Standard of Proof?

In general I agree with the points made in the last two posts.

Unfortunately the issue we have is one or two sailors who continually, knowingly and deliberately ignore the rules in the (correct!) belief that

nothing will get done about it. It will probably come as no surprise when I say that this is in our junior fleet! Most sailors seem to want to

sail fairly apart from the odd aberration, but a tiny minority employ a "win at all costs" approach, deliberately causing collisions to distract

their opponents, ignoring basic ROW rules, barging in at starts / marks and so on.

So this wasn't a case of elevating a mis-judgement into a rule 2 - in truth the fair sailing was really the starting point.

As noted earlier, having a jury boat following specific sailors round has been suggested, but this seems to be completely counter-productive, as

it simply reinforces the belief that you only need to follow the rules when you know you are being observed. What I'd hoped was that a protest

would demonstrate the principle that self-policing can work. But if evidence needs to be proven to "criminal standard" this clearly isn't going

to work, as it is virtually impossible to achieve that level of proof.

So my reason for this post was to see just how far the PC need to go, and thankfully it seems from the replies earlier that a much lower standard

of proof is sufficient. This is as much about learning how to conduct protests effectively and fairly - something we haven't had to do for some

years in our small and generally friendly club!

Thanks for the lengthy and detailed reply. I accept much of what you say, but will try and keep my reply brief and "on-topic".

What I'm really trying to establish here is a way that we can all learn from this, going forwards. And that means the PC team as much as anyone. I agree entirely with what you say about on-water juries up to and including the comment about changing clubs. However (and I'll say it again) there is a clear issue in the club with "cheating of this nature" (that is to say deliberate fouling of the manner discussed in this thread, regardless of whether proven or not in this instance) and we need to look for ways to nip this in the bud.

While we're on the subject, the alleged transgression of Rule 2 was the action of A in deceiving B into thinking she was going to take a penalty and then choosing not to do so as soon as B's back was turned. I see that as a fairly clear definition of not being in compliance with recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play. Is that reasonable?

Ultimately I agree with your closing point. The difficulty here was that a 13 year old in her first protest meeting was wrong-footed by the PC cross-examining C, previously certain of his evidence, and leading him into admitting that he could not possibly have watched another boat continuously for the entire first beat.

Just to round this off, the other bit of evidence I deliberately haven't mentioned is that a safety boat crew witnessed that entire incident from 20 yards downwind, and exactly corroborated B and C's version of events. However they chose to exclude themselves from the hearing on the grounds that as B's mother and sister they were interesed parties...