New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Safety SIs in Conflict with Fundamental Rule 4
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Safety SIs in Conflict with Fundamental Rule 4
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Safety SIs in Conflict with Fundamental Rule 4
    Posted: 22 Aug 14 at 12:06pm
There seems to be a growing trend for SIs to include phrases such as:

'Boats shall at all times follow the instructions of Safety Boat crews' and sometimes this extends as far as 'including to retire'.  I've certainly seen it at 3 different events this season.  Once with a threat to DSQ without a hearing.

Yet Fundamental Rule 4 has:

4 DECISION TO RACE 
The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to 
continue racing is hers alone. 

Is anyone aware of any occasion in which a boat has been protested (or DSQ without a hearing) in such circumstances?

What do our esteemed Judges think would happen if such a case came to appeal?

It was slightly thrown in to relief when a patrol boat crew at one of the events told a pal of mine he should be towed in.  It subsequently emerged he was concerned about the crew.....who he took to be a girl of 15/16, but who is actually a tough but quiet soldier of 27, and who was warm, happy and concentrating hard.

In the past I have also had situations where the last thing I wanted was the rescue boat crews anywhere near me in the given conditions!  That's a side issue, but it does perhaps have some relevance to the question of who can make such decisions (and hence Rule 4).
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 14 at 12:13pm
I would be interested to know what the legal boys thought about that and whether it meant the club organisers were assuming a responsibility. I always understood that RRS4 was a protection for club organisers. I suspect its the sort of thing where input from the RYA legal team would be a lot more useful than anything we might have to say.

I was also under the impression that RRS 86 limits what SIs are permitted to change, and rules of part one were excluded, so it may be that the SI is invalid anyway.

Edited by JimC - 22 Aug 14 at 12:17pm
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 14 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by JimC

I would be interested to know what the legal boys thought about that and whether it meant the club organisers were assuming a responsibility. I always understood that RRS4 was a protection for club organisers. I suspect its the sort of thing where input from the RYA legal team would be a lot more useful than anything we might have to say.

I was also under the impression that RRS 86 limits what SIs are permitted to change, and rules of part one were excluded, so it may be that the SI is invalid anyway.

I think you're right about modification of Part 1 Jim.....but it's an interesting one if you are DSQ without a hearing, presumably you would then ask for redress (since it's an action of the RC), and then if redress is denied, you would have to appeal.

I have sat mum in a number of briefings preferring to let the RC have its crutch (and I know at at least one port venue racing is conditional on this SI being incorporated - therefore in no-one's interest to point out that it's invalid until the need arises!).
Back to Top
PeterG View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 12 Jan 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 823 		Post Options Post Options   Quote PeterG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 14 at 12:28pm
It's an interesting question. 

However, my experience of such a clause being inserted at my previous club was that it was in response to issues that arose at open meetings where conditions were strong, but sailable by the experienced, and where one or more boats without sufficient experience sailed, and continued to do so long after it was quite apparent they weren't coping. I remember one case where a boat would capsize, progress about 100m and repeat. The result was that 2 safety boats were kept effectively fully occupied by this one competitor on a day with 50+ boats on the water and demanding conditions.

I think it's important that race teams can act in those sorts of circumstances, in order not to reduce the cover that can be provided for everyone else on the water. There may be a better way to do it, but I'm not clear what it is. I'd also think that any sort of challenge is incredibly unlikely in that situation - anyone who is likely to be asked to go ashore is almost certainly going to be trailing the fleet anyway.

DSQ without allowing hearing is clearly going too far, however, and would open up the possibility of misuse - a race team should certainly be prepared and able to justify their actions.
Peter
Ex Cont 707
Ex Laser 189635
DY 59
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 14 at 8:13am
Originally posted by sargesail

There seems to be a growing trend for SIs to include phrases such as:

'Boats shall at all times follow the instructions of Safety Boat crews' and sometimes this extends as far as 'including to retire'.  I've certainly seen it at 3 different events this season.  Once with a threat to DSQ without a hearing.

Yet Fundamental Rule 4 has:

4 DECISION TO RACE 
The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to 
continue racing is hers alone. 

Is anyone aware of any occasion in which a boat has been protested (or DSQ without a hearing) in such circumstances?

What do our esteemed Judges think would happen if such a case came to appeal?

Yes, I've heard such a provision discussed.  I seem to recall we had a discussion here about a power to direct inexperienced crews not to race (but I can't damn will find it:  JimC do you remember?)

No, I've never seen or heard of any protest, redress or appeal action.

I've heard a story that when, in the 1995 rewrite AP over H and N over H were introduced the H was originally intended to stand for "racing is postponed/abandoned, all boats return to Harbour", but it was considered that the race committee did not have a power to give such a direction, so the signal meaning was changed to "further signals ashore".

Whatever, the club is going to look pretty silly if it's safety boat stands by watching until the water police or the harbour master or the coastguard, who do have legal power to direct boats comes along.

I don't think such a direction changes rule 4.  Rule 4 is about 'responsibility' (whatever that may mean), and the SI is about complying with a direction.

So, I'd be inclined to say that the SI was not invalid (maybe depending on the words used), but the actual giving of a direction and/or penalisation without a hearing, depending on the circumstances might be an improper action of the race committee.

If the race committee used the power to direct wisely, then they would only ever give a direction when compliance would not significantly worsen a boat's score (because she was already down the back of the pack), so, to the extent that the direction might have been an improper action, it would not create an entitlement to redress.

It was slightly thrown in to relief when a patrol boat crew at one of the events told a pal of mine he should be towed in.  It subsequently emerged he was concerned about the crew.....who he took to be a girl of 15/16, but who is actually a tough but quiet soldier of 27, and who was warm, happy and concentrating hard.

In the past I have also had situations where the last thing I wanted was the rescue boat crews anywhere near me in the given conditions!  That's a side issue, but it does perhaps have some relevance to the question of who can make such decisions (and hence Rule 4).

Haven't we all, and thank heaven for soft sided RIBS.

Selecting competent boat crews, and controlling them is a problem for the race committee.

But come the time in a blow that the race officer throws the switch from 'salvage' to 'rescue' (life before property), if a rescue boat gets your wet hypothermic body ashore still breathing, and leaves your pride and joy a shattered drifting mass of mahogany veneer and twoply, you should be grateful.

Maybe you should take a look at your club emergency response plan to make sure that the switch in emphasis is done under appropriate criteria and control.

Originally posted by PeterG

It's an interesting question. 

However, my experience of such a clause being inserted at my previous club was that it was in response to issues that arose at open meetings where conditions were strong, but sailable by the experienced, and where one or more boats without sufficient experience sailed, and continued to do so long after it was quite apparent they weren't coping. I remember one case where a boat would capsize, progress about 100m and repeat. The result was that 2 safety boats were kept effectively fully occupied by this one competitor on a day with 50+ boats on the water and demanding conditions.

I think it's important that race teams can act in those sorts of circumstances, in order not to reduce the cover that can be provided for everyone else on the water. There may be a better way to do it, but I'm not clear what it is. I'd also think that any sort of challenge is incredibly unlikely in that situation - anyone who is likely to be asked to go ashore is almost certainly going to be trailing the fleet anyway.

Yup.

Another example might be, in difficult and worsening conditions where, say the top ten boats had finished, and the stragglers were struggling.

The race committee could, of course, abandon the race, but to do so would deprive the boats that had finished of their hard earned results, and pointscore standings, which would not be affected whether the tailenders finished or not.

DSQ without allowing hearing is clearly going too far, however, and would open up the possibility of misuse - a race team should certainly be prepared and able to justify their actions.

Arguably, it's unnecessary to put it in the SI.  RYA Misconduct Guidance provides that Intentionally disobeying a reasonable request of the organizing authority or its officials is Level 1 to 5 misconduct.

But the purpose of the SI is to motivate competitors to comply, so a bit of a mention of penalty is probably useful.

I also think that a score a bit less severe than DSQ, or even DNF would be more acceptable to the competitors and quite appropriate.

Obviously a bit of reassurance that the power would not be used inappropriately would not go astray either.

I note also the example Sargesail gave mentions "shall at all times".  That adds nothing, and is just needlessly provocative.

How would this run

If foul weather or other circumstances make it unsafe for some boats to continue to race, the race committee may instruct those boats to cease racing and return to shore, and boats so instructed shall be scored points for the finishing place one more than the number of boats that that had finished when the race committee decided to give the instructions [using the scoring abbreviation DPI/TLE, insert preferred TLA].  Boats shall comply with any instruction by a race committee or safety boat to cease racing and return to shore.


Originally posted by JimC

I would be interested to know what the legal boys thought about that and whether it meant the club organisers were assuming a responsibility. I always understood that RRS4 was a protection for club organisers. I suspect its the sort of thing where input from the RYA legal team would be a lot more useful than anything we might have to say. 

Don't ever kid yourself that the RRS or SI, or any other bit of paper means that you, as a race committee member or your club, doesn't have a duty of care.

The club has induced competitors to undertake a risky activity, you are on the hook whether you like it or not.

If you were dealing with self-righting, self-rescuing keelboats, rule 4 might reduce the duty of care, and to ways in which it may be breached to something quite small, but if you are dealing with junior sailors, and anywhere where you have already decided that you need 'safety' or 'rescue' boats, you need to diligently address your duty of care.

Note also that the  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s2(1) provides that A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.

OK, I note that the RYA is now providing an SI wording that includes a 'Risk Statement' that may be relevant to some recent statutory limitation of liability provison.  RYA if asked can doubtless tell you about this.

But, really, you have at the very least a moral duty to do the very best you can to ensure that competitors race safely, including 'directing' or doing whatever you can to get them off the water when you area aware of extreme hazards.
Back to Top
Noah View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 29 Dec 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 611 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Noah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 14 at 9:43pm
"Whatever, the club is going to look pretty silly if it's safety boat stands by watching until the water police or the harbour master or the coastguard, who do have legal power to direct boats comes along."

Really? I thought we were more enlightened on this side of the pond than our colonial cousins who do indeed have the power to board, arrest, etc, if instructions are not complied with.

Where do these august bodies have authority? Within harbour I can understand the harbour master and his agents / employees having some authority. But to prevent departure? Water police? On the Thames maybe, and other rivers, too, but what authority does HMCG have? Under what circumstances can a vessel be boarded? We have heard countless tales of folks lacking the necessary skills going to sea and being rescued, but no-one has suggested that anyone can stop the idiots going.

Edit to add that SSC took advice from the RNLI who were at sea training when conditions became somewhat fruity at a Fireball open some years ago, but it was just that - advice.


Edited by Noah - 23 Aug 14 at 9:45pm
Nick
D-Zero 316

Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 14 at 10:12pm
Noah,

I agree.  I think Brass' view is overly skewed by different waterborne regulatory frameworks down south, and by an emphasis on home club rather than open circuit competition.

His answer also seems to refer to the general: ie all boats directed to cease racing, not the specific of a single boat given direction by a rescue crew.

I also do not at all follow how direction to a boat by the RC not to continue racing constitutes anything other than a removal of that boat's responsibility for the decision, and thus is in conflict with Rule 4.

I can call on an example.  I recollect (but can't find) a thread on here where a sailor was told to retire by a safety boat crew because they were bleeding from a finger.  Imagine if a SI of the kind mentioned here were in play....and the sailor either complied, and requested redress, given their own assessment, Monty Python style, that it was a mere flesh wound.  Or continued and were DSQ either with or without a hearing.

Howdo you think that would/should play out Brass?
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 14 at 3:35am
Originally posted by sargesail

Noah,

I agree.  I think Brass' view is overly skewed by different waterborne regulatory frameworks down south, and by an emphasis on home club rather than open circuit competition.
That may well be.

But I think you guys may be taking a somewhat Victorian view of the rights of the seagoing British Subject.

Whatever, your club doesn't want to be around when some pompous authority figure declares that you stood idly by until the 'responsible authorities' intervened.

You might certainly be in a position where the  presence and the disposition to interfere, of government authorities is more limited than I am used to, and you very much have the RYA to thank for that (Education before Regulation etc), but, moral issues aside, if you want to keep it that way, you need to be proactive about safety, and 'stay ahead of the curve' of government regulation.

All that said, please don't take me for a 'safety fanatic'.  I often have disagreements with those folk about endless, and unrealistic intrusion of safety concerns.  It's about keeping a balance.

His answer also seems to refer to the general: ie all boats directed to cease racing, not the specific of a single boat given direction by a rescue crew.

Indeed, what I had in mind was that the race committee would apply their decision to to all boats after a certain point or time, although the requirement for compliance with a direction would only apply to single boats to whom a direction had been given.

I took this approach deliberately:  If only some individual boats are subject to a penalty (of DSQ, DNF, or whatever), while their competitors who may be behind them are not, this is bound to cause dissatisfaction.  If all the tailenders are in the same pointscore position together, then you have removed at least one cause of complaint.

Another approach, which I didn't suggest because it's more complicated, and might expose a race committee to allegations that they were manipulating the results, would be to introduce a new race committee signal saying "All boats that have not already finished shall be scored Finishers to date plus one and are advised to return ashore".

I also do not at all follow how direction to a boat by the RC not to continue racing constitutes anything other than a removal of that boat's responsibility for the decision, and thus is in conflict with Rule 4.

It may be 'in conflict with', or as a judge might say 'in tension with' rule 4.

The question, however, for the purpose of rule 86.1 is whether it changes rule 4.

There are already circumstances in the rules where the race committee can make a decision that affects whether a boat continues racing, such as rule 32 abandoning after starting.

Maybe after some abstruse judicial reasoning which is a bit above my head, it might be decided that there was an invalid change to rule 4, but there is sufficient doubt in my mind at present to say that I don't think a reasonably worded SI would be invalid.

One of the factors that influences me is that I think it's better for judges not to interfere in the bona fide reasonable attempts of the race committee to ensure safety.

This is all the more so, where there is the fall-back position that while the SI was not invalid, any particular direction by a safety boat may be an improper action, giving rise to redress.

I can call on an example.  I recollect (but can't find) a thread on here where a sailor was told to retire by a safety boat crew because they were bleeding from a finger.  Imagine if a SI of the kind mentioned here were in play....and the sailor either complied, and requested redress, given their own assessment, Monty Python style, that it was a mere flesh wound.  Or continued and were DSQ either with or without a hearing.

How do you think that would/should play out Brass?

First, please don't think that I don't appreciate the harm that can be done by over-enthusiastic safety boat crews, both to boats and to your competitive position.  As I said in a previous post, that's an issue that race officers have to be very careful about.

On the face of it, the scenario you describe was unreasonable and silly.

But I can imagine (not too unrealistically) a situation:  little 8 year old in a Cadet dinghy with a gung-ho 12 year old skipper, bleeding profusely, crying, shivering etc etc:  suddenly a 'responsible adult' stepping in and getting the kid ashore looks very reasonable.

If the direction was clearly unreasonable (ask the PRO/CRO what he/she thought about it and he/she says "Aw sh*t, the safety boat did WHAT?"), and the boat's score was made significantly worse, then I would be wanting to give redress.

One of the benefits of my scheme of giving every boat behind the cut off the same score of Finishers plus 1, is that no boat's score is made worse, so there would be no entitlement to redress.
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 14 at 9:53am
Brass - thanks for clarifying some of that.  While I get your point about Judges not interfering in RC's attempts to ensure safety, I also hope that they would also support the competitor where appropriate.  Hence I guess the general recourse to redress rather than the specific.

I do not accept your point about abandoning after starting.  That is not the same thing.  When the race is abandoned there is no race for the to continue to race in.
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 14 at 10:45am
Originally posted by sargesail

Brass - thanks for clarifying some of that.  While I get your point about Judges not interfering in RC's attempts to ensure safety, I also hope that they would also support the competitor where appropriate.  Hence I guess the general recourse to redress rather than the specific.
I can't, of course, speak for other judges, and I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon was along soon to give us his opinion.

While I wouldn't be keen to knock out a SI, I would be more than happy to give redress if a safety boat crew did something unreasonable and silly.

Thinking about it, one strategy that could be used is similar to that used to get tailenders to give up racing and move quickly to the starting area in sprint races:  You simply say in SI that any boat that has not finished after [usually a specific time limit like 10 minutes after the first boat finishes, but it could be a signal by the race committee,] shall be scored DNF/TLE without a hearing.  That makes it pointless to continue racing (and was sitting in the background of the SI I proposed and further discussed upthread).  In terms of seriously getting a struggling boat to give up and go ashore, it's not as good as a power to direct, which, if I was trying to accomplish those outcomes, I would probably also include.

Originally posted by sargesail

I do not accept your point about abandoning after starting.  That is not the same thing.  When the race is abandoned there is no race for the to continue to race in.

That may be so.

As I said, that issue requires judicial reasoning and techniques that I don't have.  In my opinion it would need a really good judge (real live legal judge) to do the job properly on that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy