Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
NP protest
0
In the SI for an event a para read:
”NP - The safety of a boat and her entire management, including insurance, shall
be the sole and inescapable responsibility of the owner and/or entrant.”
Boat ”A” protest boat ”B” for not having a valid insurance.
How should the protestkommitte handle this protest, and what should the decision be ?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
The notation ‘[NP]’ in a rule in the Sailing Instructions (SIs) means it shall not be grounds
for protest by a boat. This change is added to RRS 60.1(a).
Each participating boat shall be insured with valid third-party liability insurance for racing risks with a
minimum cover of $300,000 per incident or the equivalent.
The OA is not responsible for verifying the status or validity of insurance certificates
I would ask the OA to avoid all this by enforcing the rules it sets for entry at ththe time of entry. After-the-fact remediation is conducive to discord.
I personally would recommend not marking this rule as [NP].
Hense boat B are not penalized, as this part of the protest cannot be heard?
Has boat A has broken a rule by protesting a NP rule?
Decision: Boat A dsq ?
The Boat A protest is not valid due to NP.
The PC can only protest if it learned in the original hearing process that there was damage or injury
However, the OA can protest and their protest would be subject to validity.
Bottom line- It’s up to the OA to decide what to do.
I don't think we want fleet members challenging each other on such things, so NP makes sense to me. It's really an entry condition, and should be applied by the OA. It doesn't affect the actual racing. Knowingly lieing about insurance is unsportsmanlike conduct on the part of the owner, not the boat, so Rule 69 seems appropriate if the lie is exposed, e.g. after a collision. But simple error wouldn't get you to Rule 69.
Beyond that, I don't see how the boat vs boat protest procedure can readily be applied. Alleging that another boat is uninsured is fishing for dirt how would the protestor know that the protested boat doesn't have insurance a propori. Moreover, does a protesting boat have standing about the existence of insurance - what is the damage to its placing caused by the alleged absence of insurance? The OA, on the other hand, can argue that competitors have an expectation of loss/damage mitigation in mind when they enter, so for the good of the event it can impose insurance requirements as part of the price of entry. In applying the rules, the OA has an obligation to be fair, and can be subject to redress if it isn't.
We have a protest, and we have to hear it RRS 63.2 (a).
First we check validity - Validity do not check which rules apply - so let´s assume all validity issues are fulfilled.
Then we start the hearing and find that:
Alt. 1:
Boat B has a valid insurance - no rule broken
Boat A has broken NOR xy - Boat A DSQ.
Alt. 2:
Boat B do not have a valid insurance - NoR xy broken.
a) If NoR xy are part of the conditions to enter, then boat B are not entered and should be removed from the competitorlist.
b) If not a condition for entering, then boat B have broken NOR xy and are DSQ for races up til this, and can not compete before he produce a valid proof of insurance.
A RRS 69 should be considered.
Boat A has broken NOR xy - Boat A DSQ.
For me this would be the correct procedure;
the question of B´s valid insurance are delt with.
the issue of A´s NP protest are delt with.
I raised this issue to establish what to do if a boat protest using a NP rule.
The SI quoted in the OP
is not a rule that it is possible for a boat to break: it does not state anything that a boat shall or shall not do.
So whether or not it is marked NP is, to a degree, irrelevant.
The NOR later quoted by Hans
Each participating boat shall be insured with valid third-party liability insurance for racing risks with a minimum cover of $300,000 per incident or the equivalent.
is a rule that a boat can break. It is not marked NP and so may be protested by any boat.
A protest relates to an 'incident'. Under the 2025 RRS there is no requirement for a protest to refer to any particular rule (RRS 60.3(b)) and a reference in a protest to a rule other than the one actually relevant does not affect the validity of the protest (Case 22). It is up to the protest committee to find relevant facts and apply the relevant rule.
Conceivably a protest committee hearing a protest referring only to the OP cited SI might overlook the Insurance NOR. I suggest that that would be a pretty inattentive protest committee.
Rob, what rule entitles an OA to protest?
Using 'may not' in rules is problematic. The 'not' can be used to negate the permission conveyed by the 'may' or it may be intended to negate the following action.
Perhaps it is useful to consider how the WS SI Guide [NP] notation operates to change RRS 60.1, and for arguments sake. lets consider the 2021 version.
WS SI Guide: The notation ‘[NP]’ in a rule of the sailing instructions (SIs) means that a boat may not protest another boat for breaking that rule. This changes RRS 60.1
2021 RRS 60.1(a): A boat may ... protest another boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless she was involved in or saw the incident;
The change to RRS 60.1 by using 'NP' is that it would now read
A boat may ... protest another boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless she was involved in or saw the incident or for a NOR/SI marked [NP];
We would not contemplate protesting and penalising a boat for mistakenly protesting for a Part 2 breach that she did not actually see: we would just declare the protest invalid.
I think the same should apply to NP.
If it is desired for a rule to forbid a boat from doing someting, don't use 'may not': use 'shall not'.
Should the PC learn from the OA that a boat may be in violation of a Rule then the PC can consider protesting a boat.
If you wanted to avoid your interpretation (which personally I would - I wouldn't want to be penalising boats for protesting, even if they were for breaches of rules marked [NP]) you could change the definition of [NP]. For example (perhaps):
"The notation ‘[NP]’ in a rule means that any protest by a boat alleging that another boat has broken that rule is invalid so far as that specific allegation is concerned. This changes RRS 60.4(a)."
Also, I am not entirely happy with your Alt 2: a) "If NoR xy are part of the conditions to enter, then boat B are not entered and should be removed from the competitorlist." I do not believe it is in the power of the protest committee to remove competitors from the entry list (or require the OA or RC to do so) - only the OA or RC can do that, and they have to comply with RRS 76.
The 'correct' procedure would have been for Boat A to submit a report to the PC that Boat B did not have the insurance required by the NoR. It's then for the PC to decide if it goes down the 69.2(b) route.
But we still have to have a hearing to check validity and then the facts to to conclude that RRS 60.4 apply - protest invalid ?
NP are NOT part of RRS 60.4, so a breach of a NP rule are not per definition invalid - and we should then decide what to do with both A and B ?
I agree that there are several smarter ways A could handle the problem - but in this scenario he did protest !
I think Hans had in mind Q&A 2018-016
That is to say a boat that does not comply with 'the requirements of the OA' is not entered in a race.
I realise that this Q&A has expired, but it seems like reasonable guidance.
I cannot see any reason why a protest committee, once it concludes that a boat is entitled to redress cannot give redress by deciding that a non-complying boat is not entered and directing the OA and race committee accordingly. In fact if this course of action is 'as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected' then the protest committee, by RRS 61.4(c), is required to do so.
The protest committee would need to look very carefully at the NOR to distinguish between the 'requirements of the organising authority' [relevant to entering the event] and other NOR items that are just rules.
I agree with Graham: there is no point in making a basic requirement for a boat to be insured in NOR [NP]. In the absence of a separate requirement for boats to provide proof of insurance to the OA, the OA/RC has no better knowledge of whether a boat is insured than any competitor, and allowing a boat to protest is the most straightforward way of dealing with this.
While I dislike over-use of RRS 69, I think that, quite bluntly, if a boat is not covered by required insurance the OA/RC should do everything possible to chase them away from the event and I agree with Mike B that RRS 69 is the appropriate formal way to do this. Note that, unlike a breach of class rules where a protest committee can disqualify a boat from multiple races under RRS 60.5(d)(3), for a breach of a NOR, unless you go the 'never properly entered at all' route, the protest committee can only disqualify a boat one race at a time.
Note also that while I think the basic 'insurance required' NOR should not be [NP], any 'provide insurance proof' requirement should be [NP}, because this is an administrative requirement solely within the knowledge of the OA/RC, and is not directly relevant to competitors.
The OP scenario, as Hans expanded it had a NOR saying Each participating boat shall be insured with valid third-party liability insurance for racing risks with a minimum cover of $300,000 per incident or the equivalent.
That NOR was not marked [NP]. A boat is perfectly entitled to protest a boat for not complying with that NOR and would be quite 'correct' in doing so.
As discussed in my previous post, that could only result in disqualification from one race, and to exclude the non-complying boat from other races it may be appropriate for the protest committee then to go the RRS 69 route.
If there is something wrong they do not pick up they may be bringing a legal liability onto themselves.
Here in the UK the RYA do not recommend it.
It then becomes a book keeping issue, not a protest issue.
We had an interesting thread on this in the past. I'll dig it up and post the link.
PS: "Enter the zombies" thread.
Q&A 2021.003
If a sailboat did not enter an event, is she subject to any rules at all?
As a clarification, can you have something (in this case, insurance) be the "sole" responsibility of two people - the owner and the entrant (assuming this was the case)? Is this not inconsistent - and if it is inconsistent, what interperetation should the protest committee put on it?
Yes .. that was the subject of the zombie thread. You had a comprehensive comment here which was then the launching point for a couple deep-dives.
On reflection, I don't think it makes any difference.
If there is an entry form with the RRS J1.2(12) words and/or other evidence of participating or intending to participate, she's agreed to be governed by the rules.
My problem is that this 'rule' does not state anything that a boat shall or shall not do, so it cannot be broken.
Still interested to know whether if it's ambiguous it still stands. In more general terms, are these NOR/SI ambiguities dealt with like redress - to make the fairest possible outcome for all - or strictly interpreted - if ambiguous then unenforceable in some situations (and maybe so unenforceable in all?)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'whether ... it still stands'.
Writing an ambiguous NOR/SI may be an improper action, but there's no specific rule that says NOR/SI must be unambiguous or must make sense. An OA/RC can write 'Mary had a little lamb' and it breaks no rule.
Well, within the ambit of the RRS, the only way a NOR/SI can be 'enforced' is by a protest committee, either deciding a protest or giving redress.
Given that the SI does not specify anything that a boat shall or shall not do, it can't be broken by a boat, so that rules out a protest.
So, suppose a boat requests redress asserting that it is ambiguous and that it is therefore an improper action.
Before a protest committee goes anywhere near considering 'as fair an arrangement as possible' under RRS 61.4(c) it must conclude that a boat is entitled to redress, applying the usual three criteria:
I don't think the 'responsibility' for insurance can have any effect on a boat's score or place, so the conditions are not made out and no boat is entitled to redress.
Hmm .. again except when it comes to issues of "entry". The OA can "enforce" issues of "entry" administratively.
IMO, the insurance is an issue regarding an entry requirement.
Hans offers further information to his OP with the NOR's and SI's in follow-on comments. Here they are all combined.
So, if the intent was to make not having insurance "NP", then "NP" should have been on the NOR, not SI. Having it on the SI as worded is not clear IMO.
OK .. but let's assume that "NP" was on the NOR to make the issue at hand clear.
In the event Boat A learns that Boat B does not have insurance, Boat A should notify the OA and the OA should then ask Boat B for proof of insurance, and if it does not exist the OA should exclude Boat B from the event unless it is remedied. I think this is done administratively, not through a protest process (the Q&A is pretty clear on that Q&A 2021.003)
IMO (not being a lawyer), if an OA was so notified, but the OA allows Boat B to compete and that boat causes serious injury or damage and Boat B does not have the ability to cover the costs, I would think the damaged boat (or injured people) could potentially have a case to be made against the OA for negligence (or whatever the proper legal term is).
Yes, the documents state that it is not the responsibility of the OA to research and verify insurance for each boat. That seems to me (again not being a lawyer) to be different than being notified that a boat lacks insurance and turning a blind-eye.
PS: Sort'a reminds me about trees falling from a storm. If a storm comes through and a tree falls, well .. that's an act of Nature. If on the other hand you inform your neighbor in writing that their tall dead tree needs to be taken down because it is a hazard, and they do nothing about it, I believe that's a different situation in the US when that tree comes down and destroys your house.
The oa could refuse entry before the first race but it does not have to do so.
The np is regretfully.
But sailing with no insurance when you should have it is misconduct.
A report should be put to the PC who have the power to remove the boat from the event.
Why complicate this is what a PC or jury are for.
It is our unique position and justifies the cost of asking us!
I have misgivings that the effect of Q&A 2021.003 is, as you contend, to give an OA power to unilaterally act to exclude a boat from an event after having permitted her to race in at least one race. This requires the OA to invent an entirely new procedure that is nowhere described or mentioned in the RRS.
It seems to be exactly contrary to RRS 76.1(a), which, as far as I can see, expressly prohibits this very thing.
Even for something more fundamental than insurance, let's say not paying the entry fee, once the OA has relinquished their leverage by allowing the boat to sail in a race, I think they can't go back and cancel the entry without going the RRS 69 route.
As I discussed in the Zombies thread there are all sorts of 'soft' factors that a wise OA would need to consider.
The Q&A is not authoritative .. so of course one could just say they got it wrong.