serious damage
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: General
Forum Name: Racing Rules
Forum Discription: Discuss the rules and your interpretations here
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11375
Printed Date: 25 Jun 25 at 6:09pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: serious damage
Posted By: gordon
Subject: serious damage
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 8:42am
|
I would like to read your opinion on the following question: When is damage so serious that a boat cannot take a 2 turn penalty on the water and should retire? ------------- Gordon |
Replies:
Posted By: Neptune
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 9:13am
|
to my mind it would be if the other boat could not continue racing ------------- Musto Skiff and Solo sailor |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 9:16am
|
If you have a hole in your boat, above the waterline, is this serious? Or, a hole below the waterline that you can keep out of the water on the last leg to the finish by heeling the boat? Is that serious? ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 9:37am
|
I would say yes to both - if you have put a hole in someone's boat, even if they can struggle on to the end, doing 2 quick turns isn't going to cut it. This, of course, is making the assumption that it is obvious who is at fault. If it isn't, then 2 turns is probably a wise precaution before the matter goes to protest on shore. Mind, if you are at fault in the sense that you are RoW boat, but failed to keep clear, something that can ever be exonerated by doing turns if there is serious damage? Or does that override the original rules break? ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: GML
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 10:13am
|
I would say that a hole in the hull is likely to be serious damage irrespective of whether or not it is above or below the waterline (but would depend on e.g. the size of the hole and the type of boat). I don't think the rules say that damage has to impair the ability of a boat to complete the course as quickly as possible to be "serious damage", and equally I don't think they say that a boat that is unable to complete the course has necessarily suffered "serious damage". Rule 44.1(b) lists two separate reasons why the applicable penalty for a breach of a rule may be for a boat to retire rather than take a two-turn penalty: one is because she caused "injury or serious damage" but the other is because she "gained a signficant advantage". |
Posted By: GML
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 10:26am
RoW boats are not required to keep clear. I assume you mean "failed to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible for you to do so even if you didn't take action until it was clear that the other boat was not keeping clear"? (See rule 14(a)). If a RoW boat breaks rule 14 and there is damage (NB even minor damage) then she needs to take a penalty. If the damage is "serious" then she must retire. This doesn't "overide" a prior rules break by the other boat. If they other boat broke a rule then she needs to take an applicable penalty. However, unless she caused injury or serious damage or gained a significant advantage despite taking a penalty, it may be that in her case a two-turn penalty will be sufficient. It will all depend on the facts of the case.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 10:51am
|
To be fair if my boat was holed regardless of the location I would immediately head to shore as you cannot be sure what other damage might be lurking below the surface. At that point my ability to complete the race has been impaired and I would seek redress/protest as appropriate. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 2:20pm
|
I recently had a difficult protest committee hearing where a boat requested redress because her score had been made significantly worse by physical damage caused by a boat breaking a rule, but where the the boat said the damage was not serious, and she had not protested because the other boat had taken a penalty in accordance with rule 44. We eventually decided that she was not entitled to redress because the boat's score, although made worse by the incident, was not made worse by the damage she suffered, which is the requirement of rule 62.1( b ). In our discussions we were concerned about whether the requesting boat may have broken rule 14, but in the absence of evidence from the other boat were unable to reach any conclusion on this. It would certainly be neater if the criterion for no on-water penalty and for redress was the same, which would be 'serious damage'. Bearing in mind that a boat taking a penalty or retiring is NOT conclusive evidence that she broke a rule, and the desirability of resolving whether or not rule 14 was broken, it would be nice to have consideration of redress under rule 62.1( b ) supported by the conclusions of a protest hearing. There is an attraction in the notion that if a boat causes damage that is serious enough to make a boat's performance, and hence her score in a race, significantly worse it should be regarded as 'serious damage'. In answer to this, consider the (possibly somewhat artificial) situation where the only damage caused was to break off one cam of a jib cam-cleat, total cost about one dollar. This would be very likely to make a boat's performance and result worse, but, absent some definition or other form of words in the rules it would be difficult to support a case that, on the ordinary english or nautical use of the word, this damage was 'serious'. Of course, the case might also occur where an expensively furnished and fitted, but sturdy yacht suffered considerable damage above the waterline, but that was not structural or did not otherwise impair her racing performance. You wouldn't want to rule out 'serious damage' just because it didn't rise to the level required for the grant of redress. Damage is adressed in the RRS, the Case Book, the Judges Manual, and in Match Racing. References to these sources is shown below RRS The word 'damage' appears in the rules as follows:
I don' think these differences are carefully considered intentional differences in shades of meaning: I think it's just the particular development of individual rules in an uncoordinated way (except for the link-up between rules 44.1 ( b ), 60.3 and 63.5) Cases Case 19 contains a somewhat unilluminating interpretation of the term 'damage', and Case 110 tell s us that 'injury' refers only to bodily injury to a person, and damage is limited to physical damage to a boat or her equipment [excluding psychological injury or psychic damage]. Judges Manual The Judges Manual, Section M discusses damage as follows
Match Racing Severity of Damage is addressed in Match Racing as follows
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 3:56pm
|
Brass, In order to grant redress damage does not have to be serious - it merely has to make a boat's race or series score significantly worse. Your clam cleat damage is an excellent demonstration - a broken clam cleat could (depending upon the class) significantly impair a boat's capacity to sail to her full potential and thus cause her score to be made significantly worse. She would thus be entitled to redress. However, the other boat could take a penalty on the water and this would be found to be the applicable penalty as she did not cause serious damage. There are varying degrees of damage:
I think that these different usages have been carefuly thought out. However, there does seem to be some reticence to define serious damage, and there are certainly widldly different appreciations of what constitutes serios damage. Hence my question to this community. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 4:14pm
|
Difficulty is that serious damange might not be immediatley obvious. One the other day when there was a coming together that the umpires didn't think was particularly hard. One boat was given a penalty (team racing). Immediate estimate made after the race was a couple of grand to repair. Boat couldn't race again during the event.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 10:15pm
I don't think the immediate (on-water) perception of seriousness of damage is that much of a problem.
I understand Gordon's point. I've heard a party in a protest say that the damage wouldn't cost more than two or three grand to fix and therefore wasn't serious. I think it is pretentious and ridiculous to assert that damage costing several thousand dollars, pounds or euros is 'not serious'. On the other hand, 'seriousness' of damage can, quite sensibly be related to the value of the boats, and Judges Manual M2 and M3 references to diminution of market value, is quite a clever way of taking this into consideration. The MR 'matrices' refer to man(pc 'person') hours to repair, in order to avoid disparities in the value of work-time in various parts of the world.
|
Posted By: craiggo
Date Posted: 04 Mar 14 at 11:52pm
| At an RS600 nationals at Mounts Bay, back in the day. I had a crap first upwind leg, and to top it off got caught in irons tacking onto starboard at the mark and then drifted onto it. While stuck in irons and attached to the mark a fellow competitor smashed into my bow with his leeward wing, punching a hole through the boat. After the incident I sailed like a man possessed and finished 6th. As I crossed the line Andy Peake called across to say I had a hole in the boat. I didn't believe him until several people also pointed at the damage, which I couldn't see from on the boat. After capsizing and swimming to the bow I saw the fist sized hole, tried to fix it but realized it wasn't happening and went ashore to repair it properly. Protest committee awarded me redress for the races missed while affecting repairs due to serious damage being caused. I guess the point is you can still get in a handy result with serious damage. |
Posted By: patj
Date Posted: 05 Mar 14 at 6:50am
| There's a lot here about the damage to boats and assessing its cost but don't forget damage to the crew. Any accident which injures a person such that they need first aid or medical treatment should be regarded as serious since life is far more precious than a boat and having to retire if you have caused any injury would emphasise the value of life. |
Posted By: Medway Maniac
Date Posted: 05 Mar 14 at 8:57am
Sounds like details of this incident might make an interesting contribution to the http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11373&title=the-weight-of-things-to-come" rel="nofollow - weight thread?  ------------- http://www.wilsoniansc.org.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilsonian SC http://www.3000class.org.uk" rel="nofollow - 3000 Class |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 05 Mar 14 at 10:21am
|
A rule 44 penalty ceases to be the applicable penalty for a boat when it is known that the boat caused serious damage - which may well be after boats have finished, or even, for instance in the case of big boats, much later. In this context there is little debate regarding injury - partly because most sailors will retire if they cause injury, partly because causing any injury excludes the possibility of taking a penalty at the time of an incident. It does not have to be serious injury. This question arose because of a competitor feeling aggrieved because we had DSQ'd him for aking a hole in another boat (28ft keelboats). He felt that juries at other class events would not have considered the damage serious and felt that we were "harsh" in not accepting that his turns were not a sufficient penalty. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 05 Mar 14 at 10:22am
|
Combining different texts I have come up with the following proposed guidelines. I would appreciate your opinion: Serious damage is any damage that seriously impairs the performance of a boat or her crew, or seriously diminishes the market value of the boat. Serious damage has occurred when the normal operation of the boat is compromised, and its structural integrity may be impaired. A prudent owner will repair serious damage promptly even though the boat may be able to continue to race, with or without temporary repairs. Repairs will generally require more than 3 hours work. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Mar 14 at 11:50am
|
Try the marked changes.
So we have produced an elegant little paragraph.
If this is the problem you are trying to solve, how does the 'definition' help? Couldn't you just as well explain to the competitor that the protest committee considered the factors in Judges Manual M2 and M3 and concluded that the damage was serious?
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 10:15am
|
The problem is that different protest committees (and even international juries) seem to have widely different opinion on what constitutes serious damage. Some seem to think that damage costing several grand to repair is not serious if the boat can finish the race! Others, my self included, hold that a hole in a boat is serious damage Coming back to port with a hole in your boat should not be a normal part of sailing. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 11:10am
|
Entirely agree. Holes are serious. Buff out - not damage ("And rubbin, son, is racin'(*)'") Gelcoat chip - damage Hole - serious damage. *(Yes, I know that it isn't.)
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 2:08pm
|
If you can see what to buff out, how can you say it's not damage? I'm happy that it might be trivial damage, that a protest committee should not take notice of (particularly for rule 14( b )), but I don't think you can make it disappear. I think it would be possible for, say a nice, bowsprit-shaped hole, high in the topsides of a fibreglass boat, with no structural damage, in an accessible position, that would take no more than an hour or two to bog up would be short of serious
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 2:46pm
Really? If someone put their bowsprit straight through me, I would certainly expect them to retire. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 3:12pm
Umm, I think you're stretching it there. A proper repair on something like that, especially if it involves gel coat, I think ought to be in the serious category. |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 3:24pm
By buffing out, I'm referring to those situation where you've literally swapped paint. Bit of elbow grease, squirt of deck cleaner, apply sponge et voila, all shiny again. In those situations, where the existance or not of damage is relevant to 14, then it's OK to find after the race that it really is a case of a quick clean (so while14 might apply, the RoW boat will be exonerated). To me, a repair should take you pretty close to status quo ante. A hole means laminating. I'm no great shakes with the resin pot, but I would think that most people view it as non-trivial when they start cutting cloth and mixing resin and hardner.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 4:06pm
|
We are now arriving at the heart of the debate. One point - rule 14 does not qualify damage - any damage will do to prevent RoW boat from being exonerated. If the reply to the question "was there any damage? is "Yes -but only a scratch" then according to the rule the RoW cannot be exonerated. My latest thinking on this is as follows:
To resume: a prudent owner can accept that in the course of racing his boat will suffer minor damage and will depreciate in value. However, no prudent owner can accept that breaking boats to the extent that considerable time and expense is required to make good damage is a normal part of racing. The Racing Rules of Sailing have been written, and should be applied, so that sailing remains a non-contact sport, and that the penalty for causing serious damage, as defined above, is to retire from the race. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Mar 14 at 11:57pm
|
Thank you, Rupert, Gordon, Ed and Jim. I'm now convinced that a hole in the hull is serious damage, no matter what. I'm also coming round on scratches and chips. 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. Case 19 does not address serious damage at all: it's all about the bottom threshold. What Case 19 and the JM Section M are trying to avoid is stating fixed money values, and embarking on a technical catalogue of what does or does not make the grade.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 12:38am
Surely nobody is saying that without qualification? There is not the slightest suggestion in JM section M that inability to finish a race is a requirement for serious damage. That was the line of argument that was run and rejected in RYA Appeal 2001/3, which I see is also the source of the 'prudent owner' terminology. Surely no-one is saying that a gaping hole, high in the topsides, so that a boat could sail safely under easy trim, but could not power up on one tack, is not 'seriously impaired performance', and therefore, in terms of JM section M3, 'serious damage'? I don't really think that the 'prudent owner would repair' notion is all that helpful: anything that a prudent owner would repair must surely diminish either functinoality or value, and therefore the critieria in Case 19 and JM section M will do the job.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 1:30am
Does this flowchart, based solely on JM section M help?
 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 3:29am
|
As I have indicated, my opinion is that we are best served by sticking within the parameters of JM Section M, namely diminution of market value and diminution of functionality and performance. Critically, the reliance on market value implies that seriousness of money costs should be considered proportionately to the value of the boats concerned.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 8:18am
|
Firstly - the IJ Manual criteria seem not to be working, if they were I would not have asked the initial question. I was at the same event 2 years running - with different juries. Similar damage was considered "serious" one year and not the other. The problem appears to be that some competitors and some judges are behaving as though breaking boats was a normal part of sailing. The fact that the rules include measures to deal with such a situation does not mean that the situations is a normal part of sailing, and that they should be accepted or tolerate. In the same way rule 69 exists to deal with behaviour that is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The insurance question is an attempt to put some kind of monetary value on the extent of damage. How do you estimate if the market value has been significantly or seriously diminished. The excess can be seen as an estimate (for that particular type of boat) by a well informed third party of the extent of damage that can be paid for out of the owners wallet! A useful guideline - but only a guideline. Lifelines and stanchions - if safety regulations requiring these to be in place are rules in the race (see SIs) then any damage to lifelines or stanchions so that that they no longer meet the requirements of the regulations means that the boat cannot sail on without breaking a rule and should retire. This constitutes serious damage. On rigs - damage to carbon rigs may appear minor but seriously endanger the rig if not repaired. I am not an expert, neither are most owners. If a rigger is available I would ask his advice. I have more experience with carbon fibre fishing rods - which will often break some time after an incident at the point of impact. A tiny flaw, due to the impact, is the source of the break. On sails - some classes have strict limits on number of sails that boats may own. The owner cannot have spare sails to replace the broken sail. In this case any damage that required more than tape, will have to be repaired immediately, presumably by sewing, before the boat races again. Seems serious to me. If a sail was lashed to the deck was it not there to be used during the race? Surely a prudent owner stows his spare sails in a safer place? Your case would be an interesting hearing. The case of a scratch deep enough to weaken the laminate under the gelcoat - when does it become "serious damage"? Opinions seem to vary widely - from "never" to "always". For me it depends on the amount of work to make good and restore the functionality and the value of the boat. 3 hours work, or calling on the insurance, seem to point to the damage being serious. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 8:54am
|
One thought. Is water ingress a factor to consider? If water can get places it shouldn't, eg through a hole into the boat, or even through the outer skin into the core, should that always be considered serious damage?
I quite like the thought that any damage that puts the boat outside class rules or other event requirements (offshore category for instance) must be intrinsically serious. |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 11:38am
[Cough] 51? [/Cough]
|
Posted By: flaming
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 12:25pm
|
The only damage I've ever had which I thought to be in a grey area was the removal of a yacht's windex in a mast clashing incident. Where does the panel think that ought to sit?
|
Posted By: yellowwelly
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 2:30pm
|
I dunno- just send Alex Thomson up there to fix it... ------------- |
Posted By: Time Lord
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 3:07pm
At the top of the mast unless its like a Laser! ------------- Merlin Rocket 3609 |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Mar 14 at 6:28pm
There are cases where there is 'damage' but it's not really much worse than the wear and tear that happens in races anyway. Smaller tears in spinnakers happen without the aid of another boat. Shiny bits get scratched. Odd bits of equipment break. Old boats start leaking from stress just as easily as being jostled on the start line. Patj's point about injury. Yes it should be taken seriously but a cut or bruise from a collision might be no worse than happens in other races. I suspect the people who thought $4k or whatever of damage to be 'not serious' might have had a bigger sum as the budget for a regatta? What's the weekend's wear and tear budget for an AC Cat? Rather more than my salary at a guess. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 08 Mar 14 at 3:23am
I think the point of referring to diminution in market value in JM section M is to achieve a sense of proportionality: regardless of the bank balances of us mere mortals, a repair bill of two or three thousand, is trivial in proportion to the value of a 2 million luxury yacht (and two or three thousand might be racked up in mere scratches to the unobtainium rubbing strakes). Obviously two or three thousand on a 30 year old 25 footer is going to be much more significant in proportion. We cannot know the 'diminution in market value' directly, but we can apply the theoretical formula Market value after incident = Market value before incident - Cost of damage/Cost to repair. So to work out whether the market value is significantly diminished we can compare the cost of damage/Cost to repair to the total value of the boat.
Let's apply the JM Section M criteria: functionality, performance, effect on value. OK, it's not structural, it's not actually a hole in the hull: it's just a gouge deep enough to expose the core. Is function diminished? Yes: the function of the gel-coat is to keep the core dry: so indisputably it's damage. Was performance impaired? No: there was nothing that made the boat slower or limited how it could be sailed: so not 'serious damage' on that ground. Was the cost of repairing the damage 'significant' in comparison with the value of the boat? More difficult. First, if it's a poorly maintained boat, with unrepaired hacks and gouges all over, and a core already like wettex, we're not going to count the cost of a complete re-core as the cost to repair. Let's take it that it's a reasonably well maintained boat, with a dry core, so the necessary repair is just to patch and refinish the actual direct damage, taking into account the sophistication of the hull material. How does the cost of this necessary repair compare with the value of the boat? OK, I lost out on the 'hole is not necessarily serious' proposition, but I do think it may well be possible (as long as we-re not into carbon fibre etc) slap on some bog and refinish, at reasonable cost and refinish, in short order and pretty cheaply. Depends, of course, on the size of the damage. So, I think the answer is 'it depends'. You can't say that any damage that exposes the core is always serious.
But rule 64.3 (a) provides
That is to say, some non-conformances with class rules, that do not improve performance may be accepted (temporarily).
I think I looked at this before in the context of lifelines. Does it impair functionality: yes: so it's damage. Does it impair performance:
Might still be serious if the cost to repair relative to the value of the boat was significant. The answer, and the bottom line in the whole discussion is that we want the protest committee to be exercising a bit of judgement and discretion, within the bounds of Case 19 and the Judges Manual Section M. We don't want to be devising an endless succession of more and more prescriptive rules to tie ourselves up in knots with. |
Posted By: The Moo
Date Posted: 08 Mar 14 at 8:44am
| All good pointers for protest committees but not easily digestible on the water if a competitor wants to make the right decision there and then after a crash. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 08 Mar 14 at 9:28am
| Unless the damage is so serious that you're standing by to give assistance then do the spins, sail on, and sort it out with a RAF if required. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 3:06am
Judges can, from the comfort of their armchairs and airconditioned jury rooms, argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as long as they like. But it's not meant to be difficult for sailors on the water, and I don't think it really is. If you have a 'crash', chances are the damage is serious and you will be able to see that it is serious. The easy test is, can you look your fellow-sailor in the eye and say 'I don't think that's serious'.
I don't it's that simple. There can well be serious damage that doesn't leave the boat in danger or need of assistance. But presumably, if you have a decent collision, even though you might not observe serious damage, there will be a conversation starting with 'Are you all right mate?'. If the answer is 'Yeah, sure, but do your turns' you will probably be fine, as you say, subject to what you find out later. If the answer is 'Awwww, look at my gunwhale ...' you are probably travelling towards serioustown. There
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 7:03pm
|
But in neither of those scenarios was the 1st word "Protest"... can a protest no longer be thrown out for that, or was it always a sailing myth anyway?
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 7:48pm
Brass - that was in response to the question - how do I know whether it's damage while on the water? And was a practical suggestion that the only time you know for sure is if you need to stand by to give assistance! Sure if the bloke looks you in the eye say's protest and complains about the splinters then you're probably in trouble.... On the other hand I've been in the wrong by the rules, but seen damage caused to my boat by someone who had an opportunity to avoid the collision. No way I would have protested on any of those occasions.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 8:00pm
( |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 10:46pm
|
Brass, Just back from a weekend umpiring. I do not agree with your formula: Market value after incident = Market value before incident - Cost of damage/Cost to repair. So
to work out whether the market value is significantly diminished we can
compare the cost of damage/Cost to repair to the total value of the
boat. The rules and interpretations only refer to "Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a whole, diminished?" In other words - was the market value of the boat immediately after the incident less than the market value immediately before the incident? If so the incident resulted in damage. If there is a significant difference between the 2 values then the damage was serious. The cost of any repairs are a separate if related issue. Any repairs may or may not restore the boat to it's pre-incident condition. That is the owner's decision. A temporary repair at little or no cost may enable the boat to race and finish the series. But the market value of the boat is still diminished. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 16 Mar 14 at 10:16pm
|
This issue I described has still been niggling away at me
The issue that is bothering me is, how can a protest committee hearing a request for redress, where there has been contact between boats be sure that there is no fault of the requesting boat, without hearing evidence from the other boat about possible breaches of rule 14 or any other rule of Part 2? How can a boat suffer physical damage which makes her score significantly worse without her performance being 'seriously impaired' (and thus the damage being 'serious damage')? It seems to me that the way to go for the protest committee in these circumstances is, either on receipt of the written request for redress, or at the beginning of the hearing, unless it appears that the requesting boat is not entitled to redress, to consider the requesting boat's description of the damage and its effects, (if necessary inspecting the boat) and decide whether the protest committee considers the damage to be serious damage. The protest committee could then consider whether it was possible or likely that the requesting boat may have broken rule 14 or another rule or Part 2. Once the protest committee forms an opinion that the incident may have involved serious damage, the protest committee can protest the other boat under rule 60.3(1). |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Mar 14 at 9:05am
|
Brass: There can be a difference between damage that makes a boat's race or series score significantly worse and serious damage. You cite the case of a broken clam cleat - damaged as a result of contact. This is not serious damage, however, depending on which cleat it is, may mean that the boat's result is made significantly worse. A broken sheet, a rip in a sail which means that it cannot be sheeted home without risking further damage, even broken spectacles - none of these are serious damage but may make a boat's score significantly worse. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 18 Mar 14 at 12:51pm
|
The Judges Manual, Section M discusses damage as follows
Are you saying that you do not agree that, in accordance with this guidance, damage that seriously impairs the performance of the boat is serious damage?
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Mar 14 at 4:14pm
|
No - I am saying that damage that is not serious by those criteria may make a boat's race or series score significantly worse. 'Serious damage' is not a criterion for redress - damage that makes a boat's score significantly worse is (which may or may not be serious) ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 18 Mar 14 at 9:49pm
|
OK, I take your point. Can we explore the jib cleat scenario a little further? Suppose:
So, pretty clearly, her score is made significantly worse. Would you agree that this is evidence that her performance was seriously impaired? Could you describe another example of where, as a result of physical damage, a boat's score might be made significantly worse, but her performance not be seriously impaired?
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Mar 14 at 10:13pm
|
I would agree that boat's score has been made significantly worse - her performance has been impaired. That condition for redress has been met. There has been damage - a ROW boat cannot be exonerated if it has been found that she broke rule 14. A broken jib sheet is not serious damage - a 2 turn penalty at the time of the incident is appropriate. Other examples - tiller extension broken, mainsheet splice broken, small rip in spinnaker preventing it being sheeted in hard for fear of aggravating tear, helmsman or crew's prescription glasses broken in the contact.... ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 19 Mar 14 at 10:15am
Similarities to straight damage as discussed in Case 19 Question Is there a special meaning of damage in the racing rules? Answer No. It is not possible to define damage comprehensively, but one current English dictionary says harm . . . impairing the value or usefulness of something. This definition suggests questions to consider. Examples are: Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a whole, diminished? Was any item of the boat or her equipment made less functional? |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 19 Mar 14 at 11:26am
| I've been confused by this thread from time to time. It seems to drift between 'what the rules/guidance currently are' and 'what the rules/guidance ought to be changed to', with the occasional deviation into 'how many angels does it take to cause damage to a pin when they are dancing on it'... |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 19 Mar 14 at 1:37pm
|
I thought it was focusing pretty successfully on 'serious damage'. Case 19 is about what is and is not 'damage', which is important for rule 14( b ). 'Serious damage' is important for rules 44.1( b ), and 60.3( a )(1). Gordon proposed a list of types of serious damage. I think this is an approach that the drafters of the Cases and the Judges Manual are carefully avoiding. I have found this thread remarkably constructive and helpful.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 19 Mar 14 at 2:34pm
|
The starting point was a question: When is damage so serious that a boat cannot take a 2 turn penalty on the water and should retire? This question arose because I have been involved in discussions, including in the course of protest hearings, on this very point. There are considerable differences in evaluation of what constitutes serious damage. The point of asking the question is that 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. 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. The discussion has also wandered on to the other mentions of damage in the rules: - when does damage prevent a boat from being exonerated from not avoiding contact - when does damage make a boat's race score significantly worse. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 19 Mar 14 at 3:24pm
|
This does seem like one of those areas when you can look at something and say "Serious damage", but it is much harder to define it without resorting to examples. I've been enjoying this thread - I've been confused at times, and disagreed at others, but it seems the same applies to our judges, too, so I don't feel too stupid! ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 19 Mar 14 at 10:49pm
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:
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.
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 20 Mar 14 at 11:29am
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.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 20 Mar 14 at 11:44am
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 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 20 Mar 14 at 12:58pm
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 20 Mar 14 at 8:49pm
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.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date 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'.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date 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 |
Posted By: Brass
Date 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:
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 21 Mar 14 at 12:52am
Isn't it?
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 21 Mar 14 at 1:14am
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.
|