Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
"Enter” the Zombies?
P
Angelo GuarinoNationality: United States
Certifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
1
Happy New Year Everyone! What better way to start-off 2021 but with a post about zombies, right? :-)
"Zombies" are creatures that seemingly occupy their own realm. This thread hopes to explore a similar group .. those who exist between the entered and non-entered by virtue of RRS 76.1's "entry of a boat".. (thus the playful 'zombie' reference) :-).
Reference Materials (emphasis added .. 2021 quad):
"Zombies" are creatures that seemingly occupy their own realm. This thread hopes to explore a similar group .. those who exist between the entered and non-entered by virtue of RRS 76.1's "entry of a boat".. (thus the playful 'zombie' reference) :-).
Reference Materials (emphasis added .. 2021 quad):
- Rule 75 states that, "To enter an event, a boat shall comply with the requirements of the organizing authority of the event."
- Rule 76.1 states that, "The organizing authority or the race committee may reject or cancel the entry of a boat or exclude a competitor, subject to rule 76.3, provided it does so before the start of the first race and states the reason for doing so"
- Cases: 34, 65, 68, 78, Q&A 2018-016
=============================================================================================
SCENARIO
Facts 1:
1a) The NOR for a 2-day regatta defines 3 entry-requirements and states they "... shall be completed by each boat before the start of race 1". There are no impediments.
The requirements are:
SCENARIO
Facts 1:
1a) The NOR for a 2-day regatta defines 3 entry-requirements and states they "... shall be completed by each boat before the start of race 1". There are no impediments.
The requirements are:
i) Online Registration
ii) Entry Fee Payment
iii) Sail Declaration
iii) Sail Declaration
1b) Boat 'Forgetful' complies only with #1 (online registration), but not #2 or #3.
1c) Boat 'Obedient' complies with all NOR requirements.
1d) A list of boats with incomplete requirements, listing Forgetful, is posted on the Official Notice Board at noon the day prior to racing.
1e) Both Forgetful and Obedient acknowledge that they read the list on the ONB.
1f) Day 1, both Obedient and Forgetful start and finish all 3 races.
Questions:
1c) Boat 'Obedient' complies with all NOR requirements.
1d) A list of boats with incomplete requirements, listing Forgetful, is posted on the Official Notice Board at noon the day prior to racing.
1e) Both Forgetful and Obedient acknowledge that they read the list on the ONB.
1f) Day 1, both Obedient and Forgetful start and finish all 3 races.
Questions:
- Q1) Does Forgetful have an entry in the event that the RC/OA must act upon to reject/cancel under RRS 76.1? ... or does Forgetful NOT have an entry automatically based upon RRS 75?
- Q2) What if the OA/RC does not do Fact 1d above? Does it matter with regards to the entry-status of Forgetful?
- Q3) May/Should/Shall the RC list Forgetful in the results?
- Q4) If "yes" to Q3 above, how should Forgetful be represented/scored?
Facts 2: (includes Facts 1)
2) Race 1, Obedient breaks rule 10 vs Forgetful. Forgetful does not break a rule of Part 2 or RRS 31 during the incident and validly protests Obedient. Obedient does not take a penalty and is not exonerated.
- Q5) How should the PC proceed and what is the scoring outcome/listing for both boats?
Facts 3: (includes Facts 1)
3) Race 3, Forgetful breaks rule 18 vs Obedient, forcing Obedient to miss the leeward mark to avoid contact with Forgetful. Obedient doubles-back and correctly rounds the mark. While correcting, 6 boats pass Obedient. Obedient does not break a rule and validly protests Forgetful. Forgetful does not take a penalty and is not exonerated.
In the filing, Obedient also requests redress claiming that Forgetful broke Rule 2 by racing in an event that Forgetful knew she was either not entered in or was disqualified from. Obedient argues that Forgetful knowingly (facts 1d & 1e) and intentionally broke RRS 75 and the event's entry NOR's (which are rules), and that by racing and interfering with a boat that was properly entered and racing, Forgetful 's actions were unsportsmanlike.
- Q6) How should the PC proceed and what is the scoring outcome/listing for both boats in the protest hearing? What about the request for redress?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
F has not entered the event in accordance with rule 75.1
Rule 76.1 does not oblige the race committee to reject or cancel F's entry. Rule 76.1 is about the time and content of the notice of rejection, if any.
It is open to the race committee to protest a boat for breach of the NOR requirements if they have not rejected or cancelled her entry in accordance with rule 76.1
OA/RC has no obligation to notify non-compliance.
Posting the notice and F's admission that she saw it goes to 'knowingness' for purposes of rule 2 (See Q6).
I think, as a matter of practicality, it depends on whether or not F appears in the LOE.
If F is in the LOE, the race committee should record her finish and protest her for breach of the NOR, then include the outcome of the protest in the results
If F is not in the LOE she should not appear in the results.
See Q3.
Q5) How should the PC proceed and what is the scoring outcome/listing for both boats?
F is a 'boat' (Definitions that are not Definitions: Introduction: Terminology).
A boat may protest another boat (rule 60.1(a)).
If the protest committee concludes that O broke rule 10, they should penalise O, and O's penalty should appear in the results.
F should be scored as discussed in Q3.
Q6) How should the PC proceed and what is the scoring outcome/listing for both boats in the protest hearing? What about the request for redress?
So now we come to what Angelo is asking about.
Q6A How should the PC proceed and what is the scoring outcome/listing for both boats in the protest hearing?
1 is easy: F did not comply with the requirements stated in the NOR: she broke that rule.
If Forgetful was not in fact entered in the event, then was she subject to the rules of Part 2 (preamble)? She came to the starting area, but if she didn't complete her entry did she intend to race? Is submitting an entry form "undeniably" intent to participate? Or does failure to complete all of the entry requirements indicate a lack of intent?
If Forgetful intended to participate but was not in fact entered, was she racing? If she was assigned to no class and therefore had no prep signal?
If Forgetful was not racing (even though she was sailing around the course with the fleet) but was still subject to RRS, could she be penalized for breaking 23.1?
Q&A2018-006 makes this distinction and the implications clearly (both scoring and use of “registered boats”). IMO, if online systems are going to automatically generate lists and post to the ONB, and the event has more requirements than registration, the list should use the word “registrant” and not “entry”, unless the list represents those boats that have met RRS 75.1’s standard.
Of course, there was lots of discussion about this situation when it was happening, and the concensus was that if the boat was not racing, then the rules that applied between her and the other boats are IRPCAS, not RRS Part 2. If so, there's a huge problem, as nobody obeys IRPCAS on the race course, especially at the start and at marks -- if a boat racing were to come within, say, a boatlength of the non-racer, the boat racing would almost certainy break IRPCAS. In theory, another boat could protest her for that breach, and win. In practice, of course, nobody protested.
Setting aside the protests in Facts 2 & 3 for a moment, I didn't find a strong, bidirectional-link between being "entered" and being scored when I looked in the RRS.
We do have A2.2's ...
... but we do not have the opposite direction, a rule which states ..
We have RRS A4,
From what I can tell, it doesn't matter if the RC listed them on the LOE or not or their entry status. If a boat starts and finishes, she "..shall be scored points".
In general, an “invalid entry” is not listed as a scoring-action the RC can take in RRS A5.1 .. so I do not think the RC can simply look at their records and not score them based on their lack of entry or entry-completeness, unless their entry is missing a "valid certificate" (RRS 78.2 is listed in A5.1 .. this takes care of Rob's PHRF-certificate scenario)
Since RRS 75.1 not listed in A5.1, as John suggested in his response, I think an RC must protest the boat for breaking RRS 75.1 and have the PC DSQ them to remove the scores of an unentered boat that starts and finishes.
We do not have a scoring abbreviation for "No Entry" (maybe "NOE"?) .. so I guess it would be a simple DSQ.
Would be interested in hearing what others think. - Ang
PS: Separate thread with possible SI language here .. SI allowing RC's to DSQ Boats that are not entered without a hearing
That said, would failing to enter but sailing around and deliberately interacting/interfering with the racing fleet anyway be "conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour"? Could the boat be called to a rule 69 hearing?
2. In radio sailing Regionals or Nationals, which qualify for AMYA chevrons, we have seen regatta winners paying for required AMYA memberships only after results are in. Needs tough OA and PRO to say no.
Facts 2 and Q5 (Obedient fouls Forgetful), I thought that Case 68 describes the issues pretty well. John Allan really dove into the other details with his response examining the racing intent of both boats, if that's part of the question.
Facts 3 and Q6 (Forgetful fouls Obedient and Obedient request redress on RRS 2 basis) .. Again, thanks to John Allan for taking the time in putting together such a comprehensive response.
Case 65 resonates with me on this question. In Case 65, we have a boat that is Black Flagged, but continues to race and hinders a boat. Notice it doesn't say she fouls a boat, rather she hinders a boat while apparently not breaking any Part 2 rule in the process.
Case 65 states,
Forgetful knew she was not entered in the event, as she admitted to seeing the incomplete-entry list on the ONB the day prior .. but she went out and raced anyway and put herself into the mix at a mark, fouled Obedient and forced her to miss the rounding at the first attempt, significantly worsening her place in the race.
Case 65, though at first glance might not seem like it speaks directly to the question, appears to me to have some application and relevance. Both boats knew they were DSQ'd in the race, but decided to continue racing. The Black-flagged boat in Case 65 is DSQ'd by RRS 30.4 and Forgetful by RRS 75.1.
It might be one thing to come out for the start .. start with the fleet and sail around the course, but try your best to stay out of everyone's way and not impact those who actually have an opportunity for a score better than DSQ. It may be another thing to cover boats, press your Part 2 rights, and even foul another boat to the point they miss a mark, when you are DSQ'd from the event.
I think it's an interesting question to mull over.
Introduction
Invalidly entered boat involved in a protest
Do the RRS Apply?
Intending to participate
Treatment of a boat intending to participate
Boat not intending to participate has submitted entry form.
How should a boat not validly entered be portrayed in the results?
Invalidly entered boat not on LOE
Invalidly entered boat included in LOE
Ang
PS: In regards to publishing a "List of Entries" (LOE), looking through the RRS, I did not find that discussed anywhere. If it is not, that would imply flexibility as to what it is titled to more accurately represent what it contains and represents.
Other pre-race requirements such as sail declaration, crew registration, etc. could still be expressed in NOR or SI as rules governing the event, but not as conditions of entry. If a boat is entered and found to have failed to comply they can, on valid protest, be disqualified (or DP could be defined if desired).
OK, I've mulled over your reference to Case 65.
Case 65 was written way before the Black Flag Rule was invented, and in particular before automatic disqualification for breach of the corresponding old rule was introduced. The statement in the headnote that a boat that knows she has broken the Black Flag Rule is obliged to retire is odd: A boat that has broken the Black Flag Rule is disqualified, why should she be then obliged to retire? And it can't mean 'retire from the racing area' because that requires a SI referring to the sail numbers of BFD boats to be displayed at the windward mark.
Nevertheless, the condition in Case 65 is that the protest committee found as a fact that the boat unequivocally knew that she was disqualified.
That is certainly not the case with Forgetful. Rule 75.1, unllike rule 30.4, does not provide automatic disqualification. She could only be disqualified in a hearing after a valid protest.
You said
‘Entered’ is not a word defined in the RRS. Words may have no singular definition and may take their meaning from their context
I don't think it's helpful to go grasping after a singular definition.
It may well be that Forgetful, while knowing that her entry process was incomplete, understood 'entered' in the first of the meanings above, and not in the sense of 'entered in accordance with rule 75.1' It is not a breach of good sportsmanship to misunderstand an obscure rule.
It may be that Forgetful, even though understanding the implications of rule 75.1, simply lived up to her name and forgot to hand in her cheque and declaration before going afloat.
As I've previously discussed at length, the race committee and protest committee need to give careful thought to Forgetful's mental state of 'knowingness' and her good faith.
said Created: Today 15:49
I’m not aware of any online systems that do not provide a ‘hold’ point between submission of an entry form (and payment) and final ‘acceptance’ or inclusion into LOE, at least by means of an option for the organiser to publish or not publish the list at a point in time. What may happen is that event administrators may not effectively use this hold point and pass non-compliant boats through onto the LOE.
There is sometimes debate about the advantages of early release of 'dynamic' list of entrants, showing who has already entered, so as to encourage others to enter.
I think it's up to the OA to delete non-compliant entries from the LOE before the first race starts. If OA can't get their ducks in a row, I don't see why new rules should be invented to support sloppy race management.
We may be having some terminological confusion. Around here, submitting an entry form either on-line or by mail or by hand delivery is referred to as 'entering'. thjis may be incomplete and be followed up by later submission of required documents or payment.
At significant regattas there may then be a registration process, described in the NOR in accordance with rule J1.1(5), where, typically, competitors attend the regatta office in person, produce outstanding documents and certificates, weigh in, if required, are scheduled for any measurement or inspection, and then undergo measurement and inspection.
At lower level events, particularly weekly series, it's quite common for the OA/RC to waive or extend time for payment of entry fees, or (in this COVID times) submission of COVID Crew Lists to after a race has finished.
I note that you wouldn’t want to make it difficult for an OA that, for good reasons, such as forward incurring of costs, catering, overheads etc, wished to retain the entry fee of boats that failed to comply with all requirements, and thus make an issue of whether they were ‘entered’ or not entered and entitled to refund of their ‘entry fee’. It might also be inconvenient, with respect to a badly behaved boat, for jurisdiction under rule 69, to regard them as not entrants, which might imply that they were not competitors and not subject to rule 69.
See my discussion about 'good faith' and 'intransigent' boats at the foot of my previous long post.
Protest and disqualification alone won't do the job. A DSQ boat is still counted in 'number of boats entered' for rules A5.2 and A5.3. So the boat has to be deleted from the results (or somehow specially annotated). I think deletion is necessary for most electronic scoring systems. But if you want to keep the boat around, disqualification and deletion are sufficient to deal with races to date.
If you want a boat out of your regatta, DSQ in some races, won't do the job: you have to exclude her from the remainder of the event, and for that you need rule 69.
I don't think there is a 'problem' other than, as Angelo has indicated, unintelligent use of on-line entry systems, and I don't think that merits fiddling with rule 75.1
One question.
You say " I would go so far as to suggest that this has the colour of a lack of basic procedural fairness (for the Americans, lack of due process) that would justify an aggrieved boat in stepping outside the RRS and into the civil courts. "
Isn't the proper route to appeal the decision to the next level of authority under the RRS?
If they go to court, won't the Defendant plead in defence that the boat initiating the court action has agreed to the RRS by its actions and therefore must abide by its contract with all other boats and limit itself to the remedies under the RRS to the exclusion of the courts?
I suppose that gets the court into the very discussion that we've been having here.
As an aside we had a very similar situation in a state junior titles (fleet of about 25 boats in each of 2 divisions) where the protesting boat was denied status to protest because it hadn't paid the Class Association fees and membership of the Class Association was a requirement under the NOR/SI's. The protestor was DSQ and the family sold their boat and left the Association. So the types of scenario originally posted certainly does happen and get to Protest Committees one way or the other.
He is not a member of a sailing authority or of any class association or clubs hosting the events he joins and does not submit an entry form or pay a fee and does not display any indicia of racing. His boat is not on the marina or in the yard of a hosting club.
He just turns up in his boat of the type sailing (might not be a one design class, just a 38 footer in a division of a race that includes most of the 38 footers in the regatta or series) and actually races anyway, competing hard.
I do not see how he can be made subject to RRS or protested or redress successfully sought.
This means IRPCAS (ColRegs) applies and presents a risk to overtaking boats as the ColRegs are different to the RRS. It also causes uncertainty in other areas eg mark roundings, obstructions, limitations on luffing (and more I am sure). But I don't see how anything can be done in the absence of a collision of interest to the relevant maritime authorities.
I think that the situation we are talking about is hovering right over the boundary between sporting rules and the general law.
I think that it would be possible to make a case that the rejection or cancellation of a boat's entry, contrary to rule 76.1 was a fundamental breach of the contract (such as it is) between the OA and the boat or the person entering the boat, constituting a breach of a fundamental condition, or a repudiation of the contract, bringing his obligations under it to an end. Alternatively it might be possible to base a case outside contract, in administrative law on a fundamental denial of procedural fairness.
I'm not saying that such actions are likely to succeed. Much would depend on the circumstances, and how far the RC/OA had gone to engender ill will, and evidence lack of good faith on their part, the ability with which the case was argued and the state of His Honour's digestion on the day.
But a wise RC/OA will avoid letting matters get to that.
John, this is to the heart of the thread in many ways as “entry”, even in the noun form, is used casually to mean different things.
I think the Q&A was pointing the way to tighten up our terminology a bit with the introduction of “registered” as a useful and I would argue a more functional designation of those boats who have complied with some, but not all, of the OA requirements for the event, and that the deliberate use of both these different terms (entered/registered) can better communicate the true status of the boat.
This doesn’t require any change in the RRS, as “List of Entries” is not part of the RRS, so it only involves a little more care and purpose in choice of which words are used where and when.
I think doing so also tightens up and draws a strong connection between RRS 75.1’s “enter” and 76.1’s “entry”. This goes back to my original Q1 ...
Also, FWIW, I agree with your sound approach in determining if Forgetful breaks RRS 2, coming down to, as you say, “Forgetful's mental state of 'knowingness' and her good faith.”
By being more deliberate and specific in the use of forms of the word “enter” on the ONB and in other comms, I think OA’s can help reduce possible confusion in regard to a boat's 'knowingness'.
A Hole 'joins races' and 'competes hard' then, as I have discussed above, he is providing evidence that he intends to participate in the race and thus to participate in an event, A Hole's boat is a 'boat' so according to the Preamble to Part 2, he is bound by the rules of Part 2, which, according to rule 4.1(a), by virtue of her intention to participate has agreed to accept the rules.
Case 68 tells competitors that if it walks like a racing duck and quacks like a racing duck treat it as a racing duck according to the Part 2 rules. IRPCAS do not apply.
It may be that, because she never appears on a LOE, and is thus never assigned to a class or division to race, A Hole never has a Preparatory Signal, so is never 'racing' as the term is defined, but is perpetually in the state of 'intending to race'. In this case:
Whether A Hole was racing as defined might come out in a protest hearing. Other competitors would be wise to treat her as if she was racing.
According to rule 60.1(a) A Hole may validly protest another boat, and any other boat may protest A Hole.
Suppose A Hole protests another boat, delivers the written protest in time and shows up at the scheduled hearing.
I suggest that the club wouldn't want it any other way. If a member of the club breaks a rule, then they should be protested, and at least given their day in the protest room.
Suppose A Hole is protested and comes along to the scheduled protest hearing and the protest committee concludes that A Hole has broken a rule.
So, A Hole goes away with a penalty 'hanging over his head' to be imposed in the unlikely event that he ever joins a club and enters a race.
If A Hole does not come to a protest hearing, of which she has been effectively notified in accordance with rule 63.2, then the protest committee might proceed with the hearing in accordance with rule 63.3(b), and should probably do so, because the RRS do not provide for any other way to dispose of a protest.
Now suppose that a protesting boat successfully argued that A Hole, a boat not racing, intentionally interfered with the protesting boat in a substantial way affecting place or score in the race thus breaking rule 2 and entitling the protesting boat to redress. I think the protest committee could well:
If at some later time A Hole took another boat or the club to court claiming that IRPCAS applied, then I wouldn't like to speculate how that would go except that if it was held that IRPCAS applied, under IRPCAS it is extremely rare for only one boat to be found at fault, for example, where a give-way vessel fails to keep out of the way (and there is a collision or a close call), the stand-on vessel will also have failed to take various actions to avoid.
Bottom line:
Thank you for taking what must have been quite a bit of the time to organize and present your thoughts in such a complete and systematic way. It's really good work and I think has given everyone food for thought.
Ang
Thanks for the kind words, but I don't think the problem is all that big.
What Q&A 2018-016 tells us is that boats that are not entered completely in accordance with rule 75.1 must not be counted in the number of boats entered for scoring purposes under rules A5.2 and A5.3.
As I have discussed at probably excessive length above, this leads on to a consideration about what makes boats subject to the rules at all, and it turns out that being 'entered', however defined is not a requirement at all: all that is required is that a boat shows an intention to participate, which she can do in various ways other than submitting an entry form.
I don't think there is any need at all to further define 'enter' or similar words, much less to introduce a new term like 'registrant', which, as I have also described can have quite different meanings in different jurisdictions. All that is necessary is to construe words like 'enter' according to their context and the general sense of the rules.
I would also note that the rules frequently use 'enter' with a completely different meaning in the context of 'entering the zone'.
Let's look at the rules that use the term 'enter', 'entry' or similar words in the contest of entering an event and see whether it is obvious which meaning should be applied.
For starters, I suggest that it's straying too far from the common English meaning of 'enter' to say that a boat that has not submitted a required entry form (physically or electronically) is 'entered', so the starting point is that the boat has submitted an entry form.
Let's consider two possible meanings of 'Enter'
● Meaning 1 Submitted an entry form and complied with all rule 75.1/NOR requirements.
Rule 4.1(b) A support person by providing support, or a parent or guardian by permitting their child to enter an event, agrees to accept the rules.: Meaning 2
Rule 25.1 The notice of race shall be made available to each boat that enters an event before she enters. Meaning 1
Rule 46 A boat shall have on board a person in charge designated by the member or organization that entered the boat. Meaning 2
Rule 70.5(b) a national authority so approves for a particular event open only to boats entered by an organization affiliated to that national authority, a member of an organization affiliated
to that national authority, or a personal member of that national authority ... Meaning 2
Rule 75 To enter an event, a boat shall comply with the requirements of the organizing authority of the event. She shall be entered by ... Meaning 1
Rule 76.1 The organizing authority or the race committee may reject or cancel the entry of a boat or exclude a competitor, subject to rule 76.3, provided it does so before the start of the first race and states the reason for doing so. Meaning 2
Rule 76.2 The organizing authority or the race committee shall not reject or cancel the entry of a boat or exclude a competitor because of advertising, provided the boat or competitor complies with the World Sailing Advertising Code. Meaning 2
Rule 76.3 At world and continental championships no entry within stated quotas shall be rejected or cancelled without first obtaining the approval of the relevant World Sailing Class Association (or the Offshore Racing Council) or World Sailing. Meaning 2
Rule 80 When an event is rescheduled to dates different from the dates stated in the notice of race, all boats entered shall be notified. The race committee may accept new entries that meet all the entry requirements except the original deadline for entries. Meaning 1
Rule A2.2 If a boat has entered any race in a series, she shall be scored for the whole series. Meaning 1
Rule A5.2 A boat that did not start, did not sail the course, did not finish, retired or was disqualified shall be scored points for the finishing place one more than the number of boats entered in the series. Meaning 1
Rule A5.3 If the notice of race or sailing instructions state that rule A5.3 will apply, rule A5.2 is changed so that a boat that came to the starting area but did not start, did not sail the course, did not finish, retired or was disqualified shall be scored points for the finishing place one more than the number of boats that came to the starting area, and a boat that did not come to the starting area shall be scored points for the finishing place one more than the number of boats entered in the series. Meaning 1
So, to reprise your original question
No rule requires the OA/RC to reject or cancel F's entry if they don't want to. The OA/RC might, if it wishes, extend time for compliance.
If the OA/RC wants to assist F to continue in the regatta, and F promptly brings herself into compliance with all requirements including paying her entry fee, she might be encouraged to retire from the races before she has finally complied with all the requirements, or be protested and disqualified from them, and not included in, or deleted from the results for them (except maybe as a footnote explaining what has happened), then she may be included in LOE and results for later races. This may require some tinkering with electronic scoring systems.
If the OA/RC does NOT wish to assist F to continue in the regatta