Forum: Race Officers
I flag, RC reacting to dip start
Geoff Chambers
Nationality: Australia
0
The smallest boat, A, in a mixed fleet of 9 cruisers, has performed a dip start returning on stb to the pre-start side prior to 30 seconds to the start and tacking to port at 15 seconds to the start.
There were no incidents, no boats put about, no boats at risk of being forced above the start mark.
At three seconds to the start with all boats approaching to start on port tack on a reaching start and none OCS, the starters make two sound signals and hoist AP.
For the re-start an 'I' flag is flown.
In the re-start, boat B, leading the series, is luffed out of the start, which is the last race of the series, and has to circle round and starts last, places well down and consequently slips to end third for the series.
Questions;
1. Is the RC unfairly/inappropriately responding to A's dip start? ie it is implicit the abandonment of the start and the re-start with an I flag was a direct response to A's dip start which is a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre that should not be responded to in a way that implies it is not entirely within the rules. Reacting to the manoeuvre creates an impression that A is somehow cheating or competing unfairly. This in turn stands to lower A's reputation thereby setting up a prejudice in any future protest hearings and participation generally.
2. Can B claim redress that abandoning the first start without proper reason disadvantaged her?
There were no incidents, no boats put about, no boats at risk of being forced above the start mark.
At three seconds to the start with all boats approaching to start on port tack on a reaching start and none OCS, the starters make two sound signals and hoist AP.
For the re-start an 'I' flag is flown.
In the re-start, boat B, leading the series, is luffed out of the start, which is the last race of the series, and has to circle round and starts last, places well down and consequently slips to end third for the series.
Questions;
1. Is the RC unfairly/inappropriately responding to A's dip start? ie it is implicit the abandonment of the start and the re-start with an I flag was a direct response to A's dip start which is a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre that should not be responded to in a way that implies it is not entirely within the rules. Reacting to the manoeuvre creates an impression that A is somehow cheating or competing unfairly. This in turn stands to lower A's reputation thereby setting up a prejudice in any future protest hearings and participation generally.
2. Can B claim redress that abandoning the first start without proper reason disadvantaged her?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
A2: No unless B can establish that their predicament was through no fault of their own. That will be a very high bar for B.
As race officers, we have considerable power. Such power should be accompanied by responsible behavior as well.
John
Then drawing back from a gross hypothetical to, what if the starter's friend wasn't about to get a good start? OR what if a competitor, or a group of competitors had lobbied the starter to act to prevent A from dip starts? Is it proper for the RC to act to prevent a 'lawful' manoeuvre on the request of other competitors?
In the scenario, it would have been the prerogative of the starters to fly 'I' for the first start if as a matter of policy it had decided to discourage dip starts, however to postpone a perfectly clean start apparently for the sole reason that A had performed a dip start seems to directly insinuate something improper with the conduct of A - the postponement and subsequent re-start being to make an example of A. This puts A as competing on an unequal basis due to rumour and inuendo that they are somehow 'cheating' and need to be made an example of. A is being held to a different standard to other competitors. It's letting a friend(s) of the starter limit the manoeuvring of A albeit her manoeuvring is within the rules.
So the question becomes;
i. is there an implied term that "any reason" in 27.3 implicitly means 'fair or proper' reason? And if so,
ii. has the discretion been exercised improperly in the scenario? If so;
iii. does A have recourse, and/or
iv, does B have recourse?
To clarify other points raised;
there was no relaying of the line. The line is a fixed shore-backed estuary line (club line) that almost always results in a reaching start. So the postponement was not for purposes of re-laying the line or because the start was unfair due to bias in the line or wind change or any other reason. All boats were reaching bow on bow with no congestion whatsoever toward the line which is a very long line. For purposes of discussion it can be assumed RC readily acknowledge it postponed directly in response to A's dip.
I'm all for leaving the racing to the racers, but I don't agree that a race committee is prohibited from, 'meddling with competitive tactics' in ways such as are described in the OP.
The race committee is appointed by the organising authority (rule 89.2c) to conduct races as required by the rules, subject only to the direction of the organising authority (rule 90.1).
The rules contain no limitations on the race committee's choice of starting penalties under rule 30.
It is perfectly within propriety for a race committee to decide, or an organising authority to direct, whether and in what circumstances starting penalties under rule 30 will be implemented. This might include, for example, deciding that, taking account manoeuverability of boats, and experience of crews, that dip starts should be discouraged by the use of rule 30.1, the I Flag Rule. Another example, contained in World Sailing Race Management Policies, (paragraph 12.2) is to require the use of the U Flag for the first start in any fleet with more than 10 competitors.
It would likewise be not improper for a race officer to decide, 'on the fly' even once a starting sequence has commenced, that one of the rule 30 starting penalties should be implemented, and postpone the start and recommence the sequence using the appropriate flag. Rule 27.3 provides that the race officer may postpone the start, before the starting signal for any reason. A perhaps more common example, would be where a race officer observes a significant number of unidentifiable boats over early, and chooses to abort the start by postponing it, and going to a U or Black Flag, rather than waiting until after the starting signal and using General Recall.
Given that rule 27.3 permits postponement for any reason, it is normally pointless to enquire what the reason for postponement was, but a misguided belief that dip starts were somehow unfair would not be improper.
Indeed we should.
The race may be postponed due to wind shift/error at the RC vessel of any nature ie time keeping etc.
There is no chance of Redress to B.
Gordon
'Appear' and 'at first pass' are not relevant qualifications on rule 27.3. The rule is simple and clear.
There may be a necessary implication of reasonableness, but I suggest the bar is pretty low, probably no higher than 'not arbitrary or capricious' See US Sailing Appeal 53, recently followed in RYA Appeal 2019/1.
As to propriety, the Judges Manual guidance on 'improper' has been quoted upthread, and Thorsten and I discussed impropriety outside that guidance with respect to misconduct by officials, such as preferential treatment of a competitor the last time you raised this dip start issue in post Conduct of starters regarding U or I flag.
Would be a clear instance of partiality amounting to serious misconduct by officials and if provable would be good grounds for redress.
Again, if provable, serious misconduct, improper action and redress available.
You raised this issue, and it was discussed in the previous thread Conduct of starters regarding U or I flag.
There is nothing improper about the race committee or race officer listening to what competitors have to say, and if they agree with it, to act on it. The race committee and race officer are expected to engage in effective two-way communication with competitors.
Yes, although I'm not keen on the use of the word 'prerogative'. Suffice that it would have been perfectly proper.
Things are likely to get a bit tangled here.
If there was a policy to prevent dip starts by using a rule 30 penalty flag and the race officer forgot, used the wrong flag, then realised his or her mistake and postponed to correct the mistake, this would be wholly unexceptionable.
If there was no formal policy, but the race officer just decided that going ahead with a dip start was a bad idea, this is pretty clearly 'for any reason' as contemplated by rule 27.3. Absent partiality or other misconduct by the race officer, there is no improper action.
If it could be proved that the postponement was intended to disadvantage A for some reason other than that A was performing a dip start, then this would be partial and unfair treatment of A, misconduct by a race official and, if proven, an improper action giving grounds for redress.
All the more so if it could be proved that the intention was 'to make an example of A'. Race officials have no business 'making an example' of any competitor. Their job is to conduct racing and decide protests according to the rules. Nothing more. That said, unless the race officer is stupid enough to come right out and say 'I did it to make an example of A', it is going to be very hard to prove.
I don't see how the actions of postponing and restarting under flag I, on their own, can lead to any 'insinuation' about impropriety by A.
Now you are starting on a completely different story which would need to be based on a good deal of evidence quite different from the narrative you provided in the OP.
As I said above.
There may be a necessary implication of reasonableness, but I suggest the bar is pretty low, probably no higher than 'not arbitrary or capricious' See US Sailing Appeal 53, recently followed in RYA Appeal 2019/1.
As to propriety, the Judges Manual guidance on 'improper' has been quoted upthread, and Thorsten and I discussed impropriety outside that guidance with respect to misconduct by officials, such as preferential treatment of a competitor the last time you raised this dip start issue in post Conduct of starters regarding U or I flag.
Based on the description of the race committee's actions in the OP: NO.
If you are trying to make out unfair partiality then you need much more evidence about the race officer's/race committee's intention and state of mind.
Unnecessary to answer.
As discussed above
Let's take this past the question of redress-requests .. What could a competitor do if they feel that an RC is conducting themselves (within the letter of the Rules) in such a way to single that competitor out in a disadvantaged way?
After all that, I think the competitor has done all they can do to let their feelings known (if there are other steps, please offer them).
In the end, they can always decide not to play if they don't like the game.
Definitely NOT.
See USA Appeal US53
'The appellant’s belief that the rule requires a “legitimate” reason is incorrect. Rule 76.1 does not state or imply any qualitative tests for the acceptability of the reason other than that the reason cannot be arbitrary or capricious or based on race, color, religion, gender, age or national origin (see the prescription to rule 76.1).'
Probably the best starting point is a request for redress. As has been variously discussed, the Judges Manual is not determinative as to what is an 'improper action', and it can hardly be argued that partiality or bias amounting to official misconduct is not 'improper'.
If the local protest committee does not give satisfaction, Appeal.
Remember that rule 3.3 requires competitors to pursue avenues of redress provided by the rules before going outside the rules.
Certainly in a doubtful case a written complaint, including a complaint of official misconduct in accordance with OA, or MNA by-laws might be a way to go, but equally it might bring sanctions on individuals, but not get redress.
Sue, once other reasonable avenues have been exhausted.
Yup.
The following section below is out of the World Sailing Race Officials Code of Conduct
2.2 All decisions must be made in good faith, be based upon the rules, and in a fair and objective manner. Racing must not only be conducted in a fair manner, but be seen to be so.