We’ve had a couple of recent protest hearings that were invalidated because the protestor did not sufficiently identify or describe the incident. The protestee gave a time, a location but only stated “RRS 11” on the US Sailing protest form. They did not give any details or a description of what happened. RRS 60.3 only requires them to “identify” the incident without defining what that means. I seem to recall that in the previous edition it said “describe” the incident. The current requirement to “identify “ seems overly vague.
1. Is a protest request that lists a time, location and a possible rule violated (with out a description of the incident) , enough for a protest to be valid?
2. Conversely, same protest request as in question 1 but is this grounds to invalidate the protest?
Basically, this seems to be a judgement call for PCs and I believe the RRS need to be changed to say a “description of the incident” is required. Thoughts appreciated.
60.3 Delivering a Protest
(a) When delivered, a protest shall be in writing and identify the protestor, the protestee, and the incident.
If the PC and the protestee can tell one incident from another .. IMO the incident has been identified.
I just had a case where the protestor struggled a long time trying to fill out the PDF form on a phone because the SI's required an email submission.
Frustrated with the form and running out of PTL, they emailed basically ...
"In Race 1, Boat A protests Boat B for an incident at the finish-line."
There was contact between the boats .. the "which incident" was clear to the protestee and the PC in the hearing. We found that the incident was identified.
I do think the rule would be better if it said "identify the protestor and protestee and describe the incident." With some of the protest forms I have seen there is confusion about whether the question about what rules the protestor believes were broken is sufficient for identifying the incident.
The term 'incident' is remarkably broad---see the following definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, online edition:
1.a.
1.b.
2.a. ?1462–An occurrence or event viewed as a separate circumstance.
While the specific criteria enumerated in RRS 60.3 from 2021-2024 may be elements that help 'identify an incident,' they are no longer required.
Given the term's breadth, it can be helpful to shift focus from 'incident' to 'identify. Applicable definitions from the OED include:
II. Senses relating to categorization or description.
II.4. 1675–transitive. To serve as a means of identification for; to show something or somebody to be.
II.5.c.1866–transitive. Of a witness or victim of a crime: to pick out or recognize (a suspect), esp. from a line-up or from a group of photographs.
II.6.1802–transitive. To discover, distinguish, isolate; to locate and recognize or describe.
John's approach seems both workable and, I think, consistent with what most competitors expect. The rule change for 2025-2028 gives protest committees greater discretion in determining what the phrase 'identify the incident' means. One question I've found helpful: "As written, does the hearing request enable me to distinguish this interaction as unique, different from others that may have occurred during the same race?" This would be the minimum criterion.
In one recent case, a protest committee agreed that a diagram alone, drawn to scale and with sufficient detail, could satisfy this validity requirement without an accompanying narrative.
F.2.1 Protest Contents rule 60.3(a)
The protest must be delivered in writing by the method identified in the sailing instructions. It must identify the protestor and the protestee. In almost all cases, this will be by sail number or the boat's name. If the protest misidentifies the boat, for example intends sail number 51 but writes 15, then the protest against 51 is unlikely to be upheld since 51 was not involved in the incident. If the protestor then decides to protest 15 after the protest time limit, there would not be good reason to extend the time limit.
There must be adequate information for the protestee to identify the incident and understand the allegation. When the incident is not identified, the protest will be found invalid.
We want to be hearing protests, not discouraging them.
John C said
My opinion is that if the protestee can read the form and can identify the incident and prepare a defense, then the requirement that the incident be identified has been met. If the protestee says they don't know what the protestor is talking about then the incident is not properly identified.
I would add '... and the protest committee agrees with the protestee.'
'I didn't understand the rule/protest/whatever' is the last refuge of of the scoundrel.
Here is a sample Hearing Request that I think quite adequately identifies the incident
People see the form and all the fields and they follow the form and assume that is what is required.
It's an old soapbox for me.
People understand the red-boxed fields on forms with asterisks means "required fields". IMO, protest forms should follow that format.
Interesting to ask if that meets the "in writing" requirement without using "words inscribed on a surface".
In answer, I think that the second definition of 'identify,' provided above, is on point (emphasis added):
II.5.c.1866–transitive. Of a witness or victim of a crime: to pick out or recognize (a suspect), esp. from a line-up or from a group of photographs.
At one of my events this year, the protest committee dismissed a hearing request on the grounds that it was written in a language other than English. It is my understanding that the protestor was not a native English speaker and lacked basic proficiency in the language.
Unfortunately, I was not a member of the panel that decided the case and do not have access to the original documents. I would be interested to know whether the request included a diagram---and if so, what it looked like.
At international events, especially ones where competitors are not be proficient in English, this question seems particularly relevant.
'Writing' (OED Online)
II.3.a.
The inclusion of the term 'symbols' in this definition, which is ancient but remains in current use, suggest to me that a diagram would meet the 'in writing' requirement of RRS 60.3(a).
I would add my own 2 cents.
I think the change in 2025 is beautifully and deliberately vague. It allows us to be more realistic in accepting protests as valid leading to fewer protests being lost to a technicality of a minor missing piece.
Its important to see that the vagueness can mean that the same words may work for one protest but not another. This is the beauty of it. The PC need to use some sense, as has been alluded to above.
Consider these same words on two hearing request forms:
"Port-starboard crossing. ABC on port and me (XYZ) on starboard. Near the windward mark."
Form/Scenario A - It was a 600 mile offshore race. There is only one windward mark on the course which the fleet would pass about 30 minutes after the start. After that, the boats would be miles apart for the rest of the race. A media helicopter and OBRs covered the race live on YouTube. ABC is a 100' Maxi. XYZ is an 80' mini maxi.
Form/Scenario B - It was an Optimist dinghy race. 80 boats in the fleet. The standard course passes this windward mark twice in a race. 3 races in a day. ABC and XYZ are two evenly matched competitors often seen in tacking duals.
The point is that what's needed to 'identify the incident' depends on the situation.
In the offshore race the protestor did not need much info at all to identify the incident. I dare the jury to call it invalid because the time was not mentioned.
Whereas, for the busy optimist multi-race day, the protestor was woefully short. She may need all the old 2021-2024 elements. (the protestor and protestee, the incident; where and when the incident occurred, any rule the she believes was broken etc and perhaps even more. Hails made?)
Good question Robert.
So we can state what information protestors should provide, but if the software is glitchy, all bets are off. Is there something in the RRS that covers a situation where the OA doesn’t provide the means to file a proper protest?
As an aside/tangent, it’s a great idea for OAs to always have paper backups. Software bugs happen, networks go down, phone batteries die.
Yes ... and we did actually in the protest I referred to above. 60.3(b). Struggling with required electronic systems can be "a good reason".
More and more, I am seeing SI's that state "shall be delivered electronically" or "shall be emailed to" with no option for physical delivery. So even if a PC is on-site .. you can't hand them a filing.
Along with that, links to the forms are often listed in the same SI, leaving the impression forms must be used.
Here is an example of some language I recently encountered ...
A competitor could easily read that as requiring those forms to be used with the "They shall .."
But if one flips the language it keeps it open ...
Anytime I review race docs as a PC, I always look for stuff that like and try my best to encourage the RC to open up the possibilities for filing.
If no manned race officer, do what you can and claim redress.
I like online filing and do not want to have paper documents.
Electronic is time stamped, and if alternative paper we may not record acceptance times etc.
The electronic system is populated with the filing and often an e mail to the other party.
The paper receipt has to be interpreted entered into the electronic system before you can schedule. Gives less time to the protestee.
PS: I can remember this farcical experience I had where we were standing there while an older competitor was frantically trying to use their phone. Finally they wrote it on a form .. then struggled to email us a copy of a pic of it.
We were all standing right there.
Why do we link to forms etc in SI's?
Who is it really for?
In my experience I've never seen anything like the following SI regarding delivery of protests. IMO, this is a racer-centric SI. NOR's/SI's can both inform and teach .. and we are squandering the opportunity.
SI 3.1 START At the starting signal , boats should try to be near the starting line on the prestart side, sailing fast toward the first mark. Before the start, they should go head to wind and check which end of the starting line is favored.
I think it's actually bad advice to suggest to competitors, as you propose to do, that they should not include a description of the incident, and even a diagram. A description and diagram helps to prepare the protestor for the hearing. Further, it informs the protest committee about what the protest is all about, and although the PC will form their own conclusions during the hearing based on the evidence, getting their minds going in the right direction is a good idea, I think. It's essentially an opening statement -- why forfeit the opportunity to make it?
Advice on how to fill the form should be covered in rules seminars. It could also be on a guidance flyer on the wall of the Race Office.
At the end of the day, if someone wants to write an essay, that's their loss! Equally, before the hearing (as PC) , it's my loss if I take too much time on the form.
Sure, I'll check it's identified the incident for validity. I'll glean the gist of the case. I may use some information to pre-scribe facts I can check during the hearing.
But I certainly don't make any deep inferences from it. I leave that to the face-to-face testimony of both parties.
So often, I don't read the long description at all!
undifferentiated[unprioritized] fields and spaces for unnecessary diagramsThe plain fact is the RRS only requires 3 pieces of info.
Don't we agree that is a perfectly adequate protest filing?
But SI after SI we link to PDF's that they struggle with on their phones ... and we leave the impression (by the form's existence & design and through our SI repetition) that the form is necessary and all those fields are necessary.
The RRS plainly indicates they are not necessary.
By our actions ... I think.we are indeed "training them" that filing a protest is a PITA ... when we could be leading them to a simplicity epiphany!
The clouds would part in the sky ... and as the shaft of sunlight shines upon them ... they'd fall to their knees, turn their face skyward and say "Ahhh ... it's so simple!! Why didn't they tell me before?!!l (... and why did they keep pointing me to those frick'n forms!)
LOL
Rule 63.7(b) is particularly out of step with reality. It says, "(b) A party to the hearing may request a reopening by delivering a written request to the race office (or by such other method as stated in the sailing instructions) ..." The probability that there is somebody in the race office (if there is one) after protest hearings are concluded is surely near zero, and most SIs don't specify an alternative way of delivering requests for reopening.
I think those rules should all say something like "... delivered to a race official for the event." And I agree with Ang and others that this option should be available even if there is an electronic filing option.
To my chagrin, I just discovered that RRS V2 (a US prescription for post-race penalties) doesn't even allow for an alternative to the race office. It requires that written requests for post-race penalties be delivered to the race office, full stop.