Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

"Enter” the Zombies?

P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
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 seemingly 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, 6568, 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:
    i) Online Registration
    ii) Entry Fee Payment
    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:
  • 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 ForgetfulForgetful does not break a rule of Part 2 or RRS 31 during the incident and validly protests ObedientObedient 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 ForgetfulObedient doubles-back and correctly rounds the mark. While correcting, 6 boats pass Obedient. Obedient does not break a rule and validly protests ForgetfulForgetful 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?
Created: 20-Dec-15 18:49

Comments

Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
3
Thanks for posing this question. It might be particularly relevant to race organisation in times of Covid where contact tracing is important. Our club, Greenwich Flying Squadron in Sydney, Australia implemented a requirement that all boats register each of their crew members for each race to enable contact tracing in case of need, given that crews often work in close quarters for part of the time and touch the same surfaces such as winch handles, handrails, poles etc. Boats that don't register before the results are posted are scored DNF. We failed to register for one race since this implementation and were scored DNF. Whether the mechanisms employed fulfill all requirements of RRS is unknown to me. We accepted the DNF in a spirit of cooperation with our committee, but others may not and so I think this question is timely.
Created: 21-Jan-08 01:07
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
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?

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

Q2) What if the OA/RC does not do Fact 1d above?  Does it matter with regards to the entry-status of Forgetful?

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).

Q3) May/Should/Shall the RC list Forgetful in the results?

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.

Q4) If "yes" to Q3 above, how should Forgetful be represented/scored?

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?
 
So what O is trying to do here is to get her request for redress within the scope of rule 62.1(d), which relies on a boat being penalised for breaking rule 2.

So O’s rule 2 allegation is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
 
If F was on the LOE, if the protest committee concludes that she broke rule 18 she should be penalised.
 
The Hearing Request submitted by O also alleges that Forgetful broke Rule 2 by racing in an event that Forgetful knew she was either not entered in or was disqualified from.  This is a different incident from the rule 18 incident and should properly be the subject of a separate protest hearing (in which validity may be an issue).
 
To make her rule 2 protest stick O is going to need to produce evidence that after the posting of the notice, that F still has not paid her entry fee and/or produced her Sail Declaration.  Presumably she will do this by calling a witness from the RC/OA, and presumably this evidence will be accepted.
 
So this evidence will prove that F broke a rule, namely the NOR requirement to pay fees and produce Sail Declarations.
 
I think O may be running into trouble by arguing that, as a result of rule 75.1 F never entered the race at all.  F might very well respond to that by saying that if she was not entered in the race, then the RRS, and rule 2 did not apply to her, so she could not break that, or any other rule.
 
I don't think this defence is sound.  F submitted an Entry Form, came to the venue, and sailed in the races:  these facts point to her intention to enter and compete.  Perhaps more formally,  Rule 3.1(a) provides that 'By participating or intending to participate in a race ... each competitor and boat owner agrees to accept the rules'.  Submitting an Entry Form undeniably evidences an intention to participate.
 
So, I think it is pretty certain that F is subject to rule 2 (and all the other rules).
 
It's now up to O to prove the elements of rule 2, which is often formulated as that she intentionally broke a rule to gain an advantage, which we can break down into:
1.     Broke a rule
2.     Possible to gain an advantage
3.     Knew that the rule existed and knowingly broke it
4.     Intending to gain an advantage.

1 is easy:  F did not comply with the requirements stated in the NOR:  she broke that rule.
 
2 is a little more difficult.  By competing in the regatta, F had a chance to win prizes and gain good fame.  This would be to her advantage.
 
3 is in two parts.  It is easy to prove that F knew the rule existed (by her admission that she had seen the defaulters notice).  The question is, then, did she know and understand that she was breaking the rule, or was it mere absence of mind and forgetfulness?
 
Suppose F says ‘I’m terribly sorry I forgot to get my papers in on time, but just before I came here I gave my cheque and Sail Declaration to the race office’, and brings in a witness to produce the payment and a compliant Sail Declaration.
 
I think a protest committee would treat the breach of the NOR as a mistake in good faith and not as a breach of rule 2.  They might well:
1.     give F the opportunity to retire from Races 1, 2, and 3;
2.     hear O’s protest about breach of the NOR in Race 3 and disqualify F from Race 3;
3.     Hear the race committee protests against F in races 1, 2, and 3, which hopefully the race committee delivered as soon as they got wind of the problem; or
4.     Initiate protest committee protests against F in races 1 and 2.
 
Things might be different for F’s distant acquaintance sailing Blatant Cheat, in similar circumstances, who when the race office witness is called in, she produces a ‘Transaction Declined’ credit card slip and a Sail Declaration showing three headsails each over dimension by 10%.
 
Let’s now consider how it might play if F never was on the LOE.
 
It would be open to F to argue that, once she was aware that she did not comply with the NOR requirements (say, because she did not have a Sail Declaration, or did not have one that was compliant), she no longer intended to compete, and that her presence on the race course was just a nice cruise around following the fleet.
 
Her protest against O in Race 1 pretty much kicks this argument into touch, and weaselling around like that would be quite likely to influence protest committee not to extend any benefit of doubt to F about her good faith.
 
Bear in mind that all three races are on the same day, so F has crossed the starting line, sailed the course and crossed the finishing line in all three races, and protested O in Race 1.
 
So the protests from Race 1 and Race 3 should be considered by the duty judge for coordination.
 
Q6B   What about the request for redress?
 
Depends on how the protest committee concluded about the rule 2 protests.

If it was Blatant Cheat, then she would have been penalised DNE for breaking rule 2 and this would open the door to redress in accordance with rule 62.1(d).

If it was just good old Forgetful, who has paid up and apologised, I don’t think she is penalised for breaking rule 2 and therefore O is not entitled to redress.

I would be very adverse to stretching rule 2 to penalise Forgetfful for just living up to her name, in order to achieve redress for O.  That’s a rub of the green issue.

 



Created: 21-Jan-08 01:44
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
If the OA listed Forgetful in a list of entrants, assigned her to a class, etc. when she was not validly entered in the event then I think the OA made an improper action and Obedient has a case that her score was made significantly worse thereby.

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?
Created: 21-Jan-08 03:58
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Tim, you and John hit my first target and that’s RC’s sometimes casual use of the word “entry” in published “List of entries” (LOE), especially with the reliance on online race management systems which automatically generate and publish these lists to the ONB when a boat registers.

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. 
Created: 21-Jan-08 12:35
Rob Overton
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • International Umpire
0
Angelo's question is not hypothetical.  For more than one summer, I raced on a boat in PHRF, and one of the other boats on the water did not have a valid PHRF certificate.  That was one of the requirements for entry, so the OA didn't accept her entry to any of the events.  She showed up at the start anyway.  The RC refused to score her, but she didn't seem to care.  She was protested on one race, and the PC decided (I think, correctly) that she couldn't be protested because she was not racing in that race.  In any case, such a protest was moot because she had no score to adjust if she was found to have broken a rule.  At least one boat filed for redress, but could not demonstrate that there were grounds for doing that.  In the end, the yacht club that hosted most of the events had a chat with the owner of the boat, in which, I believe, he was threatened with being barred from the property if he continued this behavior.  I'm not sure what happened next; I think he may have moved away from the area.  In any case, his boat didn't appear on the starting line again.

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.
Created: 21-Jan-08 17:00
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John, Tim and Rob .. you all touch on my target #2, which was discussing the racing status of Forgetful as well as how best to handle her results and her appearance in the posted results.  

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 ... 
"If a boat has entered any race in a series, she shall be scored for the whole series." 

... but we do not have the opposite direction, a rule which states .. 

[not-a-rule] "If a boat has not entered a race, or any race in a series, she shall not be scored for the race or the whole series." 

We have RRS A4, 
"Each boat starting and finishing and not thereafter retiring, being penalized or given redress shall be scored points as follows:" .  

Starting and finishing do not reference racing or being entered.

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.

  • A5.1 is not restricted from change by RRS 86.1, so an OA could write an SI which changes A5.1, adding RRS 75.1 [and an RRS 76.1 action] to the list of rules that, if a boat does not comply with, the RC can take a scoring action without a hearing.

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
Created: 21-Jan-08 20:35
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
I think, particularly based on Q&A2018-006, a boat that hasn't completed all of the requirements for entry should be treated the same as a boat that hasn't completed any of the entry requirements. For the purpose of the event they don't exist. They are not entered in any class so they have no starting signal and so cannot start. If they interact with a competitor they're treated as a boat not racing. For scoring purposes they're ignored, which means they're also not subject to protest or penalty.

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?
Created: 21-Jan-08 21:12
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
1. A hefty (arithmetically disqualifying) but "less than DSQ" penalty written into the SI might help.
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.

Created: 21-Jan-08 21:22
Rob Overton
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • International Umpire
0
Phillip, I don't know why I think your #2 is funny, but I do.  The way to stop that behavior is for AMYA to rise up on its hind legs and assert itself.  Tell the OA to simply not score boats that haven't met the entry requirements, or they won't be invited to host qualifiers again.
Created: 21-Jan-09 06:26
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
With Facts 1 and Q1-Q4, I was hoping we would explore a couple ideas that I think the responses touched on.  Here are some of my impressions from the comments ...
  • Though "entry" isn't a defined term in "definitions", RRS 75.1 clearly states what is required to be "entered'.
    • It seems everyone was in agreement that a boat that does not comply with ALL of the stated requirements to enter the event ... is not entered in that event.
  • That it might be prudent to check how the terms "entry", "entered", "entries" are being used in competitor communication and on the ONB, as not to unintentionally mislead a competitor that they are "entered" when they are only "registered" for the event.
  • That A4 requires any boat that starts and finishes to be scored.
    • Therefore, unless you have an SI stating otherwise, a boat that starts and finishes but is not entered in the event, shall be scored

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, 
" A competitor who, while knowing that his boat has already been disqualified, intentionally hinders another boat clearly commits a breach of sportsmanship (see Sportsmanship and the Rules) and rule 2."

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.
Created: 21-Jan-20 05:25
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
1

Introduction

This topic has provided a lot of food for thought.  In order to connect up the various ‘rabbit holes’ down which it has gone, I’ve tried to pull it together in the discussion below, which addresses the issues in the following structure.

If a boat is not validly entered in an event in accordance with rule 75.1:

●        How should the boat be dealt with if she is involved in a protest?  And
●        How should the boat be portrayed in the results?

Invalidly entered boat involved in a protest

How should a boat that it not validly entered in an event in accordance with rule 75.1 be dealt with if she is involved in a protest?  In other words, is she subject to the jurisdiction of a protest committee?  This can be subdivided into:

●        Do the RRS apply to her;  and
●        If so, what RRS, in particular, what elements of Part 2 and Part 4 apply?

Starting point:  a boat, which is known to be or is later found to be, not validly entered in a race sails about in the racing area and protests or is protested by another boat.  OR interferes with or is interfered with 

It’s hard to imagine a breach of the RRS for which a boat might be protested that does not occur at least on the water.

Consider some breach ashore, say of a NOR/SI about conduct in the dinghy park.  In that case, the evidence of sailing about in the racing area is absent:  instead we have, as evidence, attending the venue with a boat of a class for which racing is intended.


Do the RRS Apply?
There are two things which make a boat subject to the RRS:

1.    Rule 4.1(a) provides: By participating or intending to participate in an event conducted under the rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees to accept the rules.
2.    If the OA has provided an entry form, which, in accordance with rule J1.2(11), contains words to the effect of I agree to be bound by the Racing Rules of Sailing and by all other rules that govern this event, and the owner or owner’s representative has signed the form and submitted it to the OA.


Intending to participate
Whether or not she has submitted an entry form, a boat is bound by the RRS if she participates or intends to participate in an event (rule 4.1(a)).

The first signifier that a boat intends to participate in an event is the submission of an entry form, or actions taken to comply with the entry requirements of the OA.

Discussion in this section focuses on the case where a boat has not submitted an entry form, or despite having submitted an entry form, disputes that she is bound by the rules.  A boat that has submitted an entry form and provides other evidence of her intention to participate as discussed below, clearly intends to participate.

Generally if a boat is shown to intend to participate in a particular race, this implies that she intends to participate in the event to which that race belongs.  A boat may also signify that she intends to participate in an event by actions other than with respect to a single race.

Evidence that a boat intends to participate in a race, and hence in an event may be that:

●        She sails around in the racing area at the time of a race;
●        She crosses the starting line;
●        She sails the course;
●        She crosses the finishing line
●        She interacts with other boats that are racing in a way typical of a boat that is racing.

Evidence that a boat did not intend to participate in a race may be that:

●        She sails near the racing area;
●        She does not use racing sails;
●        She does not display racing or divisional flags;
●        She carefully avoids interfering with boats that are racing;
●        She did not submit an entry form or did not complete other entry requirements.

A boat that demonstrates that she intends to participate or to race is bound by the RRS, in accordance with rule 4.1(a).

In particular a boat that intends to race is bound by the When Boats Meet rules of Part 2 (Preamble to Part 2).

A boat may not intend to race in a particular race, but nevertheless, still intend to participate in the event as a whole, for example, by racing or having intended to race in another race in the event, or by coming to the event venue with a boat of a class provided by that event.


Treatment of a boat intending to participate
If a boat, intending to participate in an event, and hence, to which the RRS apply:

●        sails about in the racing area:
-       if she is intending to race in that particular race, she is to be treated by other boats as if the RRS applied to her, and is obliged to treat other boats likewise (Case 68):
-       if she is not intending to race, the rules of Part 2 will not  apply to her, but she, will be required to comply with IRPCAS or other government regulation, by virtue of the general law, and any other boats that are subject to the RRS will be required to comply with IRPCAS by the RRS.  Preamble to Part 2 states
 
 
When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing  Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules.

Taking the Preamble and Part 2 as a whole, the better constructions is that ‘these rules’ means the rules of Part 2, not the RRS as a whole, and that while the IRPCAS will apply to a boat, by virtue of the general law, compliance with them is not a requirement of the RRS and a boat may not be protested for failing to comply with IRPCAS.

If such a boat, subject to the RRS, interferes with a boat that is racing, it may be that the appropriate course it to proceed under rule 69 for a breach of good manners.

●        protests or is protested by another boat, she is a ‘boat’ (RRS Introduction: Terminology);  rule 60.1 provides that a boat may protest another boat;  she may protest, or be protested by any other boat.


Boat not intending to participate has submitted entry form.
In the case where it is not demonstrated that a boat intends to race, she may not be bound by the rules of Part 2, but nevertheless be bound by other of the RRS by virtue of submitting an entry form in accordance with rule J1.2(11).

Submitting an entry form is evidence of an intention to participate in an event, and, if in accordance with rule J1.2(11), includes an agreement to be bound by the rules,

That evidence may be contradicted by:

●     not submitting follow-up documentation, paying entry fees, or otherwise complying with requirements of the OA;
●     not racing in any race
●     If sailing about in the racing area, doing so in a way inconsistent with an intention to race.
●     advising the race committee or organising authority that she is does not intend to continue to participate in the event.
 

So, unless there is persuasive evidence that a boat that has submitted an entry form in accordance with rule J1.2(11) does not intend to participate in the event, or not participate any further in the event she is bound by the RRS, including rule 69 because she is a ‘competitor’ (Introduction:  Terminology), and also by any SI or NOR requirements about behaviour at the event venue or on the water other than when subject to the rules of Part 2.

How should a boat not validly entered be portrayed in the results?

Q&A 2018-016  tells us, clearly enough that a boat that is not entered in an event in accordance with rule 75.1 should not be included in the number of boats entered in the series for purposes of calculating scores.

I think, as a matter of practicality, how such a boat is represented in the results depends on whether or not she appears in the List of Entries (LOE).


Invalidly entered boat not on LOE
If a boat that is not entered in accordance with rule 75.1 is not in the LOE she should not appear in the results, and will, therefore, not be counted in the number of entrants.

If a boat requested redress because she was not included in the results, she would not be entitled to redress, because there was an underlying fault of the boat’s own, in not complying with the entry requirements in the first place (rule 62.1).


Invalidly entered boat included in LOE
If an invalidly entered boat is included in the LOE, the race committee is confronted with a management problem.

If she was included in the LOE, the race committee on the water, should record her finish place and time.

Now we come to how she should be scored.

If the race committee on realising that her entry does not comply with rule 75.1, just flatly deletes F from the results, and says that it is doing so pursuant to rule 75.1 and Q&A 2018-16, and even though they may say that rule 90.3(c) requires them to do that, I think that is very likely to be properly construed as rejecting or cancelling her entry, and not in accordance with rule 76.1.  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.

I think it is open to interpret rule 76.1 (which can not be changed by NOR/SI (rule 86.1(b)) as meaning that if the organising authority or race committee has not acted positively to reject or cancel a boat’s entry before the first race, the only way that she can then be excluded from the event is by a decision of the protest committee under rule 69.

Baldly tossing a boat out, is unnecessarily confrontational and likely to generate significant ill-will all round.

The race committee needs to exercise some tact and diplomacy.

I would suggest that first, the race committee needs to form a view about whether the boat’s non-compliance was a genuine oversight and if the boat, in a sporting spirit seeks to put things right, for example, by promptly paying up and producing documents to bring her into compliance with the requirements of the organising authority, the race committee might seek a fair way to allow the boat to continue in the event.

Otherwise, if the boat appears intransigent and does not seek promptly to bring herself into compliance with the requirements they may form a view that she is not inclined to fair-minded sportsmanship, and should be dealt with more harshly.

If the race committee forms a view that a boat that was invalidly entered, but has shown good faith and has completed entry requirements albeit late deserves helpful treatment:

●        The boat might be allowed to retire from races in which she has already competed, or, if protests are already afoot, be disqualified from those races, and if necessary, the race committee should protest her for the breaches of the organising authority’s requirements.
●        The race committee should then delete the boat from the results of those races in accordance with Q&A 2018-016, and if there was a protest decision, the protest committee might draw the attention of the race committee to those requirements.
●        The race committee might make an annotation on the results explaining the status of the boat.
●        After the boat has paid her entry fee and complied with all other entry requirements, she should now be allowed to compete in subsequent races and included in the LOE and results for those races.
 
If a boat appears intransigent and has not promptly brought herself into compliance with the requirements, then, I think the best course for the race committee is to:

●        Protest the boat in races in which she has competed;
●        Assuming that F is disqualified from those races, delete her from the results of those races in accordance with Q&A 2018-016.
●        The race committee might make an annotation on the results explaining the status of the boat.
●        Delete the boat from the LOE for future races, if asked citing rule 75.1 as their authority.
●         
It is not sufficient to disqualify the boat or to score her DNC, DNS, DNF etc, because the requirement of Q&A 2018-016 is that she not be counted in the number of boats entered for scoring purposes.


Created: Sat 11:56
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John, that’s great stuff.  I’ve got a couple Q’s. 


If she was included in the LOE, the race committee on the water, should record her finish place and time. [...] I think it is open to interpret rule 76.1 (which can not be changed by NOR/SI (rule 86.1(b)) as meaning that if the organizing authority or race committee has not acted positively to reject or cancel a boat’s entry before the first race, the only way that she can then be excluded from the event is by a decision of the protest committee under rule 69.

  1. This goes back to my observation of how modern online LOE’s are automatically generated by race management systems based solely on completion of online resignation, some also requiring fee payment. What are your thoughts on that, if the event defines more requirements than registration and payment, this automatically generated list might more appropriately be labeled something else ... maybe  “Registered Boats” or “List of Registrants”, etc.?  
  2. Above you suggest that rule 69 is “the only way that she can then be excluded”. Do you feel that an RC protest for breaking the NOR/SI directly or rule 75.1 more generally is not available or appropriate?

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.

Created: Sat 15:49
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Couldn't this problem largely be solved by limiting the entry requirements to filling out a registration form and submitting the required fee prior to an established deadline? That way there's very little room to question whether a boat is "entered" or not and nobody would have to validate whether boats on a list of entrants had complied with entry requirements.

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).
Created: Sat 19:47
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo,

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

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.

‘Entered’ is not a word defined in the RRS.  Words may have no singular definition and may take their meaning from their context
 
There are a number of possible meanings of 'entered':
●        Submitted an entry form;
●        Submitted an entry form and complied with some but not all rule 75.1/NOR requirements
●        Submitted an entry form and complied with all rule 75.1/NOR requirements.

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. 
Created: Sat 21:34
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo Guarino
said Created: Today 15:49

This goes back to my observation of how modern online LOE’s are automatically generated by race management systems based solely on completion of online resignation, some also requiring fee payment. What are your thoughts on that, if the event defines more requirements than registration and payment, this automatically generated list might more appropriately be labeled something else ... maybe  “Registered Boats” or “List of Registrants”, etc.?  

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.

Above you suggest that rule 69 is “the only way that she can then be excluded”. Do you feel that an RC protest for breaking the NOR/SI directly or rule 75.1 more generally is not available or appropriate?

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.
Created: Sat 22:38
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Tim,

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
Created: Sat 22:44
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
John, thanks for your explanation. 
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.
Created: Sun 01:08
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Andrew Hole just joins races a few times a year (perhaps just after the boat is antifouled) and doesn't want to pay fees or be bothered with red tape. 
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.
Created: Sun 02:31
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Paul,

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.
Created: Sun 03:20
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
‘Entered’ is not a word defined in the RRS.  Words may have no singular definition and may take their meaning from their context
 
There are a number of possible meanings of 'entered':
●        Submitted an entry form;
●        Submitted an entry form and complied with some but not all rule 75.1/NOR requirements
●        Submitted an entry form and complied with all rule 75.1/NOR requirements.

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. 

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 ...

  • 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?

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'.  
Created: Sun 14:13
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Paul Hanly

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:
  • rule 17 will not apply to her because she never has a starting signal,
  • rule 18 will not apply because she is not required to leave any mark on a specified side,
  • rule 23.1 will require her as a boat not racing to avoid if possible, interfering with a boa that is racing.
Otherwise the When Boats Meet rules of Part 2 will apply.

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.
  • the protest committee shall disqualify her unless some other penalty applies (rule 64.2).
  • if the protest committee concluded that A Hole was not racing, her penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to that of the incident (rule 64.2).

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:
  • conclude that A Hole broke rule 2 and penalise A Hole with DNE, and
  • give redress to the protesting boat in accordance with rule 62.1(d).

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:
  • competitors should treat A Hole as if she was racing
  • If A Hole protests another boat, that's a valid protest.
  • If A Hole is protested that is also a valid protest, although an adverse outcome to A Hole may be nebulous, but practically speaking, the club has communicated formally with A Hole and told hime that he is breaking the rules:  unless A Hole lives up to his name you should expect this to have some useful effect.








Created: Tue 22:12
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John, the combination of your responses represent a great starting point for a white paper on this topic.

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
Created: Yesterday 16:55
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more