New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Hypothetical situation ive been wondering about
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Hypothetical situation ive been wondering about
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Paramedic View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 27 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 929 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Paramedic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hypothetical situation ive been wondering about
    Posted: 26 Oct 13 at 8:27am
Two boats have a clear coming together, for example port/stbd at a mark with lots of witnesses. This results in much shouting but no turns are done. Protest is hailed, but is not the first word said so the protest is declared invalid and thrown out.

Can a third party protest both competitors on the basis that no turns were done, yet there was a clear rule breach?

Does this come under rule 2?

I ask because it is now seemingly very easy to get a protest dismissed, and I've heard of this sort of thing happen twice this season.

Thanks :)
Back to Top
laser4000 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Aug 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589 		Post Options Post Options   Quote laser4000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 13 at 6:25pm
Why is the protest invalid if 'protest' is not the first word said? 61.1 states the obligation "When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area that she was involved in or saw, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each" . So as long as the shout of protest is reasonably opportune (i.e. in the vicinity of the incident) then the protest shouldn't be thrown out if the first word said is 'starboard' / 'you pillock' or something along those lines (IMHO)

Rule 60.1 (Parties to Protest) states "a boat may protest another boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless she was involved in or saw the incident"

You saw the incident, so that bit is ok, and the incident itself was a breach of rule 14 (avoiding contact) so you are entitled to lodge a protest. You would need to shout protest yourself, display a flag etc (if required) and it helps to have witnesses to the contact - just stating 'it was obvious there was a crash' might not cut the mustard if both boats deny the crash
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: 26 Oct 13 at 7:13pm
^ What he said. 

FWIW, there are three US appeals on the timings of hails of protest. "First reasonable opportunity" applies. 
Back to Top
Paramedic View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 27 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 929 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Paramedic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 13 at 8:01pm
Well at least two protests this year that I know have happened have been thrown out because "turns please" was said before "protest".

One was a pretty blatent incident seen by lots of other boats, none of whom thought the protest would be dismissed, never mind thrown out over validity. So no one had the opportunity to lodge a third party protest as one was obviously going to be lodged - that the protest lodged by the offended party was invalid doesn't seem to be covered by the rules.

Seems like a loophole to me, one that wants closing.
Back to Top
MattK View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 02 Feb 05
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 221 		Post Options Post Options   Quote MattK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 13 at 8:46pm
Originally posted by Paramedic

have been thrown out because "turns please" was said before "protest".

Seems like someone at your club wants to avoid having to conduct a hearing and is passing it off as a rules technicality

Originally posted by Paramedic

Seems like a loophole to me, one that wants closing.

There really isn't a problem, just tell this person at your club to stop being a...
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: 26 Oct 13 at 9:15pm
Originally posted by MattK

Seems like someone at your club wants to avoid having to conduct a hearing and is passing it off as a rules technicality

Sadly my understanding is that there are precedents in the various "cases" in ISAF and other examples. IMHO its at odds with the rest of the general principle of the rules, bad for rule observance, bad for sportsmanship and every other way you care to think and there are no reasonable arguments in favour of it, but nevertheless a competent PC will be aware that if they choose to hear such a protest it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
Back to Top
craiggo View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		Post Options Post Options   Quote craiggo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 13 at 10:26pm
Ive heard of this occuring in the past. Sadly this is what happens when nit-picky idiots start taking things exactly as they are written rather than allowing it to be taken in the correct spirit.

The RYA would do well to lobby for an amendment to the rules in order to stop this silly practise.
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: 26 Oct 13 at 10:28pm
Originally posted by Paramedic

Two boats have a clear coming together, for example port/stbd at a mark with lots of witnesses. This results in much shouting but no turns are done. Protest is hailed, but is not the first word said so the protest is declared invalid and thrown out.
As others have said 'first word' is over the top  Second or third word after 'Aw s**t' should be acceptable.
 
Originally posted by Paramedic

Can a third party protest both competitors on the basis that no turns were done, yet there was a clear rule breach?
Yes a third party boat can protest, as long as she saw the incident (rule 60.1( a )) and complies with the requirements for it to be a valid protest in rule 61, in particular rule 61.1( a ) for hail and flag at the first reasonable opportunity.
 
No the basis of the protest is NOT 'that there were no turns done', it is a protest for the original breach, or breaches of the Part 2 (right of way, room, no contact) rules.  'Reasonable opportunity' thus runs from the incident or the contact, NOT from some later time when the third party protesting boat decides that she is not happy with the outcome.
 
RYA Appeals 1981/7 and 1996/2 are relevant.
 
RYA 1981/7
When a boat protests, believing that another boat has not taken a penalty as described in rule 44.2, she must establish first that the other boat broke a rule of Part 2 (or rule 31).
 
RYA 1996/2

When a boat sees an incident between two other boats in the racing area and wishes to protest one or both of them, she must display a protest flag, when applicable, at the first reasonable opportunity after the incident.

Originally posted by Paramedic

Does this come under rule 2?
No, it's just an ordinary protest:  see above.
 
Even if there was an allegation of a breach of rule 2, the incident happened in the racing area:  rule 61.1( a ) requirements for hail and flag apply.
Originally posted by Paramedic

I ask because it is now seemingly very easy to get a protest dismissed, and I've heard of this sort of thing happen twice this season.

There is no reason in the rules or cases why it should be any 'easier' for a protest to be declared invalid and the hearing closed in accordance with rule 63.5 than any time since 1995. 
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: 26 Oct 13 at 10:55pm
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by MattK

Seems like someone at your club wants to avoid having to conduct a hearing and is passing it off as a rules technicality

Sadly my understanding is that there are precedents in the various "cases" in ISAF and other examples. IMHO its at odds with the rest of the general principle of the rules, bad for rule observance, bad for sportsmanship and every other way you care to think and there are no reasonable arguments in favour of it, but nevertheless a competent PC will be aware that if they choose to hear such a protest it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
 
There are very few ISAF Cases or RYA appeals about time for hail (in contrast to display of flag).
 
Case 112 (based on RYA Appeal 2008/2, and now addressed by rule 61.1( a )(3)), EXPANDED the time allowed for hail for breach of rule 28.
 
RYA Appeal 1981/7 (originally decided before the requirement for hail of 'Protest' was in the rules) is the principle about third party protesting boats meeting the hail and flag requirements based on the time of the original incident:  it does not address 'reasonable'.
 
RYA Appeal 1999/1 was a response to questions, not an appeal against an actual decision, but it dealt with display of flag and assumed that there was no question about hail being given in time.
 
Originally posted by craiggo

Ive heard of this occuring in the past. Sadly this is what happens when nit-picky idiots start taking things exactly as they are written rather than allowing it to be taken in the correct spirit.

The RYA would do well to lobby for an amendment to the rules in order to stop this silly practise.
 
Why would the RYA contemplate changing the rule.
 
Going by the appeals and cases over the last 20 years or so, most protest committees have little or no difficulty appropriately applying the requirement for 'first reasonable opportunity'.
 
If one or two protest committees are being 'unreasonable' in applying the requirements, then competitors who are dissatisfied with the protest outcomes should appeal.  This will then generate an RYA appeal (which is a far better vehicle for dealing with 'reasonable' and measures of time than tinkering with the rules).
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: 26 Oct 13 at 11:04pm
Originally posted by laser4000

the incident itself was a breach of rule 14 (avoiding contact) so you are entitled to lodge a protest. You would need to shout protest yourself, display a flag etc (if required) and it helps to have witnesses to the contact - just stating 'it was obvious there was a crash' might not cut the mustard if both boats deny the crash
Have a care here.  It is not necessary that rule 14 is broken every time there is contact .
 
If there was contact, that's good evidence that there was a breach of a right of way rule (one boat is always required to keep clear), but it might be that it was not reasonably possible for either boat to avoid contact.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

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