New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Tour de France a la Voile -Am I missing something?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tour de France a la Voile -Am I missing something?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037 		Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Tour de France a la Voile -Am I missing something?
    Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 8:53pm
Jim C

Pour moi le fait que les décisions sont pris en français ne pose pas de problème, car je peut arbitrer aussi bien en français qu'en anglais...

Which is not bad for someone who got an F at French O level.

At a recent M34 event a boat broke her bowsprit but a one turn penalty was deemed  sufficient.
Gordon
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 3:56pm
Sorry, I'd have thought it clear that "they felt" was shorthand for "we can infer from what they ruled..."

Anyway, I was mainly surprised because I was involved in a similar incident a few years back (again a broken spinnaker pole) and the decision was to allow redress, but also to DSQ the offending boat, even though they had spun.

I think Gordon probably has it right. Must remember not to retire if I ever cause damage in France!

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: 04 Jul 13 at 3:55pm
I think is rather brave commenting too much on jury decisions that are being made in french rather than english. Very hard to get all the nuances if you are not an active sailor speaking in the language being used, let alone if you are trying to understand what's going on from translations of varying quality.
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: 04 Jul 13 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by flaming

Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by flaming

Given that they awarded redress because the performance of the boat was significantly diminished, you would have thought that it would have satisfied the definition of serious damage!
 
Where did 'they' (I presume you mean the jury) say the performance of the boat was 'significantly diminished'?
...
'significantly diminished' is not the same as 'seriously impaired'.
 

Well they give the damaged boat redress, as they felt the damage caused it's result to be materially altered.  So that must be significantly diminished right?
 
You only have to watch the replay of the race on the tracker to see just how slow they were downwind.
 
I was just very surprised at the result of the protest, as I had it as a nailed on that the at fault boat would get a DSQ from the leg.
 
When we're having a discussion about the rules:
  • it's helpful to use the language of the rules;  and
  • it's not helpful to put your own words into the mouth of the protest committee.
The Jury decisions are here
 
 
Relevantly Case 7 (protest) and Case 8 (request for redress)  were (translation my schoolboy french, can't blame Google this time)
 
Case 7:  FRA 18 has not given sufficient room at the mark to FRA 12 [Sodebo] in breach of rule 18.2( b ).  Penalty [taken by] FRA 18 effective in accordance with SI 15.1 and RRS 44.2.
Decision:  No additional penalty
 
Case 8:  Heard with Case 7.  Request for redress in accordance with RRS 62.1( b ).
Decision:  Score adjusted ...

Certainly the protest committee must (by necessary inference) have concluded that:

  • the 'boat's score must have been made significantly worse ... by physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2' because those are the conditions required by rule 62.1 and 62.1( b );  and
  • the 'physical damage' was not 'serious damage', otherwise the boat's penalty in accordance with rule 44.1( b ) would have been to retire.
There is no point in speculating how the jury 'felt':  we can only go on their published decision.
 
Originally posted by gordon

Whether we like it or not different cultures have different interpretations of the rules (I refer you to the current Lions tour as a perfect example).
We once had a discussion on this forum about rule 69. If I remember rightly the British view on that incident was that a rule 69 hearing was appropriate whilst the Australians preferred refrring the affair to the competitor's club.

When judging in different countries one learns to accept this. From personal experience, in France, and especially on the M34 circuit, a broken bowsprit would not be considered serious damage as they all have a spare on shore and it takes little time to repair. So no need to retire.

However, such damage would be physical damage that made a boat's score considerably worse, and therefore redress would be appropriate.
Thanks Gordon:  helpful insight.
 
There's also a discussion of levels of damage in the Match Racing context in a document attached at the end of Part E of the MR Umpires Manual
 

Penalties for Damage resulting from contact between boats racing.

Appendix C6.5(c) permits the protest committee to decide the penalty for breaking rule 14. This document explains how damage will be assessed and gives guidance on the appropriate level of penalty. The protest committee may still apply a different penalty if it has good reasons to do so. There are a number of things we are trying to achieve with penalties for damage:

 

• Minimise damage to keep costs down and avoid delays while boats are repaired.

• Ensure that penalties fit the breach.

• Ensure there is no advantage to well financed teams.

• Avoid hearings, especially at the later stages when spectator interest becomes hard to maintain.

• Provide consistent penalties for damage

 

So damage will be divided into 3 levels.

 

Level A - Minor Damage

Less than 1 man-hour to fix

Less than $US 100 cost

Boat may race without repair

 

Level B - Significant Damage

Less than 5 man-hours to fix

Less than $US 1000 cost

Boats may need some (temporary) work before racing again.

Level C - Major Damage

More than 5 man-hours to fix

More than $US 1000

Significant repair required before racing

Each event should determine the appropriate cost level depending on local circumstances and the event.



Edited by Brass - 04 Jul 13 at 3:57pm
Back to Top
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037 		Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 2:18pm
Whether we like it or not different cultures have different interpretations of the rules (I refer you to the current Lions tour as a perfect example).
 We once had a discussion on this forum about rule 69. If I remember rightly the British view on that incident was that a rule 69 hearing was appropriate whilst the Australians preferred refrring the affair to the competitor's club.

When judging in different countries one learns to accept this. From personal experience, in France, and especially on the M34 circuit, a broken bowsprit would not be considered serious damage as they all have a spare on shore and it takes little time to repair. So no need to retire.

However, such damage would be physical damage that made a boat's score considerably worse, and therefore redress would be appropriate.
Gordon
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 8:02am
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by flaming

Given that they awarded redress because the performance of the boat was significantly diminished, you would have thought that it would have satisfied the definition of serious damage!
 
Where did 'they' (I presume you mean the jury) say the performance of the boat was 'significantly diminished'?
 
Significantly <g>
 
'Significant' is not the same as 'serious'
 
'significantly' can be considerably less than 'seriously'.
 
Less significantly
 
'diminished' is not the same as 'impaired'
 
'significantly diminished' is not the same as 'seriously impaired'.
 
The 'discussion' of the terms in the Judges Manual does not constitute a 'definition'. 

Well they give the damaged boat redress, as they felt the damage caused it's result to be materially altered.  So that must be significantly diminished right?

You only have to watch the replay of the race on the tracker to see just how slow they were downwind.

I was just very surprised at the result of the protest, as I had it as a nailed on that the at fault boat would get a DSQ from the leg.
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: 03 Jul 13 at 11:50pm
Originally posted by GML

Don't know if the Tour de France a la Voile has changed the relevant rules, but the standard rules are as follows:
 
...
 
So on that basis it is possible, in theory at least, for both the at-fault boat to exonerate themselves by taking a 2-turn penalty and the damaged boat to be granted redress - there has to be physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 (affecting the score of the damaged boat) but the damage has to be less than "serious".
Extract from the SI (translation courtesy of Google Translate) shown below.
It doesn't appear to change rule 44.1( b ).
 
15 PENALTY SYSTEM
15.1 The first paragraph of RRS 44.1 is changed so that when a boat is
may have broken one or more rules of Part 2 or RRS 31 during a
incident while it is running, the penalty to be carried out after getting well clear of
other boats as soon as possible after the incident, is defined as follows:
1) when the boat is on a leg to a windward mark or to a
brand clearance, it should jibe and as soon as reasonably possible luff
to a close-hauled
2) when the boat is on a leg to a leeward mark or to
finish line, it shall tack as soon as reasonably practicable and Gliding
on a road to more than 90 ° of the true wind.
15.2 Jury Action on Water
a) If the jury sees an incident in which a RCV of Chapter 2, or RRS 31 or 49 is
violated, it may indicate his observations by a whistle showing a house
red. If the boat does not make it an offense penalty pursuant to IC 15.1, the
jury penalize the boat by a whistle and pointing a red flag in his
direction. In this case 15.1 IC no longer apply and the boat will perform designated
a penalty turn in accordance with RRS 44.2.
b) If the penalty is not carried out, the designated boat will be disqualified without instruction,
unless he files a claim against another boat, whose claim
result would likely allow to consider the application by the jury, the RRS
64.1 (a).
c) If the jury sees an incident in which a RRS Chapter 2 may have been breached
but it is not able to establish the facts to make a decision, it will send a
yellow flag with a whistle. The vessel or vessels considering breaking a rule
can then take a penalty pursuant to IC 15.1. The normal procedure
claim to land will remain applicable to this incident.
Sailing instructions of the Tour de France a la Voile - a round of the Championship of France Elite Race crewed ocean
9
d) If a boat gains an advantage by breaking a rule despite a penalty
made, the jury may impose one or more penalties under a tower
RRS 44.2 pointing to a red flag in his direction with a whistle. The
boat will then perform one or more penalties, each penalty is indicated
by sending the red flag and a whistle.
e) A claim of jury under RRS 60.3 (a) (1) may be filed against a boat
involved in an incident that is the subject of an action of the jury on the water, if the jury finds
that this incident may have caused injury or serious damage.
f) The action or lack of action of the jury on the water can not give grounds for a request for
repair from a boat (RRS 62.1 (a)).
g) The vessel jury can be positioned at any point in the race area. Its position can not
give rise to a claim for compensation.
h) The normal procedure of claiming a boat race committee or jury remains
applicable for incidents that have not been the subject of an action of the jury on the water or with
resulted in sending a yellow flag by the jury.
15.3 Replacement penalties for breach of the rules other than those of Chapter 2:
A breach of the rules (with the exception of Chapter 2 of the RRS and RRS 28 and 31) may,
after instruction, be liable to a penalty which may go from one point to the disqualification.
15.4 Scale of penalties: This table gives the minimum penalty that the jury must apply
throughout the test, it can also increase the penalty to disqualification.
Offences Penalties minimum
15.4.1 Breach of Class Rules (other than
specified in this schedule)
1 point in the standings
15.4.2 Exiting the water or rocking the boat on the side
for repairs to the keel or any other reason
(AC 12.3 and 28.1 IC) but transportation between
Atlantic and Mediterranean and / or transport of
occurrence vessel from one stage to the other
3 points on the overall
15.4.3 Delay in Dunkirk (boat and / or set of sails) and
anchorage area assigned left without
prior written permission of the management
race (AC 8.1.1 and 8.4)
3 points on the overall
15.4.4 Except with the prior written permission of the management
race, non-participation in the prologue to
midlogues or postlogue (AC 7.3)
15 points in the overall standings
(This changes AC 7.3)
15.4.5 Except races coefficient 0 unless otherwise
granted by the race committee and the
race to a case of force majeure, lack
Embedded holds a survival training crew
ISAF or equivalent (AC 6.2.1)
3 points on the overall
15.4.6 Total incomplete crew (AC 6.2.2) by 10 points over teammate missing
the overall
15.4.7 Except races coefficient 0, total crew weight
exceeding 624 kg (AC 6.3)
3 points on the overall
(Per kilo)
15.4.8 Non-compliance with IC 7, 21.1.3 and 24 (dodgers,
race flags and stickers)
2 points on the overall
15.4.9 Except races coefficient 0, non-compliance
ISAF classification for amateur classification (AC
11.3)
Out of amateur rankings
15.4.10 Declaration of departure or arrival in non-delivery
the allotted time, no return to the race of the
tag (CI 12.8, 14.3 and 19.4.2)
2 points on the overall
15.4.11 Abandonment undeclared race committee (IC 19.1) 5 points on the overall
15.4.12 Failure VHF radio watch default ISA or
misuse of the ASN (IC 19.4.1)
5 points on the overall
15.4.13 Temporary loan of a spinnaker head (IC
21.2.3)
2 points per race where the spinnaker
replacement was shipped
15.4.14 New Sail (IC 21.2.1) 5 points on the overall
15.4.15 Unplumb said except wetting
Secondary (AC 8.3 and 23.2 IC)
2 points on the overall
15.4.16 Unplumb undeclared (CI 23.2) 5 points on the overall
Sailing instructions of the Tour de France a la Voile - a round of the Championship of France Elite Race crewed ocean
10
15.4.17 Loss of primary wetting and / or secondary (IC
23.3)
5 points by wetting the
overall
15/04/18 No to price discounts (30.1 CI) except
exemption granted by the race
2 points on the overall
15.4.19 Failure images rushes supply (AC 20 and IC
29.2)
2 points on the overall
15.5 In amendment to RRS 44, the score of a boat penalized points is the score that would
received without this penalty, minus the number of corresponding points. However, it should
not receive fewer points than DSQ (except DNE and DGM).
15.6 A boat breaking a rule in more than one incident will receive a penalty for
each incident, but a ship can not receive a lower number of DSQ point (to
except DNE and DGM).
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: 03 Jul 13 at 11:27pm
Originally posted by flaming

Given that they awarded redress because the performance of the boat was significantly diminished, you would have thought that it would have satisfied the definition of serious damage!
 
Where did 'they' (I presume you mean the jury) say the performance of the boat was 'significantly diminished'?
 
Significantly <g>
 
'Significant' is not the same as 'serious'
 
'significantly' can be considerably less than 'seriously'.
 
Less significantly
 
'diminished' is not the same as 'impaired'
 
'significantly diminished' is not the same as 'seriously impaired'.
 
The 'discussion' of the terms in the Judges Manual does not constitute a 'definition'. 


Edited by Brass - 03 Jul 13 at 11:37pm
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 13 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by Brass



<p align="LEFT">M.3 Serious Damage


<p align="LEFT">This is not possible to define but a protest committee should ask:


<p align="LEFT">• was the performance of the boat or crew seriously impaired?


<p align="LEFT">• was the market value of the boat significantly diminished?


<p align="LEFT">• was a crew member seriously injured?




Given that they awarded redress because the performance of the boat was significantly diminished, you would have thought that it would have satisfied the definition of serious damage!
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: 03 Jul 13 at 2:59pm
The Judges Manual Part M deals with Damage and Injury
 

M.1 Introduction

These important words are used in conjunction with four rules. Yet, despite their importance; there is very little case law to guide a protest committee as to their application.

• Damage

Rule 14(b), penalise a boat for contact that causes damage

• Serious damage

Rule 44.1, taking a penalty for a part 2 infringement

• Physical damage

Rule 62.1(b), granting redress

• Serious damage or serious injury

Rule 60.3(a)(1), protest brought by a protest committee

M.2 Damage

There is no definition of exactly what constitutes damage; however ISAF Case 19 provides two examples to enable judges to ask questions to establish damage.

• was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a whole, diminished?

• was an item or equipment made less functional?

The ISAF Racing Rules Question and Answer Service although not binding, unlike ISAF Cases provided a definition of Damage but this was withdrawn, along with most of the Q&As from the beginning of 2013. Readers are recommended to look regularly at the Q&As in the ISAF web site to see if there has been a replacement Q&A to assist in reaching what is the required extent of damage.

M.3 Serious Damage

This is not possible to define but a protest committee should ask:

• was the performance of the boat or crew seriously impaired?

• was the market value of the boat significantly diminished?

• was a crew member seriously injured?

M.4 Physical Damage

An example of physical damage is:

• real damage to either boat or crew

Examples of what is not physical damage are

• capsize with no damage, causing a loss of places

• rigs or lifelines entangled

M.5 Serious Injury

An example of serious injury might be an injury that required medical attention beyond minor aid but not necessarily hospitalization.
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