New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Social Media and Rule 69
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Social Media and Rule 69
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Social Media and Rule 69
    Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 8:39am
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Brass

Rule 69.2j does NOT require report to MNA for a penalty of DNE or less.

Must have changed in the last revision. I hadn't spotted that. Used to be anything above a warning.


Yes. Matches up with dropping the 'gross.

Penalty for rule 2 also backed off to DSQ or DNE.
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: 08 Aug 19 at 8:22am
Originally posted by Brass

Rule 69.2j does NOT require report to MNA for a penalty of DNE or less.

Must have changed in the last revision. I hadn't spotted that. Used to be anything above a warning.
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: 08 Aug 19 at 7:44am
Originally posted by Brass

Dare I say it, perhaps the Jury, having decided that DNE was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances, was trying to avoid ... exposure of competitors to further MNA sanctions [by] a rule 69 hearing.

Just checked this.

Rule 69.2j does NOT require report to MNA for a penalty of DNE or less.
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: 08 Aug 19 at 7:40am
Originally posted by sargesail

Originally posted by Brass



Originally posted by sargesail

Initiating thread drift already but in the context of what might be a trend in Race Management/protest/jury behaviour?

Decision from Opi Worlds in which a sailor is doubly rule 2 disqualified (DNE) for knowingly infringing and not taking a penalty and also for telling the other sailor to ‘suck my balls’.

http://2019worlds.optiworld.org/en/default/toa/race-privateprotest2pdf/id_protest/1651

I fail to see what the latter has to do with sportsmanship? Brass I think you posted something on this a while ago? Surely should have been dealt with as misconduct under Rule 69?

That's a pretty hefty International Jury and I'm hesitant to criticise.
But I don't think that offensive words have any effect on the fairness of the competition.  See 

Dare I say it, perhaps the Jury, having decided that DNE was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances, was trying to avoid the extra paperwork (and exposure of competitors to further MNA sanctions) of a rule 69 hearing.



Yes that seems a plausible explanation. But it illustrates the issue in terms of no longer ‘gross’ misconduct: ‘suck my balls’ is part of the normal vernacular of 14 year old boys in many cultures. It uses no foul language. Given its everyday normality I find it hard to see it as abusive. It’s merely a colourful way of saying ‘I’m not spinning’.

Few contexts I can think of it's a colourful way of getting a smack in the mouth.

I was thinking about this.

ISTM that 'suck my balls' is significantly more provocative than Get F***ed or F*** Off.  Furthermore, not only is it rude but it's homophobic.

I think maybe that this sort of language at a junior event was the very sort of thing that removing 'gross' from rule 69 was aimed at.


Edited by Brass - 08 Aug 19 at 11:02pm
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: 08 Aug 19 at 7:31am
Originally posted by Brass

...of a rule 69 hearing

I wondered that too. Using RRS2 ensures that the incident ended there.
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: 08 Aug 19 at 7:22am
Originally posted by Brass



Originally posted by sargesail

Initiating thread drift already but in the context of what might be a trend in Race Management/protest/jury behaviour?

Decision from Opi Worlds in which a sailor is doubly rule 2 disqualified (DNE) for knowingly infringing and not taking a penalty and also for telling the other sailor to ‘suck my balls’.

http://2019worlds.optiworld.org/en/default/toa/race-privateprotest2pdf/id_protest/1651

I fail to see what the latter has to do with sportsmanship? Brass I think you posted something on this a while ago? Surely should have been dealt with as misconduct under Rule 69?

That's a pretty hefty International Jury and I'm hesitant to criticise.
But I don't think that offensive words have any effectFair Sailing. Generally, an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the competition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule, should be considered under rule 2. Any action, including a serious breach of rule 2 or any other rule, that the committee considers may be an act of misconduct should be considered under rule 69. Dare I say it, perhaps the Jury, having decided that DNE was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances, was trying to avoid the extra paperwork (and exposure of competitors to further MNA sanctions) of a rule 69 hearing.


Yes that seems a plausible explanation. But it illustrates the issue in terms of no longer ‘gross’ misconduct: ‘suck my balls’ is part of the normal vernacular of 14 year old boys in many cultures. It uses no foul language. Given its everyday normality I find it hard to see it as abusive. It’s merely a colourful way of saying ‘I’m not spinning’.

Edited by sargesail - 08 Aug 19 at 9:23am
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: 08 Aug 19 at 7:13am
Decision was published - I couldn’t find it and will look again. From memory it was not rule 76.
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: 08 Aug 19 at 1:07am
Originally posted by sargesail

More generally has the lowering of the standard for 69 from gross misconduct to misconduct had an effect? Seems to me there are some indications that it has - eg some of our 49er sailors being denied racing for a post criticising but not abusing the RC/Jury.

Might be a little precious, but it would depend on the actual facts.

Was this a rule 69 decision after racing had begun, or a rule 76 exclusion?

Decision published?
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: 08 Aug 19 at 1:00am
Originally posted by sargesail

Initiating thread drift already but in the context of what might be a trend in Race Management/protest/jury behaviour?

Decision from Opi Worlds in which a sailor is doubly rule 2 disqualified (DNE) for knowingly infringing and not taking a penalty and also for telling the other sailor to ‘suck my balls’.

http://2019worlds.optiworld.org/en/default/toa/race-privateprotest2pdf/id_protest/1651

I fail to see what the latter has to do with sportsmanship? Brass I think you posted something on this a while ago? Surely should have been dealt with as misconduct under Rule 69?

That's a pretty hefty International Jury and I'm hesitant to criticise.

But I don't think that offensive words have any effect on the fairness of the competition.  See 

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 69, Misconduct
Generally, an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the competition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule, should be considered under rule 2. Any action, including a serious breach of rule 2 or any other rule, that the committee considers may be an act of misconduct should be considered under rule 69.

Dare I say it, perhaps the Jury, having decided that DNE was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances, was trying to avoid the extra paperwork (and exposure of competitors to further MNA sanctions) of a rule 69 hearing.






Edited by Brass - 08 Aug 19 at 1:01am
Back to Top
L123456 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 30 Apr 12
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 500 		Post Options Post Options   Quote L123456 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 19 at 7:21pm
Originally posted by Brass

You might like to look at this old thread


Key things about commenting on a protest committee's decision:

 

  Quote

8.7 With respect to the first issue (the dissent from the decision of the appeals Committee), the Panel is mindful of the need for decisions of officials in sport to be respected and not open to abuse. ...

 

[but]

 

It is always acceptable to have a difference of opinion with officials, and indeed it is inevitable that from time to time officials and competitors will disagree on decisions made. However, differences of opinion must be raised in a respectful manner and at an appropriate time and place.

 

So any reasoned discussion of a protest or appeal committee's decision, even by a party, provided it avoids bad language or abuse, and provided it is not expressed in some inappropriate context, such as allinternationaljudgesareb**tards.com. will not breach rule 69.


That’s a long thread to read ...

I think there may be cultural differences about what is bad manners. I’d say it’s poor form to openly dispute or contradict the actions of the officials. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

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