give this another go. 

Boats that cross the finish line are not finished if they “continue to sail the course.”

 The question I’m proposing is how can we tell if a boat that crosses an open finish-line out of sequence “continues to sail the course”?

  1. Sailing the course is tested only by passing the marks in order and on the proper side. 
  2. I’m suggesting that the course a boat takes, after crossing the finish line out of order, is not part of that test ... as sailing her proper course is not part of the requirement.  
  3. A boat can take any heading and still be sailing the course. 
  4. Since the finish marks weren’t bounding the leg they were on, they are effectively invisible to the “sailing the course” test, if the boats continue to sail the course.

Putting that all together, a boat could cross the line out of order, sail 1/2 way to the appropriate mark for sailing the course and run out of time. Or they could drop an anchor and run out of time. Seems that as long as they don’t run their engine, they could be nearly anywhere and be considered to sailing the course when the TL is reached.

Now one might argue that a boat that does cross the finish-line out of order must make it to their next appropriate mark before the TL to be considered to have continued to sail the course after crossing.  Without reaching their next mark in order, they have no way to demonstrate that they continued to sail the course .. and therefore no ability to be scored TLE.

I actually would favor this last argument I think. - Ang 


Created: 19-Jul-16 23:43
Warren Nethercote
Nationality: Canada
0
I would have some observations from the wings:

1. No one has postulated what the SIs looked like but  TLE is generally only awarded to boats still sailing when the time limit expired.  These guys stopped sailing when they thought they finished ... I am not advocating redress, but just noting the irrationality of their request.

2. The concept of the PC extending the protest time limit to allow an appropriate RC protest is flawed.  The RC's failure to act appropriately does not appear to me to be a 'good reason for (extending the time limit).'  The RC erred and should not get a free pass.

3. The PC may be stuck with awarding redress for a DNF score, and cannot use the contents of a redress hearing to protest these boats (60.3a) but there is no restriction on use of the findings of the redress hearing as a basis for a misconduct hearing, and no time limit applies.  With the broader discretion in penalties in the post-2017 rule 69 it would be an appropriate avenue to deal with competitors who are resistant to moral suasion.
Created: 19-Jul-17 00:37
Clifford Black
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Entertain this for procedure under the RRS:
RRS 64.2 language, "shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected".
Redress Given may be no action at all to alter a boats score applying this language.
Should the PC decision be Redress Given, might the PC decision of redress be changing the scores of the boats not complying with RRS 28 from DNF to DSQ (see A10(c))?

Misconduct applies to a competitor, boat owner or support person, not a boat, so race scores will not be resolved.
A standard of proof achieving comfortable satisfaction of misconduct is unlikely.
Created: 19-Jul-17 01:23
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Cliff, how would you justify that redress decision given Case 128? It seems to say pretty explicitly that the boat can't be penalized without a protest. 
Created: 19-Jul-17 01:36
Clifford Black
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Exactly why I posed the question.
Going back to the beginning of this forum discussion, my comment, "As you have set the scenario, procedurally the RC is to protest the four boats alleging that RRS 28 was not complied with. A5 SCORES DETERMINED BY THE RACE COMMITTEE, limits the rules under which the RC may score a boat without a hearing."
Created: 19-Jul-17 02:02
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
True, but in the original post the RC did not protest (although they should have), and I don't know that it would be reasonable to extend the time limit until after scores had been posted and a redress request submitted.

Absent a protest seems like case 128 would have to be observed if the boats don't voluntarily retire 
Created: 19-Jul-17 04:03
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
  • International Race Officer
0
Angelo, in your post yesterday you made the comment that Boats that cross the finish line are not finished if they “continue to sail the course.” The definition of finish was changed in the 2013 rule book by Submission 251-11, which referenced Q&A 2009-026. The submission and Q&A appear to support the position that a boat can continue to sail the course in attempt to correct her error in sailing the course until the time limit expires.

Submission 251-11 in part reads...
Many race committees set a course that requires boats to sail two or more laps, with the added requirement that they cross the finishing line at the end of each lap. This is course is frequently used for informal local races. Technically speaking, under the current definition, the boats “finish” at the end of the first lap, but obviously that is not what is intended when such a course is used. The same issue can arise when other types of courses are used. As Q&A E7 (Q&A 2009-026) shows, there are situations when a boat inadvertently crosses the finishing line in the direction of the course from the last mark well before she has finished sailing the course. The addition of “continues to sail the course” to the second sentence proposed in Proposal 3 makes it clear that, if such a boat continues to sail the course after crossing the line, she has not finished.

Q&A 2009-026 https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/QA2009026-%5B7211%5D.pdf

This thread is probably enough reason to put you off using TLE for life!
Created: 19-Jul-17 17:16
Kathy Dyer
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
WS Case 80 is directly on point. Once the RC scored the boats DNF and one of them requests redress, the only correct action is for the PC to reverse the RC and score the boats in their finishing places. In the absence of a protest, the PC may not consider that the boats might not have complied with rule 28 because that is a separate incident. TLE should not come into the discussion at all.
Created: 19-Jul-17 17:22
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark .. we are in violent agreement .. but I'm dancing on the head of a pin again (my favorite hobby) with what I'm trying to explore.

We all agree that a boat that "continues to sail the course" has not finished.

My questions surrounded "What tests do we have to determine if a boat 'continues to sail the course'?"

I observed that 
  1. "proper course" is not invoked in "sailing the course", so a boat's course through the water following the crossing is not determinate
  2.  boats can anchor in place and still be "sailing the course", so making way or progress toward any mark is not determinate
  3. having certain sails up or down is not required by the RRS as confirmed in Case 134, so a boat taking down their jib for instance is not determinate
  4. it is often said that "state of mind" isn't part of the RRS, except for RRS 2 and RRS 69, so we are looking for physical tests on the water.

In our case, we have a boat that crosses the finish-line in the proper direction out of her 'sailing-the-course' order. I think we have effectively shown in this thread, that boat will be scored by the RC in her finish place unless protested for RSS 28, unless the RC determines that she "continued to sail the course".

With all that, I think we can determine that they "continued", if they reached and rounded their next mark, in the order required by RRS 28.  I'm putting the argument out there that, at that moment, they have completed the leg in which the finish-line crossing exists, and at that moment, their finish-line crossing should "disappear".  

If TLE is reached after that correct mark-rounding, the boat has an iron-clad case that they should be scored TLE.  Otherwise, I think their case is a bit squishier as it then relies upon her "intent" or "state of mind".

Created: 19-Jul-17 17:50
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Introduction
I think the issue really posed by the OP is whether, if the SI provide for TLE, is it possible for a boat to be scored DNF?

The normal form for a TLE SI is ‘Boats that have not finished by the TLE Time Limit shall be scored TLE [according to the following formula … ]’

Note that this is specifically designed so that boats are NOT required to sail across the finishing line after the time limit expires, and may leave the racing area directly and will receive a score of TLE.

Assume the SI follow this usual form 

Assume that boats cross the finishing line within the time limit.

There are two possibilities

  1. The triangle course includes a leeward mark downwind of the finishing line so that boats are required to sail across the finishing line in a windward direction.
  2. The ‘triangle’ course requires boats to sail directly from the wing mark across the finishing line, sailing downwind

OP says some boats  ‘sail through the finish line upwind’.


Case 1
If case 1, with a mark downwind of the finishing line applies, then boats crossing the finishing line will cross the finishing line from the course side, and unless they continue to sail the course, will have finished in accordance with the definition of finish, and if these boats have crossed the finishing lien within the time limit, if the race committee scores these boats DNF, this is an improper action.  If the race committee has concerns about these boats sailing the course and believes they should be penalised, the race committee should protest them (Case 128).

If, however, these boats ‘continue to sail the course’ they have not finished in accordance with the definition of finish and thereafter do not finish, they should be scored TLE in accordance with the SI.

Indicia that a boat is not continuing to sail the course include  furling sails, starting motors, or sailing away from the racing area, or maybe the next mark.  A boat displaying these actions can reasonably be taken to be no longer continuing to sail the course.  Conversely, a boat that continues purposefully to sail towards the next mark should be taken to be continuing to sail the course.

Case 2
In case 2, where the course requires boats to finish downwind through the finishing line, boats gybing around the pin, and crossing the finishing line sailing upwind have not finished in accordance with the definition.  They may possibly correct any rule 28 error they have made and later finish the race. If the race committee scores these boats DNF when they cross the finishing line in the wrong direction, this is an improper action.

If these boats do not thereafter finish in accordance with the definition and within the time limit, they will be boats that have not finished within the time limit and should be scored TLE in accordance with the SI.  Again, If the race committee has concerns about these boats sailing the course and believes they should be penalised, the race committee should protest them (Case 128).

Conclusion

The usual form of SI for TLE effectively substitute TLE for all cases where boats do not finish.  Under these SI it is not a proper action for the race committee to score any boat DNF

Next Question - Rule 28
Is it possible for a boat that is scored TLE or DNF to break rule 28 by failing to sail the course?

Case 112 tells us that a boat that makes, and does not correct, an error in sailing the course does not break rule 28 until she finishes.

If a boat does not finish she cannot break rule 28.

In Case 2 above, if the race committee protested boats for breaking rule 28, the protest shoudl be dismissed.




Created: 19-Jul-18 14:05
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
I think I'm coming to agree with Mark, the best answer is to avoid TLE altogether.

Seems like you could accomplish a similar result by changing A4.2 such that DNF would be scored finishers (within time limit) + 1 or 2. Scoring for DNC, DNS, RET & DSQ would remain unchanged.

Question: if a boat calculates that it's mathematically impossible to finish within the time limit so she starts her engine (before the expiration) and motors in, is she DNF or RET? 
Created: 19-Jul-18 17:11
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
said Created: Today 17:11

I think I'm coming to agree with Mark, the best answer is to avoid TLE altogether.

Seems like you could accomplish a similar result by changing A4.2 such that DNF would be scored finishers (within time limit) + 1 or 2. Scoring for DNC, DNS, RET & DSQ would remain unchanged.

Given the conclusions I reached above, I agree that you could do away with TLE and insert a new score formula for DNF.

TLE can be seen as a hangover from when boats could only be scored DNF or RAF.  That said, it's well established and meaningful, and I don't see that any of the difficulties discussed here don't apply equally to TLE or DNF.

Question: if a boat calculates that it's mathematically impossible to finish within the time limit so she starts her engine (before the expiration) and motors in, is she DNF or RET? 

A boat can't be scored DNF (or TLE) until the race has concluded.

A boat retires when she says she retires.

There are a number of indicia that a boat is no longer sailing the course, is no longer racing or has retired.  These include furling sails, starting motor, sailing away from the course or racing area.

A race committee observing these indicia at any time might infer that she has retired and score her RET:  if they are wrong in this, and the boat later informs them that she has not retired, they can correct their error.


Created: 19-Jul-19 05:06
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Mark Townsend
Said Created: Tue 17:08
 
The protest committee cannot file a protest "as a result of information arising from a request for redress". See RRS 60.1(a).
 
The protest committee can certainly encourage the four boats to retire, but if they refuse the protest committee would not appear to have another option.
 
A protest committee has no business ‘encouraging’ boats to retire or to do anything else.  The function of a protest committee is to decide protests received and perform other actions requested of it by the OA.
 
Leave the racing to the racers.
 
A boat could … file a protest against the four boats for breaking RRS 28, provided they were aware that the four boats sailed the wrong course before the redress and didn't initially file a protest against the four boats as the results showed them all scored DNF. The protest committee could then consider extending the protest time limit and allowing the late protest .
 
The issue here  is not extending the protest time limit but compliance with the requirements of rule 61.1a(3) to inform the protestee of the intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity after the other boat finishes.
 
Delay in awaiting some further action after the time described, such as waiting to see if a boat takes penalty turns, or awaiting the outcome of a hearing, is additional delay after the first reasonable opportunity after the time described.
 
Such a protest should be declared invalid by the protest committee.

 The race committee could file a protest, as the information about the four boats breaking RRS 28 was not "as a result of information arising from a request for redress". The race committee knew the four boats sailed the wrong course before the redress, which is why they incorrectly scored them DNF. However, the race committee protest would probably be found to be invalid because it was late and there doesn't appear to be a valid reason to extend the time limit.
 
The general principle of rule 61.1 is that a boat being protested should be informed of the intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity, being the first reasonable opportunity after the incidenet.
 
Delay in awaiting some further action after the incident, such as waiting to see if a boat takes penalty turns, or awaiting the outcome of a hearing, is additional delay after the first reasonable opportunity after the incident.
 
A protest committee should not find that awaiting the outcome of protest or redress hearings is a good reason to extend the protest time limit
 

 Alternatively once the redress results reinstating the four boats is posted the other boats could file for redress against the race committee for scoring the four boats DNF and see how it plays out.
 
That would be pretty silly.

The protest committee has already considered redress for that improper action, and in accordance with rule 64.2 made as fair arrangement as possible for all boats affected, and, in the USA, all boats have been afforded the opportunity to be parties to the original redress hearing.


Tim Hohmann
Said Created: Tue 17:13
 
Mark, I agree that extending the protest time limit after the redress results were posted would be warranted. But a boat filing a protest would need to be able to offer firsthand testimony of the breach (60.1a), would they not? If they just "heard about it " I don't know that the protest would be valid. 

Failure to sail the course in accordance with rule 28.1 is NOT a breach of Part 2 or rule 31.  There is no requirement for a boat protesting for breach of rule 28.1 to have been involved in or have seen the incident under rule 60.1a.

For the protest to be valid the protesting boat is required to inform the protestee(s) at the first reasonable opportunity after they finish the race (rule 61..a(3)).

While the protest might be valid, a protesting boat that did not see the incident might have some difficulty proving that it occurred.

Created: 19-Jul-19 05:18
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo Guarino
Said Created: Tue 21:09

"Assuming that the race committee has scored the four boats DNF instead of in their finishing positions and the four boats have subsequently filed for redress and been given their finishing positions."

 I think one of the scenarios here being asked is, given the original FF's and scenario as presented, could the boats request their score be adjusted NOT to their finish place, but rather TLE.  In other words, they want the PC to consider that after they crossed the line, that they, "continued to sail the course" (Def Finish.3).
 
OK, so either boats have crossed the finishing line in from the course side and should be scored in their finishing place unless they continue to sail the course or they have not yet crossed the finishing line as required by the definition and IMHO should be presumed to be continuing to sail the course.
 
The question is whether, when the boats crossed the finishing line, they had finished in accordance with the definition.

If the boats crossed the finishing line from the course side (that is, if the mark before the finishing line was a downwind and crossing the finishing line sailing upwind was crossing from the course side), the issue will be, as a matter of fact, whether they continued to sail the course, and this fact can be resolved by considering the indicia such as furling sails, starting motor, sailing away from the course or racing area.

·         If the boats did not continue to sail the course, they have finished and should be scored in their finishing positions.
·         If the boats continued to sail the course, they have not yet finished and should be scored when they eventually finish in accordance with the definition or when the time limit expires.

If the boats crossed the finishing line from other than the course side, whether they continue to sail the course is irrelevant to whether they have finished:  they have not finished, no matter what.  They should not be scored until they finish in accordance with the definition or the time limit expires.

The race committee observing indicia at any time that a boat is no longer sailing the course, may infer that she has retired and score her RET:  if they are wrong in this, and the boat later informs them that she has not retired, they can correct their error. 


Angelo Guarino
Said Created: Tue 23:43
 
 The question I’m proposing is how can we tell if a boat that crosses an open finish-line out of sequence “continues to sail the course”?
 
There are a number of indicia that a boat is no longer sailing the course such as furling sails, starting motor, sailing away from the course or racing area

 Putting that all together, a boat could cross the line out of order, sail 1/2 way to the appropriate mark for sailing the course and run out of time. Or they could drop an anchor and run out of time.
 
Anchoring might or might not indicate not sailing the course.  For example a boat may anchor against adverse tide, or for safety at a danger.
 
 Now one might argue that a boat that does cross the finish-line out of order must make it to their next appropriate mark before the TL to be considered to have continued to sail the course after crossing.  Without reaching their next mark in order, they have no way to demonstrate that they continued to sail the course.
  I actually would favor this last argument I think.
 
Consider your previous example of getting half way to the next mark:  sailing all the way to the next mark is not a good test.
 

The race committee can NOT score the boats DNF.  The race committee can either:

1.    Take it that the boats are continuing to sail the course and then if they do not subsequently finish within the time limit, score them TLE
2.    Score the boats in their place across the line and protest them for breaking rule 28 or
3.    Score the boats in their place across the line and let it ride.

If the race committee has scored the boats DNF, or scored them in their place and protested them, they may request redress (or defend themselves in a protest hearing) saying:

·         we were continuing to sail the course, had not broken rule 28.1 nor finished at the time we crossed the finishing line
·         we subsequently did not finish within the time limit and should be scored TLE in accordance with  the SI.

 

Created: 19-Jul-19 05:22
[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