Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Scoring Boats NSC
P
John AllanNationality: Australia
Certifications:
- National Judge
- Regional Race Officer
0
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.
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.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
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