New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Start Line Collision
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Start Line Collision
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
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: Start Line Collision
    Posted: 01 May 14 at 1:28am
Originally posted by ohFFsake

Q1. In the absence of independent witnesses, where does the onus of proof lie? 

Originally posted by ohFFsake

Protest was heard tonight. Only witnesses in attendance were the two helms. L's version of events was as described earlier in the thread. W's version of events was that L approached from behind at speed, never gained an overlap to leeward but simply sailed into his transom.
PC found that L did not give W sufficient room to keep clear and disqualified him.

Originally posted by ohFFsake

My understanding, from L, is that the boats were more or less fully alongside each other when the initial contact was made, which was corroborated by his crew, who happens to be my daughter! 

Time to draw a line under it and move on. The hard thing here is not to get too up tight with the PC, who will doubtless have been trying their best to resolve things fairly. 

Don't want to beat a dead horse about the decision, but, given that this was obviously a 'he said/she said' case from the start, L was stark mad to have gone into the room without his crew as a witness.

There is absolutely no requirement that witnesses be 'independent'.

Protest committees should primarily expect that witnesses, even though they may be crew or otherwise interested parties will tell the truth, and will not give untrue evidence in favour of their interest.

Telling lies in a protest hearing is a gross breach of sportsmanship and subject to severe penalties under rule 69.

A protest committee should normally have a good reason before it discards or discounts a witness' evidence.
Back to Top
ohFFsake View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 04 Sep 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ohFFsake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 14 at 11:10am
Not sure either of those assertions is actually true, however I have now amended my previous post in the hopes of making the original meaning clearer.
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 14 at 10:51am
Accusing someone of lying on an open forum (where many people appear to know who was involved) seems like very poor form, especially when they are a club mate? Could make for some very awkward moments in the changing rooms or bar.
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3048 		Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 14 at 9:53am
It would be interesting to know what the 'facts found' were by the PC in coming to this decision.
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
andymck View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 15 Dec 06
Location: Stamford
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 397 		Post Options Post Options   Quote andymck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 14 at 11:45pm
I must admit, especially having thought a lot about this one on the water at the weekend, and done some dummy runs at competitors, I am not surprised L lost, though I would have still wanted to hear there was an attempt by W to get clear.
I was lining up on boats sitting plodding  on broad reaches, close hauled as described, coming in from under a boat length to leeward at establishment of overlap. it was windy, so there was a big speed difference. I had to bear away every time to give W time to keep clear.

Andy


Edited by andymck - 22 Apr 14 at 11:46pm
Andy Mck
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: 22 Apr 14 at 8:49am
As a thought in this one, consider the reported language from W... Does that sound like the result of what was reported, a normal start line situation we've all been in lots of times, or more like the response of someone who's just been rammed from behind by some fool not paying attention?

I wonder, for instance, if there could first have been contact from behind which L didn't notice and then the boats ended up side by side, and W had never had a chance to keep clear?

There are lots of scenarios possible... And a photo doesn't help at all with many of them.

Edited by JimC - 22 Apr 14 at 8:55am
Back to Top
ohFFsake View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 04 Sep 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ohFFsake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 14 at 8:45am
My understanding, from L, is that the boats were more or less fully alongside each other when the initial contact was made, which was corroborated by his crew, who happens to be my daughter!

I believe a photo taken from ashore has also since come to light which shows L close hauled to leeward of W, who is reaching with sheets eased.

I find it very hard to reconcile all of this with W's claim of being hit from astern.

Time to draw a line under it and move on. The hard thing here is not to get too up tight with the PC, who will doubtless have been trying their best to resolve things fairly.



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: 22 Apr 14 at 8:36am
What were the facts found by the PC - was there an overlap established or was L clear astern and hit W's transom?

 It is a common occurrence that the parties at a hearing have very different recall of events. This does not mean that they are lying. If an allegation is made that a party deliberately lied this can lead to a 69 hearing. PC's are rarely convinced that someone is lying. If such an allegation is upheld I am in favour of severe penalties, because lying in a hearing goes against the fundamental principles of our sport.

In this case L, sitting some distance from the bow, may be convinced that there is an overlap, whilst W, nearer the stern of his boat, might be convinced that there was not. In the same way, if no mark is left on the boat it can be difficult to agree on the exact point of contact.

It is not the PC's job to decide which version of events they believe, it is to establish, from sometimes contradictory evidence, a series of facts, on the balance of probabilities, sufficient to arrive at conclusions to resolve the dispute between the parties.

In this case - if L believes that they had established an overlap and W does not, but both agree that there was contact, then, on the balance of probability, I would probably conclude that L established an overlap but did not initially give W room to keep clear. L broke rule 15!

However,
Gordon
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: 22 Apr 14 at 8:34am
Originally posted by ohFFsake

...when a party [redacted]

One thing I've learned as I've got older is the amazing flexibility of memory and just how prone the human race is to convert their memory of what happened into their memory of what they would like to think happened. It really is very hard to work out what happened in a protest hearing if all you have to work with is the evidence of two people some days after it happened.

That's why protest hearings should really be held on the day and before anyone has left the premises. Subconscious hasn't had a chance to edit memory and witnesses, however vague, are still available. In a startline incident like this there would have been plenty of people who could reinforce or contradict some aspects of both boats stories, so its crazy holding a hearing when none of them are available.

Who'd want to be a PC in a hearing like this? Two people with an entirely different recollection of events, and, it seems, maybe not even the committee boat crew to give an idea of what hails they heard...

Edited by JimC - 23 Apr 14 at 12:22pm
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: 22 Apr 14 at 12:29am
Couldn't agree more with your last sentence - especially having been subject to the same situation but with the lie reversed (ie I was W and L lied).
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

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