There has been quite extensive discussion about the requirements of race committees for scoring boats NSC in accordance with RRS 2021-24 rules A5.1 and A5.2 in thread
Queries on "Finish" and DNF.
I have prepared a paper attempting to pull together the various views (obviously with a preference for my particular views). I propose to post the various sections of the paper separately, a few days apart, to facilitate discussion.
Shown below is the first part: Introduction.
Comments are invited.
Introduction
Introduction of NSC
The Racing Rules of Sailing 2021 – 24 introduces a new category of scoring, ‘NSC’, to be applied by the race committee without a hearing to boats that do not sail the course, by inserting ‘did not sail the course’ into the lists of categories to be scored by the race committee without a hearing in rules A5.1 and A5.2.
These changes were made according to Proposal 4 of
Submission 139-18 considered at the 2018 and World Sailing Annual Conference which included 4 parts:
· Part 1: Insert a definition of ‘sail the course’ based on the string part of rule 28.2.
· Part 2: Delete the ‘string part’ of rule 28.2, and base rule 28.1 on the newly defined term ‘sail the course’
· Part 3: Insert a requirement that a boat must ‘sail the course’ into the definition of finish.
· Part 4: Amend rules A4.2 and A5 (new rules A5.1 and A5.2) to include a requirement to score a boat that did not sail the course [N]SC without a hearing.
The insertion, by Part 3, of ‘sail the course’ into the definition of
finish was reversed by
Submission 129-19.
Parts 1, 2 and 4 were implemented in the published version of the new rules.
Purpose and reasons
The purposes and reasons for Proposal 4 stated in
Submission 139-18 were relevantly to Part 4 as shown below:
· Purposes:
- to clarify and simplify all rules that refer to a boat ‘sailing the course’
- [to] reduce … the number of hearings that the protest committee must conduct.
· Reasons
- Under the current rules, if the race committee believes from its observations that a boat has made an error in sailing the course, it is required to score the boat in her finishing position and then protest her for breaking rule 28. If Proposal 4 is accepted, the committee will be permitted to score such a boat ‘[N]SC, thereby penalizing her without a hearing.
- However, the rights of the boat are protected because she may request redress if she believes she did sail the course correctly. Because the facts in most such cases will be clear and not contested, there should be a net reduction in the number of hearings.
Practical issues
The introduction of NSC raises some practical issues which are discussed below.
· What are and are not the new obligations of race committees with respect to NSC,
· How the race committee should perform its new obligations, and
· Protest committee considerations.
There aren't many problems with other scores applied without a hearing, OCS, BFD, DNF etc etc, and I don't see why NSC should cause significantly more problems as long as race committees don't get a craze for using it.
At first it looks like it will increase the burden on RC, but RC normally follows the boats along the course and if spots a boat that did not sail the course protests it.
If a boat sees another boat not sailing the course properly she can protest it. Now with the new rule, I bet the boats will come to RC telling that boat X did not sail the course properly and should be scored as NSC by the RC instead of protesting boat X. Why? because lodging a protest is a process and it takes time and effort and etc...
I agree to John Porter to display the NSCs after the race before the scorer publishes the provisional results. It would save time to the PC for planning and conducting the hearings.
Aslan Ozcakir
If a competitor sees another boat not sailing the course, while the RC missed that, then it is still up to that competitor to protest.
My view is that the Racing Rules Submission 139-18 considered the risks and did NOT propose any such rules.
Here is my further proposed Section dealing with this. Comments and developing reasoning are welcome.
How the race committee should perform its new obligations
Direct Observation
Care and caution
Standard of proof, evidence and weighing evidence
Notice to boats to be scored NSC and ‘hearings’ by the race committee
Responding to complaints and enquiries from competitors
Edit to add: And with the current state of the world and Covid, most YCs are trying to minimize the amount of people on RC.
I think NSC should mainly be reserved for errors that are directly observed by the RC. RC should probably consider reports from uninterested third parties but I like the standards laid out by John Allan.
Boats already do this. Just last night I had three boats try it on at the finishing line. The answer is Case 39.
I couldn't agree more.
But, as discussed in my draft above, I think that when they receive a complaint or enquiry from a boat, the race committee should, under the 2021 RRS, 'take it to first base', that is, examine the information they already have.
If the race committee has, i its hands, proof that a boat has not sailed the course, they must score it NSC.
If the race committee is not in possession of the necessary proof, or sufficient evidence to justify the race committee in protesting, then its absolutely up to the boat to validly protest.
EDIT-ADDED
Any know off the top of their head why this was changed in the new rules? I'll go look to see if I can find an answer
These changes were made according to Proposal 4 of Submission 139-18 considered at the 2018 and World Sailing Annual Conference which included 4 parts:
I beg to differ.
New Rule A5.1 states
A boat that did not ,,, sail the course ... shall be scored accordingly by the race committee without a hearing.
This RRS absolutely says that the race committee must score a boat NSC if it has not sailed the course.
I stand corrected. There will be more unhappy parents. ;-)
Peter
That was the second main section, which I posted out of order because people seemed to want to discuss those issues.
Here now is the first Section Obligations of the Race Committee.
Please let us all know what you think of the ideas.
New obligations of the race committee
Obligation to score boats NSC
No obligation to monitor
Obligation to consider records and observations
said Created: Yesterday 11:04
I had thought about that, and I tried to cover it in the paragraph under Care and Caution in the previously posted section How Race Committees Should Perform ...
Race committees should beware of mistakes, and desirably obtain more than one source of evidence, for example, mark-rounding lists, significantly inconsistent finishing time or place, or incidental observations on the water by the race committee or judges, before scoring a boat NSC.
Do you think this needs improvement?
John, Thanks for the feedback.
While I quite like 'accepted responsibility' notion, I'm not wedded to it, and your alternative suggestions are useful.
What did you mean by 'that' in 'I don’t know that RCs often formally do that'?
You asked
I'm not sure what you are driving at, but do these answers advance the discussion?
A race committee will score a boat NSC when:
Firstly, I strongly agree with you that whether and how a race committee collects evidence about boats sailing the course is a matter for them.
Secondly, I would agree that the evidence and conclusion of NSC needs to be demonstrable, otherwise the race committee is riding for a fall.
But while it is no doubt good race management practice to show competitors evidence of NSC (and other race committee scoring decisions, DNS, OCS, ZFP, DNF), if the race committee is approached by the competitor, I can't see any obligation in the rules to do so,
You went on to say
Firstly, as I said above, there is no obligation under the rules on the race committee to 'produce' anything, until it comes before a protest committee.
Secondly, there is no requirement for each fact to be 'uncontested'. The race committee, like an eventual protest committee, may rely on the balance of probabilities.
A competitor may, in a Scoring Review Request discussion convince the race committee that it was mistaken, in which case it can correct the score, otherwise, the competiror's remedy is to request redress.
And lastly you said
While we hear various stories, and see various rules discussions in forums about NSC situations, I suggest that these are not the 'tip of the icebert', they represent the whole of the iceberg: I don't think NSC situations are all that problematic.
In my experience, as a judge, I reckon I see or hear of about one rule 28 protest a season, most of which result in a boat being penalised. As a race officer, I can think of a couple of occasions in the last five years when I have taken action (by discussing with competitors) about rule 28: in one of these, the competitor promptly retired, in the other, I had it wrong.
If race committees use the power prudently, mainly in accordance with conditions foreseen in the submission, I see no reason why the aim of the submission to reduce hearings won't be achieved.
As long as the rules compliance crusaders don't start to talk up the use of NSC, I see no reason why it's use should cause more hearings, rather than less.
I think your Care & Caution lines in the RC performance section are fine. At the same time, I think there's value in reiterating that not all such information is necessarily reliable (partly for reasons expressed below). I freely admit that this may be an overabundance of caution.
What did you mean by 'that' in 'I don’t know that RCs often formally do that'?
I meant both, really. In most of the racing I've served, either as a judge or a race officer, it has been common (where the personnel are available) to ask mark boats to take rounding information, and I certainly recognize it as best practice for a host of reasons, but I've always understood that request to be on a "best efforts" basis, and I think I've rarely if ever seen it be formalized, or be considered as a responsibility or obligation of the RC. I suspect the reason is that mark boats are sometimes otherwise engaged, and in some fleets, particularly at earlier marks, the boats round at such a pace that missing one or two isn't all that uncommon.
Is it your view that I've missed an RC obligation, and if so, why?
What I'm trying to get across is that (in my opinion, that I'd like to persuade people to accept), between the Obligation to Consider and the Care and Caution about Mistakes, if a race committee collects information about mark-roundings, they now must consider that information, with due consideration to its reliability, to determine whether to score any boats NSC: they can't just file it for reference.
If a race committee has in its possession (that is, in the possession of any person forming part of the race committee (See Definitions that Aren't Definitions, RRS, Introduction, Terminology, Race Committee) that proves that a boat has not sailed the course and does not score the boat NSC, that is an improper omission of the race committee.
Maybe put it this way (although I wouldn't like to put it thus 'oppositionally' in the paper): they have no obligation to collect, but once they collect they have an obligation to use.
This may be a new obligation, arising from the obligation to score boats NSC.
Again, I understand that your guidelines recognize much of this, and I may be being unreasonably picky, but it’s a matter of emphasis to me. Thanks for indulging my anxiety. 😬😄
Further comments on the Obligations or the How the Race Committee should Perform sections are still welcome.
Below, for comments, is the last section of the paper.
Responding to complaints and enquiries from competitors
Protest committee considerations
Boat can be penalised by being scored NSC without a valid protest
Natural justice – boat needs to be represented in hearing
Second, this may strike you as a discussion of the number of angels that fit on a pinhead, but while I understand the rationale for your observation that a redress request may be brought by a competitor who thinks the RC should have scored another boat NSC, I submit that such a request would torture the intent of the rule, and that as soon as the RC in question says they weren’t sufficiently convinced by whatever evidence they have in hand, the PC should deny redress. Failing to score a boat NSC when the RC is convinced she breached 28.1 (“Yes, we knew they didn’t sail the course, but scored her as having done so anyway.”) would be an improper omission of the RC, but failing to be convinced would not.
I say that because it seems to me that the rule is written to make the RC’s duty to score someone NSC flow from their conviction that the boat has failed to sail the course. If a competitor believes the RC should have been convinced but weren’t, that competitor’s proper remedy is to protest the boat they think has broken RRS 28.1 under that rule, not request redress because the RC hasn’t scored her NSC without a hearing. If they think the RC will have light to shed on the matter, they are certainly free to call its members as witnesses.
With that being said I am not including high level events, i.e. Nationals, Regional or World Championships.
John,
When I said: … it would be prudent to ask under what conditions will the RC score a boat NSC?
____________________________________
The Long(er) version:
John,
John,
Scoring Boats NSC
Introduction
Introduction of NSC
Purpose and reasons
Practical issues
New obligations of the race committee
Obligation to score boats NSC
No obligation to monitor
Obligation to consider records and observations
How the race committee should perform its new obligations
Direct Observation
Care and caution
Standard of proof, evidence and weighing evidence
Notice to boats to be scored NSC and ‘hearings’ by the race committee
Responding to complaints and enquiries from competitors
Protest committee considerations
Boat can be penalised by being scored NSC without a valid protest
Natural justice – boat needs to be represented in hearing
For the purpose of discussion, I offer what follows ..
IMO, competitors believe and rely-upon that RC scoring actions occurring within A5.1 and A5.2 are based upon an RC's own records and observations. As you point out, "Race committees are not obliged to give any notice to or have any discussions with a competitor before scoring them NSC." Additionally, I would add that the RC is also not obliged to disclose any info to the competitor after either. Therefore an RC has no obligation to inform a competitor whatsoever that an RC's scoring action is based or reliant-upon outside evidence.
When RC's come into possession of outside-evidence to score a boat NSC, IMO RC's should be guided to protest the boat and present the outside-evidence to the parties and the PC for consideration. This gives the competitor notice that the evidence comes from outside of the RC, and gives the competitor an opportunity to refute/challenge the evidence or the appropriateness of its source. For instance, an RC might not be aware that the information source violates 60.2(a)'s limitations, but in a hearing, those conflicts might be raised by the protested boat/party.
It seems to me that guiding RC's to limit applying A5.1/5.2 scoring actions to those instances which they can substantiate based upon their "own records and observations" is both sensible and fair and the only casualty would be the occasional "inconvenience" of a protest hearing.
Therefore, since the only downside of the approach I outline is the VERY occasional extra protest hearing, I'd propose that guidance on the reliance on outside-evidence be more conservatively handled.
I can only rehearse the arguments I made in the paper:
I expect that any further guidance that WS considers necessary will be included in the Race Management Manual.
I suggest that until such time as we begin to see protests and appeals about NSC, we should not attempt to add to the procedural requirements of race committees.
I don’t see what I’m suggesting adding any procedural requirements. 60.2(a) hasn’t gone away. Even if RC’s were guided to divert the smalll subset of NSC calls that are based on outside-info into the protest-hearing-process, the addition of NSC will still undoubtedly represent an increase in efficiency in reducing trips to the protest room.
Also, I would add that when one reads the Submission that lead to the change, a predicate of the need-basis is “... if the race committee believes from its observations...”.
I agree that limitation did not make it into the rules and again make no argument that your guidance-doc is outside of the rules as written ... it’s actually very fine work John. - Ang
RC would be able to directly observe NSC if it occurred at the start or finish line but may or may not directly observe a breach elsewhere on the course. So I agree that the RC should only assign NSC if they directly witness the breach, otherwise it should be the subject of a protest hearing.
However, I'm sure that the rules drafters and approvers were aware of this and could easily have included the restrictions he discusses in the rule rewrite. They didn't.
As I've said before, unless and until we see some protests, appeals and cases about NSC we should not be making up new, restrictive rules that are not in the RRS.
I enjoyed reading your report. Well done.
Under the rules, may an RC base a NSC call on outside information that would be otherwise disallowed under 60.2(a)?
If “yes” above, in a redress hearing where the NSC’d boat challenges the acceptability of the evidence and shows that the evidence would be disallowed as the basis of an RC protest under 60.2(a), is there a basis in the rules for a PC to “disallow” that evidence and, lacking any further evidence from the RC’s own observations and records, reverse the call?
The RRS are an open rules set: that which is not forbidden is permitted.
In a redress hearing about that NSC decision, there is no question of 'acceptability' of the evidence of persons with conflicts of interests.
This is different from the gateway in rules 60.2, 3 and 4 subparagraph (a) about initiating protests.
Protest committees are not bound by the rules of evidence and should rarely concern themselves with the admissibility of evidence. Rule 63.6 requires the protest committee to take [all] the evidence of the parties and their witnesses. It is then required to weigh that evidence on its merits. The protest committee may well give diminished weight to evidence of a self-interested competitor.
Direct evidence of a competitor about a breach will not be either irrelevant or unduly repetitive and should not be excluded by a protest committee.
Of course, if the race committee, as a party to the redress hearing, doesn't bring in the reporting boat to give evidence and just presents their hearsay of the 'report', then that might get a 'double discount' from the protest committee.
Thanks John for helping me thrash this out. I think the points have been well made.
Ang
Just read the above section and some of the commentary on RRS.org about it. What’s fun is I served as PRO for an event last weekend and got a report from the weather mark vessel that one of the competitors rounded the windward mark configuration in error. So I scored the competitor NSC. When we got ashore he asked me what he should do now, as he believed he had indeed made a mistake and that he rectified said mistake, thus remaining in compliance with RRS 28.1. I recommended that he file a Scoring Inquiry (which was, in this case, to say Hey Carl, can we talk about this?). If he convinces me that he had indeed complied with the Definition that used to be 28.2, I would score him in his finishing place. If he didn’t, and still didn’t accept the NSC, he could then file for redress and go thru the entire hearing process. (As it happened, he did convince me, I scored him in place, which set off a good long discussion about the string rule and cases 90 and 106, but that’s another, way too long, story.)
To Tim's point nearby above, ALL 3-letter scores a RC may impose should either be 1,000% certain or not imposed at all. During a Scoring Inquiry discussion, not being convinced includes raising reasonable doubt to the RC. Here, the mark vessel guys and even other competitors actually confirmed the competitor's actions, the long discussion thereafter was a difference of interpretation of the relevant Rules (and an IJ confirmed that the proper decision was made properly). In any event, having redress granted for an uncertain RC action is a bad look all around. It's one thing to be wrong, quite another to be uncertain.
Would you like to tell us how the mark boat made the mistake and what the rules confusion was?
Great work!
Well, since you asked. It's not really relevant to the NSC discussion, altho it might be somewhat useful educationally. I certainly learned a thing or two!
And sorry for the delay getting back - it's long and we lost internet in an amazing thunderstorm last night.
First to Angelo - Thanks!
Agree with 1 and 4, not so much with 2 and 3. The PRO has the ultimate responsibility for the RC - especially scoring - so initiating a conversation with the mark crews would be somewhat out of line, as it would be for them to enter into it. It's one thing if they appear as witnesses in a Hearing of any sort, but this whole NSC thing is new, and I venture that Scoring Inquiries (whether official or not) should be the first line of defense for a sailor, much as they are with the rest of the RRS A5.1 issues that we've been dealing with for years now. A Scoring Inquiry would go to the PRO first, and if it involved the mark crew then it is up to the PRO to have a conversation with them. If any doubt enters the PRO's mind, the PRO can either file a protest under RRS 28.1 and hope s/he's got or makes the better case, or (my preference) err on the side of the sailor and pitch the NSC and score them in place. If another competitor objects, they are welcome to file under the exact same Rule.
OK, to the incident. To recap the above posting: During the race in question, I received a report from the RC vessel at the windward marks that A (to protect the innocent) had rounded in error. OK, said I, and my scribe made a note of it. We noted his finish place, and scored him NSC. Once ashore, he became aware of the NSC score. He said No, I corrected it (I think because somebody told him he blew it), what do I do now?? I say File a Scoring Inquiry. If we go thru that, and you don’t convince me I’m wrong, I stick with the NSC, then you can file for redress. If I am in error (and by that I mean not as certain as I was, a low bar for sure, but I didn’t tell him that), I’ll change your score to where you finished. He asked How do I do that? I said Say Hey Carl, I’d like to chat about this (low-key event, doncha know), and we’ll sit down and chat and draw pictures and such. So he did, we did, he showed me his track (with which everybody involved agreed), it turns out the string rule was met, and I scored him in place. Afterward, of course, the mark boat guys and at least one other competitor were all over the “need to unwind the string” and Order of Passing things, so I did some further research, found Cases 90 and 106 (which are related), we ran it by an IJ, and lo and behold, the proper decision was made.
The Windward Mark configuration was of a Vertical Offset, the relevant part described thusly:
This language is inserted in the course description:
The RC will lay Mark 1A approximately 50 meters (7 boat lengths) (Star boats - LCS) to windward of Mark 1. Boats shall pass in order Marks 1, 1A, and then 1 all to port before proceeding to the next Mark, ….
With that in mind, the following:
Facts, again with which nobody disagrees and as illustrated in the picture below:
Which looks like (wind direction top to bottom):
As can be seen, if the string is pulled taut, it would pass (the term used in Definition) Mark 1 three times, once to Starboard (between Positions 1 & 2), and mark 1A twice (both to port). Yes, I have a picture of that too but they come out so big here...
The misunderstanding was that 1) the passing of Mark 1 to starboard had to be unwound, and 2) that having properly passed Mark 1A first the marks were not passed in order. #1 seems to stem from the concept that in order to maintain a taut string, an incorrect rounding of a single mark to be left to port, the starboard pass needed to be unwound or the u-turn made to make the port rounding would slip off the mark totally. #2 is a little trickier.
#1 is solved in the abstract for Case 90, which says "When a boat's string passes a mark on the required side, she does not break rule 28.1 if her string, when drawn taut, also passes that mark on the non-required side." (all emphases mine – LCS)
The solution to #2 is cleverly hidden. Nowhere does it say that you can only pass a mark once, nor does it say you cannot pass it more than once. All it says (Sailing the Course) is that you have to pass the required marks on the required side in the required order, which A does in Facts 4, 5, and 6 above. It took quite some doing to convince at least one guy that anything that happens before (e.g. Facts 1, 2, and 3) or after meeting the requirement of the Definition is irrelevant (the word used in Case 106, cross-referenced with Case 90).
I gave an example, which I think drove the point home. To whit:
Let's look at course(s) TL in Appendix S. Consider the following:
Per the diagram, Marks 1, 2, and 3 are all to be left to port. Except for competitors who bang the left corner on the first beat (I.e. sails upwind from the start line on starboard tack and passes outside Mark 2), each competitor passes (the term in the definition Sailing the Course) Mark 2, leaving it to port (the correct side?) before passing Mark 1. Assuming strings representing their tracks are pulled taut and thus are shown to pass in order Marks 2, 1, 2, 3, etc., is each of them in violation of RRS 28.1 for having passed Mark 2 first? If not, then why is A for having properly passed Marks before correctly passing Marks 1, 1A, then 1 again per the course description? Of course they aren't, or the course wouldn't be in the RRS. And neither is our friend A.
I didn't exactly see blinding lights come on, but it did sink in. Certainly did for me! And after essentially the above conversation in abstentia with a respected IJ who ended up seeing it the same as did I, having the decision blessed as made was validation enough for me!
-- Carl
That’s the point of your reply, correct, or were you making a finer point?
Thanks for the description.
I think once you know about Case 90, you won't make that mistake.
I haven't come across the 'Vertical Offset'.
I can see that it achieves the following:
John-
I may not have known about Case 90, but my interpretation of the Rule was pretty much in line with the Case, it's just explained better (and more authoritatively, it says!) in the book. Some people get stuck in a direction and it can be difficult to overcome the inertia. It's one thing to have guys at the corners who have been doing it for eons and have seen pretty much everything, and something else at a 15 boat regatta in the middle of lake country. Fortunately we had good people who were a pleasure to be around and did pretty much everything asked of them. Education is part of the job of any race officer, certified or no.
We are getting WAY off thread here! The VO was shown to me by Peter Reggio about 5 or 6 years ago now, he used it in the RC 44 regattas IIRC and I see it in Etchells racing and some other stuff too here in the States. In any event, yes, it clears up the carnage at the windward mark by putting the confluence of boats out into open water where we don't worry about "in the zone" rules, as 7 boat lengths keeps everyone further away before they actually meet up. To be honest, it doesn't do as good a job keeping the guys headed to leeward all that clear, so for bigger fleets we use a 3 prong (vertical and horizontal off Mark 1A) offset configuration, getting the best of both worlds. Safety is, as always, job one, and this really helps there. Not sure about the desirability of jibe-sets, if I could do tactics I'd be racing!
Many thanks for the explanation
Agree. Though not explicitly stated in the final wording, underlining the stated intent is beneficial IMO.
Again, I think this is good here. Most of what you have listed is consistent with 90.3(c) “RC .. records” such as rounding lists and finishing times.
Interesting that you have included observations from judges. If judges are on the water, they will typically have decided what to do if they see an infraction. A boat not sailing the course or hitting a mark, when no other boat is in a position to see the infraction, are two incidents that judges may decide to protest when witnessed. Otherwise, they are out to just “observe” the racing or rule 42.
I’m not sure how I feel about judges sharing information with the RC so that they can score NSC. Since the PC can protest a boat, a judge has a more direct avenue and this maintains independence between the PC/RC.
Maybe it’s nothing and wouldn’t cause issues … it’s just got my Spidey-Senses tingling.
Yes, those are what we would have considered to be typical examples in a jury protest policy, and it would have been consistent with Case 80 and Case 128 as they stood in the 2017 rules.
I think that with the introduction of NSC, a jury should give a bit more careful consideration to their policy about protesting or other action for not sailing the course.
The whole point of introducing NSC was that when failure to sail the course was reliablly observed by race officials, the boat should be promptly penalised without a hearing. As I have argued above, there is nothing in the RRS that requres direct observation by the race committee to do this.
I don't think there's any point in 'observing' if the judge is not prepared to give evidence as a witness, and in the specific case of a boat not sailing the course, I see no reason why a judge should not give that evidence to the race committee which is empowered to award a NSC score.
But the whole point of NSC is to avoid protest hearings. I don't think it's useful to be inventing restrictive rules that neuter the whole purpose of a RRS provision.
I'm aware of the US Sailing prescription to RRS 63.1, which states
1. no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence regarding an incident shall be a member of the protest committee for a hearing involving that incident;
In my opinion this prescription is unduly risk averse (although it may well be based on US law). It completely destroys the provision of RRS 63.6(b) which specifically asserts that members of a protest committee can validly give evidence in a hearing.
This may well have a significant effect on jury policies in the USA, but judges outside the USA should not accept this as a principle.
Maybe with NSC, juries might rightfully add to their jury-policy discussion whether or not they will volunteer NSC-type observations to the RC unsolicited, and how that dovetails into their protest criteria otherwise, especially when competitors are in a position to see the incident and protest themselves.
To be clear, I did not intend to suggest that there would be any issue if an OTW judge responded if/when asked what they saw by the RC. Rather I was mulling over how providing unsolicited reports of NSC to the RC might fit into the other criteria they might set for themselves as a policy.
Admittedly, after reviewing what I wrote before, that intent wasn’t clear at all.
/////
No obligation to monitor
/////
John Allan, I agree that the Racing Rules of Sailing do not place an onus on race committees to monitor boats or marks arising from the introduction of NSC. However, recording mark roundings is a race management best practice:
US Sailing’s Race Management Handbook contains the following on pages 277-278:
"Recording rounding order
For the reasons mentioned above with respect to abandoning a completed race, and any number of other good reasons, recording the rounding order of all boats is not only a good idea in most racing situations, it has come to be expected by both competitors and the protest committee.
It is extremely important if there is any question of redress (whether the request for redress is against another boat or against the race committee). In addition, knowing rounding order is a safety aid, particularly in low visibility or heavy weather conditions. Boats not accounted for at any rounding can be reported to safety boats so a search can be undertaken.
Such a record will also show if any competitors have “cut corners”; compare lists and report to the race officer and protest committee any indication that some boats may not have rounded all marks. The larger or more important the regatta, the more recording roundings becomes critical.
Rounding orders are best taken by a stake boat at each mark, although the mark-set boat can sometimes substitute, if it is not otherwise engaged. Stake boats should also record seeing any flags “B” or “I” displayed by competing boats to indicate protests or acknowledgments of infringements. Use two people, one to spot and one to record. A tape recorder also helps. Availability of boats and personnel often dictate some other arrangements."
The RYA’s Race Management Guide contains the following guidance on page 54:
"Other duties include recording the positions of boats as the race progresses. In many events this duty is carried out at each rounding mark."
World Sailing’s Race Management Manual addresses the subject of recording mark roundings on page H3:
"While on station, Mark boats record mark roundings, which may be of use to the Race Committee or the Protest Committee afterwards."
I experienced the following at a Flying Scot regatta where I was PRO:
First race windward/leeward, 4 legs, no issues.
Second race same course. As the lead boat, a top and highly respected Flying Scot skipper, was approaching the windward mark on the last leg, leg 4, she dropped her spinnaker in preparation to round the leeward mark. The next 2 Flying Scot skippers did the same. The fourth boat left her spinnaker up and continued sailing towards the finish line. I had about 300 yards to figure out and verify what was going on before the fourth Flying Scot crossed the finish line. I called the windward mark vessel and asked how many times the sail numbers of the three Flying Scots headed back up the course had rounded - the response was 2. I then checked elapsed times against the Race 1. I verified and felt very confident that the three Flying Scots headed back up the course should have been finishing. When I gave a line honors sound signal to the fourth Flying Scot, now the first, the three that had headed back up the course immediately turned around and came to finish. As they crossed the finish line they shared that race committee must have screwed up. I told them that we would discuss it ashore. And so we did, I laid out the mark rounding sheets and the elapsed time data. They all agreed that the first boat, with the best skipper, had made an error and the second and third boats followed thinking he must be correct since he is a top competitor. I was very happy to have mark rounding and elapsed time data.
Another situation in which I have first hand experience was at an Opti regatta. A sailor broke a rule just above the gate. This sailor took penalty turns and headed up to the finish failing, I believed, to pass through the gate. I was working Appendix P so I was not focused on sailing the course issues. I told my partner that I didn't think Opti Sail # passed the gate. We recorded the sail number and checked with the gate vessel who were recording sail numbers as the competitors passed through the gate. RC did not have that sail number as passing the gate. RC scored the boat NSC after gate vessel alerted the PRO who reviewed the mark rounding data. No scoring inquiry or redress was requested by the sailor. I don't believe it was a Rule 2 issue.
I agree that taking mark rounding data is secondary to safety issues, standing by a capsized boat for example, or other race management tasks such as deploying a change mark or monitoring wind direction and speed. But when they have the ability, I believe mark and signal vessel crews should record mark roundings as a best practice.
There is an argument that race committees at "less formal events" do not have the resources to take mark roundings. I have run many races with two race committee vessels, mark vessel and signal vessel, with two folks on the mark vessel and three on the signal vessel and have always managed to take make rounding data on both. Taking roundings was suspended when safety or other course tasks required, but the majority of the time crews were able to take mark roundings. And what is a "less formal event"? All series have a Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions governed by the RRS. I believe that race management at the club level should be the same level of race management as at the regional and national levels. The major difference being the skill of the competitors, not the competence of race committees. Indeed, we could teach sailors bad habits at "less formal" series that they may bring with them to higher levels of competition.
I understand that the several race management handbooks are not rules. Race committees routinely practice best practices that are not rules. Determining the lenght of the starting line and scoring inquiries are a couple of examples.
Welcome to the thread. Never too late.
I think that pretty much everybody here agrees that accurate rounding lists from mark-boats are best practice, and we didn't need all that convincing.
But I think that at other than elite level events it sometimes doesn't happen.
John Mooney and I had a discussion about what this actually means in practice in some posts around the 10 and 11 Oct 2020 area in the thread above.
I agree that race officers didn’t need all the convincing in my last post. I was trying to support my position that even small venue race committees should and can follow best practices.
I reread the conversation between you and John Mooney. I appreciate the cautious approach discussed in scoring a boat NSC. Before NSC, race committees would need to protest a boat that did not sail the course. The PRO would be prepared with evidence to present to the jury. I think the same applies to NSC, if you score a boat NSC, be prepared to defend the score with evidence at a redress hearing. And John Mooney made a great point that a missing mark rounding alone is not enough. It is enough, as he stated, to warrant further investigation.
I expect that in the not too distant future boats will race with a GPS device attached to their bows. This device will send data to a cloud based program that will make OCS calls, determine if a boat sailed the course, and when it finished or didn’t. As economies of scale takes hold, even smaller venues will be able to employ this technology. Of course this will bring new issues. For example, what happens when a device fails while racing?
Jerry