Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
90.2c allows the RC to change the SIs with proper notice up until the time of the Warning signal. In this case the PC changed the SIs after the race had been completed.
Surely 90.2(c) makes it impossible. Although any suggestion that it could ever be possible after the race completed seems very wierd.
I suppose changing a mark rounding or time limit where the entire fleet did something wrong in a "less formal" race (club racing rather than a national championship) might occasionally be ignored and so you could argue was amending the SIs, but I doubt they are amended as such, more ignored.
Maybe we need some context? Is this changing the way the race functions or changing some detail like adding [NP, DP]? Even then, I'd have thought if take to appeal it won't have a leg to stand on...
Are you saying they changed it after a race and are applying it retroactively? They certainly can change it after a race is completed, but it would only apply to future races. There’s no appeal or case on this because I expect that it is too obvious that you can’t do that.
Bartz .. there is a way that a PC can change an SI retroactively and that's when there is a conflict between rules.
RRS 63.5(c) tells us (the PC) to resolve conflicts between rules. If those rules are in the SI, NOR or any other documents governing the race, then we resolve that by applying the rule which results in the fairest outcome.
If enforcing the SI was not the fairest outcome .. then that SI is deleted [invalidated] in favor of the more fair-outcome rule.
I think that qualifies as a change. That's one way it could be done retroactively.
I disagree. When there is conflict the jury follow the rules nothing changes the rules in conflict. Again in redress this is very special, the si can be changed but it and the reasons are obvious.. Boats may should be parties to the redress and have a say.
Mike I think John and I are saying that by invalidating an SI it effectively deletes it .. and that is a change of a rule per RRS 85.1 (emphasis added).
85.1 A change to a rule shall refer specifically to the rule and state the change. A change to a rule includes an addition to it or deletion of all or part of it.
I don't think there's a problem with invalidating a SI.
I think that Mike is making a rather elegant point about RRS 63.5(c).
The condition for RRS 63.5(c) to apply at all is that 'there is a conflict between ... two or more rules that must be resolved before a decision can be made'/
If that trigger works, then 'the protest committee shall apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected'
If there is another redress hearing where similar circumstances apply, then the protest committee is likely to make the same decision as before, but in different circumstances, even concerning the same NOR/SI, the trigger may not work, or the fairest result for all boats affected may be different, so the decision will be different.
I was once chief judge at a Masters Regatta, a ten race regatta in So Cal that was umpired. The SIs called for the then current Addendum Q for umpired fleet racing that bared redress for damage caused by another boat breaking a rule. There was an incident that caused damage to three of the J 105’s at a weather mark. The right of way, clear ahead boat could not finish the race and requested redress. The PC heard the request and ruled that because of the restrictions in Addendum Q that the PC could not award redress.
I reported this to the OA and they asked what could be done. After some discussion, the next morning the OA gathered up the ten skippers and polled them to agree to allow the OA to change the SIs retroactively. The skippers voted unanimously to allow the change and the two damaged right of way boats were granted redress.
Highly unorthodox. And educational on the restrictions in the original Addendum Q.
Although any suggestion that it could ever be possible after the race completed seems very wierd.
I suppose changing a mark rounding or time limit where the entire fleet did something wrong in a "less formal" race (club racing rather than a national championship) might occasionally be ignored and so you could argue was amending the SIs, but I doubt they are amended as such, more ignored.
Maybe we need some context? Is this changing the way the race functions or changing some detail like adding [NP, DP]? Even then, I'd have thought if take to appeal it won't have a leg to stand on...
RRS 63.5(c) tells us (the PC) to resolve conflicts between rules. If those rules are in the SI, NOR or any other documents governing the race, then we resolve that by applying the rule which results in the fairest outcome.
If enforcing the SI was not the fairest outcome .. then that SI is
deleted[invalidated] in favor of the more fair-outcome rule.I think that qualifies as a change. That's one way it could be done retroactively.
Again in redress this is very special, the si can be changed but it and the reasons are obvious.. Boats may should be parties to the redress and have a say.
I think that Mike is making a rather elegant point about RRS 63.5(c).
The condition for RRS 63.5(c) to apply at all is that 'there is a conflict between ... two or more rules that must be resolved before a decision can be made'/
If that trigger works, then 'the protest committee shall apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected'
If there is another redress hearing where similar circumstances apply, then the protest committee is likely to make the same decision as before, but in different circumstances, even concerning the same NOR/SI, the trigger may not work, or the fairest result for all boats affected may be different, so the decision will be different.
I was once chief judge at a Masters Regatta, a ten race regatta in So Cal that was umpired. The SIs called for the then current Addendum Q for umpired fleet racing that bared redress for damage caused by another boat breaking a rule. There was an incident that caused damage to three of the J 105’s at a weather mark. The right of way, clear ahead boat could not finish the race and requested redress. The PC heard the request and ruled that because of the restrictions in Addendum Q that the PC could not award redress.
I reported this to the OA and they asked what could be done. After some discussion, the next morning the OA gathered up the ten skippers and polled them to agree to allow the OA to change the SIs retroactively. The skippers voted unanimously to allow the change and the two damaged right of way boats were granted redress.
Highly unorthodox. And educational on the restrictions in the original Addendum Q.