Translation missing: en.posts.shared.post_not_found

Powered by
WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • John Quirk's original question seems to ask whether investigators could (or should) be used more widely than for rule 69.  I think that might be useful, but as Jim points out, protests and requests for redress are different in that the issue is brought by a boat and the entire procedure is "adversarial".  That is to say, the parties are expected to state their cases and present whatever evidence they see fit.  The assumption is that each party will present the best case possible, and the protest committee has no responsibility for presenting evidence (other than if a PC member saw the incident).  In contrast, in rule 69 hearings, the protest committee is bringing charges of misconduct against a sailor or supporter.  As John Christman points out, protest committees should take care before they call such hearings, so an investigator is useful to find out if there's any basis to the allegation.  And in the hearing, while the sailor is still expected to produce any evidence in their favor, somebody has to produce the evidence supporting the allegation of misconduct, and there is no "protestor" to do so.  Thus the need for an investigator.  

    That's the situation at present, but I wonder if we should look at alternatives, in the case of protest or redress.  In my experience, sailors do not necessarily present the best case they could, and justice is sometimes not served by a presentation by a sailor who is exhausted, ill-prepared, occasionally wet, and sometimes underage.  (Lots of times, I've watched a protestee read the protest for the first time, sitting in the protest room, and when I've asked "Are you prepared for this hearing?" they've said "Yes" while a little voice in my brain is screaming "NO!")  

    Maybe protest committees should routinely have "investigators" attached to them.  Things they might do include: Find out if there were neutral observers (e.g., mark-boat crew) who saw the incident; get the mark-rounding order from the race committee; determine whether there is video of the incident; examine boats involved in contact and photograph the damage, if any.  None of that information is readily available to competitors, but it might be useful in finding the facts.  
    Today 00:39
  • The Hystericals play their own game though. Didn't they eschew RRS for a long time? A class can permit poling out spinnaker clews in Class Rules/SIs if it so desires.
    But I think the innovation about Buckland/Bethwaite's kites was not the concept of an asymmettric sail on a pole, which was common enough, but that it was a sail set on a bowsprit with a loose luff like a spinnaker, not a taut luff like the old school sails tended to be.
    Yesterday 16:10
  • Angelo et al, for my example, more-or-less comporting with your scenario, I took the initial question to be one of 'match racing' (eg couple of F40s), and  thereof, the 'order of precedence'  under defined term APPENDICES; as such APPENDIX C takes precedence. Further noting that, the zone (C2.4is two boat lengths radius - and while a minium of 3.5mtr to 4mtr gate length is not unkown in match racing (from mark to gate mark (Xmas tree - marked with an X)) I have myself seen it down to and navigated through 2mtrs - equalling the zone radius (enhanced tactical maneuvering - for more skilled matched boats). Classically, PE - seeing SR as row, would simply deaccelerate somewhat and 'chase the stern quarter' of SR around in same arc (no breaches of rules and 'X' is not a continuing obstruction.
    Yesterday 02:42
  • HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!
    The RRoS Forum is so nice !!!
    THANKS SO MUCH TO ALL MEMBERS !!

    Cata
    from Argentina
    Fri 02:13
  • Thanks Ben....
    Wed 04:07

Forums Leader Board

This Month

1 John Quirk 1.8K
2 John Christman 1.4K
3 Jim Champ 1.05K
4 Benjamin Harding 1K
5 Michael Butterfield 800
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more