New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: serious damage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

serious damage
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: serious damage
    Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by The Moo

All good pointers for protest committees but not easily digestible on the water if a competitor wants to make the right decision there and then after a crash.

Judges can, from the comfort of their armchairs and airconditioned jury rooms, argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as long as they like.

But it's not meant to be difficult for sailors on the water, and I don't think it really is.

If you have a 'crash', chances are the damage is serious and you will be able to see that it is serious.

The easy test is, can you look your fellow-sailor in the eye and say 'I don't think that's serious'.

Originally posted by sargesail

Unless the damage is so serious that you're standing by to give assistance then do the spins, sail on, and sort it out with a RAF if required.

I don't it's that simple.  There can well be serious damage that doesn't leave the boat in danger or need of assistance.

But presumably, if you have a decent collision, even though you might not observe serious damage, there will be a conversation starting with 'Are you all right mate?'.  If the answer is 'Yeah, sure, but do your turns' you will probably be fine, as you say, subject to what you find out later.  If the answer is 'Awwww, look at my gunwhale ...' you are probably travelling towards serioustown.

There 

Brass - that was in response to the question - how do I know whether it's damage while on the water?  And was a practical suggestion that the only time you know for sure is if you need to stand by to give assistance!  Sure if the bloke looks you in the eye say's protest and complains about the splinters then you're probably in trouble....

On the other hand I've been in the wrong by the rules, but seen damage caused to my boat by someone who had an opportunity to avoid the collision.  No way I would have protested on any of those occasions.
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: 6661 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 8:00pm
Originally posted by Rupert

But in neither of those scenarios was the 1st word "Protest"... can a protest no longer be thrown out for that, or was it always a sailing myth anyway?

(4) if the incident results in damage or injury that is obvious
to the boats involved and one of them intends to protest,
the requirements of this rule do not apply to her, but she
shall attempt to inform the other boat within the time
limit of rule 61.3.

(
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: 10 Mar 14 at 10:46pm
Brass,

Just back from a weekend umpiring.


I do not agree with your formula:

Market value after incident = Market value before incident - Cost of damage/Cost to repair.

So to work out whether the market value is significantly diminished we can compare the cost of damage/Cost to repair to the total value of the boat.

The rules and interpretations only refer to "Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a whole, diminished?"

In other words - was the market value of the boat immediately after the incident less than the market value immediately before the incident? If so the incident resulted in damage. If there is a significant difference between the 2 values then the damage was serious.

The cost of any repairs are a separate if related issue. Any repairs may or may not restore the boat to it's pre-incident condition. That is the owner's decision. A temporary repair at little or no cost may enable the boat to race and finish the series. But the market value of the boat is still diminished.
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: 16 Mar 14 at 10:16pm
This issue I described has still been niggling away at me

Originally posted by Brass

I recently had a difficult protest committee hearing where a boat requested redress because her score had been made significantly worse by physical damage caused by a boat breaking a rule, but where the the boat said the damage was not serious, and she had not protested because the other boat had taken a penalty in accordance with rule 44.

In our discussions we were concerned about whether the requesting boat may have broken rule 14, but in the absence of evidence from the other boat were unable to reach any conclusion on this.

It would certainly be neater if the criterion for no on-water penalty and for redress was the same, which would be 'serious damage'.  Bearing in mind that a boat taking a penalty or retiring is NOT conclusive evidence that she broke a rule, and the desirability of resolving whether or not rule 14 was broken, it would be nice to have consideration of redress under rule 62.1( b ) supported by the conclusions of a protest hearing.

There is an attraction in the notion that if a boat causes damage that is serious enough to make a boat's performance, and hence her score in a race, significantly worse it should be regarded as 'serious damage'.

In answer to this, consider the (possibly somewhat artificial) situation where the only damage caused was to break off one cam of a jib cam-cleat, total cost about one dollar.  This would be very likely to make a boat's performance and result worse, but, absent some definition or other form of words in the rules it would be difficult to support a case that, on the ordinary english or nautical use of the word, this damage was 'serious'.

The issue that is bothering me is, how can a protest committee hearing a request for redress, where there has been contact between boats be sure that there is no fault of the requesting boat, without hearing evidence from the other boat about possible breaches of rule 14 or any other rule of Part 2?

I think the Judges Manual M3 moves us beyond the ordinary english usage.

We seem to be agreed that, in accordance with Judges Manual M3, damage is 'serious damage' if the performance of the boat ... was seriously impaired.

How can a boat suffer physical damage which makes her score significantly worse without her performance being 'seriously impaired' (and thus the damage being 'serious damage')?

It seems to me that the way to go for the protest committee in these circumstances is, either on receipt of the written request for redress, or at the beginning of the hearing, unless it appears that the requesting boat is not entitled to redress, to consider the requesting boat's description of the damage and its effects, (if necessary inspecting the boat) and decide whether the protest committee considers the damage to be serious damage.

The protest committee could then consider whether it was possible or likely that the requesting boat may have broken rule 14 or another rule or Part 2.

Once the protest committee forms an opinion that the incident may have involved serious damage, the protest committee can protest the other boat under rule 60.3(1).
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: 18 Mar 14 at 9:05am
Brass:

There can be a difference between damage that makes a boat's race or series score significantly worse and serious damage.

You cite the case of a broken clam cleat - damaged as a result of contact. This is not serious damage, however, depending on which cleat it is, may mean that the boat's result is made significantly worse. A broken sheet, a rip in a sail which means that it cannot be sheeted home without risking further damage, even broken spectacles - none of these are serious damage but may make a boat's score significantly worse.
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: 18 Mar 14 at 12:51pm
The Judges Manual, Section M discusses damage as follows

M.3 Serious Damage
This is not possible to define but a protest committee should ask:
• was the performance of the boat or crew seriously impaired?
• was the market value of the boat significantly diminished?
• was a crew member seriously injured?

Are you saying that you do not agree that, in accordance with this guidance, damage that seriously impairs the performance of the boat is serious damage?
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: 18 Mar 14 at 4:14pm
No - I am saying that damage that is not serious by those criteria may make a boat's race or series score significantly worse.

'Serious damage' is not a criterion for redress - damage that makes a boat's score significantly worse is (which may or may not be serious)
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: 18 Mar 14 at 9:49pm
OK, I take your point.

Can we explore the jib cleat scenario a little further?

Suppose:
  • jib cleat made inoperable without other damage;
  • not practicable to catch a turn of the sheet around the shroud or hold otherwise;
  • thus not practicable to keep jib trimmed and hike properly together;
  • boat finishes say 10 places behind her place when the incident occurred;
  • boat finishes say 10 places behind her average standing in the fleet in the series.
So, pretty clearly, her score is made significantly worse.

Would you agree that this is evidence that her performance was seriously impaired?

Could you describe another example of where, as a result of physical damage, a boat's score might be made significantly worse, but her performance not be seriously impaired?
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: 18 Mar 14 at 10:13pm
I would agree that boat's score has been made significantly worse - her performance has been impaired. That condition for redress has been met.

There has been damage - a ROW boat cannot be exonerated if it has been found that she broke rule 14.

A broken jib sheet is not serious damage - a 2 turn penalty at the time of the incident is appropriate.

Other examples - tiller extension broken, mainsheet splice broken, small rip in spinnaker preventing it being sheeted in hard for fear of aggravating tear, helmsman or crew's prescription glasses broken in the contact....
Gordon
Back to Top
Presuming Ed View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 26 Feb 05
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 641 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Presuming Ed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 14 at 10:15am
Originally posted by Brass

The Judges Manual, Section M discusses damage as follows

M.3 Serious Damage
This is not possible to define but a protest committee should ask:
• was the performance of the boat or crew seriously impaired?
• was the market value of the boat significantly diminished?
• was a crew member seriously injured?

Are you saying that you do not agree that, in accordance with this guidance, damage that seriously impairs the performance of the boat is serious damage?

Similarities to straight damage as discussed in Case 19 

Question
Is there a special meaning of ‘damage’ in the racing rules? 

Answer
No. It is not possible to define ‘damage’ comprehensively, but one current English dictionary says ‘harm . . . impairing the value or usefulness of something.’
This definition suggests questions to consider. Examples are:
• Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a whole, diminished?
• Was any item of the boat or her equipment made less functional?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

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