Forum: Share your SI/NOR language.

SI for Appendix T Post Race Penalties and Arbitration

P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
Regrettably, neither Appendix S, nor Appendices KG/LG provide words to switch in Appendix T Post Race Penalties and Arbitration.

Also rule T2 states 'An arbitration meeting will be held ...'.  Apparently this is leading some OAs to avoid using Appendix T when they cannot guarantee the avialability of a suitable arbitrator.

Here are some possible SI paragraphs which enable Post Race Penalties to be used without Arbitration, and to make Arbitration optional to the OA.

14        PENALTY SYSTEM
14.1    In addition to the penalties prescribed in RRS 44, a boat that may have broken a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 may take a 30% Post Race Penalty in accordance with RRS Appendix T.

and

following the Protests, or Hearing Requests Section

17        ARBITRATION
17.1         Arbitration may take place in accordance with RRS Appendix T.


Here also is a Si to extend PRP and Arbitration beyond Part 2 and rule 31, for low level club events.

1.1           RRS 44.1 and 44.2 Two-Turns Penalty shall apply for breaking a rule of RRS Part 2 or rule 31. A boat may also take a 30% Post Race Penalty in accordance with RRS Appendix T for breaking any rule.  This changes RRS T1. In hearing a valid protest for a breach of a rule other than a rule of Part 2 or rule 31, the Protest Committee may decide that the Post Race Penalty is not an applicable penalty and impose any greater penalty within its powers.



Any thoughts?
Created: 21-Mar-22 05:19

Comments

Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
30% penalty for breaking ANY rule?
Woo-hoo! What a deal!
Katey bar the door!
:)
Created: 21-Mar-22 06:29
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Hey, Phil,

Which bit of the Protest Committee may decide that the Post Race Penalty is not an applicable penalty and impose any greater penalty within its powers passed you by?
Created: 21-Mar-22 09:28
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
That is only if it goes to PC hearing.
Better tighten up the proposed SI.
Created: 21-Mar-22 15:11
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
If it doesn't go to the protest committee, that is because:
  1. No boat protested or
  2. a boat that protested withdrew their protest and the protest committee approved.
Under those circumstances what's your concern?
Created: 21-Mar-22 21:30
Sue Reilly
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
This works just fine for us:

12. PENALTY SYSTEM
12.1 Penalties while racing: US Sailing Prescription V1 (PENALTY AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT) shall apply.
12.2 Penalties after racing: RRS Appendix T Arbitration will apply.
Created: 21-Mar-23 18:16
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
John,
Acceptance of a post race penalty can voluntarily occur before arbitration is started.
If it does indeed go to a Protest Hearing, "within its powers" the PC must ask in its procedure:
  Was a penalty taken? - Yes. Hearing closed.
Bear in mind RRS 5 and Case 32.
I am a strong advocate for writing rules and instructions with words that agree with the rules' intent.
The Rules Committee limited PRP to Part 2 for a reason. You take a big risk in monkeying with that.
Created: 21-Mar-23 19:16
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Philip,
Could they not adopt Appendix V?

Created: 21-Mar-24 22:12
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Yes, they could. And should.
It is only the SI at the top of this Forum I take issue with.
Created: 21-Mar-25 00:20
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Philip Hubbell
said Created: Tue 19:16 
Acceptance of a post race penalty can voluntarily occur before arbitration is started.
If it does indeed go to a Protest Hearing, "within its powers" the PC must ask in its procedure:
  Was a penalty taken? - Yes. Hearing closed.
Bear in mind RRS 5 and Case 32.
I am a strong advocate for writing rules and instructions with words that agree with the rules' intent.
The Rules Committee limited PRP to Part 2 for a reason. You take a big risk in monkeying with that.

There's a misconception about how a protest committee deals with boats having taken a penalty.

The mere fact of a boat having taken an penalty is not grounds to close a hearing.  It's not the same as invalidity.

In a hearing of a valid protest, the protest committee needs to reach conclusions about all rules that have been broken, find whether or not any penalty has been taken, then consider whether that penalty is 'applicable' to the rules breaches.  Only if the protest committee finds that a penalty has been taken and concludes that it is applciable does it proceed to decide that, in accordance with rule 64.2(a) that the boat shall not be further penalised.

One of the points of my proposed wording is that it specifically emphasises a power of a protest committee to conclude that a PRP that has been taken is not an applicable penalty, and to impose a greater penalty.

I can't see how the wording is contrary to rule 5.  All of Part 5  Sections A and B, except rule 64.4 Conflict of Interest may be changed by SI.  I don't think Case 32, which concerns details related to sailing the course, is relevant at all.

I note that we already recognise that some rules, in particular some NOR and SI have little effect on the fairness of racing itself, by using the [DP] and [NP] notation for discretionary penalties an protests only at the discretion of the race committee.

Could you explain a bit more fully what are your 'concerns' and what you think the 'big risk' might be?


Created: 21-Mar-27 00:39
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
John,
Case 32 affirms a competitor's reliance on the SI, as written.
RRS 5 requires you to act in fairness.
Why would you deliberately write a SI that says ANY violation may be negated by a voluntary PRP, and then provide an undefined subjective exception at the whim of the PC? That is clearly unfair, malpractice, and contrary to Case 32. And it is a recipe for appeal.
If you want to exclude certain behaviors, spell them out. That is your obligation. If you do not want, for example, RRS 69 violations to be eligible for PRP, say so.
Which would be easier for you to express, the violations that will be eligible for PRP or the ones that will not be? 
You must have had some specific past local actions in mind to go so far afield.
Why would you extend the PRP allowance beyond what the Rules Committee has reasoned to be sensible, practical, and judicious?

Created: 21-Mar-27 02:40
[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