Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

'Untaking' a Post Race Penalty

John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
Should a boat be allowed to 'untake' a Post Race Penalty taken under rule T1?

Should a boat be allowed to 'unretire'?

What about when a protesting boat has insisted on a protest hearing and the protest committee decides that the protestee has broken no rule?
Created: 19-Sep-30 00:14

Comments

Leo Reise
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
2
I think the expression is “you can’t unring a bell”.
Created: 19-Sep-30 01:13
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John A., that’s an interesting question. 

Based on the other recent thread about a custom-defined “arbitration” procedure, I reviewed the rules both under Appx T as well as Appx V.  I couldn’t find anything defining “finality” of the decision to take a voluntary penalty.

We typically don’t ask “why” someone takes a post-race penalty.  That said, the idea of knowing the rationale is implied in Case 142 Answer 2.  

We hope that competitors will take a penalty or retire based on the Basic Principal of Sportsmanship and Rule 2 that they believe they broke a Rule. So what happens if a jury determines you did not break a rule?  

I think a P.C. in the right circumstance could provide the sailor the opportunity to state on what basis or belief they took a penalty.  If their reason aligns directly with a conclusion of the P.C., then maybe it’s appropriate to allow them to withdraw the penalty acceptance.   
Created: 19-Sep-30 01:41
Mike Dawson
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0
Ditto Leo, You can un-ring the bell
Created: 19-Sep-30 02:04
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
I can see this being an issue. For example, suppose a boat takes a post-race penalty based on an arbitrator's opinion that she broke a rule and in a protest hearing would be disqualified. The arbitrator's opinion relies on the evidence presented in the arbitration meeting by the protestor and protestee. 

Subsequently the protestee beomes aware of additional evidence, perhaps a race video or discussion with a witness, that indicates that what was presented to the arbitrator was incorrect and the protestee did not in fact break a rule. Wouldn't it be a fairer result for the protestee to rescind their acceptance of a post-race penalty?

Same principles could apply to a protestor's decision to withdraw her protest.

That said, it seems like SIs invoking Appendix T arbitration often state that decisions taken by the competitors in arbitration are final.
Created: 19-Sep-30 02:11
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
That said, it seems like SIs invoking Appendix T arbitration often state that decisions taken by the competitors in arbitration are final.

Yes,  but Appx T and V are silent on finality. 

Leo and Mike, I appreciate your bell-ringing position, but can you point us to something in the RRS to support your positions?
Created: 19-Sep-30 02:21
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0

That said, it seems like SIs invoking Appendix T arbitration often state that decisions taken by the competitors in arbitration are final.

Yes,  but Appx T and V are silent on finality.
 
True, but 86.1(b) allows the SIs to change those appendices to make decisions final. If the objective is to simplify and abbreviate the process when appropriate, I think making Appendix T or V decisions irrevocable via the SIs is fine. If the event is important enough that irrevocable decisions aren't appropriate, is it appropriate to have arbitration at that event at all?
Created: 19-Sep-30 02:38
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Tim, my point is that the OP isn’t talking about custom SI’s.  In doing so, you are changing the premise of the discussion.  

The question still stands, without modifying T or V, what in the RRS prevents a boat from “untaking” a post-race penalty?
Created: 19-Sep-30 02:46
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Ang,

That wasn't quite the question.

The OP question was 'Should a boat be allowed to 'untake' a Post Race Penalty?'
Created: 19-Sep-30 03:36
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Leo, Mike,

Would you care to expand your reasoning a little?

Apparently you disagree with the RYA Appeals Committee

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 61.3, Protest Requirements: Protest Time Limit
When a boat believes that she may have broken a rule and retires in compliance with the Basic Principle, she may revoke her retirement within protest or declaration time if she later realises that she did not in fact break a rule. However, if she is not acting in good faith, she breaks rule 2, Fair Sailing.
Created: 19-Sep-30 03:39
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Sorry John if I diverted your topic.  I guess I was looking at it first by seeing if the option was precluded somewhere in the rules. 

I also took it further than your RYA case to the question of a post P.C. decision. For instance ....

Suppose a boat breaks an SI and retires.  In the same race another boat breaks the same SI, is protested and the P.C. determines the SI was not allowed under the RRS. The retired boat learns of this and requests to withdraw their retirement.  
Created: 19-Sep-30 04:10
John Grace
Nationality: New Zealand
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
John, that is an interesting question. By asking whether a boat “should” be allowed to un-retire or revoke a scoring penalty you seem to be implying that some body has jurisdiction whether or not to accept the boat's decision. The protest committee certainly doesn’t have such a jurisdiction. The race committee can decide to re-score the boat. However, if one follows the argument that a boat can revoke a penalty or un-retire because there is no rule to say she can’t, then I can’t see any basis for the race committee having any discretion in that regard.

On the subject of un-retiring, it’s worth noting that the ISAF Q & A Panel considered that in 2008, in Q & A 2008/3. The Q & A Panel followed the RYA decision in general, but without imposing time limits. It seems the RYA were inventing rules there. The Q & A Panel envisaged a boat requesting redress if the race committee refused to re-score her to revoke the retirement. A protest committee would then consider the merits of the revocation under a redress hearing. That would then rely on the race committee making an almost arbitrary decision to refuse to re-score and then fitting the issues within the criteria and procedures for redress, which seems to me very unsatisfactory.

I understand that the accepted wisdom is that a boat who retired or who took a voluntary scoring penalty can revoke it because there is no rule to say otherwise. However, in my limited understanding, I can’t say that the reasoning for that is either very convincing or very practical. 

Created: 19-Sep-30 06:58
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
John G,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Thanks for the jurisdictional point, which I hadn't thought of, and also for the old Q&A which I've since looked out.

I agree that the RYA time limit of Protest Time Limit is downright arbitrary, and embarrassing for want of any attempt at rationale.

It seems to me that there are two 'principles' in tension here, and perhaps you will be more adept at running this argument than I am.

First the 'principle' of 'justice', and secondly the principle of finality.

I think the general principle of 'justice' should prevail over the principle of finality. I seem to recall that, for example, court rules about leave to appeal often include a get-out 'when the interests of justice require'.

It seems like a pretty patent injustice to me that a boat that has been found to have broken no rule should be held to an irrevocable taking of a penalty.

Any further thoughts?


Created: 19-Sep-30 11:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John G, your reply addresses a couple thoughts I had.  What do you think of the following?

One idea you brought-up was time limit. I think Appx T, which John A’s OP sites in one part, envisions a voluntary penalty in the Arbitration process. This would imply that a protest had been filed (though not necessary).  The TL under Appx T is before the hearing opens. By accepting an after-race penalty, the hearing is never held and arguably the clock suspended as the protestor would have agreed to withdraw their protest.  Therefore, in this instance the penalty-taken is inexorably tied to the protest withdrawn. Take back the penalty, the protestor would need to be given the opportunity to “withdraw their withdraw” and if so, a hearing should be scheduled and heard. 

On the other hand, if Appx V or T are not involved and a boat simply retires without being protested but because they believe they broke a rule, I would argue there is no time limit.  As we’ve seen in Q&A 2017-007 there is no time limit for a boat to retire if they learn that they broke a rule at a later time. If that is true, then the opposite should be true as well. If a boat retired without being protested, just on their sense of sportsmanship, but later discover that they did not break a rule, they should be able to withdraw their retirement. 

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 

This does bring up process and notice.  I like your play by play that, assuming this penalty/retirement has left the PC’s hands (has gone to the RC for scoring), that this necessarily has to be a redress process and notice to the parties. 
Created: 19-Sep-30 12:34
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Ang,

Post Race Penalty under rule T1 is NOT tied to the existence of a protest or to arbitration.  If there is no protest hearing, there is no time limit on when a Post Race Penalty may be taken.

There is certainly no mention in Appendix T of any time limit when a Post Race Penalty may be 'untaken', although the RYA Appeal specifies the Protest Time Limit or Declaration Time:  John G and I agree that this is purely arbitrary (but I would be interested in any arguments about what might be a sensible time limit).

Don't assume that the protesting boat in an arbitration will withdraw their protest if the protestee takes a Post Race Penalty.

I'm pretty sure that anything that can be said for a Post Race Penalty applies equally to RET.
Created: 19-Sep-30 13:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John A 
Post Race Penalty under rule T1 is NOT tied to the existence of a protest or to arbitration.  If there is no protest hearing, there is no time limit on when a Post Race Penalty may be taken

We are in agreement.  That’s what I thought I said when saying “this would imply a protest (but not necessary)”. 

And later I believe my post also aligns with your thoughts when I discussed the RET taken in the absence of a protest.  As you say, if T was around, an aware competitor would take the % hit instead.   Some competitors don’t understand that they can do that outside of arbitration. I’ve had to point that out more than a few times. 
Created: 19-Sep-30 13:33
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
John, T1 (c) details how the competitor takes the penalty by contacting the arbitrator or member of the protest committee and delivers a written statement.  How do they do this when there is not a protest filed.  It says that she accepts the penalty....  If there has been no arbitration or hearing, how does he/she in the future time determine that they are not really guilty and should "unretire"? 
Does the jury have authority to reinstate someone whom they did not DSQ in the first place?

Created: 19-Sep-30 16:57
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Hornet's nest.
Why limit to post-race penalty or withdrawal?
How about penalty turns or retirement taken in error? Seek redress for time or place lost unnecessarily!
(Not a serious question. Only addressing the trouble that unringing creates for PC, RC, and the fleet.)
Created: 19-Sep-30 20:16
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
As has been noted, the rules don't specifically prohibit a boat from revoking a post-race penalty or retirement decision. But neither do they provide a mechanism for doing so. The original decision is the boat's alone (even if advised by an arbitrator), the provisions for notification to the RC or PC of retirement or taking a penalty are spelled out in the rules/SIs. 

There are no instructions or provisions for revoking this decision once notification has been made. There is no notification requirement. There can be no reopening or appeal as the penalties are not the result of a hearing. It doesn't meet the standard for redress. It's not a scoring error. 

So I think in this case the rules' silence = absence of consent and these decisions can be considered final and irrevocable.
Created: 19-Sep-30 20:40
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Lloyd Causey
said Created: Yesterday 16:57
John, T1 (c) details how the competitor takes the penalty by contacting the arbitrator or member of the protest committee and delivers a written statement.  How do they do this when there is not a protest filed.?

They deliver to a member of the protest committee a written statement ....

This assumes that a protest committee, with members has been appointed.  If that is the case, there is absolutely no need for there to be a protest delivered.

I guess the drafters of Appendix T did not consider cases where the OA/RC appoints a protest committee ad hoc, only after a protest has been delivered.  In that case, I would be quite happy if the written statement was delivered to the race office as for a protest, and immediately acted on by the race committee.

  It says that she accepts the penalty....  If there has been no arbitration or hearing, how does he/she in the future time determine that they are not really guilty and should "unretire"?

A number of ways, including:
  • new evidence
  • more careful consideration of the rules.
 
Does the jury have authority to reinstate someone whom they did not DSQ in the first place?

Generally, yes:  they can give redress.

But, particularly, for 'untaking' penalties, see John G's discussion.

There being no rule about whether or not a boat can 'untake' a penalty, and no notion in the rules about a boat being 'allowed' to take, or 'untake' a penalty, a boat CAN take (by doing the things the rules prescribe) a penalty, and 'untake' a penalty, in any sensible way, but presumably by written notice,  because the rules are silent.

If a boat 'untakes' a penalty, and the race committee does not reflect this in the results, the boat can request redress for an improper omission by the race committee, and if John G (reluctantly), or I (happily) am on the protest committee, she will be given that redress, provided there is no evidence of unsportsmanlike conduct such as having discouraged a protest by accepting the penalty in the first place.


Created: 19-Oct-01 03:27
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Philip Hubbell
said Created: Yesterday 20:16
Hornet's nest.

Maybe, but it will be less of a problem if we have a cool think and a discussion about it, before it hits us in the middle of a regatta.

Why limit to post-race penalty or withdrawal?

Because this thread was sparked off by another thread about Arbitration, finality and appeals, hence post race penalties, and because there is the RYA Appeal about UnRetiring..

Bit why not indeed?

How about penalty turns or retirement taken in error? Seek redress for time or place lost unnecessarily!
(Not a serious question. Only addressing the trouble that unringing creates for PC, RC, and the fleet.)

Well, I think it's a serious question, otherwise I wouldn't have started the issue running.

A Turns Penalty is a bell that cannot be unrung, except that a boat might be entitled to redress under rule 62.1d, if some unsportsmanlike action, like a Case 47 deceptive hail, caused her to take the turns.

A rule 44.3 Scoring Penalty:  suppose a boat takes a scoring penalty by flying the yellow flag.  Another boat, seeing the yellow flag bases her tactics on that, and, for example, does not cover the yellow flag boat, who picks up a shift and romps home well ahead.  This would indicate that boats should not be allowed to 'untake' a rule 44.3 scoring penalty, but if the circumstances for rule 62.1d applied as above, maybe redress could be given.

Retirement:  see John G's discussion above, and the RYA Appeal.

Post Race Penalty is different:  there is no physical llimitation preventing it being 'untaken' and nobody has relied on it to their detriment (assuming the not taken to discourage a protest, or other unsporting reason condition).
Created: 19-Oct-01 03:40
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
said Created: Yesterday 20:40
As has been noted, the rules don't specifically prohibit a boat from revoking a post-race penalty or retirement decision. But neither do they provide a mechanism for doing so. The original decision is the boat's alone (even if advised by an arbitrator), the provisions for notification to the RC or PC of retirement or taking a penalty are spelled out in the rules/SIs. 

There are no instructions or provisions for revoking this decision once notification has been made. There is no notification requirement. There can be no reopening or appeal as the penalties are not the result of a hearing. It doesn't meet the standard for redress. It's not a scoring error. 

So I think in this case the rules' silence = absence of consent and these decisions can be considered final and irrevocable.

Consider the example I suggested in the OP

What about when a protesting boat has insisted on a protest hearing and the protest committee decides that the protestee has broken no rule?

Do you think it is fair that a boat that has been formally found to have broken no rule should be penalised?

Do you think it is wise, in the absence of any express rule, to be inferring an unwritten rule that a boat in these circumstances should be prevented from avoiding her unmerited penalty?
Created: 19-Oct-01 05:39
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I asked the RYA appeals committee a question on revoking a post race penalty and they said you could not do it.
I wanted to when parents said children who had accepted the penalty did not understand what they were doing. With post race it is consensual so you cannot have a reopening o appeal.
I believe once accepted that is it for all time. The other boat may have withdrawn a protest as the penalty was accepted. Finality seems important
Created: 19-Oct-01 11:38
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mike, given your RYA input, what could be done (if anything) in the hypothetical I previously posted (repeated below)?

Suppose a boat breaks an SI and retires.  In the same race another boat breaks the same SI, is protested and the P.C. determines the SI was not allowed under the RRS. The retired boat learns of this and requests to withdraw their retirement.  
Created: 19-Oct-01 12:00
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I think she can withdraw the retirement, but the RYA says this should be within the protest time limit.
I think as the protest saying the SI was bad was probably after the limit the the limit would be extended.
As there was an invalid si I would have thought if the boat could not withdraw it's retirement it could claim redress fo the incorrect SI.
Created: 19-Oct-01 12:26
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
I always considered if the rules don't specifically define an right such as withdrawal of withdrawal then that right does not exist. It takes World Sailing years to work out new rules and getting the verbage correct is not easy.  National Authorities don't have the rights to make rules.

Consider P & S have an incident and protest is hailed and flag posted.  After the race P tells S "there is no need to file a protest because I am accepting blame and filing with the RC now". P withdraws and S does not file a protest.  After protest time expires, scoring is finished and trophies given, some friends convince P that he may have won the protest if it was filed.  Most of the RC have left to go to dinner and P finds them in a restaurant and demands that his withdrawal be withdrawn.  Since protest time he expired and the jury is also out having dinner or driving home then A has no opportunity to protest. 
How is this resolved within the rules as they now exist?
Created: 19-Oct-01 12:59
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
The port boat having withdrawn at this late time cannot go back it.
If it had been earlier and he had tried to withdraw it should have been refused in these circumstances as the starboard boat did not protest because of it.
To me any attempt at withdrawal would be a RRS 69 matter of Misconduct. A Breach of good manners or sportsmanship.
Created: 19-Oct-01 13:05
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Mike I agree 100%
Created: 19-Oct-01 15:47
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Mike B,

If a boat can withdraw a retirement (bearing in mind that Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules says retirement is a penalty), how is retirement any different from a post race penalty?

How is the taking of a post race penalty 'consensual' when retiring after finishing is not?

And one might ask, with respect to rule T1, 'consensual among whom'?
Created: 19-Oct-01 22:25
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Rather than "consensual" I think "voluntary" is the right word.

The decision to retire or take a post-race penalty is the boat's alone. They notify the RC and are scored according, no concurrence or consent is required. 
Created: 19-Oct-01 23:41
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I as a race official follow the WS and my National Appeals panel. 
I was told you could "Unretire" I was told you could not reverse a post race penalty, when I had hoped you could.
Just as I do not agree with all the rules I do not necessarily agree here. I follow what I am told, as ask to get clarification, so my decisions are in line with requirements and not appealable.
With the post Race penalty though, the procedure interfaces with others so withdrawing has implications, especially if a protest on the basis of it has not been lodged or one has been withdrawn with the consent of the protest committee. 
Created: 19-Oct-02 10:22
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Thanks Mike. I take your point about consistency with National guidance.
Created: Sun 23:47
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Summing up this thread so far.

The OP question was deliberately normative about what 'should' happen.  It was not about what 'could' happen or what the RRS permitted or prevented.  Regrettably most posters have focused on the latter.

Those that have addressed the 'should' or 'fairness' issue seem to be agreed that

  • It is not fair that a boat that has been found to have broken no rule should be held to an irrevocable taking of a penalty;  and
  • Following the reasoning in the RYA Case, and the old Q&A,there being no rule about whether or not a boat can 'untake' a penalty, and no notion in the rules about a boat being 'allowed' to take, or 'untake' a penalty, a boat CAN take (by doing the things the rules prescribe) a penalty, and 'untake' a penalty, in any sensible way, but presumably by written notice,  because the rules are silent.

I'd welcome any further discussion about the 'should' or 'should not' issue.




Created: Sun 23:57
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I do not agree with your finding.
A boat takes a post race penalty as possible insurance against further punishment, whether he actually broke a rule or not is irrelevant. You take the penalty and that is it, no way back.
Created: Yesterday 13:08
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Well it seems like when addressing whether an action "should" be allowed or is more "fair" it's logical to first look at whether it's allowed by the rules as they currently exist. But anyway:

First, "un-retiring" seems like it would have to be limited to the case where a boat sailed the course, finished and retired after finishing, no? If a boat retires and doesn't finish there's no point in un-retiring since they'd then be scored DNF instead of RET. And if a boat retires and continues to sail the course it's unfair to other boats who no longer consider that boat a competitor, and the "temporarily retired" boat which is no longer racing risks breaking 24.1 in any interaction with a boat that is still racing. So in my opinion, out of fairness to all boats, any retirement prior to finishing should be regarded as irrevocable as the retirement has changed the competition for all boats.

Allowing a boat to rescind her RAF may be fair for that boat but I agree that it's only fair for all if it takes place within the protest time limit (or if the time limit is extended by reason of the un-retirement). If it's fair for a boat to un-RAF, it seems like fairness requires that boats, race committee, protest committee, etc. should have the opportunity to protest the un-retiring boat.

It seems obvious that a turns penalty can't be "un-taken." It would be difficult to find a fair solution in offering redress for a boat that did penalty turns and then decided that she didn't really have to.

Likewise, I don't think a boat that signals that she intends to take a scoring penalty during a race should be allowed to revoke that decision. Once the yellow flag is up I think it has to stay up. As with retiring while racing, a boat announcing that she's taking a scoring penalty has changed the state of play for all boats and there's no way to unwind that to make it fair for all boats.

I guess I could see where it would be fair for a boat that decides to take a post-race scoring penalty to be allowed to rescind that decision, but again it's only fair for all if others are still able to protest that boat.

And I guess that I would still come down on the side that since retiring or taking a scoring penalty is a decision by the individual boat, not something imposed upon them, it's not unreasonable (that is, not unfair) to hold the boat responsible for her decision and not allow either un-retirement or un-taking a scoring penalty. In my opinion, a boat should consider those decisions irrevocable and decide accordingly.
Created: Yesterday 14:35
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
said Created: Today 14:35
Well it seems like when addressing whether an action "should" be allowed or is more "fair" it's logical to first look at whether it's allowed by the rules as they currently exist. But anyway:

First, "un-retiring" seems like it would have to be limited to the case where a boat sailed the course, finished and retired after finishing, no? If a boat retires and doesn't finish there's no point in un-retiring since they'd then be scored DNF instead of RET. And if a boat retires and continues to sail the course it's unfair to other boats who no longer consider that boat a competitor, and the "temporarily retired" boat which is no longer racing risks breaking 24.1 in any interaction with a boat that is still racing. So in my opinion, out of fairness to all boats, any retirement prior to finishing should be regarded as irrevocable as the retirement has changed the competition for all boats.

That makes sense.

Allowing a boat to rescind her RAF may be fair for that boat but I agree that it's only fair for all if it takes place within the protest time limit (or if the time limit is extended by reason of the un-retirement). If it's fair for a boat to un-RAF, it seems like fairness requires that boats, race committee, protest committee, etc. should have the opportunity to protest the un-retiring boat.

The old Q&A John G referred to (Q&A 08-003) was more circumspect, proceeding from the position that there is no rule addressing whether or not a boat should be 'allowed' to retire or 'unretire', and said, addressing only Retiring After Finishing, as follows:

In the event that another boat did not lodge or withdrew an otherwise valid protest based on the original retirement of the boat, the protest committee should extend the time limit and hear the 
protest.

If the boat did not act in good faith, such as, attempting to avoid being protested by first retiring and then rescinding that retirement, she breaks rule 2, Fair Sailing. Her breach may even be a gross breach of sportsmanship and justify a hearing under rule 69.

It seems obvious that a turns penalty can't be "un-taken." It would be difficult to find a fair solution in offering redress for a boat that did penalty turns and then decided that she didn't really have to.

Likewise, I don't think a boat that signals that she intends to take a scoring penalty during a race should be allowed to revoke that decision. Once the yellow flag is up I think it has to stay up. As with retiring while racing, a boat announcing that she's taking a scoring penalty has changed the state of play for all boats and there's no way to unwind that to make it fair for all boats.

RYA Case RYA2001-02 bluntly says

When a boat retires in compliance with rule 44.1, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a Penalty, for having gained a significant advantage or causing serious damage in the act of touching a mark or breaking a rule of Part 2, that is irrevocable.

That, and you argument about on-water Scoring Penalty seem likewise eminently sensible.

I guess I could see where it would be fair for a boat that decides to take a post-race scoring penalty to be allowed to rescind that decision, but again it's only fair for all if others are still able to protest that boat.

Yes

And I guess that I would still come down on the side that since retiring or taking a scoring penalty is a decision by the individual boat, not something imposed upon them, it's not unreasonable (that is, not unfair) to hold the boat responsible for her decision and not allow either un-retirement or un-taking a scoring penalty. In my opinion, a boat should consider those decisions irrevocable and decide accordingly.

I think that there are some circumstances where the decision is not entirely the decision of the boat alone, but we can discuss that a bit later on.
Created: Yesterday 22:16
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
So to the basic question "Should a boat be allowed to 'unretire'?"

With the rules as they are currently written I would say "NO".  I do not think that the RC can justify that under the current rules no matter how much verbiage you apply.

If the question is changed to "Should the RRS be changed so that a boat will be allowed to 'unretire'?"   I think that is an entirely different idea and cannot be decided by just a small group.
Created: Today 01:13
[You must be signed in to add a comment]