The Racing Rules of Sailing
Protest race abandoned.
If a race is abandoned due to lack of wind, and there is a Protest involving serious damage at the start, is the Protest Valid??
Created: 26-May-10 11:13
Comments
Format:
You must be signed in to add a comment.
The race is "voided" as far as scoring is concerned .. so any penalty will end up having no effect as long as the incident occurred while racing, but the hearing must proceed if the protest was delivered within the PTL.
If this incident occurred prior to the prep-signal .. and this was not the last race of the regatta ... would one apply any penalty to the next race of the regatta? .. since abandonment voids the race?
For club racing where the incident occurred at first or last race in a series I've had the view that the penalty should apply to the race in the previous or subsequent series (for which the boat was entered) as tested by simple comparison of dates and times.
I think for the last race in a regatta, the race nearest in time will be the preceding race.
If the incident occurred before the Preparatory Signal, the boats were not racing and RRS 60.5(c) last sentence says a boat's penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to the incident.
If the incident occurred after the Preparatory Signal while boats were racing:
Seriousness of damage makes no difference to the severity of a penalty unless the NOR/SI gives the protest committee discretion to give a penalty less than disqualification.
The parties are entitled to get a written decision in accordance with RRS 63.6(b) in any case.
Printed, framed and already hanging on the wall :-)
In the context of an abandoned race in a regatta where subsequent races are completed, is the next race always a "resailling" of the previously abandoned race? (since the race is voided by abandonment?)
If not, how is the state of "resailed" determined and by what criteria?
'Resailed' applies to a race that has been otherwise abandoned (N over A, N over H, or by notice from the race committee or decision of the protest committee) and is scheduled to be resaile at another time.
Sometimes NOR/SI say 'Abandoned races will not be resailed' or perhaps 'Abandoned races will be resailed on dddd'
OTOH, most scoring systems for weekly series just show a race as Abandoned and go on to the next race number. This avoids confusion.
Another point: the PC may conclude that a boat broke a rule but cannot be penalised BUT that the other boat may be given redress (for instance due to damage preventing then from competing in a subsequent race).
If the race is abandoned, RRS 36 applies and a boat may be penalised under RRS 36(b) for serious damage or injury.
An issue can arise in long-established classes in which a prize is given for instance for the second race of the third day of the Nationals. This causes problems when the donating dignitary turns up to present the prize for a race that has not yet been sailed!
Why should something as simple as this be left ambiguous in the rules?
Maybe a Case would be helpful (if there isn't one already)?
I had a related post regarding the effects of abandonment of all racing on the last day of a multi-day regatta a while back.
We talked about ...
The facts were not disputed by the Parties.
The answer was that although the event was in the USA and run according to US Sailing rules and prescriptions, the starboard tack boat (that suffered serious damage) was Canadian and was perhaps thinking of the Sail Canada Prescription to RRS 65.1:
"Rule 65.1 – Legal Liability and Costs Sail Canada prescribes that a boat that has been found by a protest committee to have broken a rule and caused damage shall be considered at fault for the purposes of rule 65.1."
This, of course, is in contrast to the US Sailing Prescription:
"US Sailing prescribes that
(a) A boat that retires from a race or accepts a penalty does not, by that action alone, admit liability for monetary damages.
(b) A protest committee shall find facts and make decisions only in compliance with the rules. No protest committee or US Sailing appeal authority shall adjudicate any claim for monetary damages. Such a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.
(c) A basic purpose of the rules is to prevent contact between boats. By participating in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for monetary damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules, and that she shall not 2 be governed by the legal doctrine of ‘assumption of risk’ for monetary damages resulting from contact with other boats."
We found the protest valid and:
- The port tack boat had broken rules 10 and 14;
- The starboard tack boat had broken rule 14; and
- Because both boats had withdrawn, no further penalty was assessed.
"By participating in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for monetary damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules, and that she shall not 2 be governed by the legal doctrine of ‘assumption of risk’ for monetary damages resulting from contact with other boats."
That, however, wasn't my problem. In the hearing, both boats admitted that they weren't keeping a lookout during the starting sequence. The RRS 14 decision for each of them was pretty easy.
Have a read of Juno v Endeavour
Torruella J was emphatically of the view that a protest committee decision constituted a binding arbitration under US commercial arbitration law.
Thank you for providing the link to the article posted by Graeme Hayward and originally written by Mary Pera. It is sad that neither of them are with us any more.