New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Standard of Proof?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Standard of Proof?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
r2d2 View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 29 Sep 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 350 		Post Options Post Options   Quote r2d2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Standard of Proof?
    Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 1:51pm
Originally posted by ohFFsake

The protest in question is actually a rule 2 one...

...DNE?


I read this to mean that the protest was still under consideration and not, as Brass has assumed, already decided on.  Which is correct? Has the PC completed its work?
 
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: 12 Jun 12 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by RS400atC

Originally posted by ohFFsake

...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?......


Well, that is one interpretation, but another is that she simply changed her mind and thought she was not in the wrong, so was prepared to defend her actions in a protest, but the other boats lacked the will, conviction or ability to protest her in accordance with the rules.
I don't think anyone could reasonably deduce that. She was challenged in the first instance by B and agreed to take a penalty. If she later changed her mind she would know that B was unaware of this so to my mind she would remain guilty of deception unless she brought this to B's attention, which she did not.
Any of the witnesses could have protested but did not.
That is perhaps a fair comment. So C coming forward as a witness for B is not enough, he needs to formally protest A himself...?
 
In the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
LOL
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: 12 Jun 12 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by r2d2

Originally posted by ohFFsake

The protest in question is actually a rule 2 one...

...DNE?


I read this to mean that the protest was still under consideration and not, as Brass has assumed, already decided on.  Which is correct? Has the PC completed its work?
 
Both!
The use of the present tense in my post was accidental. The PC met, deliberated, and gave their verdict.
 
Some consideration has been given to asking them to re-open the protest, either on the grounds of a substantial error in their proceedings, or on the grounds of fresh evidence being available: B was not aware at the time of the protest that the safety boat crew had witnessed the incident, so didn't call them as witnesses.
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: 12 Jun 12 at 2:04pm
Originally posted by ohFFsake

1. Surely the PC should consider the content of the protest and it's validity as two entirely separate issues. If it is decided that it is valid then it should be dealt with strictly by the rules. An attitude of being "happy to dismiss it" would seem to indicate that the PC have allowed themselves to be biased by their earlier considerations.

To address the above. The first job of a PC is to establish if the protest is valid. If not then they can dismiss it and no further action is required so the rest of what is or is not right becomes irrelevant.

This is why it is important to hail protest as the first word out of your mouth and, in theory, say no more (except maybe identify the boat if it is not clear).

Having a discussion and then hailing protest 'could' get it thrown out on a technicality (I have seen this happen before even when the situation is clear cut) and the offending party 'get away with it'.

As much as I don't want to be seen as a stuffed shirt this is one part of the rules that are very clear and should be followed to the letter. 

That and after the incident try to forget about it and sail your own race...
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
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: 12 Jun 12 at 2:05pm
I'll PM you about some other issues in your post.
Originally posted by ohFFsake

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?
You can call this off if you want to, but if it would help people, lets drill down on this.
If you really really want to play the rule 2 game, you need to get on top of this stuff
 
What specific action of A was alleged to have deceived B?
  • spoken words?  If so what?
  • gestures? If so what?
  • merely changing course in some direction?  How is it alleged that that decieved B?
  • other action?  What and how?

Does anyone have any doubt that for deception to be a breach of sportsmananship there has to be an intention to decieve?  One can't just say 'I saw A do XX and that caused me to believe that A would then do YY, I was thus deceived and for A to do XX was unsporting'.

By the way, does anyone think that a false tack is a breach of rule 2?
 
Your somewhat lax english expression is causing me some difficulties.
 
An 'action by A in deceiving B' can't possibly be a 'definition' clear or otherwise, of  'not being in compliance with recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play'.
 
Can you state what you consider to be the 'recognised principle or principles of sportsmanship and fair play' that you consider relevant.
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: 12 Jun 12 at 2:15pm
Originally posted by Brass

I'll PM you about some other issues in your post.
Originally posted by ohFFsake

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?
You can call this off if you want to, but if it would help people, lets drill down on this.
If you really really want to play the rule 2 game, you need to get on top of this stuff
 
What specific action of A was alleged to have deceived B?
  • spoken words?  If so what?
  • gestures? If so what?
  • merely changing course in some direction?  How is it alleged that that decieved B?
  • other action?  What and how?

I wasn't a witness to this, but for the sake of argument let's take the minimum possible case:
 
A fouls B, causing contact.
B hails A and asks her to take a penalty
A immediately turns to sail away from the course to the next mark.
 
I would say that should satisfy any reasonable protest committee that A had signalled her intention to accept the penalty.
 
A then waits briefly until B is not looking, then hads back towards the next mark without completing the penalty turns or signalling any intent to protest.
 
I cannot see how that could reasonably be interpreted as anything other than deliberate deception.
Does anyone have any doubt that for deception to be a breach of sportsmananship there has to be an intention to decieve?  One can't just say 'I saw A do XX and that caused me to believe that A would then do YY, I was thus deceived and for A to do XX was unsporting'.
By the way, does anyone think that a false tack is a breach of rule 2?
 
Your somewhat lax english expression is causing me some difficulties.
 
An 'action by A in deceiving B' can't possibly be a 'definition' clear or otherwise, of  'not being in compliance with recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play'.
 
Can you state what you consider to be the 'recognised principle or principles of sportsmanship and fair play' that you consider relevant.
Does "deliberate foul" get somewhere close to covering it? I agree that deception can be entirely within the rules and part of the game (eg dummy tack) but the combination of deception and a deliberate foul for me moves it well into Rule 2 territory.
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: 12 Jun 12 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by ohFFsake

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?
 
Originally posted by RS400atC

Well, that is one interpretation, but another is that she simply changed her mind and thought she was not in the wrong, so was prepared to defend her actions in a protest, but the other boats lacked the will, conviction or ability to protest her in accordance with the rules.
Any of the witnesses could have protested but did not.
 
Originally posted by Presuming Ed

Absolutely.
 
 
Thanks guys:  this turns on whether there was 'deception' or not.


Edited by Brass - 12 Jun 12 at 3:40pm
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: 12 Jun 12 at 2:26pm

I'm not sure how necessary a call of protest is.

BASIC PRINCIPLE
SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

44 PENALTIES AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT
44.1 Taking a Penalty
A boat may take a Two-Turns Penalty when she may have broken a rule of Part 2 while racing or a One-Turn Penalty when she may have broken rule 31. Sailing instructions may specify the use of the Scoring Penalty or some other penalty. However, (a) when a boat may have broken a rule of Part 2 and rule 31 in the same incident she need not take the penalty for breaking rule 31; (b) if the boat caused injury or serious damage or gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty shall be to retire.

44.2 One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties
After getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible, a boat takes a One-Turn or Two-Turns Penalty by promptly making the required number of turns in the same direction, each turn including one tack and one gybe. When a boat takes the penalty at or near the finishing line, she shall sail completely to the course side of the line before finishing.

There is no requirement for a shout of protest to trigger a boat taking a one turn or two turn penalty. If you acknowledge an infringement, but then fail to do the turns you say you will do, then that's a clear breach of 2, and the basic principle, in my book.



Edited by Presuming Ed - 12 Jun 12 at 2:43pm
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011 		Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:27pm
Originally posted by ohFFsake


.....So C coming forward as a witness for B is not enough, he needs to formally protest A himself...?
 
In the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
LOL

I think you are viewing this with the opinion that one person in your club is a cheat, while I suspect your club is a bit like mine and contains a lot of people who don't understand the rules fully and don't make enough effort to enforce them. There are always some kids (and some adults) who will get away with whatever they can, there are usually a few more who push the grey areas a bit, and a few more who make genuine errors of judgement.

It sounds like you are trying to improve things, but you are in danger of being seen to be 'out to get' this one individual, put her absolutely in the wrong, whereas the process has failed in regard to this incident and nothing is proven. I would suggest, in pursuing an incident where the process of the rules has run out, you are in as much danger of transgressing rule 2 as the alleged miscreant. Accusing someone of cheating while failing to establish that, in a forum or anywhere outside the proper protest process is not good sportsmanship IMHO. Particularly where the person at the centre of all this does not have fair opportunity to state their case. Here we are talking anonymously so it's not personal, but around your club it becomes personal.

I would suggest putting this incident into history, but working toward avoiding repeats. Make sure everyone, or at least key people, are aware of the correct procedures and pursue any serious rule-breaking through the correct process.
 
By the way, I have known people be absolutely, honestly convinced they have done two turns when they have only done one!
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: 12 Jun 12 at 2:50pm
I worry about the whole throwing out of protests thing. It does seem to contradict the desire for the sport to be self policing.

As I posted in another topic:

People shouldn't be able to get away with rule breaches for legalistic reasons. In the fundamental rule it says that a boat that breaks a rule is required to take a penalty: it doesn't say that they should only take a penalty if another craft protests.

What there does need to be, if there is no swift flag or hail and the other competitor is genuinely unaware there was a rule breach or protest hail, is some kind of alternative penalty to DSQ available to the PC: something to put the penalised boat in the same sort of position they would have been in if they had seen the flag or heard the hail and taken an alternative penalty.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>

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