New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: crazy sailors
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

crazy sailors
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
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: crazy sailors
    Posted: 29 Apr 10 at 12:26pm
Theoretically yes - but if a penalty was taken the penalised boat usually accepts liability. Hearings become essential if there is an allegation that ROW boat broke rule 14 and cannot not be penalised.

Gordon
Gordon
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: 29 Apr 10 at 10:59am

Originally posted by gordon

Just realised that I have been doing too much team racing umpiring recently - we often put in to the SIs that protest committee will not hear a protest if it does not affect the results.

Boats provided by OA I presume?

But in the event of damage collisions, don't you need to make findings to settle whether they get their damage deposit back?
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: 29 Apr 10 at 8:52am
Brass,

Just realised that I have been doing too much team racing umpiring recently - we often put in to the SIs that protest committee will not hear a protest if it does not affect the results.

Gordon
Gordon
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: 29 Apr 10 at 1:12am

Originally posted by gordon

Brass, you are of course right. However the fact remains that both boats have taken a penalty (volontarily or not) so they cannot subsequently be disqualified. Unless, of course, it is found that rule 2 has been broken.

In the same way a hearing may be necessary to establish whether the conditions for redress have been met.

Different MNAs may have differing attitudes to the question of damages. The RYA, for instance, specifically states in its prescriptions that any claim for damages shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and not considered by a protest committee. And that a boat that takes a penalty or retires soes not thereby admit liability for damages or that she has broken a rule.

Thank you Gordon.

I am particularly obliged for the pointer to the 'does not thereby admit liability', which also resides in the US Sailing Prescriptions, but not in the Australian ones, although I think the inference from the rules is really clear enough.

Interestingly I understand that the Netherlands MNA, and I presume some other European MNAs have no prescription to rule 68.

I would empahsise that the prescription is NOT authority for a protest committee to refuse to hear or decide a protest:  the protest committee is obliged to decide what rules a boat broke (and how penalties apply):  this is a long way from deciding a claim for damages.
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: 28 Apr 10 at 4:34pm
Other boat should have appealed!

You cannot invalidate a protest because it is only for insurance.

There had been a serious collision, with damage. A rule had been broken (I'm trying to imagine a situation in which there was a collision with damage in which a rule was not broken).
However, such a protest would not change either boats score, as both had retired. But, the damaged boat could, after the protest hearing, ask for redress if she could prove that damage was caused by other boat breaking a rule of part 2

Gordon

 
Gordon
Back to Top
laser193713 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 13 May 09
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 889 		Post Options Post Options   Quote laser193713 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 10 at 3:51pm

The protest was heard so the jury did the right thing to satisfy the rules.  The other boat then lost the protest based on the fact that they were protesting for insurance reasons rather than to clarify the rules situation.

My point is purely that you should not protest for insurance and expect the jury to take you seriously! That is why I asked why they had protested us.  Something I would always ask in a situation like this where we were 100% sure we were in the right for a rules situation. Perhaps even if you are not 100% it is still worth asking because if the other party slip up and mention insurance you may win the protest by default anyway...
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: 28 Apr 10 at 1:16pm
Brass, you are of course right. However the fact remains that both boats have taken a penalty (volontarily or not) so they cannot subsequently be disqualified. Unless, of course, it is found that rule 2 has been broken.

In the same way a hearing may be necessary to establish whether the conditions for redress have been met.

Different MNAs may have differing attitudes to the question of damages. The RYA, for instance, specifically states in its prescriptions that any claim for damages shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and not considered by a protest committee. And that a boat that takes a penalty or retires soes not thereby admit liability for damages or that she has broken a rule.

Gordon
Gordon
Back to Top
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 Posted: 28 Apr 10 at 8:32am
Originally posted by laser193713

Originally posted by JimC

The main point that needs to be made from this is that there should always be a protest hearing if there's insurance level damage...

 

This is not really the case.  If a protest committee find out that the only reason for the protest is to aid in an insurance claim they should (and probably will) throw it straight out.  Happened to us sailing the quarter tonner a long time ago, we were in the right technically but a fair amount of damaged was caused to the other boat but none to ours.  We thought it best to retire from the race as a gesture rather than for a rules reason.  The other boat was forced to retire too.  We got off the water and contacted the yacht club to get the details of the boat who we hit and swap insurance details. When doing so we found out they had protested us, i went to the hearing and after hearing each others sides i asked "why are you protesting us?" to which i got the reply "for insurance reasons".  The Jury then kicked the protest out on these grounds.  Protests are not there for insurance, they are there to make the racing fair.

 

Never say for "insurance reasons"; always say "to establish the facts as bounded by the RRS".
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
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 Apr 10 at 12:07am
Originally posted by laser193713

This is not really the case.  If a protest committee find out that the only reason for the protest is to aid in an insurance claim they should (and probably will) throw it straight out.   ... Protests are not there for insurance, they are there to make the racing fair.

 

Originally posted by gordon

The only reason for holding a protest hearing in the case you cite would be if there was an allegation that the penalty taken, which was to retire, was inappropriate. To quote Case 99 - "when a boat's penalty under rule 44.1b is to retire, and she does,(whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disqualified." If there was an allegation unfair sailing (rule 2) then a penalty worse than retiring could be applied - DNE.

I disagree.  While, as I said in previous posts, there should be no need for a boat to protest 'for insurance reasons' a protest committee may not 'throw a protest out' in any way based on the reasons for the protest.

A protest committee must hear all protests that are lodged (rule 63.1).

The protest committee must continue the hearing of all valid protests (rule 63.5) and reach a decision whether or not any boat broke a rule (rule 64.1), then inform the parties (rule 65.1), and if requested do so in writing (rule 65.2).

Not until the protest committee has decided whether or not a boat has broken a rule should it consider whether the boat has taken an appropriate penalty and further penalisation does not apply.

The protest commitee does not get to pick and choose.

This is a 'service to members' mandated in the RRS.  I would suggest that it's mandatory nature is specifically there to assist in deciding fault for purposes of adjusting damages.  In particular, it forestalls the difficulties of arguing in court that a) the RRS apply, and b) exactly how they apply before a tribunal completely unfamiliar with them.



Edited by Brass
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: 27 Apr 10 at 4:51pm
The only reason for holding a protest hearing in the case you cite would be if there was an allegation that the penalty taken, which was to retire, was inappropriate. To quote Case 99 - "when a boat's penalty under rule 44.1b is to retire, and she does,(whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disqualified." If there was an allegation unfair sailing (rule 2) then a penalty worse than retiring could be applied - DNE.

However, the protest committee could, in this case, have decided that rule 14 had been broken by your boat - in which case the other boat could have been granted redress.

Gordon
Gordon
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

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