RRS 63.2(c) has now come up in a few separate threads, so I thought it deserved its own so we can explore it.
Here it is below ...
63.2 (c) If the validity requirements are met, the protest committee may change the type of case if it is appropriate to do so having considered the information in the case, including any evidence given during a hearing.
We have 3 types cases (excluding a Misconduct Hearing, which exclusion seems obvious to me).
- Protest,
- Request for Redress, and
- Request to Reopen
This generates 6 possible "change of types" ...
- Protest -> Redress
- Protest -> Reopen
- Redress -> Protest
- Redress -> Reopen
- Reopen -> Protest
- Reopen -> Redress
I can think of several questions surrounding the application and use of this rule.
Timing of the Change
The last phrase implies that this change can happen at any time before a hearing is closed. Agree?
Here is what it says ...
...having considered the information in the case, including any evidence given during a hearing.
Validity
"If the validity requirements are met, ..
Each type of case has different validity requirements, with "Protest" having the highest # of possible required-steps involved.
So the question is .. "Which validity requirements need to be met?" I see 3 possible answers ..
- Valid original case-type
- Valid change case-type
- Both case-types must be valid
Case 44 gives us some guidance in its discussion ...
Discussion
The racing rules do not permit a race committee to be protested or penalized. However, the protest committee recognized A’s invalid ‘protest’ as having met the requirements of a valid request for redress under rules 61.4(b)(1) and 61.2, and correctly acted under rule 63.2(c) to treat it accordingly.
So in Case 44, the protest of the RC was invalid simply based on the information in the written protest, but met the requirements of an R4R. So #3 above is not correct. Both validity requirements do not have to be met.
Case 44 is an example of #2 above ... it was invalid original case-type, but valid when changed.
Case 44 doesn't speak to #1 scenario though, which might most likely happen when converting a redress to a protest.
We've had 2 threads now where, under U-flag, Boat B from astern pushes Boat A over the line and A is scored UFD. Boat on boat contact, but no hail of "protest" on the water and no red flag.
Boat A files a valid redress. After the PC establishes redress hearing validity, and taking "evidence during the hearing", the PC decides "it's appropriate" to change the hearing to a protest.
- Can the hearing proceed because the original case-type hearing for redress was valid? .. or,
- must the newly formed protest be deemed invalid because it fails 60.2(a)(1)?
- Is there some other theory that would allow such a redress -> protest conversion occur?
I am thinking of, injury or damage, appropriate penalty or penalisation, or Error or omission.
1. The change of type of case is to be done based on the necessity or the requirement of the parties
2. The validity requirement of the type of case must be met before one can proceed further with hearing or award of redress as the case may be.
Coming to the case " Boat A files a valid redress. After the PC establishes redress hearing validity, and taking "evidence during the hearing", the PC decides "it's appropriate" to change the hearing to a protest. "
So in this particular case the party has filed for redress which technically is awarded after another party is found to have breached a rule of part 2 and penalized. The party does not qualify for redress.
During the hearing the PC may protest the other party if it learns about any damage or injury. However, to convert the case to a protest is not the need of PC. The party which filed for redress should be asking for protest. The PC has no reason to change the case to protest.
Even if PC does so the protest would be invalid as not meeting the validity requirement.
The situation may be in any possible "change of types" ...of the case
Interestingly enough, Case
14044 says differently. In Case14044 it failed as a valid protest, but went forward as a valid R4R.eg. A form is delivered as protest but clearly describes that there is a capsize.... the competitor thinks that he wants to ask for redress as well. Would it be appropriate to change the type of the case only to conclude that the requirements of redress are not met?
e.g. 2 A form is delivered as protest but clearly describes an incident with physical damage. When the competitor realizes that he is winning the protest, he says, I want to ask redress as well. Would it be appropriate to change the type of the case?
e.g. 3 A form clearly describes in detail an incident with physical damage and all details on how the score of the boat was made significantly worse. The protest committee decides based on the information given in the form to change the type of the case (the validity requirements were met). Then, at the hearing they are about to discuss the redress and the competitor says: "I did not ask for one".
Now should they change back the type of the case? should they continue as both?
To your scenarios ..
Scenario #1: At the end of a valid protest, the PC can ask the protestor if he'd like them to consider redress and I think the PC could simply "call a hearing to consider redress for the boat" under RRS 61.1(c) after the protest hearing concludes.
Scenario #2: Same as above I think.
Scenario #3: In your preface to the scenarios, you ended with " .. the type of the case was only a protest". So in #3, the PC would first proceed as a protest and if valid, then my answer to #2. If the boat says they are not interested in redress .. then I do not think a PC would call a redress hearing for them.
In the US, unless US Rx to RRS 63.1 is deleted, the PC can't simply roll into a redress hearing. The PC shall "make a reasonable attempt to notify all boats ... " about the redress hearing ... so that necessarily requires some time and effort.
PS: To Jerry's comment about "checking both boxes" .. that's where this is handy. In the US, the notice of the R4R would have gone out and likely scheduled as the hearing following the protest hearing. Notice has already been given, and the PC then can roll-into the R4R hearing after the protest-hearing concludes, inviting in those waiting outside for the R4R hearing.
This is the reason I started the thread.
If we are saying that the original case-type filing and behaviors have to meet the validity requirements of the changed-to case-type, then converting an R4R filing into a protest is going to be nearly impossible.
My biggest take-away ... if you are compelled to break a rule, validly protest the compelling boat and file, no matter what they do on the water.
The jury finds that the red flag displayed by the protestor was an Opti red flag, 3 x 3. The protest is invalid.
The request for hearing form does describe the incident. Procedurally, is the jury allowed to transition to the redress part of the hearing? Or would the Protestor need to complete and submit a new Request for Hearing form requesting redress which seems redundant?
So, the RC can more forward with the R4R .. but unless:
... they won't meet 61.4(b)(2).
PS: If the damage was serious .. it doesn't matter that the PC learned about it in an invalid protest or an R4R as 60.4(c)(1) says the limits in 60.4(b) do not apply. The PC may protest the other boat themselves and be sure to do that validly.
There is no size for the flag but it must be displayed, if the other boat saw it or should have done then i see the protest as valid
To me it is not the size but the maner of the display.
Still when in the usa i will try to remember this.
For the rest look at the worrds in rrs.
Makes life difficult, but I believe it was a windsurfer who lost her Olympic place because of redress to another where she was not a party. Hence the prescription.
If redress had been claimed at the time it would have been resolved, but why use a protest committee/ jury when you can have your expensive day in court.
Yes the pc will need evidence an appropriate penalty was taken.
If there was damsge or injury that may just be a retirement that was recorded.
A capsized boat normally cannot claim redress. But there can be redress for damage or injury. It has to be the damage or injury that causes the detrimental score, the capsize by itself is nor sufficient.