International 14 Worlds

Sorry Rick but I have to disagree. This situation is clearly a one on one, more of a match race. This is acceptable to most sailors

The incident at the I14 Worlds is more about team racing in a fleet race which is not acceptable.

Think it was a Worlds but not sure - someone else mentioned on the other thread that Percy had been sailed out of second when Loof took him further back than required to improve his own score.  There was no allegation of team-racing but the reading of case 78 above implies that there might have been a case to answer nevertheless!

I looked at both the Olympics and 2005 Worlds - there was no mention of it in the Y&Y report on the Olympics - which included an interview with Percy, where he blames his performance in the last race on poor cimmunication between him and his crew. He won the last two races in the Star worlds - so can't really blame another boat for that!

My point is that only A actually knows whether it is intended to improve A's score - or someone elses, when circumstances are as they are in the Barker case.  So if this IJ decision was taken as case law we would have a game change if A's actions could also improve C's positions.  Effectively the tactic would be v high risk if more than one boat's position could be improved and especially if any connection between A and C could be construed or implied, whether supported by evidence of dinners to discuss tactics or not.

While Case 78 does talk about "intent" ("provided that this tactic is intended to benefit her own series result") it follows that this "intention" must have some rational basis, and that once there is  no rational basis for continuing the  tactic (ie that  the boats have reached such a position in the race that A's series result cannot be benefited) then  A becomes increasingly at risk of a protest from  B  - and then it becomes a  matter for the Jury or Protest Committee to decide. If this were not the case, then A could come into the protest room with any old story about her tactics, saying this was her intent and the PC/Jury have to accept this because it was her intent, and that is all that is required. However if this is the case then ISAF should be amending the rules and cases so that it is clear that it is permissible to take out a boat within a fleet race, and leave everyone to do what they will. Imagine the outcry in the last race of the Olympics when a boat with a good shot at a gold medal got sailed off the course by some back marker, just for the hell of it. If you think this is OK then you need to look at Case 34 (the old Silvestri case) where it says in the summary that "hindering another boat may be a breach of RRS2".

Also interesting - surely A should have the right to put some extra places in the bag?  Especially as nothing is ever certain on a last beat.

But we are in agreement here - the current case law is fine.  What we may or may not disagree over is the use it has been put to by this IJ who effectively made a decision based on circumstantial evidence and a subjective assessmant of the situation made with hindsight to say that Barker and Co, the boat A in this situation, were not attempting to improve their own position , and were not in a position to do so.

Unfortunately PC's and Juries sometimes have to make decisions based on wildly differing evidence. All they can do in this situation is deduce the facts on the balance of probabilities and then make a decison based on the application of the rules to that situation - which maybe to dismiss or disqualify.

If one party thinks the Jury has got wrong - even an International "no appeals" Jury they have the right within a certain time-frame to request a re-opening. So there is some protection against a "wrong decision".  I think you'll find that in instances where the Jury has made a mistake, they will be only too ready to amend their original decision and correct the situation, if that is the appropriate action, and there is new evidence.

I also find it interesting because I have been in the boat A situation with a great deal to achieve in a sailback situation if I wanted to take second in a Nats.  I gave it my best shot and failed by 3 places - had another boat benefitted from my actions I could presumably have been protested if this IJ's decision is used as a guide.  But had I been successful I would by performance have proved my case.  That is no way for the case law to lead us.

It would depend on when you started your tactics and other factors, but when you start the sail-back, you are always at risk of a protest if you get beyond the point of no return - when your tactic was clearly futile but you continued and disadvantaged the other boat in terms of  its series score.

We have all seen match races for fleet championships - but these normally start at the beginning of the race, between the top two boats, which will generally be close to the back of the fleet at the first mark and then start racing through to catch up as many boats as possible and at the same time get as many boats as possible between them and their opponent.

KS

KS

I justy hope ISAF don't ake this for Case Law.  Cases 78 and 34 established B's rights to be sailed back fairly - and A's responsibility to act only in accordance with rules of part 2 and on the same lap and leg.  34 creates special circumstances where B could get redress without there having been damage.  Case Law derived from this decision would have a very different effect.

What if A has to sail B down 15 places in the fleet  but only achieves 5. Does A infringe RRS2? Probably - but you would think that B would only protest/claim redress if her (B's) position in the series score was worsened.

My view is probably not - as long as the conditions are fulfilled - Surely A only has to think he can do it - because as is pointed out B has no need to alledge the infringement of RRS2 unless A has achieved his aim and therefore there can be no offence! 

At the other end of the scale you have a situation where A's tactics and objectives were clearly impossible to achieve from the outset, were wildly ambitious during the course of the race but were pursued nevertheless causing boat B to drop several places in her overall score, and A's series score did not improve? Is that Fair Sailing?

Yes but thi requires a fairly bizarra set of circumstances!

In the end RRS2 is a shield in the hands of B against attack by A, not a sword.

Agreed

There are really no black and whites in this situation merely varying shades of gray. However sailors need to recognise that if they try to "take out" a competitor then they need to have sound reasons for doing so - in terms of improving their overall score and that if they do not/fail then they may be liable to protest, if upheld they may be disqualified (DNE) for an infringement of RRS2, and their competitor may get redress as a result.

I think that this decision does not introduce grey into the normal boat on boat sail back.  But it has serious implications if there is the chance of another competitor benefitting - as here.  In such a situation (and someone has cited Loof v Percy in Stars  when Percy lost Silver he was sailed back so far) a competitor would have to be very wary of adopting sailback tactics, the right to which are enshrined in the rules - and which I believe should remain so - when putting themselves in jeopardy of a "team-racing RRS2 protest.

The two GBR boats are not "my team". I've never met the guys, it is unlikely I ever will, and their being British is of zero interest to me. We are not talking an Olympic "Team GBR" here. With a couple of exceptions, I think this discussion has been extremely balanced and I think you are being hyper-sensitive to conclude otherwise.

I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly what happened in the protest room. I find it hard to believe the report we have says it all. So yes it would be nice to have more information to inform this discussion, but we are not going to get it. Your argument seems to be that we should therefore not discuss it. I don't agree. It was, by any standards, a very significant decision for sailing, and it is a legitimate topic for discussion. It is unfortunate that the IJ did not foresee that and make their protest findings document a little more comprehensive.

I don't see the discussion here as an attack on the IJ. It is discussion and questioning. That is not the same thing. It was clearly a difficult case to decide.