New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: protesting as a witness
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

protesting as a witness
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Scooby_simon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2415 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Scooby_simon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: protesting as a witness
    Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 11:43am
Originally posted by JimC

I suppose if there was evidence of repeated and increasingly agitated hails from Starboard and a sharp last second course change I could be convinced a RRS10 breach had occurred, especially if third party were in a position to see the course change.

From the POV of friendly competition though if Starboard wasn't at least providing support as a witness I think I'd be very reluctant to penalise.


Agreed.....

 Shall we flip this and discuss how a protest Ctte might progress this; I feel this might provide some insight.

 

Summary as I would see it before opening arguments….

“Boat A on port crosses in front of Boat B on starboard but Boat B alters course to duck A and continues; there was no collision and no hail(s). “

 

We have 4 distinct possible protests, assuming the protest is accepted as valid.

 

1, C protests; Neither A or B attend

2, C and A attend

3, C and B attend

4, C, A and B attend

 

In protests 2,3 and 4 we will get some version of what happened, and I’d suggest some sort of decision can be made. It was either a P/S and someone needs a DSQ or it was a tactical cross and no action.

 

How would a PC resolve protest No 1.  

What facts can we find as a Ctte?

 

1, Boat A on Port

2, Boat B on Stbd

3, A and B on collision course

4, B altered course to go behind A

5, No hails

6, No turns / penalty taken. 

 

I suppose we (As Ctte) might ask:

 

A, was the movements of B’s / tiller / mainsheet actions smooth and measured or were they jerky and rushed? 

B, was there any tactical advantage to the left / right side of the course?
C, who gains by a DSQ of A?


Anything else?

 

Can we DSQ A based on the above facts found?   I’d wager not.  



Edited by Scooby_simon - 29 Mar 21 at 11:45am
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
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: 29 Mar 21 at 9:21am
I suppose if there was evidence of repeated and increasingly agitated hails from Starboard and a sharp last second course change I could be convinced a RRS10 breach had occurred, especially if third party were in a position to see the course change.

From the POV of friendly competition though if Starboard wasn't at least providing support as a witness I think I'd be very reluctant to penalise.

Back to Top
Mozzy View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 21 Apr 20
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 209 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Mozzy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 8:35am
Originally posted by Brass


It's a straight up rule 10.

B changing course may not be CONCLUSIVE evidence of breaking rule 10, but it is evidence nevertheless.

Case 50 https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1745?page=5, Decision, Second paragraph, illustrates that a conclusion that a boat did not keep clear can properly be based on the positions and manoeuvres of boats alone.

A protest committee is not bound by the rules of evidence. It's perfectly entitled to take account of an opinion expressed by a party or a witness. FWIW I'd be inclined to qualify a party as an expert.


So unless B turns up and states that the course change was to avoid a collision then I don't think C has much hope of winning the protest. Even if neither B nor A turn up, I still don't know how C would win the protest as they can't offer any facts on why B changed course.


See above. The protest committee does not need to get evidence of state of mind. I don't want to talk about 'presumptions' and 'defences', but in the case of a 'wave through', or a 'duck to keep going', 


I know you are more the expert on this, but case 50 is a different situation. And it states "reasonable apprehension of contact on S's part". How can C possibly give any evidence that there was reasonable apprehension of contact on behalf of B? 

Now in case 50 that is determined as it's the starboard boat protesting and they say they had to change course to avoid a collision. 

But I would still say that there is no evidence that A can give as to whether the change of course was to avoid collision, or just Bs course. 

This would get ludicrous. Port and Starboard boats are on collision course all the times, and often a starboard boat tacks. Sometime 20-30 meters before the boat would have collided. Can a third party protest this also? Sound silly. So I'd say just that a boat changed course is no evidence they were avoiding collision. And rule 50 talks about apprehension of collision, and for that the only proper evidence is B saying so themselves. 
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: 28 Mar 21 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by ClubRacer

So although B is too passive to lodge a protest C can lodge the protest but realistically requires B to stand as a witness to say she had to avoid A?


No, see my reference to Case 50 above.

I think if C gives good evidence about distances and angles, then the protest committee can infer breach of rule 10, and it's up to A to bring evidence to defeat that.
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: 28 Mar 21 at 9:51pm
Originally posted by Mozzy

What rule would C protest A under? There was no collision, so not 14. And I don't think that B changing course is evidence of rule 10 being broken as C's opinion on why B changed course isn't a fact.

B maybe altering course to avoid a collision, in which case it's an infringement. But they might also be changing course for tactical reasons. Just because RoW boat changes course, it does not automatically mean a rule has been broken.

It's a straight up rule 10.

B changing course may not be CONCLUSIVE evidence of breaking rule 10, but it is evidence nevertheless.

Case 50 https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1745?page=5, Decision, Second paragraph, illustrates that a conclusion that a boat did not keep clear can properly be based on the positions and manoeuvres of boats alone.

A protest committee is not bound by the rules of evidence. It's perfectly entitled to take account of an opinion expressed by a party or a witness. FWIW I'd be inclined to qualify a party as an expert.


So unless B turns up and states that the course change was to avoid a collision then I don't think C has much hope of winning the protest. Even if neither B nor A turn up, I still don't know how C would win the protest as they can't offer any facts on why B changed course.


See above. The protest committee does not need to get evidence of state of mind. I don't want to talk about 'presumptions' and 'defences', but in the case of a 'wave through', or a 'duck to keep going', I think the port tacker needs to bring the evidence of that, as I said, her own evidence of a hail, if uncontradicted should probably be accepted.

C's biggest problem will be with the quality, completeness and detail of her evidence. In Match Racing, you need two perfectly positioned Umpire Boats to call close crosses reliably.

C is going to have to give good solid evidence about:

Where was C? How far away from A and B? At what angle?

How good was C's observation? Continuous?

What were the relative positions and speeds of A and B?

How far apart were A and B when B changed course?

How far apart were A and B at closest?

How did C judge distances and angles?

What tack was C on and why? Was Starboard tack favoured? Was Port tack favoured?
Back to Top
ClubRacer View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 26 Sep 15
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 210 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ClubRacer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 21 at 6:21pm
So although B is too passive to lodge a protest C can lodge the protest but realistically requires B to stand as a witness to say she had to avoid A?
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: 27 Mar 21 at 4:32pm
I agree with Mozzy. *Very roughly* speaking Port can sail what course she likes provided she keeps clear of Starboard. Starboard can sail whatever course she likes so long as she gives port room to keep clear of her. If there was no collision and no crash tack by starboard then it would seem that both boats fulfilled their obligations under the rules.
Back to Top
Mozzy View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 21 Apr 20
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 209 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Mozzy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 21 at 2:58pm
What rule would C protest A under? There was no collision, so not 14. And I don't think that B changing course is evidence of rule 10 being broken as C's opinion on why B changed course isn't a fact. 

B maybe altering course to avoid a collision, in which case it's an infringement. But they might also be changing course for tactical reasons. Just because RoW boat changes course, it does not automatically mean a rule has been broken.  

So unless B turns up and states that the course change was to avoid a collision then I don't think C has much hope of winning the protest. Even if neither B nor A turn up, I still don't know how C would win the protest as they can't offer any facts on why B changed course. 

If there was a contact then things would obviously change. If C saw the boats touch (fact), then rule 14 was broken. Without any evidence to the contrary I think the committee would have to disqualify A and possibly B. B might be exonerated under rule 43... but not sure how a protest committee would treat this without any evidence of injury or 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: 26 Mar 21 at 4:45am
There's no obvious reason why a protest committee would not believe A's evidence about B hailing them to cross in the absence of B.

Even if C gave evidence that she did not hear the hail that, on its own is not evidence that it was not made
Back to Top
ClubRacer View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 26 Sep 15
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 210 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ClubRacer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 21 at 11:23pm
I guess as A you are pretty much banged to rights in this situation unless B deliberately turns up as a witness to exonerate A

What would happen if Boat B hails A to allow them across in front. Boat C protests on the grounds B had to avoid A and B doesn't turn up to the protest?



Edited by ClubRacer - 25 Mar 21 at 11:24pm
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