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
patj View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 16 Jul 04
Location: Wiltshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 643 		Post Options Post Options   Quote patj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Safety SIs in Conflict with Fundamental Rule 4
    Posted: 30 Aug 14 at 7:37am
Originally posted by Paramedic



Sorry to leap on that statement - but having inserted a SI like that are you not kind of under obligation to support your rescue crew in their judgement? What seems reasonable out on the water can once ashore and with hindsight be seen to be OTT.
I think its a universally accepted, if unwritten, rule that if in difficulty you follow the direction of the safety crew. 



The problem I have with this is incompetent safety crews, often keel boaters or windsurfers who don't understand dinghies, have had minimal training and are just doing a duty.

We've had the one (alone in the rib) who, when asked to pull the front head to wind, pushed the hull into the mud, squashing the helm between rib and hull. Helm was strong enough to push them apart but others don't have building site honed muscles! We've ended up directing the safety crew more than once.

Everyone should do safety refresher training at least once a year and not just get reminders about how to handle the powerboat and wearing a killcord. At least watching the RYA safety boat dvd would be a start.






Back to Top
piglet View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Jan 07
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 514 		Post Options Post Options   Quote piglet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 14 at 10:46pm
I was on rescue duty at a recent open and the conditions were 'testing'. We were advised in the pre briefing that we had the power under the SI's to instruct competitors to abandon their boats. I have no idea on the legality of this but the implications left me a bit uneasy.
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 Aug 14 at 11:04pm
Originally posted by Paramedic

Originally posted by Brass

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

Sorry to leap on that statement - but having inserted a SI like that are you not kind of under obligation to support your rescue crew in their judgement? What seems reasonable out on the water can once ashore and with hindsight be seen to be OTT.

I think its a universally accepted, if unwritten, rule that if in difficulty you follow the direction of the safety crew. 
  1. It most definitely is NOT the role of a protest committee to 'support' the race committee.  The race committee is quite likely to make mistakes, just like competitors do, and some of these mistakes will amount to improper actions or omissions justifying redress.
  2. There's absolutely nothing wrong with testing 'reasonableness' after the event, (as long as you are not impermissible indulging in hindsight).  A redress decision does not punish the race committee, it gives fair redress to competitors.
  3. As Sarge said, it's observable that some safety boat crews make some silly mistakes, and sometimes give wholly unreasonable instructions.
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: 26 Aug 14 at 8:58pm
Originally posted by Paramedic

Originally posted by Brass

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

Sorry to leap on that statement - but having inserted a SI like that are you not kind of under obligation to support your rescue crew in their judgement? What seems reasonable out on the water can once ashore and with hindsight be seen to be OTT.

I think its a universally accepted, if unwritten, rule that if in difficulty you follow the direction of the safety crew. 

Not at all.....see the example I gave upthread re a rescue boat crew mistaking a 27 year old for an under 16.  If the helm had tried to comply she'd have decked him.

And there are far too many times when the direction of the Safety Boat crew has actually been unsafe, and/or beyond their capabilities.....
Back to Top
Paramedic View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 27 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 929 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Paramedic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 14 at 5:29pm
Originally posted by Brass

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

Sorry to leap on that statement - but having inserted a SI like that are you not kind of under obligation to support your rescue crew in their judgement? What seems reasonable out on the water can once ashore and with hindsight be seen to be OTT.

I think its a universally accepted, if unwritten, rule that if in difficulty you follow the direction of the safety crew. 


Edited by Paramedic - 26 Aug 14 at 5:29pm
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 12:42pm
Originally posted by Brass

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 (without running scared).

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
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
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 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: 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
 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