Safety SIs in Conflict with Rule 4 - No hearing

Originally posted by Rupert We certainly have a rule where we can abandon racing and call every one in off the water, which is what I assume is what a warden can do, but as far as I know, all we can do is advise individuals. At some point, though, especially in winter, I would expect to be able to over rule someone who I suspected was too cold to make rational decisions.

Edited by Brass - 04 Jun 15 at 12:01am

Sailing is a game we play for fun isn't it?

Originally posted by piglet The thought of a small club running a R69 hearing when possibly some socially unskilled youth has p!$$ed them off doesn't inspire.

I've run an R69 hearing at a smallish club. Its not that big a deal. And you have far more backstop than for any other hearing so in many ways it's the lowest risk. As a PC if you have any doubts at all you can just refer your decision to the RYA, and tell the competitors that, and in any case if you issue any penalty other than a finger wagging its going to go to the RYA anyway. The only thing the PC *has* to get right is to get all the facts as fairly as possible, which isn't that hard.

Smart money is that for most R69 hearings the end result is going to be that the PC says "don't be such a silly *** and don't do it again." If they do anything stupid the RYA will reverse it and sort things out. The main thing is to ensure that your PC is at a distance from your race team, which isn't that hard to manage.

The PC should be able to tell quite easily whether its something minor or potentially major, and if its potentially major, like, I dunno, a fist fight on the launch ramp or something then consider not holding it on the day if you're not happy about the PC quality. There's excellent guidance from the RYA here.

http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/RaceOfficials/Resource%20Centre/Best%20Practice%20Guidelines%20Policies/Rule%2069%20Guidance%20for%20Race%20Officials.pdf

These paras, from the youth appendix for instance, make it clear that there it is possible to deal with things a little less formally than a full hearing:-

16.4 However, neither a hearing under rule 69 nor a protest under rule 2 (see below) may be the best way to deal with every problem, particularly for: 16.4.1 non malicious excess aggression arising from youth or inexperience of the sport (see Appendix K); or 16.4.2 an isolated instance of knowingly having broken a rule without intent to do so, but not then taking a penalty. 16.5 A protest committee can ask a competitor to appear before it, to make it clear to the competitor that his/her unacceptable behaviour, noting the Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules and rule 2, Fair Sailing. This is not a hearing under rule 69.1, even though the effect may be to give an informal warning as to future conduct that, if repeated, might give rise to a hearing under rule 69. For youth and juniors, see Appendix K.

And from Appendix K

K.5 For event related behaviour which is questionable or at the lower end of the range of misconduct, then it would be appropriate for a race official (normally a judge or umpire) to speak to the competitor with his or her parents, guardian or coach, making clear what has happened, why it is wrong and what the consequences of repetition will be. K.6 For more serious misconduct, then this process should be conducted before the protest committee by way of a formal interview. K.7 For severe misconduct that must be addressed with a penalty, then a rule 69 hearing or a protest under rule 2 must be held.

The one I was involved with was an allegation of bad language after a collision at a youth event. In the end we were not comfortably satisfied about what words had been used and took no action.

The amusing followup was that the competitor's mother told me afterwards that she thought it highly unlikely the competitor would have used the words in question, but would have been unsurprised if the language used had been much worse than alleged!

Edited by JimC - 04 Jun 15 at 1:15pm