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

serious damage
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
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: serious damage
    Posted: 21 Mar 14 at 1:14am
Originally posted by Presuming Ed

Originally posted by gordon

That is like saying the offside rule is different at Manchester United because they have different values there!

Isn't it?
Just like sailing.

The rule isn't different.

The way it's applied in the Premier League is a bit different from a Saturday afternoon mud heap.
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: 21 Mar 14 at 12:52am
Originally posted by gordon

That is like saying the offside rule is different at Manchester United because they have different values there!

Isn't it?
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: 20 Mar 14 at 11:32pm
I agree that the MR guidelines are pretty handy, although, note in the examples I provided in an earlier post, there is no unanimous agreement about what or how the levels should be expressed.

The MR guidelines are also limited as follows:
  • they are valid for boats usually used for match-racing, size say from 6m to 15m, hardy construction, not pristine, high finish beauties;
  • they provide an extra additional penalty over and above those normally applicable;
  • they are designed primarily to protect the OA's boats, not really to provide a carefully calculated 'proportionate' additional penalty;
  • they are a bit like a call, a bit arbitrary, put there to assist the Umpires rule 14 panel to make a quick decision on the water and avoid a lengthy philosophical protest hearing.


Edited by Brass - 20 Mar 14 at 11:35pm
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: 20 Mar 14 at 11:07pm
I think what gets me worked up is qualified judges agreeing with them.

I am not sure that it is appropriate for judges to be influenced by the culture and values of the club. That is like saying the offside rule is different at Manchester United because they have different values there! Going down that route can be dangerous, because you end up with people playing a different game using the same rules (see Southern Hemisphere interpretation of the rules at the breakdown in rugby).

Case 19 only really tells us that there is no special definition of damage in the rules, and gives some EXAMPLES of questions that may be asked to ascertain if there is damage. The cost of making good any damage would be another possible question.

The RYA have suggested another approach, which can also prove useful - would a prudent owner repair the damage promptly.

The definition of damage is so vague, and interpretation of that definition so inconsistent that the Match Racing Community wrote their own. I have found this guidance useful.
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: 20 Mar 14 at 9:10pm
I'm not trying to force you to arrive at the place where I think case 19 is 'pointing'.

I certainly wouldn't condone a culture that says 'your old boat is so old and untidy that it doesn't merit consideration under the rules', but likewise I'm not keen on protest committees examining the gunwales of lasers with magnifying glasses to detect 'damage' so as to 'stop them playing bumper boats'.

As Jeffers and others have said, this is a matter for discretion and judgement.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I would expect a protest committee to be appropriately influenced by the culture and values of the club.

Maybe what is getting up Gordon's nose is classes consisting of wealthy and pretentious owners, who assert that damage worth thousands is not, in terms of their bank-balances, 'serious'.


Edited by Brass - 20 Mar 14 at 9:43pm
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: 20 Mar 14 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by Brass

What Case 19 is pointing towards, without quite saying it, is that if there is no diminution in value and no diminution in function or performance, then there is no damage.  I have no difficulty with this. 

I have a considerable problem with that. 

One class I sometimes sail are a local keelboat class, where most boats are of some vintage (20/30 years). Value of hulls is limited - selling costs approximately equate to 1 year's running costs - some thousands of pounds.  

A chunk out of the gelcoat is a couple of hours work. Say £100 yard fees. The yard has the relevant tools, equipment, gelcoat etc, plus easy weektime access to the boats - kept on swinging moorings. 

Such a chunk will have no effective diminution in value, function or performance, but would count as damage in my book. 

IME, at most match or team racing regatta, the first line of the briefing tends to be "Sailing is a NON CONTACT SPORT", delivered by chump in his most stentorian tones. I don't think that taking chunks out of people in fleet racing is legit, even if they are small.
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: 20 Mar 14 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by jeffers

Originally posted by Presuming Ed

 
... just noting that the manual and case 19 are similar (to the extent that it renders both/either less useful? or even meaningless?) 

I think that the bar in 19 is far too high. Personally, I reckon damage is anything that needs to be repaired. 

Case 19 does not address serious damage at all: it's all about the bottom threshold.

Looking at Case 19, what I think it is trying to do is to set a lower threshold, below which scratches and chips and so on should NOT be considered to be damage (essentially for purposes of rule 14( b )).  Hence Case 19 introduces the criteria of diminution of market value and diminution of function.

What Case 19 is pointing towards, without quite saying it, is that if there is no diminution in value and no diminution in function or performance, then there is no damage.  I have no difficulty with this.

I don't think Case 19 rules out damage that needs to be repaired.

What it does do, is rule out extravagant claims that a scratch that really would buff out requires massive repair work.

I agree but the question is at what point does this damage become bad enough that a boat cannot exonerate herself by doing turns.

Now you are coming back to serious damage.

If I had a collision and the gelcoat was damaged then I would say a 2 turn penalty is enough for the offending boat at the time.

That's fine for your beat-up 20 year old laser, where it would just be one among many 'honourable wounds'.

Different for somebody's beautifully restored mahogany pride and joy, where the same sized ding would have a significant effect on value between perfectly restored, and now, visibly blemished.

I don't have any difficulty with any seeming inconsistency here.  That's precisely what the reference to market value in Case 19 allows.

If the damage is any worse (i.e. a hole in the hull, damage to any control fittings rendering them inoperable or damage to any sails) then I would say that a 2 turn penalty is not enough and the offending boat should retire or be DSQ.

Now you are trying to do the very thing that I think Case 19 and the Judges Manual are trying to avoid:  institute a catalogue of damages, instead of applying the two criteria shown in JM M3:  diminution in value and impairment in performance.

That is my personal view.

It seems this is more of a judgement call and each case should be dealt with individually.

Couldn't agree more.
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: 20 Mar 14 at 11:44am
Originally posted by Presuming Ed

 
I think that the bar in 19 is far too high. Personally, I reckon damage is anything that needs to be repaired. 

I agree but the question is at what point does this damage become bad enough that a boat cannot exonerate herself by doing turns.

If I had a collision and the gelcoat was damaged then I would say a 2 turn penalty is enough for the offending boat at the time.

If the damage is any worse (i.e. a hole in the hull, damage to any control fittings rendering them inoperable or damage to any sails) then I would say that a 2 turn penalty is not enough and the offending boat should retire or be DSQ.

That is my personal view.

It seems this is more of a judgement call and each case should be dealt with individually. Let us not forget that for most insurance claims when racing they will want a protest to have been heard to help them establish liability.
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
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: 20 Mar 14 at 11:29am
Originally posted by gordon

Constantly repeating the terms of the sparse interpretations available in ISAF texts does not answer the question, because we have established that these texts have failed in that they are understood in very different ways. Evidently, judges and competitors need further discussion of this question

Personally, as you can see by the examples of serious damage I have presented here I have a somewhat severe idea of what constitutes serious damage, n that I tend to set the bar quite  low.

I was posting with my phone - just noting that the manual and case 19 are similar (to the extent that it renders both/either less useful? or even meaningless?) 

I think that the bar in 19 is far too high. Personally, I reckon damage is anything that needs to be repaired. 
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: 19 Mar 14 at 10:49pm
Originally posted by gordon

... t the guidance in the Case Book and the IJ Manual do not seem to have acheived their purpose of establishing anything approaching consistency in protest decisions.

... we have established that these texts have failed in that they are understood in very different ways. Evidently, judges and competitors need further discussion of this question.
While, as I have said, I have found this discussion very useful, and while some judges may desire more intellectually satisfactory guidance, I don't agree that 'competitors need further discussion of this question'.

If competitors wanted further discussion, there would be Appeals and Cases about serious damage. There are not.  Most Cases and Appeals merely mention 'serious damage' in reciting or referring to the provisions of rule 44.1( b ), or 60,3( a )(1).  Cases and Appeals mentioning serious damage are as follows:
  • ISAF Cases, 99, 107, 108:  none addressing the meaning or interpretation of 'serious damage'.
  • RYA Appeals, Some 10 Appeals mentioning 'serious damage', 7 do not address the meaning or interpretation of 'serious damage', 2 Appeals (2002/11 and 2008/5) make very marginal allusions, which do not contribute much and Appeal 2001/3, which dismissed the wholly unmeritorious  contention that 'cost of repairs alone did not constitute serious damage if a boat was unable to continue racing'
  • US Sailing Appeals, one Appeal, Appeal 51, not addressing the meaning or interpretation of 'serious damage'.
  • Sail Canada Appeals, Appeals 55 and 101 not addressing the meaning or interpretation of 'serious damage', and Appeal 24, indicating briefly that dismasting was [obviously] serious damage.
  • Australian Appelas, not published, but I can't recall any addressing serious damage.
Bottom line is that the understanding of 'serious damage' is not a problem for competitors.

If its a problem for judges (or some judges), but not for competitors, I think we should be very cautious about pushing for new cases.


Edited by Brass - 19 Mar 14 at 10:58pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>

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