Is there a definition here?  Abusive enough to be banned on television?  So foul it's not included the OED? 

Was it of a racist, sexist or of an anti-religious slur in nature?  

Or just are we talking just an intensifying adjective like 'f**king'... which you can find in a One Direction song and on the lips of bronze medal winning Olympic Sailors?

Was this before the start, or after?

Was W stationary (or almost) on the line, without any way on to manoeuvre?

Did L luff?

In terms of the language, it is pretty much based on context. If kids under about 15 are around I don't think any language should be used myself. Saying that the stuff you hear down the park coming from 10 year olds is probably worse than anything he said on the water! 

Peter 

That is not correct (in my understanding of the rules, I am sure Brass or Gordon will tell me if I am in error .)

As they were in the prep they are bound by the RRS. 

As they became overlapped we all agree that W is now the keep clear boat (rule 11)

As L established the overlap for astern they cannot luff higher than their proper course. (rule 17)

As L established the overlap due to her own actions she must give W the opportunity to respond (rule 15)

As there is no proper course prior to the start gun you can luff them to head to wind given the usual constraints about giving them room to keep clear. (Rule 16.1 and Proper Course definition in the preamble)

*does a little dance (I am easily pleased sometimes.....)

Those that are experienced and know the rules if in w situation are looking and defending their spot 

Expecting this to happen.

I did this last year to a w who i thought knew better , he grudgingly went up , no collisions , crossed line early and had to restart , muttered like hell ,didnt believe it , i bit my lip suggested he read rules ,  after race he asked anyone he could find if his interperation was right , to no avail , even days later .

Eventually he must have got a partial grasp of it as the next week he tried it himself but in the leeward position , not spotting the nuance of the situation and tried to luff after the gun !!!!! All this below a very experienced on the water judge enjoying an evening race , the ro who witnessed is still laughing to this day , air was a tad blue that night , but all big boys .

Protest was heard tonight. Only witnesses in attendance were the two helms. L's version of events was as described earlier in the thread. W's version of events was that L approached from behind at speed, never gained an overlap to leeward but simply sailed into his transom.

PC found that L did not give W sufficient room to keep clear and disqualified him.

Possibly one of the worst aspects of our self policing sport is when two parties present such diametrically opposed accounts to a protest committee as to make one wonder whether they are even discussing the same incident!

I was lining up on boats sitting plodding  on broad reaches, close hauled as described, coming in from under a boat length to leeward at establishment of overlap. it was windy, so there was a big speed difference. I had to bear away every time to give W time to keep clear.

Andy

Originally posted by ohFFsake Q1. In the absence of independent witnesses, where does the onus of proof lie?

Don't want to beat a dead horse about the decision, but, given that this was obviously a 'he said/she said' case from the start, L was stark mad to have gone into the room without his crew as a witness.

There is absolutely no requirement that witnesses be 'independent'.

Protest committees should primarily expect that witnesses, even though they may be crew or otherwise interested parties will tell the truth, and will not give untrue evidence in favour of their interest.

Telling lies in a protest hearing is a gross breach of sportsmanship and subject to severe penalties under rule 69.

A protest committee should normally have a good reason before it discards or discounts a witness' evidence.

 

But how often do crew witnesses bring anything new to the table? IME, they tend to tell a very similar story to the boats' original representatives. They're generally sitting somewhere similar, and rarely in the right position. For judging the establishment of overlaps, you want someone placed where a wing umpire would be. Outside that, I don't see why 2 people from one boat - especially dinghies, where people are sitting next to each other - saying "we had an overlap" holds any greater weight than one person saying the same thing.

Of course, if the evidence of your witness contradicts your own ... 

 

It's not unknown for PC chairs over here to say "It's now time for witnesses. If your witnesses are crewmembers, then in our experience they tend to back up the story of their boat, and don't bring much new to the proceedings, but it does take more time. We all want to - within the constraints of doing our job properly - do this reasonably quickly. So you might consider whether it's worth bringing your crew into the room. But as I say, it's entirely your choice".

 

Most seem to go along with that.

Point taken - and that of your earlier message. You are (as ever) absolutely right that bringing the crew as witness ought to have had some effect, especially in the case where said crew is sufficiently young and free of guile that a skilled PC should be able to determine whether their evidence is genuine or "coached".

(In this instance it wasn't possible - the protest was heard on Easter Monday when we were away at a regatta)

In the general case, I get the feeling that this is an area where procedure has improved markedly over the years. Way back when I was a youth, the general feeling was that protests were very much about onus and burden of proof - if you were the port  in a port v starboard then the default situation was that you would lose every time unless you had an impressive array of independent witnesses.

Now it seems that a correctly run PC should treat every piece of evidence on its own merits and assume nothing by default. This I think is a Good Thing, and if nothing else this thread has been very interesting in terms of covering this point.

Originally posted by Presuming Ed IME, three people from one boat saying the same thing has no greater weight than one person. Shades of [Mandy Rice-Davies]"They would say that, wouldn't they."[/MRD]

 

It's not a question of 'bringing anything new'.  It's a question of corroboration.

When, subject to your very valid reservations about position, distance, lines of sight and so on, a witness gives evidence, which we should assume to be truthful unless we have good reason to doubt it, about what they saw, heard and felt in an incident and that evidence is consistent with and corroborative of the evidence of one party, and contrary to the evidence of another, then we should prefer the consistent version of the party and the witness over the uncorroborated evidence of the other party.

As I said before

Originally posted by Brass Telling lies in a protest hearing is a gross breach of sportsmanship and subject to severe penalties under rule 69. Protest committees should primarily expect that witnesses, even though they may be crew or otherwise interested parties will tell the truth, and will not give untrue evidence in favour of their interest.

Originally posted by Roger Surely this could be quite an issue in mixed fleets where 2 person boats are racing against, and maybe involved in a protest with, a singlehander. Assuming all witnesses are credible does the evidence from the 2 crew on one boat therefore carry more weight than the one in the singlehander?

The way in which evidence should be weighed by a protest committee can hardly be expected to vary because boats are one or two handed.

It could also be argued that the evidence of a single-hander was less credible because the single-handed skipper had a greater range of necessary tasks than any one of the crew of a crewed boat, and thus may have had less perfect observation and recall.

That's the way of things.

One needs to be careful here, just as one needs to be careful with the 'well he would say that' approach.

Just because a witness gives a clear, concise and fluent account, does not mean that he or she has been 'coached' or 'schooled'.

It may be that the facts were clearly visible and the witness has the gift of concise and fluent expression.

The Judges Manual s K12 says

We should also remember that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a boat's representative reviewing the evidence with one of her witnesses.

This might be interesting.