Laser 140101 Tynemouth |
![]() |
Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
![]() |
Laser 161752 Tynemouth |
![]() |
List classes of boat for sale |
Sportsmanship Behaviour |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <123> |
Author | ||
turnturtle ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 05 Dec 14 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2538 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 19 Jul 16 at 2:38pm |
|
can you apply for redress because the Race Committee neglected to mention there were road works on the A30 and you arrived late?
|
||
![]() |
||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
If the RC specifically, deliberately and incorrectly told *you* there would be no road works, *and* told everyone else that there would be then I suppose there might be a case for alleging improper conduct.
|
||
![]() |
||
Dougaldog ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 05 Nov 10 Location: hamble Online Status: Offline Posts: 356 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Good point Jim.... covered of course under 'communications between RC and competitors'. I went to an event where the NoR was quite specific. Parking is at location X, have exact money ready. It was clear to all those (or all those who read the NoR).... though I also recall one famous mard arse complaining about not being ready in time because of parking issues. Shame that (not)
|
||
Dougal H
|
||
![]() |
||
blueboy ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 27 Aug 10 Online Status: Offline Posts: 512 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Our collective worthless opinions are what the OP requested and you have chosen to join in. Since this event appears to be in the past tense, 62.2 would in any case seem to put the kibosh on your suggested course of action. |
||
![]() |
||
turnturtle ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 05 Dec 14 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2538 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
As others have said, the race committee is not your mummy; the race committee is not your migration consultant. You asked for references to rules. Here are some relevant rules and comments. The function of the race committee is to conduct races (rule 90.1) and publish sailing instructions (rule 90.2( a )). Immigration requirements are not connected with the conduct of races. The organising authority is is required to publish a notice of race that conforms with rule J1. Rule J1.2 lists matters that shall be included in the notice of race that would help competitors decide whether to attend the event. None of the listed items refers to migration requirements. Organising Authorities, race committees and other race officials are not required to comply with sportsmanship, misconduct or manners requirements of rules 2 and 69. Rule 2 applies only to boats (including crew on board) and their owners (rule 2), and rule 69 applies only to competitors (rule 69.1) Any complaint about misconduct of a race official could be made to the host club, or with respect to an accredited race official, to the local or national association or (for international race officials) to WS. Such a complaint would be dealt with by the recipient in accordance with its rules, regulations or by-laws. The right to protest is established in rule 60. There is no right to protest any entity except a 'boat'. Complaints of improper action or omission by an organising authority or race committee may be pursued by means of a request for redress. Even if you did protest about sportsmanship, you would need to (rule 2):
I can't see that you are within a million miles of doing that. As far as I can see, neither the organising authority nor the race committee was under any obligation to provide you with immigration advice, and did nothing to mislead you in that respect. Seemingly you were given incorrect advice by migration authorities who had nothing to do with the organising authority or the race committee.
|
||
![]() |
||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Jim, you've turned Turtle's posited omission into an action, and them made it differential. That's a huge difference. There's no obligation on the organising authority or race committee to provide traffic bulletins, so yes, you can request redress, but you aren't going to get it. Jim's scenario provides some interesting things to analyse. First, the traffic advisory would, presumbaly have been given some time before the start of the event, possibly before the race committee was even appointed. Normally the only way a race committee can communicate with competitors before the start of an event is by publication of the sailing instructions, which, of course, are available to all. A SI with traffic advice is a damn bad SI. Unless the information was contained in a document, clearly authorised by the race committee the information would have to have been given by an individual person. Only if the giving of the information was a 'race committee function', would the person giving the information be included in the 'race committee'(Introduction: Terminology: Race Committee), and thus would the giving of the information be an action of the race committee (improper or otherwise). Given that, I think we have all agreed that neither migration nor traffic advice is a function of the race committee, the one to one advice Jim described would not be an action of the race committee, and thus would not found the giving of redress under that head. Suppose the SI did, foolishly, publish incorrect traffic information: that is clearly an action of the race committee and could give rise to redress. Likewise an official Notice to Competitors. Note that these documents are available to all competitors: the one on one nature is not relevant. OK, suppose then, that incorrect advice about the motorway was given on the phone by 'someone in the sailing office' (or some nerd on the website). I think it would be fair to say that that was an action, not of the race committee, but of the organising authority (which is a somewhat more nebulous entity than the race committee), and if the information was incorrect, could found the giving of redress. OK, now let's suppose that the information was accurate but differentially given: suppose the Asst RO rang up a mate on his mobile and told him there was a holdup on the motorway and enabled the mate to take an alternative route. Technically the argument rehearsed above that traffic advice is not a function of the race committee, would hold and this would not be an improper action of the race committee. Suppose, however that it was not the Asst RO, but the club rear commodore (not a member of the race committee) that phoned his mate: does this get in as an action of the organising authority? I'm inclined to think that, while imprudent, it's sufficiently distant from the conduct and outcomes of racing that it is not improper: people phone their friends and talk about traffic jams all the time. Maybe the outcome, if it came to a redress hearing would depend on the significance of the effect, if any, of the conversation, on the result. Anyone want to go any further with this? |
||
![]() |
||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Oh yes, and deliberately so. Trying to suggest that 9999 times out of ten thousand there's no responsibility , but in the very unlikely event of malice, not mess-up its not absolutely impossible... Edited by JimC - 20 Jul 16 at 12:23pm |
||
![]() |
||
JohnJack ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 12 Mar 13 Online Status: Offline Posts: 246 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
This is a pay to sail event. Was it done through a company?
If so isn't it their responsibility. Trading standards maybe??
|
||
![]() |
||
turnturtle ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 05 Dec 14 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2538 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
OK- here's my only sensible reply.... see if your bank account has some integrated travel insurance.
|
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <123> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |