Here is a philosophical question. Here is the rule:
60.2 Intention to Protest- If a protest concerns an incident observed by the protestor in the racing area:
- If the protestor is a boat, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and, if her hull length is longer than 6 metres, conspicuously display a red flag, at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing.
If it makes sense that a simple hail of "protest" is sufficient notice of intention to protest in a 5.5 meter boat, what is the rationale for why it insufficient in a boat 6 meters and greater?
A redflag generally means a protest, if seen as it should be you can take a penalty.
I like the flag, as a protest committeeit is easyif you gave flown it.
To me optimists and other small singlehanded boats had developed simple ways of displaying flags.
I agree the size distinction is not justifiable.
All boats should display flags if it was my call.
Secund thing, imagine a TP52 race with a lot of noise onboard due to the fact of carbone structure, do you really think you could hear « protest » !
As to Didier's question: kodak film cannisters, under the boom. But we don't use film anymore ...
1. A boat should know if she has broken a rule.
2. A boat that has broken a rule is required to take a penalty even if there is no hail or flag.
3. It therefore follows that to only take a penalty if and after the protest notification requirements have been met is at the least verging on unsportsmanlike conduct.
4. Given a really strict and literal interpretation of 44.2 it could be held that the time interval for hearing a hail and seeing a flag exceeds the delay permissable for starting to get clear of other boats, and therefore makes the alternate penalty invalid.
My own view is less extreme. I find it unacceptable that a failure to follow procedure precisely on the part of the injured party should constitute a get-out-of-gaol-free for the guilty, but it could justify a PC imposing a lesser penalty than disqualification.
I'd like to respond point by point.
The RRS don't deal with what a boat 'should' do: they state what a boat is required or entitled to do.
It is not a breach of sportsmanship for a boat or competitor to not know or not understand a rule. There may be consequences but there is no obligation.
It may be that a boat will not necessarily know that she has broken a rule. Consider Case 50. A port tack boat can cut it fine, and the helm may be concentrating on steering. They may not know whether the starboard tack boat changed course or not. The port tacker may believe that there was no reasonable apprehension of collision, and the starboard tacker may believe the conntrary: it will be up to the protest committee to determine reasonableness.
This is referring to RRS 2. You can't possibly 'clearly establish' that a boat breached a principle of sportsmanship by not taking a penalty for breaking a rule if she doesn't know that she broke the rule in the first place.
If it's 'verging' on unsportsmanlike conduct then it is not clearly established and RRS 2 is not broken.
I heartily dislike attempts to turn RRS 44, which is permissive, or grants an entitlement: 'a boat may take [an on-water] penalty ...' into an obligation that a boat must take a penalty, by the route of RRS 2.
See my other post: I don't agree that a strict and literal interpretation of RRS 44.2 means 'instantly'.
Here's some history
Red Flag
Prior to 1961(?) the purpose of the red flag was to inform other boats that a boat was 'sailing under protest'. The red flag was the primary means of signifying this information, and was required, at least since 1947, to be displayed at the first reasonable opportunity.
Up to 1985, the requirement to inform the protestee orally was ancilliary and was not time limited: Rule 68 merely provided A protesting yacht shall try to inform the yacht she intends to protest that a protest will be lodged.
My personal recall is that in the late 1960s/early 1970s, at least by convention, for Lasers, a white handkerchief was acceptable in lieu of he red flag.
I'm not sure when the under size dispensation for dinghies was introduced, but I recall that it was originally 20 feet, which was exactly the loa of a Flying Dutchman.
The argument for introducing the dispensation was that for trapeze or solo boats it was impractical to display the flag without delay after an incident in manuy cases
Hail
The requirement for an immediate hail was introduced in 1985 in support of taking on-water penalties, which were introduced at that time as 'alternative penalties'.
The 1985 rules added the requirement for an immediate hail: A protesting yacht shall try to inform the yacht she intends to protest that a protest will be lodged. When an alternative penalty is prescribed in the sailing instructions, she shall hail the other yacht immediately.
The requirement that the hail include the word 'Protest' was introduced in the 1995 rewrite.
The hail thus became the primary means of informing the protestee, or perhaps better said the means of informing the protestee became the hail and flag together [at the first reasonable opportunity for each].
The requirement that the hail include the word 'Protest' was introduced in the 1995 rewrite.
Considering the background it is clear that the ONLY purpose of the hail of 'protest' is to facilitate the taking of a penalty.
Practicalities
In a small solo or trapeze boat it is often impractical to display a red flag without delay and continue to sail the boat to advantage. Incidents will usually take place at fairly low relative speeds between boats so that it will be usual for a hail to be readily heard.
For larger boats, it is usually quite possible to display a red flag immediately after an incident without affecting the performance of the boat. Larger boats may have greater speeds of separation after an incident so that it may be impractical to repeat an indistinct hail, and confirmation by the display of the red flag us useful. A protestee may be unsure that they have heard a hail of protest, but the red flag may assist them to make the decision to take an on-water penalty.
Protests were extremely rare. It was unusual to have a protest at a Championship .
Few people carried a red flag.
The red flag requirement served only to discourage protests and discredit the rules enforcement process.
And yes, we were lectured just as much then about how easy it was to carry and display a flag, and how it wasn't a pointless bureaucratic imposition, but the plain fact is that flags weren't carried, the rule was strongly resented, it did absolutely nothing to make the sport better and the removal of the requirement was arguably the best rule change of the era.
68. Should the owner of any Canoe duly entered for a Race consider that he has fair ground for complaint against another Canoe for foul sailing during the Race, or for any 'violation of the Club Rules, he must signify the same to the Racing Committee or Officer of the day on the first opportunity. The protest shall be made in writing, and delivered to the Racing Committee or Officer of the day within two hours after the arrival of the protesting Canoe at the winning post; and a sum of 5s shall be lodged with each Protest, which amount will be forfeited to the Club, provided the Protest is adjudged to be frivolous. The Racing Committee or Officer of the day shall, after hearing such evidence as they or he may think necessary, decide the Protest, and such decision shall be final unless they or he think fit, on the application of one of the parties—or otherwise—to refer the question at issue for the decision of the Committee of the Club. No Member of Committee shall take part in the decision upon any disputed question in which he is directly interested. In all cases in which a protest is lodged on the ground of foul sailing, evidence of actual contact, such as collision or grounding, shall be necessary to substantiate the Protest. The Racing Committee or Officer Of the day may, without Protest, disqualify any Canoe which to their or his knowledge has committed a breach of the Rules.
So the OA was asking Judges/Umpires to give them refereed racing. Were you OK with that?
So what? If you were satisfied that they took an on-water penalty you could withdraw the committee protest, or if not immediately satisfied, go ahead with a hearing and maybe conclude that they had taken an applicable penalty and not penalise them further.
Only if the NOR/SI have switched off RRS D2.1(b) which always requires a red flag.
Don't your team racers have red flags sewed into the cuffs of their sailing shirts?
If the hail is incorrect (NOT FIRST) or the flag slow then we are quick to say the protest is invalid.
We are less harsh on late penalties being taken, though there do not often come before a protest committee
I don't think I have ever declared a protest invalid because there was a hail of 'protest' around about the time of the incident, but that it was a few seconds too late.
My experience has been that late hails have been distinctly delayed, say until the next cross or mark rounding or after finishing.
There are numerous helpful cases and appeals about display of flag at the first reasonable opportunity, but as far as I can recall, the only case about delay in a protest hail is USA Appeal US122 The “first reasonable opportunity” to hail “Protest” is the first reasonable time after an incident when a boat is able to hail “Protest,” which is usually immediately.
I think the reason for this is that disputes about timeliness of hails are rarely prosecuted on appeal.
Neither 'immediately', 'promptly' nor 'at the first reasonable opportunity' mean 'instantly'.
I hope we have got rid of the idea, that got some currency a few years ago, that 'protest' needed to be the first word spoken. 'Do your turns, Protest', or 'You hit me, Protest' are quite acceptable.
I don't think there is any justification for thinking that a delay of a few seconds (say less than 5 or 10) is unreasonable or not immediate.
As to any inconsistency between hail of 'protest' and a boat beginning to 'sail well clear', the time between an incident and a hail is readily measurable, an umpire or judge (or experienced competitor) in the right spot can fairly readily tell if a protestee, say in a 'sandwich' coming off a starting line, is getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible, it might be difficult for a protesting boat to assemble good evidence, particularly against a crafty competitor who it trying to get well clear but not trying too hard. The getting clear can be a quite extended process, say up to a minute or more, compared with the instantaneity of a hail of 'protest'. That's just the way it is.
Until being the wrong side of it.
Racing assym dinghy in f5-6. Speed greater than 10 knots and high angles - the small boat less separation thing was not really valid!
We passed behind on port. Heard nothing.
Apparently there was contact between our spinnaker and the hiking helm (well aft) which we didn’t see.
Had we known then we’d have spun.
We lost the protest (no requirement to be heard just to hail).
Ever since I’ve been of the belief that flags should be back in.
While I like Jim’s point that generally a boat knows it has infringed and that there should not be procedural blocks to enforcement, for me the greater evil is a boat in the situation above not having the opportunity to exonerate because it does not know there is a protest.
Nice last name btw…
That in turn ..
-> feeds-back into the system of reduced protests,
-> that tends to increase the likelihood someone will break a rule "on the margins" and take risks (thinking that they will "get away with it"),
-> over time that tends to grow those margins
-> that over time deteriorates fair competition in fleet racing.
I wonder if it would be worth suggesting to some OA's, as an experiment in some regattas, to change RRS 60.2 and remove the flag requirement, keep the hail .. and see how it goes over time.
It might be that we have happier customers who feel better about the process.
I found a protest invalid in offshore yachts where protest was not hailed. I written complaint as made to the club commodore.
I reflected later, and decided especially with large yachts, they are out of effective range.
I accept protests otherwise notified at the first reasonable opportunity.
Perhaps we should use this more often.?
Helps for fast boats to.
Of no assistance to the boat protested againnst.
And we might well have seen it at the leeward mark.
The guess this instance skews my view somewhat: it made diddly squat difference to our national championship result 4th but led to another boat (a witness but not a party) being promoted from sixth to fifth.
We felt very bad for the sixth placed boat.
This is no longer true, at least in the US. If a boat breaks a rule and does not take a penalty, but the fouled boat says "do you turns" instead of "protest", then the boat does not get a penalty for breaking the rule.
If a protest committee find they broke a rule and penalizes them, it will overturned on appeal.
On the issue of not spinning unless one hears a hail, I could argue that "as soon after the incident as possible" in rule 44.2 is always later than "at the first reasonable opportunity" in rule 60.2, given that hailing is so much easier than getting well clear. So in an incident with no contact where there's uncertainty about whether a rule was broken, a boat that doesn't spin until she hears a hail is, IMO, complying with rule 2.
Interesting. I put it the other way interpreting "as soon ... as possible" approximating to "pretty much immediate unless circumstances are difficult". Just goes to show the difficulties of rule writing I suppose.
"As soon as" is arguably problematic for the precautionary penalty, where a boat does not believe she broke a rule, but takes a penalty anyway. Such a penalty cannot be initiated until another boat has communicated her belief a rule has been broken. I doubt anyone would argue against it being legitimate to delay taking a penalty until after an immediate dialogue between boats has happened and the crew has time to evaluate the rule situation, but that doesn't seem to be what the rule says. Unless, I suppose, its considered that a dialogue between boats including a protest hail is part of the incident.
Maybe that's where improvement can be made (or a better club-level experiment through RRS 60.2 changes in the SI's).
When there is no obvious/audible contact, the alleged offending boat might not "have a clue" ... so we keep the hail + flag.
However, if there is audible or obvious contact between boats, both boats should be keenly aware that:
In that instance, allow it to be a hail-only for validity.
Currently of course, RRS 60.2(c) alleviates both the flag and hail requirements when "serious damage" or crew danger/injury is "obvious". That combination is a high bar.
PS:
I'm just thinking that maybe, at club-level, we work a little more to meet our competitors where they are. The red-flag seems to be a consistent impediment to validity and whatever we are doing to educate isn't sinking-in well enough to get them to change their behavior.
Though I agree it's on the boat 100%, we can't control the impression it leaves in the club-racer's mind ... and how that impression is shared with others throughout the club-racing community.
In the end, their failure to fly the flag tarnishes the entire process in their minds, especially when the incident involved contact and was obvious to both boats.
I've heard it over and over and over again.
As the boat if they knew they had broken a rule, and perhaps would they have taken a penalty if they had heard the word protest.
If the reply yes, the PC proceed as a rule 2.
Pitty it has to be dne I used to like the option of dsq.
I think sometimes we are a bit out of touch with the contradictions here. I have seen folks argue on these boards that, given the general principles, if someone overhears someone say "well I think I broke a rule, but fortunately the other guy didn't protest" is there some way that hearing can and should happen? Sounds great under the principle. But, of course, if the fouled boat asked for the hearing and said "do your turns" instead of "protest", then obviously the hearing should be immediately closed, even if the competitor said "oh I totally broke the rule." So there's no ambiguity about whether the principle still governs. It doesn't.
The WS RulesComm actually took it the opposite direction in the last quad, removing them from being a rule as they were in previous quads
Def: rule(a) - 2025
There should never be a need for a 'Title' to be cited given that the title should accurately reflect the rules contained thereunder. If they are not 100% consistent then we have a fundamental problem that needs to be resolved.
And then we come to the 'Basic Principles'. if the rules thereunder do not support these then we have a problem there too because they can be simply ignored.
If a 'principle' requires a 'rule' to support it then then rules probably need to be written.
If you obtained information outside of an invalid protest, then a rrs 2 is possible.
In the case mentioned "may have broken a rule" would not be enough to trigger rule 2 as as she was not certain so the "clearly established" hurdle is too heigh.
Rules 2 and 69 both allow a breach of sportsmanship to be dealt with, yet they are rarely invoked. Rule 69 seems to used occasionally but only for the most egregious breaches. I don't think I've ever seen rule 2 invoked although it is a bit softer and probably more appropriate in most situations.
We have probably all heard a comment in the bar from a (possiblly slightly innebriated) competitor who said "Yeah, I know I got it wrong, but the other guy didn't protest so I didn't take a penalty and just continued on."
What! Is this really ok? I don't think so :-(
If you did this at your local golf club then you would almost certainly be shown the door ...
Like golf, we are a self-regulating sport ... sort of ...
While I agree with the self-regulating spirit, I think the "everyone takes a penalty every time regardless of protest" ignores the common sense complexity. (Not to disparage our friends on the links, but an everyday mark rounding with boats coming in on different tacks and angles requires a lot more thinking than the rules questions in an everyday round of golf, and you get a lot more time to think about it.)
That said, I still think balance of the equities is off with letting a foul slide if the wrong words were shouted in the heat of the moment. And it certainly undoes the spirit of self-regulating.
Ang, to get back to your proposal, there's another factor at the amateur level: timing. Skippers brains can get pretty busy in a rounding. I have certainly crewed on boats where things are shouted in the heat of the moment. Then on a bit of reflection (and sometimes a word from the crew), the skipper realizes that, say, coming in at that angle we probably weren't overlapped or were overlapped, etc. In the 1980s, a lot of #$%@# was said, then a minute or two later there was a flag... or not. Sometime cooler heads prevailed.
Rather than eliminate the flag requirement, I would be more forgiving on the form of the hail and the timing of the flag. Strategically waiting 2 minutes to protest rarely gives anyone an edge they didn't already have -- like super rare. But a more forgiving hail rule and a more forgiving flag timing rule would mean 1) you don't get away with a flagrant foul if someone's flag isn't ready (way more common), 2) you get a chance to take a breath and be sure before you make someone do turns or drag them into the room, 3) we don't have rules that have the contradiction of saying "we expect you to act reasonably" and "if you use the wrong word, it is like it never happened."
That said, I'm not sure if what you have heard over and over is that the timing requirement was too strict or that club-level racers didn't have a flag at all. The above would help meet people where they are on timing, but not on having a flag at all.
Full disclosure, I had a Kodak film canister on my El Toro, it was fine. ;)
I think the biggest problem we have is not the rules themselves but the fact that the spirit of the rules are nothing but a secondary consideration for way too many sailors. Kids learning to sail, new boat owners, new crew ... all need to have a respect for the rules instilled in to them from the very beginning.
So, how make this happen? This is probably a question that clubs and their national bodies need to answer. I have thought about this on-and-off for a long time and will soon be taking it to my club. Ideally we (a) make it a part of our induction to the club for new members and (b) make it a part of our annual safety briefing. Ultimately, I think we should be actively protesting people under rules 2 and 69 even if it only results in a slap over the wrist in the first case ... at least.
Pre 1961
Prior to the 1961 rewrite combining the NAYRU an IYRU rules:
The interests of the sport will be best served by voluntary withdrawal as soon as it becomes clear to a yacht that she has violated a rule …
1961 Rules
In the 1961 rules, Rule 33 provided
This rule did not place an enforceable obligation on the infringing yacht, but did oblige other yachts to keep giving her rights.
Fair sailing was dealt with by Rule 49, as follows.
1973 Rules
In 1973, Rule 33 was changed to make retirement when a boat 'realises she has infringed a racing rule' an obligation, as follows
It might be thought that this back-handed wording about 'obligation', instead of a straightforward 'shall' was intended to still focus the rule on the requirement of other yachts to continue to accord her her rights.
Rule 49 was unchanged.
1977 Rules
Turns and Scoring Penalties were introduced as ‘Alternative Penalties’ in Appendix 3 in the 1977 rules.
A yacht which realises she has infringed a racing rule or a sailing instruction is under an obligation either to retire promptly or to exonerate herself by accepting an alternative penalty when so prescribed in the sailing instructions, but when she does not retire or exonerate herself and persists in racing, other yachts shall continue to accord her such rights as she may have under the rules of Part IV.
Rule 49 was deleted and a new section ‘Fundamental Rule’ containing one, unnumbered rule substantially the same as the old Rule 49, as follows was inserted immediately after the title page and before Definitions,
Fair Sailing
1985 Rules
Rule 33.1 Accepting Penalty
Remained unchanged
Fair Sailing rule
Was now accompanied by two other Fundamental Rules:
Fair Sailing became Fundamental Rule C.
1988 Rules
Fundamental Rule Fair Sailing was expanded by specific reference to 'recognised principles of fair play and sportsmanship' as follows
The Accepting Penalty part of what had been Rule 33.1 now became Fundamental Rule D Accepting Penalties as follows
The ‘continue to accord rights’ part of rule 33 was stated as a new rule 34 as shown below.
Summary Immediately Prior to the 1995 Rewrite
Fundamental Rule C Fair Sailing required yachts to compete in accordance with recognised principles of fair play and spoortsmahship without those principles being stated in the rules.
Fundamental Rule D Accepting Penalties provided an express obligation on a yacht that realises she has infringed a rule to either retire promptly or accept an alternative penalty.
Note: this rule, from it's inception has been conditional on the yacht realising, that is, knowing, that she has broken a rule.
Fundamental Rule C Fair Sailing, last sentence provided that the Fair Sailing Rule could not be used to penalise a boat if any other rule applied, that is to say that the Fair Sailing rule could not be used to penalise a boat for not taking a penalty. However, this had little significance because, unlike the present RRS 2, the penalty for breaking the Fair Sailing Rule was no different from the penalty for breaking any other rule.
The Fair Sailing rule now became:
The Accepting Penalties rule was now represented by a boxed ‘homily’ in the Introduction as follows
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty or retire
Fair Sailing Rule
Accepting Penalties Rule
Comment. Elvstrom explains this restructuring as intended to enable the choice of either rule 2 or rule 69 for dealing with failure to take a penalty.
Or, to offer an alternative view:
There is a problem in that in the subset of sailors and officials interested enough in the Rules to contribute to this forum have a substantially different view of the rules and the spirit of the rules from the majority of sailors.
Those kids, new sailors, new crew get their customs, biases and attitudes from an existing culture.
Then on ‘Ultimately, I think we should be actively protesting people under rules 2 and 69 even if it only results in a slap over the wrist in the first case ... at least.’
Accusing sailors of cheating is a big deal! Having sat both sides of Rule 69 fact finding after a report and also been a parent Race Committee member accused (unfounded) of improper conduct I can tell you that stress levels in all sides can be extremely high.
I can’t imagine that this action would ever be widespread….but I think we would lose sailors as a result….and the sport can ill afford that.
I would turn this around….we need to remove the cultural blocks to actually doing the self-enforcement:
1. Understand (including in this forum) that Rule infringements occur because of:
A. Inadequate boat handling.
B. Misunderstanding of the Rules.
C. Misperception of what is about to occur / has occurred. (Which is often shaped by which side of the incident the sailor sits)
D. Active in race cheating.
E. Proper cheating (eg knowing measurement offences like fitting an overlength forestay or removing lead)
2. Educating the above.
3. Educating that a hail of protest (and flag where relevant) is not adversarial and merely means ‘I believe that you have infringed the rules and need to retire or take an alternative penalty.
I take issue with the spirit of the rule idea that under the guiding principle a boat which knows it has infringed is obliged to take a penalty. Imagine a port back marker broaching wildly under spinnaker as they are lapped by starboard. Starboard has to alter course. Port knows it has infringed. As they regain control of the boat and their heart rate and prepare to drop starboard hails them with words of encouragement and says ‘don’t worry about it’. Surely this is more in the interests (an I would say spirit) of the sport.
I’d add that there are many occasions where 1 a, b and c apply and thus meeting the bar for Rule 2 and 69 is hard.
And that for the ‘heard in the bar - we infringed’ thing is often a question of changing perceptions with time. Time limits are also there to limit play to the field of play…..
Honestly, I was just doing the simple step of challenging an accepted norm and asking "why" and "why not" with a fresh look.
That said, I do think that we can experiment with meeting our customers where they are and seeing how it works.
I like the idea of maybe for mid-week summer racing, maybe the idea of hail-only required when "contact" is "obvious" (by sound or any damage) might be worth a try. Think of it as "RRS 60.2(d)-lite".
If those situations were never invalid due to the lack of flag, that would remove some of the most annoying invalidity decisions.
Again ... just thinking back at my experience in the protest-room and when people feel the biggest rub is when the perceive "ridiculousness" in people getting "let off" based on a "technicality".
Thinking back ... I think that's when contact is "obvious", both boats acknowledge a hail, no injury or "obvious serious damage", but invalid due to flag issues.
PS: again with the idea that if we can find ways of improving the reputation of the process .. maybe people would be more inclined to put their confidence in it.
Again ... it's just a thought based upon my experiences. Might end up being a disaster ... but might end up providing a better experience.
PS: To be clear, I'm suggesting that maybe we try SI's in some events where no flag is required when contact is obvious ... a lesser standard than the current 60.2(d). "Hail" still required.
Following our race today (approx 40 keelboats) I was chatting for an hour or so with a group of 3-4 competitors about the rules as they applied in a couple of minor incidents.
I mentioned to the group some of our discussion in this forum and there were some valuable responses. Everyone agreed that we need to avoid scaring people off. So, rules 2 and 69 are probably off the table. I mentioned Appendix T (Arbitration) and that is still a bit scary. I workshoped the idea of an Arbitration-lite. This might take a lighter touch to the hail, flag and protest form requirements and may even allow for a negotiated penalty ... perhaps where each side suggests their preference and the arbitrator makes the final call ... and if one party doesn't like it then the matter can still go to 'the room' which would probably revert to the standard rules.
I think if we can encourage competitors to actively engage in such a process then our world would be a better place.
Any thoughts?
There is so much experience here on this forum ... that if each of us look back and think of the experiences that left the worse taste in their mouth, maybe we can think of ways for improvement for certain levels/types of events.
When I think back, the worst experiences were those of invalidity ... and of all the invalidity issues ... invalidity based on a lack of, or excessive delay in, flying the red-flag sting the hardest ... especially when there was obvious contact between boats. That's why I started there ... it's an attempt to triage at the largest wound in my experience.
Open the hearing, both boats agree there was contact that they were aware of at the time of the incident .. and a hail ... then proceed if the filing met the requirements too.
The problem is when protests are invalid how can you have a negotiated penalty. There is no mechanism for it, how do tou score it. Appendix t relies on the penalty described in the appendix.
All you can do is to issue informal discussions and advertise this.
A frequent event pc has the confidence of competitors, who then approach and ask questions, sometimes on the water then afloat.
Be open, say you will deal with questions.
Consider a debrief, competitors offten then ask questions.
I have been to events when we seek questions in the boat park before racing.
I have a pocket set of boats i carry with me.
https://www.rya.org.uk/racing/rules/rya-rules-disputes-process/
If you switch in Appendix T in your SI, then boats can take a Post Race Penalty without Arbitration.
There are problems:
By providing an 'official' venue to rake over incidents but without protest validity or 'official finality', you are actually encouraging a 'no protest' culture, and where the Advisory Meeting 'concludes' that a boat had dead set broken a rule, you then run into possible ill will if the boat doesn't then take a PRP or retire, and possible Rule 2 complaints about knowing that she has broken a rule and not taking a penalty.
And thank you all for attending our Christmas party.
I will be sending this document to our Sailing Committee as a Christmas present. I hope they appreciate the thought that has gone in to it. At least it's not a pair of socks or a tie!
I wonder if we could write a rule that allows the PC to treat informing the protestee as we do conflicts of interest -- "Were you aware at the time that you were being protested?" If the answer is "Yes", then why require more?
Or maybe even "Were you award at the time of the incident that there was contact between your boat and the protestor?" If the answer is "Yes", then somebody broke a rule and the protestee had an opportunity to take a penalty if she thought it might be she.
Here's an SI that might work: