Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
TLE vs. DNF when starting/finish line is open
Daniel Dalgleish
Nationality: United States
0
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?
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?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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 ...”.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
Proper Course - Proper Course
RRS 28 Sailing the Course 28
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”?
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
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.
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.
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."
Absent a protest seems like case 128 would have to be observed if the boats don't voluntarily retire
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!
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
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".
Next Question - Rule 28
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?
said Created: Today 17:11
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.
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.
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.