1.) The regatta uses the following language in the Sis and NORs “five races scheduled for the regatta”. 2.) The regatta includes one throw out if 5 races are run. 3.) The protest time limit was 30 minutes after the committee boat signaled they were ashore. 4.) The winds are high during the regatta with all other fleets deciding not to race after the 4th race.
At the end of race 4, Boat C decided to go in for the day with the knowledge that 5th race would be their throw out and their position in the regatta could not change. At the end of 5 races the scores for the top 4 boats are as follows (I did not include boats 5-7 because places did not change):
Boat A moved into first place winning the tie breaker under rule A8.2 and Boat C moved from 3rd to 4th.
The scores were posted about 45 minutes after the committee boat was ashore or 15 minutes after the protest time limit. The skipper of boat C did not even know a 6th race was run until the scores were posted.
The skippers of boat A and C talked and the Skipper of boat A decided to ask for redress about 5 minutes after scores were posted. The organizing authority told him not to bother filling out a form because the time limit had expired.
Questions:
1.) Should race 6 have been scored? 2.) For redress, when you do not know if it is needed until after scores are posted, is the protest time limit the correct limit to use for filing. 3.) Is the time limit different if boat A or Boat C requests redress. Boat A knew a 6th race was run before the scores were posted, boat C did not. 4.) How would a redress hearing find for the competitors.
Thanks - that is what I thought, but was not sure on number 3 because A could argue they did not know race 6 would be scored until scores posted. But they did know the race was run and should have filed immediately.
I think that can reasonably be interpreted to say that they won't be running 6.
To your other point above though, I don't think it's incumbent on boat A to file a request for redress until he sees the scoring. His filing 5 minutes later meets 61.2 (b) (3). With this committee you don't know what they're up to. Maybe they offered to run an extra race that wasn't expected to count? But when we see the scores ... !
> I think that can reasonably be interpreted to say that they won't be running 6. I'm not sure about that. The ordinary dictionary meaning of scheduled is "planned to happen at a particular time"
Five races were scheduled. Five scheduled races were run. One unscheduled race was run. I don't think that what we have seen of the NOR specifically precludes running an unscheduled race. I have known an event in champagne sailing conditions where the RC twiced asked the competitors if they wanted an extra race, and they ended up with two more than the original schedule.
On redress, I can see redress of average points for a boat that doesn't sail an unscheduled race, but throwing the race out completely doesn't feel fair to the other competitors. My inclination would be to give C average points for R6 on the grounds that, having sailed in, there was no way she could know there was going to be an unscheduled race, but OTOH if running an unscheduled race was not an improper action, what are the grounds for redress?
Jim, I strongly disagree. You have to stick to 'what it says on the tin (the NOR)
If the NOR says 5 races, 5 races it is.
The OA/RC can't just go on adding races until the home town hero wins.
Competitors are entitled to base their fatigue and nutrition management on the NOR, and the race durations that implies. You also have to comply with your 'No Warning Signal after ...' NOR: competitors are entitled to be able to plan on getting away and home as advertised.
You could amend the NOR, but if you have the normal SI saying schedule amendments by 1800 preceding evening, you would have to give at least that amount of notice, and possibly more.
Jim: I'm absolutely in agreement with John. I think you're trying to very technically deconstruct things to explain how it's ok for the RC to not follow their plan. The NOR explains their plan (refer to the dictionary definition of schedule) yet they decided to do something different. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The competitors come out for a day of racing to have fun, supposedly. 90% of them, anyway. And the RC should tell them clearly and simply how it will work. This isn't rocket surgery, and we shouldn't have to bring our lawyer to interpret the NOR for us.
Appendix J1.3 (5) directs that the NOR should state the number of races scheduled. If the purpose of that requirement is not to convey the plan to the competitors, then there is no point to making it a requirement of the NOR.
I am reminded of some companies that try to explain that it's ok that their product is defective or service is awful. I have yet to be convinced.
I've been thinking about Jim's interpretation of the word "schedule". If the NOR posts a schedule, ie. a plan, then a boat has joined the regatta and continue to make decisions based on that plan until the plan changes. In this case, the RC had many hours to consider a change to that plan, and should have not waited until the last minute to do so without considering the impact to all boats.
If I told dinner guests I'm aiming to eat at 7, then upon arrival announce we're actually doing lawn games with no appetizers until 8:30, they'd be rightfully ticked off. This is the same thing. It's improper* to change the schedule without advanced notice. *defined as: not in keeping with conventional mores; indecorous
It's pretty clear that the NOR writers would benefit from using more clear language as in "not more than" and "at least".
At our local dinghy club, our race days consist of three 'counter' races, which are always the first three races of the day. Then the RC will run as many additional races as the competitors would like. Usually this is two more races. The extra races get scored but are not included in the series totals.
The question of exceeding the number of races intended is of practical interest to me. In our conditions there are very plausible scenarios in which the right thing to do is to run more races than initially targeted.
The easy "fix", is to schedule more races than really intended, then stop short. (It isn't thought to be improper to run fewer races than scheduled.) Personally, I don't really like that because I feel there is value in communicating a target number of races. It just seems like a kludge.
Do we think that the word "schedule", in the context of race documents, means:
1. "Not more than" 2. "A target that we will try to hit, understanding that circumstances may require changes." 3. "Not less than." (Not this one!)
Meaning 1 seems to be generally accepted, but I'm not exactly sure why. (I could simply be ignorant of some official guidance, so please point me to it if that's the case)
I reckon that in normal use, a "schedule" is much closer to meaning 2.
In race documents I am inclined to write something like:
7 races are scheduled 1 race makes a regatta No more than 9 races shall be sailed.
To me, that conveys the plan, it bounds what's proper, and gives RC some flexibility to put on the best racing they can.
Imagine telling an olympic runner in the 400m races:
- we will have 4 heats. You will run in one of these. - we will have two semi finals. You will run one of these if you come top 4 of a heat - we will have a final which you will run if you come top 4 of a semi-final
But if the running conditions are perfect (* in the eyes of the guy with the starter pistol) we might change this. We won't tell you until you've finished the final if that's actually your last race of the day or if we might add a further run or two. It won't matter if you are exhausted and just broke a world record.
I'm all for flexibility in scheduling. But there are a number of things I *need* to know when signing up for an event. One is when will I be able to travel home.
If your schedule let's you drop 2 extra races in before home, that seems odd.
Also, creating a load of ambiguity about how many races feels like you can pick the number of races to allow the person you want to win or loose?
Seems reasonable, clear and sensible. Its obviously good practice to notify competitors that extra races may be run. At least three of us have come up with examples of RCs running unscheduled races, so its a practice that exists.
I've just had a fair scan of the RRS appendices on SIs and NOR, and apart from the prohibition on starting races after the posted last start time on the last day I can find nothing that specifically either permits or prohibits runnning unscheduled races. It appears to me, going through it, that its not intended that the race schedule should be written in stone, which implies it is not an improper action to fail to follow it precisely. The dictionary definition of schedule is not rigid, using words like intended.
It is undesirable, probably improper, for races to be run before their scheduled start time if they have one, but its common enough for races to be started late, and that doesn't feel like an improper action to me. OTOH changes to the race schedule must be notified the previous day. Is running an unscheduled race a change to the schedule? There's an argument to say that it is.
In my opinion you are bound by rule J2.1(2). The schedule is required to be in the sailing instructions (unless in the NoR). Therefore, you need to change the sailing instructions to change the schedule.
Rule J2.1(2) the schedule of races and the times of warning signals for each class;
Created: Yesterday 12:53
Tips
100 WIND
So right. Try to run a race and see what US sailing does on appeal. Just a waste of time for everyone.
Thanks Mark, Yes I'm aware of J2.1(2), and we certainly publish a schedule. However, that still has me wondering about exactly what's meant by "schedule" and how we properly set things up in our conditions.
To put on a decent regatta in our conditions (Colorado, edge of the mountains) we need some flexibility, and we also need to stick to our "no races after" wording so that people can leave for a long drive. (At regional level regattas anyway). The conditions are difficult and sometimes forecasts are misleading/unhelpful due to local phenomena.
So, would my suggestion count as a "schedule" to comply with J2.1(2)? It seems more informative than simply scheduling 9 races and coming up short.
Schedule (Time) and Number of Races are independent. I can schedule a full rotation of college sailing race (18 Races) and still put in the SIs No Start after 3pm Sunday.
I think we need to credit the PRO with integrity. They are making judgment calls all the time. (courses, conditions, postponements, etc etc). If we think they are out to help specific competitors, we have a different problem and discussion.
Assume the finish time on the last day is fixed for the reasons you say. The wind dies to the point that RC judges fair racing is not possible, and the result is that fewer races are run than in the schedule?
How do you feel about that? It's not an uncommon scenario around here.
On your last point, we wouldn't be slipping in "extra" races. Per my suggested wording, they are explicitly allowed in the schedule. This degree of flexibility would be made clear in the NOR and, as usual, people can decide whether to come or not based on the NOR.
Either too little or too much wind is a risk of the sport. Some classes will even specify "minimum average wind 4kts, maximum 25kts" so I get round any possibility that the PRO ran the race to get someone a better place or cancelled it because someone was already in the lead etc
I realise this is pretty shocking stuff. From my perspective, I don't care who wins when I run a race. But somewhere there will be someone with some vague connection to me that I might be accused of favouring. I've had all sorts of wild accusations (usually in the bar with very much jest) - "you ignored the kids who were over the line on race 3 but called me [infer: old bloke who should know better] OCS ok race 4" "you shortened the course too soon" and "I couldn't regain my lead", "you should have shortened the course sooner" so that "sailor X couldn't regain their lead". Some of those that are seen to be advantaged might be junior sailors (I'm a junior sailing guy), some are children of others running the event. I've never knowingly done anything unfair or improper. But if someone *thinks* I have that's a problem...
My preference for a weekend race schedule might say something like:
A maximum of 8 races will take place. No more than 5 races will take place on any one day.
If I ran a 6th race on Saturday even if that was because I know the Sunday is going to be blown off, I expect to be in bother.
My son would take a snack afloat for after each race. Assuming he didn't just sail off after race 5 in outright protest at a PRO adding a 6th race, I would fully expect him to have his protest form ready before the committee boat touches the jetty. And he has never protested anything in his life. But he would be out of snacks and that's a MASSIVE deal.
I say this in a bit of jest. But with all seriousness. If you've given your all for 5 races and suddenly get told there is a 6th... Is that fair? And if you have any additional needs (diabetes that needs you to eat, a stoma bag that might need emptied etc) then suddenly being "forced" to stay out for longer is discrimination.
As for 7 are scheduled but no more than 9 may take place... I have no idea what that means! I'm wondering if that might mean the 2 spare are for abandoning races or general recalls etc. it's certainly not language I have ever seen used. Why not say "a maximum of 9 races may take place" and not say 7 anywhere. Because if it's too windy and you stop at 3, what did the 7 achieve. If you stop at 7, someone will ask why you didn't go to 9.
There is a variation on the 8 races in the series, 5 on an individual day that I'm pretty sure I've seen which is something like '4 races are planned for each day, but at the sole discretion of the race committee and additional race may be added to any day. No more than 8 races will take place in total'
I'm also struggling with the 9 instead of 7races. Because where do you find the time? First warning signal X, target race duration Y, finishing window Z. You can add that up and multiply it by a certain number of planned races. How do you squeeze in more? Cut Y short? Actually finish Z sooner? Finish the day very late? Not only do sailors have a time they want to go home/bar the rest of the RC and Safety Teams want to too.
Do we think that the word "schedule", in the context of race documents, means:
1. "Not more than"
2. "A target that we will try to hit, understanding that circumstances may require changes."
3. "Not less than." (Not this one!)
I think 'N races are scheduled' means exactly N.
This is important to the scoring structure, and hence competitors regatta strategy for the event.
RRS 27 and 32 provide mechanisms and conditions for sailing less than that number.
Without amending the NOR/SI the RRS don't make any provision for increasing the number of scheduled races.
OK, it's possible to write NOR with an open ended number of races. The Tasers used to do this. Personally I think that's a device of the devil. It means that race durations are going to go in and out at the whim of the RO.
I think 'N races are scheduled' means exactly N.
This is important to the scoring structure, and hence competitors regatta strategy for the event.
RRS 27 and 32 provide mechanisms and conditions for sailing less than that number.
Hi John, You write:
I think 'N races are scheduled' means exactly N. And,
RRS 27 and 32 provide mechanisms and conditions for sailing less than that number.
I believe I know what you're saying. Can I paraphrase as "We're planning to sail N races, not more, but we all understand it could be fewer if conditions dictate". Right? And, I agree with that interpretation of what we mean by a schedule, absent other languate.
So, I think we almost always have an implied "not more than" in the schedule when we have a regatta with a firm finishing time.
What did you think of my suggested language above? To close to the work of the devil for comfort?
As far as RRS is concerned, the particular regatta is planned for five races and should be scored accordingly. All other permutations and combinations of extra races at the convenience or preferences of participants or club level activity cannot be part of a regatta under the published NoR and SI.
"...You've committed one of the classic blunders! the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this:" No matter how tempting, how good the conditions, never race beyond the scheduled number of races no matter how many competitors say it's ok! Basically, you're modifying the race documents (NOR, SI) on the water and all it takes is one sailor to complain. And yes, it could be filed as a scoring inquiry after the fact too!
The skippers of boat A and C talked and the Skipper of boat A decided to ask for redress about 5 minutes after scores were posted. The organizing authority told him not to bother filling out a form because the time limit had expired.
The organizing authority made an error when they told boat A they could not file a hearing request.
A boat can always file a hearing request it is the protest committees job to determine validity. Rule 61.2(b)(1) and 63.2(a).
And given that they've already been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar manipulating the number of races, it's travelling quite rapidly towards misconduct by race officials.
No
2.) For redress, when you do not know if it is needed until after scores are posted, is the protest time limit the correct limit to use for filing.
No. as soon as reasonably possible after the relevant information is available.
3.) Is the time limit different if boat A or Boat C requests redress. Boat A knew a 6th race was run before the scores were posted, boat C did not.
Yes
4.) How would a redress hearing find for the competitors.
Instruct race committee to not score race 6.
To your other point above though, I don't think it's incumbent on boat A to file a request for redress until he sees the scoring. His filing 5 minutes later meets 61.2 (b) (3). With this committee you don't know what they're up to. Maybe they offered to run an extra race that wasn't expected to count? But when we see the scores ... !
I'm not sure about that.
The ordinary dictionary meaning of scheduled is "planned to happen at a particular time"
Five races were scheduled. Five scheduled races were run. One unscheduled race was run. I don't think that what we have seen of the NOR specifically precludes running an unscheduled race.
I have known an event in champagne sailing conditions where the RC twiced asked the competitors if they wanted an extra race, and they ended up with two more than the original schedule.
On redress, I can see redress of average points for a boat that doesn't sail an unscheduled race, but throwing the race out completely doesn't feel fair to the other competitors. My inclination would be to give C average points for R6 on the grounds that, having sailed in, there was no way she could know there was going to be an unscheduled race, but OTOH if running an unscheduled race was not an improper action, what are the grounds for redress?
If the NOR says 5 races, 5 races it is.
The OA/RC can't just go on adding races until the home town hero wins.
Competitors are entitled to base their fatigue and nutrition management on the NOR, and the race durations that implies. You also have to comply with your 'No Warning Signal after ...' NOR: competitors are entitled to be able to plan on getting away and home as advertised.
You could amend the NOR, but if you have the normal SI saying schedule amendments by 1800 preceding evening, you would have to give at least that amount of notice, and possibly more.
Appendix J1.3 (5) directs that the NOR should state the number of races scheduled. If the purpose of that requirement is not to convey the plan to the competitors, then there is no point to making it a requirement of the NOR.
I am reminded of some companies that try to explain that it's ok that their product is defective or service is awful. I have yet to be convinced.
If I told dinner guests I'm aiming to eat at 7, then upon arrival announce we're actually doing lawn games with no appetizers until 8:30, they'd be rightfully ticked off. This is the same thing. It's improper* to change the schedule without advanced notice.
*defined as: not in keeping with conventional mores; indecorous
It's pretty clear that the NOR writers would benefit from using more clear language as in "not more than" and "at least".
The question of exceeding the number of races intended is of practical interest to me. In our conditions there are very plausible scenarios in which the right thing to do is to run more races than initially targeted.
The easy "fix", is to schedule more races than really intended, then stop short. (It isn't thought to be improper to run fewer races than scheduled.) Personally, I don't really like that because I feel there is value in communicating a target number of races. It just seems like a kludge.
Do we think that the word "schedule", in the context of race documents, means:
1. "Not more than"
2. "A target that we will try to hit, understanding that circumstances may require changes."
3. "Not less than." (Not this one!)
Meaning 1 seems to be generally accepted, but I'm not exactly sure why. (I could simply be ignorant of some official guidance, so please point me to it if that's the case)
I reckon that in normal use, a "schedule" is much closer to meaning 2.
In race documents I am inclined to write something like:
7 races are scheduled
1 race makes a regatta
No more than 9 races shall be sailed.
To me, that conveys the plan, it bounds what's proper, and gives RC some flexibility to put on the best racing they can.
Comments?
Thanks
Doug
- we will have 4 heats. You will run in one of these.
- we will have two semi finals. You will run one of these if you come top 4 of a heat
- we will have a final which you will run if you come top 4 of a semi-final
But if the running conditions are perfect (* in the eyes of the guy with the starter pistol) we might change this. We won't tell you until you've finished the final if that's actually your last race of the day or if we might add a further run or two. It won't matter if you are exhausted and just broke a world record.
I'm all for flexibility in scheduling. But there are a number of things I *need* to know when signing up for an event. One is when will I be able to travel home.
If your schedule let's you drop 2 extra races in before home, that seems odd.
Also, creating a load of ambiguity about how many races feels like you can pick the number of races to allow the person you want to win or loose?
At least three of us have come up with examples of RCs running unscheduled races, so its a practice that exists.
I've just had a fair scan of the RRS appendices on SIs and NOR, and apart from the prohibition on starting races after the posted last start time on the last day I can find nothing that specifically either permits or prohibits runnning unscheduled races. It appears to me, going through it, that its not intended that the race schedule should be written in stone, which implies it is not an improper action to fail to follow it precisely. The dictionary definition of schedule is not rigid, using words like intended.
It is undesirable, probably improper, for races to be run before their scheduled start time if they have one, but its common enough for races to be started late, and that doesn't feel like an improper action to me. OTOH changes to the race schedule must be notified the previous day. Is running an unscheduled race a change to the schedule? There's an argument to say that it is.
To put on a decent regatta in our conditions (Colorado, edge of the mountains) we need some flexibility, and we also need to stick to our "no races after" wording so that people can leave for a long drive. (At regional level regattas anyway). The conditions are difficult and sometimes forecasts are misleading/unhelpful due to local phenomena.
So, would my suggestion count as a "schedule" to comply with J2.1(2)? It seems more informative than simply scheduling 9 races and coming up short.
cheers
Doug
I think we need to credit the PRO with integrity. They are making judgment calls all the time. (courses, conditions, postponements, etc etc). If we think they are out to help specific competitors, we have a different problem and discussion.
Assume the finish time on the last day is fixed for the reasons you say. The wind dies to the point that RC judges fair racing is not possible, and the result is that fewer races are run than in the schedule?
How do you feel about that? It's not an uncommon scenario around here.
On your last point, we wouldn't be slipping in "extra" races. Per my suggested wording, they are explicitly allowed in the schedule. This degree of flexibility would be made clear in the NOR and, as usual, people can decide whether to come or not based on the NOR.
Either too little or too much wind is a risk of the sport. Some classes will even specify "minimum average wind 4kts, maximum 25kts" so I get round any possibility that the PRO ran the race to get someone a better place or cancelled it because someone was already in the lead etc
I realise this is pretty shocking stuff. From my perspective, I don't care who wins when I run a race. But somewhere there will be someone with some vague connection to me that I might be accused of favouring. I've had all sorts of wild accusations (usually in the bar with very much jest) - "you ignored the kids who were over the line on race 3 but called me [infer: old bloke who should know better] OCS ok race 4" "you shortened the course too soon" and "I couldn't regain my lead", "you should have shortened the course sooner" so that "sailor X couldn't regain their lead". Some of those that are seen to be advantaged might be junior sailors (I'm a junior sailing guy), some are children of others running the event. I've never knowingly done anything unfair or improper. But if someone *thinks* I have that's a problem...
My preference for a weekend race schedule might say something like:
A maximum of 8 races will take place. No more than 5 races will take place on any one day.
If I ran a 6th race on Saturday even if that was because I know the Sunday is going to be blown off, I expect to be in bother.
My son would take a snack afloat for after each race. Assuming he didn't just sail off after race 5 in outright protest at a PRO adding a 6th race, I would fully expect him to have his protest form ready before the committee boat touches the jetty. And he has never protested anything in his life. But he would be out of snacks and that's a MASSIVE deal.
I say this in a bit of jest. But with all seriousness. If you've given your all for 5 races and suddenly get told there is a 6th... Is that fair? And if you have any additional needs (diabetes that needs you to eat, a stoma bag that might need emptied etc) then suddenly being "forced" to stay out for longer is discrimination.
As for 7 are scheduled but no more than 9 may take place... I have no idea what that means! I'm wondering if that might mean the 2 spare are for abandoning races or general recalls etc. it's certainly not language I have ever seen used. Why not say "a maximum of 9 races may take place" and not say 7 anywhere. Because if it's too windy and you stop at 3, what did the 7 achieve. If you stop at 7, someone will ask why you didn't go to 9.
There is a variation on the 8 races in the series, 5 on an individual day that I'm pretty sure I've seen which is something like '4 races are planned for each day, but at the sole discretion of the race committee and additional race may be added to any day. No more than 8 races will take place in total'
I'm also struggling with the 9 instead of 7races. Because where do you find the time? First warning signal X, target race duration Y, finishing window Z. You can add that up and multiply it by a certain number of planned races. How do you squeeze in more? Cut Y short? Actually finish Z sooner? Finish the day very late? Not only do sailors have a time they want to go home/bar the rest of the RC and Safety Teams want to too.
This is important to the scoring structure, and hence competitors regatta strategy for the event.
RRS 27 and 32 provide mechanisms and conditions for sailing less than that number.
Without amending the NOR/SI the RRS don't make any provision for increasing the number of scheduled races.
OK, it's possible to write NOR with an open ended number of races. The Tasers used to do this. Personally I think that's a device of the devil. It means that race durations are going to go in and out at the whim of the RO.
I think 'N races are scheduled' means exactly N. And,
RRS 27 and 32 provide mechanisms and conditions for sailing less than that number.
I believe I know what you're saying. Can I paraphrase as "We're planning to sail N races, not more, but we all understand it could be fewer if conditions dictate". Right? And, I agree with that interpretation of what we mean by a schedule, absent other languate.
So, I think we almost always have an implied "not more than" in the schedule when we have a regatta with a firm finishing time.
What did you think of my suggested language above? To close to the work of the devil for comfort?
All other permutations and combinations of extra races at the convenience or preferences of participants or club level activity cannot be part of a regatta under the published NoR and SI.
I agree with Mark on all counts
The organizing authority made an error when they told boat A they could not file a hearing request.
A boat can always file a hearing request it is the protest committees job to determine validity. Rule 61.2(b)(1) and 63.2(a).
It's an improper action.
And given that they've already been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar manipulating the number of races, it's travelling quite rapidly towards misconduct by race officials.