Protests and the first reasonable opportunity
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Dinghy classes
Forum Name: Dinghy development
Forum Discription: The latest moves in the dinghy market
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11593
Printed Date: 12 Jul 25 at 11:17pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Protests and the first reasonable opportunity
Posted By: davidyacht
Subject: Protests and the first reasonable opportunity
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 1:37pm
|
At several recent championships I understand that protests have been slung out on the grounds of incorrect procedure by the protestor. Rule 61.1 (a) states that a boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity ... she shall hail "protest". I understand that by shouting "do your turns" or "720" said before "protest" presents the technicality that lets the protestee off the hook. At a recent event I saw a protest form where the protestee quite clearly used this defence ... "the protestor did not say Protest untill after "do a 720". I have always thought it more sporting to offer the offender to do their turns, before ramping things up to threatening to protest. In my opinion ISAF should encourage the offer of the lesser penalty, before resorting to Protest. I have posted this in this section because I believe that this should be of more general interest. Any thoughts?
|
Replies:
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 1:50pm
|
the rules are simple and do state that. I think the ISAF should issue some clarification on this though especially for club racing where it is more friendly to advise someone of an infringment and request they do turns before issuing the word protest. At championship level though the word protest should be the first word out of your mouth. Just my opinion...... ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: blaze720
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 2:39pm
| Hence "Protest ... or turns" maybe. Still a bit heavy handed imo. |
Posted By: fish n ships
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 2:42pm
|
Seems a little pedantic, as long as they said "Protest" and it was heard by the other boat it shouldn't matter what else is said around it (unless abusive language etc in which case Rule 69 kicks in). You could carry on the logic along the lines of well they said "tack quick" to their crew before shouting protest. I heard this so the first thing they said wasn't protest... Equally in a high wind involving a capsize on behalf of the aggrieved party the first opportuninty could be on the hard after the race, do the crew have to remain silent until they see the other boat and say Protest? |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 2:52pm
|
If you are capsized and the other party is too far away then informing them after the race is permissible as that would be the first available opportunity. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 3:20pm
|
The rules are really bad in this respect and I think they desperately need changing. However there's a considerable body of opinion that's very antagonistic to any relaxation of this rule, but all logic says to me that this interpretation discourages rule observance and is in clear contradiction to the preamble to the rules.
The logic the PTB use is that if you aren't informed that the other party considers a rule to be broken you can't take an alternative penalty, and that there will be too many made up protests where the other person isn't informed until after the race. To my mind this is a really poor argument. If the rules were broken the rules were broken and the guilty party should be penalised, but if the guilty party wasn't given the opportunity to take an alternative penalty then they should get say a 20% place penalty, not a DSQ. As for made up protests, that's what RRS2, RRS69 are for. |
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 3:23pm
Surely one could argue that this is not "in compliance with the recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play"?
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 3:38pm
I agree Jim and if you are busy doing something erlse essential at the time, such as recovering from a capsize (ensuring crew safety, preparing the boat to right) then shouting protest is definitely a secondary consideration. If you do not sail close enough to the other boat until after the race then your first available opportunity is once the race has finished. Most competent sailors should be aware enough of the rules to have an idea they did something wrong and should take a penalty. Using the argument that they were not informed until after the race (as it was the first opportunity) is a non starter. Interestingly enough there is no ISAF case on this matter that I can find. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 3:46pm
|
It could be that the protestee recognises that a Protest Committee might grasp at the opportunity to reject the protest for an easy life, or might read the rules literally and feel that it has no alternative but to reject the protest even if it sees merit in the case. To me this is a classic case of a rule writen for Olympic competition that does not work in Corinthian competition. How do you communicate this to the rulemakers?
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 3:52pm
|
If I ever had a protest thrown out for that i would request it be re-opened as the protest committee have clearly erred in the duty. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 7:14pm
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 7:30pm
|
Jim, I am not sure where this takes us, particularly for boats where a protest flag is not required. My view is that a hail of "720" or "turns" should have as much validity as "protest" ... Don't get me onto "water" and "room" ... We all know what is being said, so why should any of these not be valid, this is common sense. |
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 11 Aug 14 at 7:52pm
|
Doesn't seem unreasonable to have to say the word "protest" for a protest to be valid.
What think would be reasonable is to say "please do your turns" followed by "protest " if they don't. For club racing going straight in with protest seems to put peoples backs up. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 6:09am
Suppose there is a regatta in the Eastern Mediterranean, with Turkish, Greek, Slovak and other European competitors, with all their various different languages. No protest committee could be confident that a hail in one language, if it did not contain the word 'Protest' would clearly convey that the hailing boat [alleges that a rule was broken and] wants the other boat to take a penalty to a speaker of another language. In other words, the requirement for the hail to contain the word 'Protest' should be strictly applied.
Well, if the requirement is to be strictly applied at one sort of international event, should it not be equally applied at all events? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 6:16am
For any level, I think that one or two words, such as 'Do your Turns Protest!' or 'Geeze you hit me Protest' should be quite acceptable. The delay in uttering a short phrase is, in my opinion, trivial and should be disregarded by a protest committee. Note we are talking in terms of only a few seconds here. 'Do your Turns' followed by a pause while you look to see whether they have done turns or not is not acceptable.
|
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 7:58am
| So if after a blatant port/starboard incident, with witnesses, the port boat doesn't do turns because the starboard boat didn't hail 'protest' but had made it clear that it was agrieved and expected port to take a penalty (and both were English speakers), how would a rule 2 protest stand up? |
Posted By: bustinben
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 8:47am
|
It's pretty simple really - if you think someone has infringed you you hail protest at them. On the racecourse people will often shout things at you to try and dissuade you from doing certain things, like tacking close underneath them, taking room at a mark etc. It's a shout of "protest" that lets you know loud and clear that someone thinks there has actually been an infringement. The rules are clear on this because there needs to be no ambiguity. Shouting protest doesn't mean "I hate you and all your kind", or "your mother is a hamster" it means "I think you just infringed me, please take action".
|
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 8:53am
That should be written everywhere! At a lot of clubs I've been at, protest is akin to "I'm questionning your honour and challenge you to a duel".
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 9:23am
A boat, having broken a rule, does not break rule 2 by not taking an on-water penalty. Rule 44 ( a boat may take a penalty) gives a boat an absolute discretion whether to take an on-water penalty, or to await a hearing of a valid protest to decide the matter. |
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 9:38am
|
Is rule 2 used very often at all?
I think we all have different ideas about what sportsmanship and fair play means, so I'm guessing any breach would have to be really severe to be clearly beyond what are the recognised principles. |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 11:30am
|
I am uncomfortable with all of this. No-one likes protests, unless the event is at Championship level, protests are considered to be a pain in the a**e. It often means several people miss valuable social and drinking time, are late for dinner possibly incurring the wrath of management. In my experience very few ad-hoc protest committees really understand how to get around the rule book, so the outcome can often be quirky. I also share the opinion that shouting "Protest" is like a challenge for a duel. At anything other than at championship level it would seem much better for all involved to encourage taking alternative penalties. Therefore an initial shout of "do your turns" followed up by "protest" if turns are not done seems a sensible and reasonable thing to do at Club and lower key events. What I find hard to accept is that "protest" has to be said first for the protest to be valid. Perhaps a call of "Penalty" should be allowed in lieu of "Protest", which would leave the option of taking a penalty or ending in the Protest Room. I appreciate that I live in the past and hanker for the return of the "Mast Abeam" rule, I also think that compulsary use of the Protest Flag was a good thing, because it indicated that you were sufficiently incensed by an incident that you thought something should be done about it. Usually when you broke out the Red flag the other party accepted that you meant business and did their turns.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 11:50am
|
Submit a request to the RYA rules group then David. There have been attempts to make the whole 'protest' a little less adversarial at club level (RYA Racing Charter) but unless the rules permit something else to be used then the throw out as a technicality for not saying protest first will always be a 'get out of jail free' option. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 3:07pm
Rule 2 (and rule 69) gets bandied about a good deal, particularly on internet forums, but in the last five years, I've never actually seen a protest alleging a breach of rule 2. I don't think the breach needs to be all that 'severe': the difficulty is identifying 'recognised principles (and proving that whatever upsets the protesting party is a) a principle, and b) recognised), and then 'clearly establishing' the violation. The following ISAF Cases relate to rule 2: 27 31 34 47 65 73 74 78. The following RYA Appeals relate to rule 2: 1967/13 1986/6 1988/8 1989/6 1989/13 1990/8 1999/5 2001/2 2004/3 2011/2. Of all these cases and appeals:
So there have been a total of 11 actual Appeals decided since 1967, that is about one every four years. The last ISAF Case (Case 78), which was a hypothetical was decided in 1991, although it has been revised extensively by ISAF in 2009 and 2013. Since 1990, there have been only four Appeals decided, that is about one every five years. Appeal statistics, of course don't say much about any protest where it was found that rule 2 was broken and the penalised boat was bang to rights, but the appeals would suggest that there aren't all that many rule 2 decisions.
|
Posted By: patj
Date Posted: 12 Aug 14 at 9:33pm
| How about saying "Protest, unless you do a 720" which seems to cover it nicely? |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 13 Aug 14 at 11:17am
Because for most sailing - club and open level events, it's primarily a social activity. The point is to beat your mates - makes it much more satisfying that beating strangers. (At the international level, its about beating your enemy?) Most people prefer to minimise antagonisms in social situations, not exacerbate them, and as shown above, a hail of "Protest" first is seen by some/many as overly antagonistic, compared to "I say dear boy, some turns please……No? Awfully sorry, then but I feel I must protest you." (Or words to that effect. .."Oi!…Turns please…..Protest!" Of course, being British, we could go with "Protest! Awfully sorry, dear boy! Some turns, if you would. Pip pip!"
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 13 Aug 14 at 11:17am
Done one.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 13 Aug 14 at 11:43pm
Well, if clubs don't want to play the international game by the international rules that the RYA has signed up to, they can always change rule 61.1 in their SI: rule 86.1 allows changes to any of the Part 5 Protests rules except Gross Misconduct and Appeals. Funny, I've never seen or heard of a club that has bothered.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 13 Aug 14 at 11:45pm
Well founded or silly? Difficult for the protest committee or relatively straightforward? Connected to rule 69 or not? Interesting or not?
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 14 Aug 14 at 8:35am
Well founded Straightforward cleanup of a messy situation. Didn't feel it necessary to venture down that road. Not really. Also applied 2 in other situations - serious damage and not standing by. Those weren't directly RRS2 protests, though.
|
Posted By: laser4000
Date Posted: 14 Aug 14 at 9:48pm
|
don't understand why people don't want to shout protest. it's what the rules require in the same way as hailing for room to tack.
|
Posted By: NHRC
Date Posted: 14 Aug 14 at 9:55pm
|
Having recently re-introduced myself to dinghy racing, having spent most of the last decade on larger boats I am amazed to see how much flouting of the rules there is through a mix of an ignorant lack of knowledge of the rules as well as a lack of personal culpability....! Many friends who race both dinghies and yachts say the same. Don't be afraid to protest, this is a self governed sport and cheats are not welcome, that said dinghy sailors really need to learn the rules of the sport and stay up to date.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 15 Aug 14 at 6:13pm
|
Hailing "Protest" is a clear and unambiguous message. It means 'I believe that you have broken a rule. I am initiating the dispute resolution process that the sport of sailing has decided to use and that both you and I, when entering the race, have agreed to use. I am informing you of my intention, when I get ashore, to lodge a formal protest. You now have the opportunity to take an alternative penalty if such a penalty is appropriate' Not bad for one short word. Shouting "Do your turns' on the contrary means 'You have annoyed me but I cannot really be bothered to do anything about it. ISAF rules are for use worldwide. All sailors throughout the world use exactly the same word to initiate sailng's chosen dispute resolution process. Even the French now use 'Protest' often pronounced 'Proté' and have invented the appalling neologism 'Protestation' to as a noun meaning Protest. Critics of formality in this and other aspects of sailing seem to forget that even when they are sailing at their local club on an evening race they are competing on the first rung of the organised sport of sailing. Football players may enjoy a kick around in the park, with no referee and limited application of the rules. However, as soon as competition becomes in any way formal the man with the whistle is present, trying to apply, to the best of his ability the same rules as apply at the World Cup Final. As sailors we should be proud of the self-policing tradition of our sport. We should do everything we can to reinforce that tradition. Using the word Protest is one way to do this ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 15 Aug 14 at 8:07pm
Au contraire. The rigid insistence on using the exact word in exactly the right order militates against the self policing aspect. Typically in friendly club racing you'll get a dialogue like "Think you really ought to do your turns there Sara" "OK, yes, suppose you're right [sighs]" Because that's a thoroughly non-aggressive approach it makes for a better atmosphere *and* better rule observance. Throwing out protests for a petty technicality, on the other hand, conveys the message that the petty techicalities are more important than rule observance. If a rule is broken there should be a penalty. That is the fundamental principle. If a PC finds that a boat was not properly informed of a protest then they should have the power to invoke a lesser penalty than DSQ, but the protesting boat failing to precisely follow the letter of the rules should not be a get out of jail free for a boat that did break the rules. |
Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 15 Aug 14 at 9:29pm
|
Perhaps while considering that hailing do your turns please is far nicer, perhaps people should consider that someone hailing protest is not offensive and just a way of bringing the infringement to the offender in a quick and efficient manner. It seems that people take offence at the word protest when they really shouldn't.
While I say that I do think that sometimes it is a bit anal to chuck someone out for getting the wording wrong because they aren't trying to offend. But if people got used to the word protest it wouldn't actually be a problem to everyone. The problem is that protest is a short aggressive word.... ------------- Everything I say is my opinion, honest |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 15 Aug 14 at 11:35pm
|
You can say you wish when you believe that another boat has broken a rule. However, unless you say 'Protest' then do not ask the protest committee to sort out the problem. Personally, I detest declaring protests invalid for technicalities. My role as a judge is to assist competitors in respecting and enforcing the rules. In club racing or local regatta protests if we decide a protest is invalid I will always try and find the time to allow each party to present his case briefly and informally then try and explain what the PC might have decided. This is often in terms of 'if we found as a fact that... (based on one version) then this boat would have broken rule XX. If we established the facts differently then we would have decided that.... 'It is usually the case that once competitors understand the rules that apply in the situation they are concerned about they are satisfied, and some even retire once they realise that they may have broken a rule. We should insist that qualified judges be given time to do this very necessary educational work. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 16 Aug 14 at 9:12am
|
Certainly agree with the part where people knowingly break the rules but get away with it citing technical irregularities. That would annoy me too. On the whole, or rather at a lower level, people tend to be relatively hones and wouldn't try that on ------------- Everything I say is my opinion, honest |
Posted By: andymck
Date Posted: 16 Aug 14 at 7:18pm
|
The question is what is reasonable. In a legal context this would, as this is not a criminal offence should be decided by what the competitors feel is reasonable given the circumstances if the incident and the event. There certainly should be differences between Olympic standard events and racing round the cans with club beginners. I am sure at professional level any protest should be kicked out if there was a delay. Though a reasonable person would still probably accept that there may be an exclamation, and time to get the boat under control before protest is hailed. At club level, a reasonable delay may even be an explanation from a more experienced competitor, that a rule had been broken and they should protest. Any protest committee ought to apply a reasonable person test for each incident and not apply the professional standard for all. This after all is the basis of natural justice, and is applied in the legal context civil courts worldwide.
I hope national and international standard judges such as Brass have reasonable guidance on this, if not, why not? We as the fee paying customers of the national bodies ought to expect this. Having said that, for most of us here, who are experienced. Protest ought to be hailed as soon as you have control of your vessel after an incident in an incident with a competitor who is as experienced. If they are a beginner a reasonable and friendly approach to education ought to be used, without prejudice. Andy ------------- Andy Mck |
Posted By: NHRC
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 12:16am
|
I spoke to an international juror this afternoon at our club. He said that as long as you make the boat you consider infringing of the rules aware that you thought they had infringed then the matter of notice to protest can be done ashore.
You gave them opportunity to rectify their mistake when you called "starboard", or shouted "they hit the mark" or didn't give you time and opportunitity to avoid their manoeuvre by saying "I didn't have time to tack/gybe". If post race they call your interpretation into question then that is what the protest room is for. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 3:13am
Well, no, it would be decided by the 'trier of fact', that would be the jury or the judge acting in that role. It should be decided on the basis of what was reasonable for 'the average reasonable sailor', not necessarily confined to the competitors in that event, and not dependent on what the competitors in the event 'say' or 'feel'.
OK, firstly, the standard of the 'average reasonable sailor' isn't the standard of the Olympics, or a World Championship, and, in practice, a judge might be a little influenced that the reasonable standard at beginner or club level was a little on the low side of the strict 'average'.
Well, I don't think that 'Protest' must be the very first sound after the incident. I'm not sure about getting the boat under control. Why should the physical acts of getting the boat under control prevent saying the one word 'Protest'? I'd be prepared to hear argument. An approach in a protest hearing might be to ask 'Was there any good reason why you did not hail 'Protest' immediately?', than take it from there.
Absolutely not. You don't get 'thinking time', much less 'getting outside help contrary to rule 41 time'. Look at RYA Appeals 1981/7 and 1996/2 to get the idea. If you want to set a lesser standard for rules breaches in your club then put the RYA Exoneration Penalty Advisory Hearing system, which can do away with protests altogether into your SI.
See above: there is no 'professional standard'. The average reasonable standard should apply at all levels.
Well, no, the 'average reasonable person' standard is NOT a feature of natural justice. It's a feature of common law.
I don't necessarily agree. The way the 'customers' get 'guidance' or 'interpretations' of the rules is by appealing when they think the rules have been wrongly applied. There are virtually NO Cases or Appeals about timeliness of hails (as opposed to red flags). So seemingly the rule is clear and the application consistent. I'd be very interested to hear from Gordon or PEd, whether there has been any discussion or directive in UK or EUROSAF circles about this 'Protest the first word spoken' business, which seems absolutely novel.
I don't agree. Remember protesting is a two step process. If an experienced competitor wants to cut a beginner some slack, I suggest the following: At the first reasonable opportunity after the incident, hail 'Protest'. set the good example of how it should be done, otherwise you will make it difficult for the beginners to learn. Follow this up with some helpful words: 'you didn't keep clear when on port: you need to do penalty turns'. Perhaps talk to the other boat after the race. Then, if you still want to go through with it, deliver a written protest and go to the room.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 10:34am
|
The rules are very clear - protest shall be hailed at the first reasonable opportunity. When investigating whether a protest is valid RYA advice is: 'While it is never wrong to enquire diligently as to whether all requirements for flagging and hailng have been complied with, it will be proper to proceed with the hearing if the protestor's form says that notification was prompt, and when asked, the protestee does not contest validity does not contest the validity of protest notification. If the protestee says that no protest hail was heard but the protestor is firm that a hail including the word 'protest' was made, give the benefit of any doubt to the protestor.' The first reasonable opportunity for hailing is during the first sentence spoken immediately after the incident (the delay allowed for displaying a flag when required may depend on having a crew not actively involved in critical manoeuvres...) There are few manoeuvres on any boat that prevent the use of the voice! 'Protest - do your turns' is preferable to 'Do your turns- Protest'(indeed at a regatta of a level requiring an International Jury this second formulation may well be found to be invalid). Simply saying 'Do your turns' is invalid. The RYA publishes guidance as to the behaviour of judges and umpires at different levels of events. The higher the level of event the greater the degree of formality, however the rules remain the same. At club racing judges should be in an advisory mode - the correct attitude when there is a protest deemed invalid for a late or absent hail is to listen, in an informal hearing, to the different accounts of the parties and explain how the rules apply in that situation. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 11:39am
And this is the sort of legalistic b******t we should get out of the sport. Why should a breach of the rules and the fundamental principle (break a rule take a penalty) be given a get-out-of-gaol-free because another party who broke no rules did not use the precise words in the right order? As I've said before the rules should be changed so that protests are never declared invalid, but in the event of inadequate notification of the intent to protest a lesser penalty is imposed. |
Posted By: NHRC
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 11:56am
|
Jim
As I posted earlier, our resident int juror and rules expert, who is also a former Olympian, says that he would accept a protest if the word protest was not spoken on the water. If rules are broken and this is made aware to competitor, they have time and opportunity to complete penalty turns, retire or accept that they are likely to be protested. The rules have to be interpreted this way as a third party who has every right to protest an incident between two other yachts may not be within hailing distance at the time. The most important aspect of this is that Sailing is a self governed sport, learn the rules and abide by them. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 12:22pm
Yup. The protestee is giving evidence about his or her hearing. The protesting boat is giving evidence about whether a hail was made or not. But it's a nice succinct formulation.
Very comfortable with this. Again a nice succinct formulation. Are these statements by any chance published anywhere by the RYA?
|
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 12:54pm
| So would "please do turns or I will have to protest" satisfy that? |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 3:28pm
If the guidance above is valid then yes I would say it would suffice. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 4:14pm
|
Gareth - yes at a club race - followed by chat about proper procedure, it would be considered pushing the limits otherwise. NHRC- I suspect that your resident international juror may find himself in a minority on many international juries. The case of boats outside hailing distance is adequately dealt with in rule 61.1(a)1. If I can be pedantic sailing is not self governing it is self policing - not quite the same thing. I think JimCs idea f a reduced penalty for invalid protests has some merit - however I suspect that he would not be so happy about being summoned to court for some minor offence by say a text written in pure textspeak rather than a written summons. Due process is an important part of any set of rules. By using one universally acknowledged word to initiate our dispute resolution procedure sailing seems to have respected the KISS principle. The rules define 1 word - which avoids legalistic discussions about whether this formulation or that conveys the notion that a protest procedure is about to be set in motion.Does "do your turns" convey the message 'I intend lodging a formal protest'? Brass - the first set of quotes are from RYA Recommendations for protest committees (see website) ' First sentence' I will claim as my own formulation ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 4:18pm
I can tell you from experience that you can arrive in court charged with speeding in a place that you were not, and where no speed limit applies, and walk out having been convicted of speeding in a different place entirely...
I think it adequately conveys the message "I consider you have broken a rule and should take a penalty", which ought to be sufficient in light of the fundamental principle, especially if (brushing a mark for example) you think that the other sailor might be unaware that they have broken a rule. That's a good example actually: world of difference between "'fraid you touched it Mike" and "Protest: you touched the mark". |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 5:23pm
|
Jim, the final sentence above sums it up, thank you. One is a way that suits friendly competition between friends, then other how you might communicate with an arch rival at the worlds.
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 7:37pm
|
How does one distinguish between an event in which the rules regarding protesting will not be applied - or rather any number of phrases or sayings may be employed, and a more formal event at which the rule will be applied in full? It would be a bit like having a football match in which the referee would not blow a whistle to signal a decision but might sound a hunting horn, ring a bell, wave his left arm or shout 'God Save the Queen instead, whatever he chooses. One can imagine the Monty Python Sketch. Or a Race Officer who decides that there will be 4mins between the Prep Signal and the start on race 1and 5 minutes in race 2, in the spirit of friendly competition of course. At present there is one clear word used to initiate a Protest, easy to teach to non English speakers and used throughout the world. Why complicate the sport by allowing a large range of phrases to be used. As it stands if you say 'Do your turns' you are clearly saying 'I think you broke a rule and I would like you to take a penalty. However I have decided that I will NOT protest you over this'... in the spirit of friendly competition, naturally. The present situation is clear and unambiguous. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: NHRC
Date Posted: 17 Aug 14 at 7:57pm
Firstly rule 61.1(a) confirms exactly as I said above. Sailing is a gentlemanly sport the rules are written with that in mind hence it is NOT self policing. A point of view I find very sad to hear a fellow yachtsman cynically utter. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 1:29am
Surely the RYA has made this very easy: just switch on the RYA Exoneration Penalty and Advisory Hearing procedures in your SI.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 9:25am
|
The main point would appear to be that shouting "protest" (you have to shout it, especially when it is windy, or you are several boat lengths away, to ensure the other boat has heard) every time someone does something that they may even not be aware they have done, like touch a mark with a spinnaker sheet or cause you to alter course to avoid, is something that has to be done as the first word uttered according to some. "You hit the mark, Fred", "No I didn't", "Then I'm going to have to protest" would be an invalid conversation that would get the protest thrown out at a world champs, or at club level - (I agree, the rules should be the same - but I bet the word Protest is used at high levels first, anyway) - is a daft situation, and does the sport no favours. Others are saying this conversation would be fine - whether at worlds or club - and I hope they are right. Pretty sure it would be fine at our club. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 10:24am
|
1. The RYA Exoneration Penalty system in no way alters the requirement to hail Protest. The Exoneration Penalty is merely a lower voluntary penalty that cannot be increased IF a hearing is held. The hearing will not be held if the protest is invalid. Advisory Hearings are not protest hearings so the hailing requirement is not pertinent. However, an advisory hearing cannot impose a penalty. If I can I hold a similar informal discussion with the parties if the protest is declared invalid. 2 It all depends how the PC approaches the question of validity. If they ask the protestee 'Were you aware that the protestor intended to protest you? and the reply is 'Yes' there is no real need to investigate further and the protest can be heard. If he says 'No' then the PC should ask the protestor what he did to inform the protestor. In which case the requirement is that Protest was hailed - not that it was heard! 3 If the other boat is beyond hailing distance then rule61.1(a)1 applies 4 If you are protesting because a boats spinnaker sheet touches a mark I do not believe that we are still in the realm of friendly racing between like-minded gentlemen and ladies! ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 12:41pm
No-one except JimC and the Protest Refuseniks is saying that a 'conversation' is or should be fine. If you don't hail 'Protest' as the first word, then it needs to be in the first few words.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 12:56pm
I don't agree that asking whether the protestee was 'aware that the protesting boat intended to protest' is the same as asking the the protestee whether he or she 'contest[s] the validity of protest notification' ( http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/Best%20practices%20and%20guidance/RYA%20Guidance%20-%20Recommendations%20for%20Protest%20Committees.pdf" rel="nofollow - RYA Guidance M3.1 ). If I settled for that, and the protestee appealed against the protest committee's procedure in not taking evidence as to compliance with rule 61.1( a ) and decision that the protest was valid, then I would absolutely expect to get trounced by the Appeal Committee. The approach I'm inclined to take is to say: "The protest form indicates that there was a hail of protest [and a red flag displayed] at the first reasonable opportunity." "Does anybody have any problem with the validity of the protest?"
But that's what I thought the 'gentlemen' thought was terribly important? Retiring without being protested, regardless of the fact that the breach made absolutely no difference to the fairness of the competition? |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 1:04pm
|
Brass - we are agreed that if the parties do not make an issue of the hail then it is not the PCs job to make an issue of it. In reality it is most often the protestors own evidence that leads to an invalid protest. If when asked 'how did you inform the other boat of your intention to protest' a surprising number will reply ' I shouted do your turns and then told him after the race that I was going to protest' or that they waited 30 seconds to hail protest or some similar story. If the protestor says I hailed protest immediately, if the protestee wants to contest this they are going to have to produce some evidence for the PC toestablish as a fact that no hail was made. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 1:38pm
If my spinnaker sheet hit the mark, I'd expect to do a 360. If I hadn't seen it happen, but was told it had, I can either decide that I didn't think it had (maybe it just looked that way from the angle of the other boat) in which case a protest hearing, with witnesses for each side, whould decide the outcome, or I could do a turn because I'm happy to believe the person who told me wouldn't lie about it. If the protest is thrown out because the first word isn't "protest", then no one gets a fair hearing. More likely, at club level, someone would say my spinnaker sheet had hit a mark, and if I thought not, they would simply sail on, grumbling slightly. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 1:43pm
Couldn't agree more. This absolutely agrees with my experience.
Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but I think the protest committee does have to make an issue of validity: that's what rule 63.5 requires. But I agree that, particularly with the RYA Guidance in the annotated Appendix M, and Appeal 1999/1, that the protest committee should not make a big deal of it where the protestee raises no contest. The protestee has to be given the opportunity to raise the issue. |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 2:15pm
|
Brass, Obviously the PC has to decide of a protest is valid, but as long as the protest form says the right things, and the protestee does not raise any problem then the PC does not have to conduct a detailed investigation as to the timing and volume of the hail. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 11:11pm
But the RYA guidance requires that the protestee must be asked whether they have any problem.
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 18 Aug 14 at 11:44pm
|
I have a problem with all this, someone has broken a rule, which could be significant, but can get off simply because the protestor did not say Protest as their first word, methinks ISAF have got something wrong. IMO there should be a reasonable time to make a protest, i.e. Time to see if an alternative penalty is taken, or even to consider whether a protest is justified on the part of the protestor. I have listened to various protests in the past few years in Ad Hoc protest committees, I have never seen any RYA guidance notes, we usually just have the rule book at hand. Frankly if we also require guidance notes this is yet another reason why people will not step forward to sit on Protest Committees.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 2:02am
ISAF is doing nothing wrong here. Reasonable time is exactly what the ISAF rule 61.1( a ) allows. ISAF has issued no Case, Q&A or other material suggesting that 'Protest' must be the first word uttered. That appears to be an interpretation which anecdotally is being applied by some judges, who may or may not be ISAF International Judges or may or may not be accredited as judges in any way.
Reasonable time is a matter of a few seconds. It does not include 'thinking time' or time to assess whether you have been disadvantaged or not, or time to observe whether the protestee is taking an on-water penalty. A protest is for breaking the relevant Part 2 rule, not for failing to take a penalty. Bear in mind that protesting is a two step process: Hail [and flag] on the water, then, if you wish, follow through with a written protest: obviously if a boat takes an on-water penalty, then you won't deliver a written protest. The hail of 'Protest' is, among other things, to facilitate the taking of an on-water penalty. There may be situations where a protestee may be unaware that they may have broken a rule if no hail is given.
Appendix M to the RRS provides an invaluable checklist for hearing of protests, and it's always right there in the back of the rule book. The http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/Best%20practices%20and%20guidance/RYA%20Guidance%20-%20Recommendations%20for%20Protest%20Committees.pdf" rel="nofollow - RYA Recommendations for Protest Committees is an expanded, annotated version of Appendix M, which likewise contains invaluable hints and suggestions. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 10:12am
|
I am yet to hear what I consider to be a satisfactory justification for a boat that has broken a rule to get off scot free because another boat hasn't sufficiently followed the letter of the procedure.
If I am a few inches OCS and the boat next to me was feet over the line and doesn't go back I have no way of knowing I'm OCS, but that's tough. The "unaware broken a rule" thing is a straw man I think. How often does a boat break a rule and be unaware (other than ignorance of the rules, which is never forgiven!)? The fundamental principle demands that boats take a penalty if they break a rule: the old cry of "no flag no foul", even if we make it "no hail containing the word protest within a very few seconds of the incident" is and always has been nonsense, the sort of thing cheats make up to justify themselves. Still, I'd better shut up now, I've said thids too many times |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 10:59am
|
The basic principle applies both to the perpetrator and to the witness. In the scenario in which a boat touches the mark and sails on and another boat hails 'Do your turns' both boats are in breach of the fundamental principle: - the perpetrator has failed to follow the rules by failing to take a penalty after having broken a rule - the witness has failed to enforce the rules, as he is required to do, by failing to follow the rules regarding protests. Incidentally a boat that repeatedly hails 'Do your turns' without protesting could be in breach of rule 2 Fair Sailing. In team racing umpires will penalise under rule 2 a boat that repeatedly hails 'Protest' without completing the procedure by displaying a red flag. Rule 61.1 is a rule that protects boats from undue process. By setting out a clear procedure that must be followed both protestor and protestee receive guarantees - the protestor that his protest will be heard and the protestee that he has been clearly and unambiguously informed of an intention to protest. This means that we avoid descending into Kafkaesque debats about whether 'Do your turns' You hit the mark' or other such phrases indicate an intention to protest. As the rules stand the answer to these questions is a clear 'No'. To quote Trevor Lewis in the Racing Rules Explained: 'The word protest must be used. If this becomes an issue at the start of a protest hearing, then the longer it has taken for that word to emerge after the incident, the more sceptical a protest committee should be. In particular, pointing out to a boat that she has touched a mark, and/or suggesting that she should take a penalty, involves using words that needlessly occupy the first reasonable opportunity for uttering the word 'Protest ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 12:22pm
|
As I see it those defending the rules "as is" are those involved in administering them, and they are absolutely correct that as presently written, and strictly applied, failure on the part of the protestor to say "Protest" as the first word opens up the opportunity for cheats to prosper. Whilst accepting that this is the legal case, I would humbly suggest that this is unjust and at anything less than the Grand Prix level of racing, it would be great if ISAF would accept that in the real world, competitors would generally prefer the offender to take a penalty, get on with the race and not go through the inconvenience of a protest, which is why "Do Your Turns" or "720" is said, because that is what we would like the offender to do. We don't want to spend all night in a protest room, when we may have other commitments. So Protest really is a last resort. The idea of "Protest" being understood internationally compared with 720 or Do Your Turns is ridiculous, I sail in the UK against english speakers, we all understand what these phrases mean. Yes if I sail abroad I might consider the language issue, but at my home club ... I don't think so. To put it another way, if I am on starboard and another boat is on port in a straightforward port and starboard incident, if I said "You can't do that old man" before saying "Protest" the sea lawyer can avoid penalty turns or a losing a protest by using the Did not Say Protest First defence. Personally I think that a little thinking time should be allowed within the rules, it often takes protest committees a considerable time to resolve protests, why shouldn't competitors have a couple of minutes to consider the validity of a protest (again Grand Prix sailors should be able to make a faster response than the weekend warrior). Perhaps my disquiet is the result of the abolition of the red flag for craft under 6 metres, whilst it needed to be displayed promtly, at least it clearly and physically indicated intent, and if the verbal notification was lost on the wind, there would be no shortage of witnesses to confirm that it was displayed. Anyway, from now on I shall try to remember to say "protest" first, although after 40 years of doing otherwise it may not be the first word that springs to mind! Like Jim, I shall retire from the debate at this point.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 12:55pm
|
Thank you David - it is often the way with these rule discussions that some are saying "this is how it is" and others are wondering whether there is a better way. It is also common for the replies from those who are umpires or sit on juries maybe to not quite understand that we are wondering, not giving a point of view on what we have now. We don't really have any influence on the ISAF as individuals (or as a group), even if RYA members, so I guess it will stay as it currently is, with sailing club members carrying on not protesting unless it is very drastic, and asking politely for turns to be done, even if it is against the rules. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 1:11pm
Its not *against* the rules: we can ask as we like. Its just that, as highlighted in the OP that started the thread, the rules as currently written allow cheats to prosper if the letter of the rule isn't followed. |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 1:36pm
|
Sorry shorthand for "against the rules if we then decide to go against decades of club 'ways' (read apathy if so inclined) and actually put a protest in".
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 3:38pm
|
JimC -if I may reformulate - the rules as currently written allow those who break the rules to remain outside the protest procedure if other competitors fail to meet their obligation to enforce the rules by following correct procedure. David - I take your point that you would prefer the other boat to take turns. We all would. However, if they do not (which does not necessarily mean that they are cheats, they may not believe that the infringement occurred, or that they did not break a rule. I would hope that you would accept my point that there is a due procedure that must be respected. If the protestor neglects to follow the prescribed procedure they must accept that the protest will not proceed. This seems to me to be such a a basic principle of justice that I am amazed that we are discussing it. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 4:08pm
Personally I am pretty astounded that someone whose input on the rules I greatly respect can equate the witness and the perpetrator in the manner you did in your 10:59 post. |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 5:15pm
|
Gordon, I can only assume you are trying to be prevocative in a GRF stylie, I fully accept that there is a procedure set out by ISAF, and I have already acknowledged that I will modify by behaviour to fit in with the current rules, however this does not take into account that there may be something wrong with the current procedure which does not respect the way that many of us at a lesser level at events where there are no International Judges and where people want to go home at night may prefer to operate. Would not a two stage procedure be much better? Where the percieved transgressor is invited to take a Penalty, if they do not, you say Protest. I cannot see that this transgresses any basic principle of justice. This has been pretty much how we have dealt with this for the past forty years or so. It seems only recently that the "did not say Protest first" has been used as a device to avoid disqualification. Surely if someone breaks a Part 2 rule this is more important than the timing of the word "Protest" should not be that important as long as it is communicated in some way or other between both parties? Rupert, This is not about apathy, someone needs to look at the psychology of protests. In many cases the person calling "do your turns" is pointing out that in his opinion the other party has breached the rules, he is offering them an oportunity to redeem themseves and avoid a protest. If this is not done in practice this is followed up with "protest", this is really saying "you have not done your turns and I am sufficiently cross with you that I would like an independent view of who is right or wrong". I think that this approach is very sporting, certainly how I would prefer to play the game. This is pretty much how things have worked out for years, and seems to work ok, however this approach will not work if the protestee plays the "Did not say Protest first" get out of jail card.
|
Posted By: 2547
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 5:28pm
|
What is so hard about calling "Protest" immediately? Generally boats separate as quickly as they came together and in any sort of breeze there is lots of noise to so any ongoing dialogue is not really possible; different if you are drifting around a puddle. The rule seems simple and easy to follow so where is the problem; just shout protest and see if the other party does the right thing; if not fill in a form (or have mediation if available).
|
Posted By: rodney
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 5:48pm
Not sure  I guess that if you have been heavily T-Boned, capsized, physically injured of otherwise incapacitated it's not so easy? Discuss 
------------- Rodney Cobb Suntouched Sailboats Limited http://www.suntouched.co.uk" rel="nofollow - http://www.suntouched.co.uk [EMAIL=rodney@suntouched.co.uk">rodney@suntouched.co.uk |
Posted By: 2547
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 5:58pm
That would allow some leeway but otherwise it is not hard is it ...
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 6:02pm
| Its not a question of being hard to do: its a matter of being able to play the sport quietly in a relaxed manner with no aggressive communications, and yet also be able to enforce the rules with a protest hearing if one becomes necessary. |
Posted By: 2547
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 6:14pm
Well if you want to do that just say protest in your most gentle tone with no aggressive inflections and you will be fine ... it is my experience it is not peoples vocab that is aggressive but the manor in which it is delivered. So ... just say protest if you feel you have been infringed. Simple.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 6:19pm
I agree - I just know from previous threads on this subject that many do feel that it is an unwillingness to get involved with the rules which causes the lack of protests at club level, despite the high level of transgression. Personally, I think it is far more complex, but the lack of take up of the arbitration idea (I've run one in the last 5 or so years, and in that time I have sat on one protest committee and been involved in one protest, too) suggests that it isn't just a lack of willingness to stay after and fill in forms. Of course, the arbitration process starts with the word "protest" too, as at that point it has no difference to a full blown hearing. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: craiggo
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 7:02pm
|
Hailing "Protest" with no other words is too aggressive in general club racing.
David is right on the money, it should be wholly acceptable to ask the other party politely to take their penalty and if they refuse then you protest. I would suggest that many beginner's or those who have never protested or are reluctant believe that people screaming "Protest" at them are intimidating them or trying to make them feel inexperienced and therefore not welcome. I understand the rationale for the single hail however humans are not robots, they have feelings and are heavily influenced by emotion and ISAF and to an extent the RYA need to respect that and make the relevant recommendations come re-write time. Surely it would be easy for local governing bodies to survey it's members on whether the current process is better or worse than it was? |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 7:21pm
|
Has the process changed? I'm sure when I started sailing in the late 70's, you had to say protest asap, and then fly the flag.
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: 2547
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 7:34pm
|
Well I guess what ever people think it does not work because people hardly ever protest but often moan about rule infringement. I guess the bottom line is people are just not very happy with self-policing. We don't like to enforce the rules on our peers. Just look at cricket or football at a club level; they have umpires and referees ... perhaps we need these if we are too sensitive to enforce the rules ourselves.
|
Posted By: kneewrecker
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 7:48pm
|
or a far more sensible rule book, whereby your average club sailor doesn't need a law degree to pass muster... I'm off to a nationals in a couple of weeks, in a class which doesn't really subscribe to the full rule book- port starboard / windward leeward are there for safety and respectful consideration only, although I'm sure the NOR mentions the RRS somewhere. There are no penalties for breaching either, so no protests, no hails etc however any serious damage or unsportsmanlike attitude will be met with disqualification and a healthy dose of shame- not that this class has ever imposed that, on any one at this level before. I've got a fair idea it will be on of the largest nationals in respect of turnout than anyone on here will go to too, oppy sailors are too young to post here... but doubt very much it will feature on the front page of this website.
------------- |
Posted By: 2547
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 9:21pm
A simple set of rules would help but I think people just don't like self-policing sport; they prefer a 3rd party to manage that ...
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 10:43pm
I have tried to stay away from this one but.... I think 2 issues are conflated here: 1. The 2 stage process. The hail of 'Protest' is precisely the first stage of the two stage process. It is a clear and unequivocal indication that the Protestor believes a rule to have been broken by the Protestee. It therefore puts the onus on the Protestee to decide whether to take his alternative penalty, or to sail on, and risk actually being protested. It often leads to some informal 'arbitration' before that. The irony is not lost on me that there are those here who claim that the hail of protest is aggressive, and yet my own experience says that in the vast majority of cases there is much more aggression in the attempt to persuade someone to take turns. 2. The getting away with it because of an incorrect procedure. This is a problem. But I'm with the Judges on this one. It is far better that rule breakers get away with it, than that one unaware protestee loses a race result because he was not properly informed and yet the protest is heard. Remembering that after the race his only way to exonerate himself is to retire, while during it he can take an alternative penalty. I also think we are getting too het up about the whole word protest first thing.....my own recent experience has been that protestors just lie in the hearing when it comes to this particular part of Protest procedure. I also agree that simpler rules would be great....but I also know that those we have do a great job of making racing work.....and that they have evolved to where we are. I am unconvinced that simpler would be better. And I'd go further and state that the problem is often the depth of sailors understanding/engagement with the rules. Thus the tendency to simplify 18.3 to 'you can't tack in the zone',....sometimes one finds someone who understands the close-hauled nuance......but not many who can cope with 18.3 b as a starboard tacker bears away inside them as they complete their tack.
|
Posted By: Jon Meadowcroft
Date Posted: 19 Aug 14 at 10:52pm
|
Hi Davidyacht. this all sounds familiar to a conversation that we had a couple of weeks ago! What is odd is that, for example, in cricket "appealing" is wholeheartedly part of the game but in sailing to shout "protest" is not considered by some to be good cricket. I have now learnt to say "protest" and to then shout "please do your turns". The second tends to come with more venom than the first as actually once I have calmly said the "P" word I know that I have satisfied the rule book and can then more volubly encourage the outcome which I really want which is a set of spins. The real pain is that few people do push it all the way to the protest room and it must be very painful that when they do the argument is not heard due to a technicality about the lodging of the claim. Without a doubt there is great emphasis (maybe too much) placed on whether a protest is valid or not. This I think is because alternative penalties are allowed and because of this a threshold is introduced which requires the offending party to be allowed to take one. If we went back 40 years and had no alternative penalty then the situation would sort itself out. The timeliness of the hail would be less relevant and consideration would fall on whether there was, or there was not an incident. If you cannot exonerate yourself then the timeliness of being informed is a moot point. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 1:51am
You could hardly say that Jim, David, Craiggo and others posting in this debate are 'wondering'. They are very much 'giving a point of view'. The critics of the present rules seem to bundle up the requirements to hail 'Protest' and the protest hearing process. I suggest that if you don't have a fairly rigorous process, then the outcome is that disputes or disagreements between competitors may remain unresolved and fester, in long term bitching, whining and ill-feeling, which are likely to be very damaging to good cub spirit and atmosphere. The Debate Their thesis seems to be that ISAF is forcing a culturally offensive and inappropriately rigorous standard on club racing. I (and Gordon, and some others) dispute this proposition. The requirements of the rules are neither culturally offensive nor inappropriately rigorous. Culturally Offensive The notion that the word 'Protest' (in the context of the RRS) is somehow excessively aggressive, or offensive, except in the eyes of those with the most refined sensibilities to 'gentlemanlike' behaviorjust doesn't stand up. It's a perfectly ordinary word. As somebody has pointed out, at no stretch can 'Protest' be understood as a threat of violence or a suggestion of the hamsterlikeness of one's parents. Perhaps if the RYA had persuaded the international sailing world, 35 years ago, to adopt some more more arcane work, like perhaps 'Howzat' or 'Basingstoke', everything might be nicer, if somewhat more confused. I doubt that the other 90% of the sailing world, unfamiliar with either cricket or Gilbert and Sullivan would have understood. At any rate, there is no evidence that the RYA has ever supported the use of any other word. Excessively Onerous The requirement of rule 61.1( a ) to hail protest at the first reasonable opportunity is far from onerous. It is simple, easy to perform, hedged with reasonable exceptions, and fairly easy to adjudicate. The notion of 'Protest' as the first word uttered is somewhat novel. As several other experienced judges have observed, it is unsupported by any ISAF Case, Q&A, or other guidance, and does not appear, in fact, to be 'reasonable'. Evidence that this has ever been applied is anecdotal. Has anybody here ever been a party to a protest that was held to be invalid because 'Protest' was not the first word uttered, or ever seen a written protest decision to that effect? Compulsion by ISAF While, in my opinion, thre is every good reason for sticking to what I consider to be the simple and undemanding requirements of the internationally agreed RRS, ISAF is NOT forcing the Part 5 protests and hearings rules on anybody. Rule 86 permits National Authorities such as the RYA, by prescription, and clubs, other organising authorities and race committees, by their Sailing Instructions to make any change they wish to the protest procedures. For example, I understand that for many years the French National Authority prescribed the use of some French phrase, quite different from 'Protest', and has only recently agreed to adopt a hail that at least sounds like 'Protest'. If have never heard of an instance where a club changed the requirement to hail 'Protest' in their SI, and I take the liberty of inferring from this, that, despite the concerns of a few, clubs, in general are not concerned about the ills of the use of the word 'Protest'. Inability to influence ISAF To say that 'we don't have any influence on ISAF' is like saying that the Scots don't have any opportunity to end the Sassenach hegemony. There are opportunities to influence the rules at both the technnical and the governance levels. For a start, become an accredited judge, win your spurs and earn a place at the table where rules and changnes to the rules are discussed, firstly at national level, then, if you are good enough on the ISAF Racing Rules Committee. Otherwise, work within the RYA system to persuade the RYA of the need to change the rules as you propose. But remember that the RYA has already turned itself (and arguably the game) inside out to provide methods of dealing with rules disputes (Exoneration Penalty, Advisory Hearing) that do not require adherence to the protest rules.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 2:08am
Couldn't you just as easily have looked at rule 61.1(a)
Physically injured obvious to the boats involved: hail and flag do not apply (rule 61.1( a )(4)). Physically injured not obvious to the boats involved or otherwise incapacitated: will affect when the 'first reasonable opportunity arises'. Capsized: will affect when the 'first reasonable opportunity arises', but, once you have stopped spitting out water, what is there to delay you hailing 'Protest? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 2:17am
Hailing
The requirement for the hail to be immediate was indeed changed to 'at the first reasonable opportunity' in the 1995 rewrite.
BUT, the requirement for an immediate hail was only introduced in 1985 in support of taking on-water penalties.
Prior to 1985 the requirement in rule 68 merely read
A protesting yacht shall try to inform the yacht she intends to protest that a protest will be lodged.
The 1985 added the requirement for an immediate hail:
A protesting yacht shall try to inform the yacht she intends to protest that a protest will be lodged. When an alternative penalty is prescribed in the sailing instructions, she shall hail the other yacht immediately.
The requirement that the hail include the word 'Protest' was introduced in the 1995 rewrite.
Flag
The requirement for the flag has never been 'immediate'
In my 1947 copy of the IYRU rules the requirement to display the flag was 'at the first reasonable opportunity', as it has been in all editions since.
In the NAYRU rules (my 1953 copy) the requirement to display the flag was 'promptly'.
Purpose of Hail
Considering the background it is clear that the ONLY purpose of the hail of 'protest' is to facilitate the taking of a penalty. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 2:43am
Why should there be 'pain'? Compliance with the rules is not a 'technicality'. The requirements are to:
That's not difficult, and, in my opinion, if you couldn't be bothered complying with it, you don't deserve to take up the protest committee's time, or to have your opponent penalised.
See my reply upthread to Rupert about the history of hail and flag requirements. 40 years ago there was no requirement for any hail, and no provision for an on-water penalty. You are quite right, if there is no on-water penalty, there is much less need for timely notification. |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 8:59am
OK, good post, thank you - plenty to think about. Will say "basingstoke" the next time I'm in this situation, and see what happens... ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 9:12am
|
Clearly there is nothing offensive or aggressive about the word protest, so why do so many club sailors get so stroppy about being protested claiming "it's supposed to be a bit of fun"?
Personally, I'm offended by people breaking the rules and not taking responsibility for it. Not being arsed to learn the rules isn't a good enough excuse. |
Posted By: Bootscooter
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 9:21am
|
Do they though?
How many here would get upset on hearing the word "protest"? A few weeks ago I was having a discussion with some of my students and asked how many thought there was a stigma attached to going to see the Padre about a problem, and every single one put their hand up. I then asked if any of them would think less of a colleague for going to see the Padre and absolutely none of them did..... The stigma is self-induced, and in the same way, I wonder if the reluctance by some to call "protest" is also internally driven. ------------- |
Posted By: GarethT
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 9:29am
| Yes they do. |
Posted By: kneewrecker
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 9:35am
|
whether right or wrong, there is certainly a stigma attached to the club sailor who 'forces through' a protest hearing ashore. I've only done it once, in a team race, when my own sensibilities for being the 'protestingt**t' where outweighed by the need to asssure our team's position through round robin stage. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard the little ditty, 'what goes on the water, stays on the water'... or what about when two boats have touched (therefore someone is due penalties) but it is 'settled with a pint'.... It appears that we are discussing two very different cultures- one of the club sailor, the other of a regatta sailor. I would be loathed to say one is right, and the other is wrong... they have simply evolved in slightly different directions to meet the needs of the majority of their participants. ------------- |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 9:45am
Thanks Brass for your excellent posts, the above makes a lot of sense and like Meds I shall try and say "protest" first, even if I would prefer the offender to do turns. I do however hope that protest committees are not pedantic about reasonable opportunity, since I don't think that cheats should be allowed to prosper because of the sequence of words.
|
Posted By: 2547
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 9:55am
| If you don't want a "cheat" to prosper then just follow the rules yourself ... If you don't are you any better? |
Posted By: kneewrecker
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 10:04am
Of course you are, if turning a blind eye to an infringement means you can pack up, grab a beer and head home without the fun factor materially affected of your own sailing, then that's one thing. If you knowingly infringe, but refuse to turn and accept the advantage then that is 'cheating'. A question for you for a very real example: the last big event I did there was an SI which prevented competitors from switching rigs mid-series. Despite this, some competitors did. One of those guys then placed higher than me, two were far enough down the rankings it didn't affect my result. Should I have: a) protested all competitors which switched rigs, I'm fairly sure I would have 'won', and my result improved. b) protested only the competitor who 'gained advantage' over me, and beat me accordingly. c) not protested anyone, enjoyed the spirit of the event and just accepted that the guy who beat is a better sailor than me, so what if he switched sails? ------------- |
Posted By: PeterG
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 10:20am
I'd tend to agree with that sentiment. However, this thread was started by a discussion about protests being thrown out where the protester had called something along the lines of "Do your turns, protest". There's no way anyone who heard that, or even just the first 3 words, could claim to be "unaware". There's also the issue of how many who break rules are genuinely ever unaware of it? There are of course cases such as where someone's sheet has clipped a mark and not been noticed, but I suspect they form a very small minority of the total. It may be true that relaxing the the procedure would allow cases to occur where the a rule breaker was genuinely unaware, and I can understand those who argue that for that reason no flexibility is possible, but, as has been amply demonstrated here, there is plenty of room fopr discussion about it, and whether better options are possible, which reduce the risk of those who have broken rules using a technicality to escape penalty. ------------- Peter Ex Cont 707 Ex Laser 189635 DY 59 |
Posted By: iiitick
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 10:43am
|
In our small club we try to obey the rules but.....if I infringed them no one would protest me because it would be like kicking a dying dog. Our principle rule infringer is a jolly man who sails a Phantom with erratic flare. He has little chance of winning and we all love him, also he is very good at filling in forms for grants etc. and is not to be offended. If we wished the valley would ring to the sound of protest, but we choose to just swear instead. We do have protests however at the front of the fleet. The 'former boy' has lost two this year.
|
Posted By: 2547
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 11:00am
I think it is a matter of perception ... most of the contact I have had with other boats I have thought I was right; the other boat probably thought the same ... so he thinks I have broken a rule & vice versa ... no-one is "cheating" which is an emotive word ... only a protest can resolve this difference of opinion. The concept of allowing a cheat to prosper is based on the perception that you were in the right; by not protesting you may have actually saved yourself from being DSQ ... With regards your example of known class rules infringement then that is a pre-meditated deliberate infringement of the rules and is in my mind far worse than any incident on the water. These people are definitely cheating and should be subject to a rule 69 hearing. I would not want anything to do with a class where that is common place.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 20 Aug 14 at 11:17am
|
If you are unsure who would win a protest, you can always do the penalty turns yourself and also protest the other boat. That way, if you are in the wrong, you have already taken the penalty. However, could the doing of turns be taken by a protest committee as a lack of conviction in your own case? ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |