Standard of Proof?

It is a self-inflicted problem though. As people are unwilling to protest because of the possibility for conflict/bad feeling then there are those who play on this and take advantage by flagrantly disregarding the rules as they believe they will get away with it.

If more people stood up and were counted on breaches of the rules then this problem would become less and less.

Perhaps a revision to the rules where if a protest is found to be invalid then the PC can still review and find facts but NOT punish either party might be useful as it is often misunderstanding the rules that causes a lot of incidents. They can then speak to both parties (although this could become a double edged sword)

I have been on both sides where an interpretation I was using, which I though to be incorrect, was actually wrong. A protest was bought and heard via arbitration rather than a full hearing and some of our local experts took the involved parties through the rules in question using the casebook and I now have a clear understanding of this particular facet of the rule.

 

A boat doesn't have to hail protest to make taking a two turn penalty valid. If you think you've infringed a rule, you can just hold up you hand and shout "OK, doing turns", and spin. Nowhere in 44 does it say that a call of protest is required to take a 2 turn penalty. The basic principle states that if a boat infringes, she should take a penalty.

The first time that all aspects

 

1) that there had been an initial infringement

2) that B had acknowleged that she had infringed, and was going to do turns

3) that she might not have actually done her turns

 

are known to all participants was ashore after racing. B knew 1 and 2, but not 3. C might not have known 1 and 2. To believe that A may have broken 2 (and the basic principle), you need to know all three facts. If the earliest that you know them is when you come ashore, then all you have to do is inform A at the first reasonable opportunity - iow when you're ashore. Without all three, it's far from obvious that there's been an infrigement.

 

If C was aware of 1 2 and 3, then she did need to shout protest and fly a flag.

I agree Jim, but this is because of the confrontational nature of the way a protest should be initiated. The rules are trying to make it simple but this also makes it seem very confrontational.

The thing that always gets people is the fact that Protest should be the first word out of their mouth. Perhaps this should be changed to say the word 'protest' must be used in the initial exchange. We all like to try and be fair about this and, more often than not, there is a little bit of discussion between 2 parties when and infringement takes place.

So they could make something like this acceptable:

Boat A:

You infringed me at the last mark, please do your turns

Boat B:

No I don't feel I did infringe you

Boat A:

OK Protest

That way the 'top level' guys can continue to just use the current method of just hailing protest and the 'less serious' among us have a way of informing without seeming to be confrontational.

This would of course require submission to the ISAF (who are probably unaware of the issue as it is at grass roots level, they see plenty of protests from championships).

Some PCs do though...

There may be an ISAF case on this? If I get time I will take a look. Alternatively Brass (who is very knowledgeable on the casebook) may know of one?