NoR v SIs
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=11794
Printed Date: 26 Jun 25 at 10:15pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: NoR v SIs
Posted By: Steve411
Subject: NoR v SIs
Date Posted: 04 Dec 14 at 6:02pm
|
1) If there is a discrepancy between the notice of race and sailing instructions, which takes precedence?
2) Is it acceptable to state in the NoR that, in the event of a discrepancy, the NoR takes precedence?
-------------
Steve B
RS300 411
https://www.facebook.com/groups/55859303803" rel="nofollow - RS300 page
|
Replies:
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 04 Dec 14 at 7:58pm
63.7 Conflict Between the Notice of Race and the Sailing Instructions
If there is a conflict between a rule in the notice of race and one in the sailing instructions that must be resolved before the protest committee can decide a protest or request for redress, the committee shall apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected |
I don't see it would be possible to provide a hard and fast rule for which one has precedence. After all in general they should have different things in, and we are dealing with documents that are intrinsically badly written, so if the SI version is permissable and the NOR version not permissable it would be damn silly to say nevertheless the NOR takes precedence. Best to just get 'em right in the first place of course.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Dec 14 at 9:06pm
|
Unless you are a really experienced and careful drafter and intend documents to have a precedence, precedence of documents clauses are always a bad idea.
Rule 63.7 provides a much better way of fixing mistakes.
If you intend to change something between the NOR and the SI, then issue an amendment to the document you want overridden.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 08 Dec 14 at 3:51pm
SIs often include a clause stating that in case of conflict the SIs take precedence. This usually means that either the person writing the SIs was not consulted about the NOR or has not read them (a cynical point of view, almost as cynical as JimC's evaluation of race documents)!
Unless this SI includes the words 'This changes rule 63.7' then it has no value and the PC should ignore the SI and apply rule 63.7.
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 08 Dec 14 at 4:14pm
Oi!
I wasn't saying all race documents are badly written, only those in which there is a conflict...
|
Posted By: MikeBz
Date Posted: 08 Dec 14 at 4:43pm
|
I suspect that the clause in SIs about precedence is because in practice they tend to be issued later. Get the NOR out good and early so people know when the event is and then write/refine the SIs over a period of time. Not saying this is necessarily best practice but it's often what actually happens.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 08 Dec 14 at 6:26pm
Keep the NoR simple - what does it actually need? What the event is, where it is, when it is, what time it starts, how much it costs. Anything else needed, as opposed to wanted?
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 08 Dec 14 at 8:25pm
Originally posted by MikeBz
I suspect that the clause in SIs about precedence is because in practice they tend to be issued later. Get the NOR out good and early so people know when the event is and then write/refine the SIs over a period of time. Not saying this is necessarily best practice but it's often what actually happens. |
It's absolutely best practice to get the NOR out early and follow up with SI later (at the time you say you will issue them in the NOR).
It remains poor practice to insert a precedence of documents clause, and may, as Gordon has said, be invalid.
The way to avoid problems of inconsistency is for the organising committee of the Organising Authority to: - review both the Model NOR and Model SI in Appendixes K and L to the RRS, and list all the options they wish to exercise and clauses they wish to change in the Model NOR and Model SI, and note the preferred options and changes;
- develop a time schedule, showing Dates for issue of NOR and SI, Entry opening and closing times and the Event Schedule details shown in rule K7 and L5;
- document these two and pass to a drafter to draft the NOR based on Appendix K;
- circulate the NOR in draft to the Race Officer, Race Committee, and a judge for comment;
- review the final draft, finalise the NOR and publish;
- determine any further instructions to be issued to the Race Committee;
- issue necessary instructions including the updated time schedule, and documented changes to Model NOR/SI to the Race Committee to enable the Race Committee to draft the SI.
The Race Committee should: - review the NOR and the model SI in Appendix L and list all the options they wish to exercise and clauses they wish to change in the Model SI, and note the preferred options and changes and any departures they consider necessary from the NOR;
- further develop the time schedule provided by the OA to enable the completion of clause L5;
- document these two and pass to a drafter (probably the Race Officer) to draft the SI based on Appendix L;
- circulate the SI in draft to a judge for comment;
- review the final draft, finalise the SI and publish.
Note, issue drafting instructions and review drafts in committee but do NOT try to draft complex instructions in committee. It's a one person job.
Originally posted by Rupert
Keep the NoR simple - what does it actually need? What the event is, where it is, when it is, what time it starts, how much it costs. Anything else needed, as opposed to wanted?
|
By all means keep the NOR simple, but you must comply with the contents required by rule J1.1 and should comply with the requirements of rule J1.2.
|
Posted By: Medway Maniac
Date Posted: 09 Dec 14 at 12:18am
|
I'm not sure Rule 63.7 would have helped in a race I sailed in last year.
The NOR and SIs both included the course, but the passing direction of the last mark, which lay effectively in the middle of the proper course, was changed from port in the NOR to starboard in the SIs (the committee was concerned about where to place the committee boat if they decided to shorten). There was no warning of the change or statement of precedence in the SIs.
Given that the NOR was available weeks before the event, and the SIs only on the morning of the event, it would have been reasonable to put the course on the boat in advance to save time while rushing about before the race.
In the event there were no protests and it's possible everyone passed the same side (it was a long race and the fleet widely spread), but it seems to me that any protest regarding someone who passed according to the NOR would have been tricky to decide. Any suggestions as to the outcome?
-------------
http://www.wilsoniansc.org.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilsonian SC
http://www.3000class.org.uk" rel="nofollow - 3000 Class
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 8:48am
|
MM, were you expecting replies to your post?
FWIW, had there been a protest or request for redress, I think, subject to what other judges might argue for, that the course prescribed in the SI was the course required, if only because the SI are the document issued later in time.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 9:12am
Did passing the mark on one side or the other make a significant difference to the result of the race?
If not, I would suggest that any redress issue be resolved by letting the race results stand.
The conclusion - the Race Committee made an improper action that did not significantly worsen any boat's score.
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 10:16am
|
Yes, but you can't get away with that if it's a protest.
In that case the protest committee has to decide which was the correct course and then penalise all validly protested boats that broke rule 28.1.
The protest committee might then give redress to those boats, in which case appropriate redress would be to to reinstate them with scores n+1, n+2 etc where n is the number of boats that finished correctly.
That way everyone gets a score, those boats that sailed correctly score better than those that did not.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 10:26am
I agree up to a point.
1. It is possible (but unlikely) to decide that both courses were correct. In which case no boat broke rule 28.
2. Redress does not have to be as you propose. It could be to score boats in their finishing order (after calculating corrected time if it is a handicap race).
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 10:47am
|
OK, but if the protest committee does decide that there was a right side and a wrong side, I have difficulty scoring a boat that broke a rule with a better score than a boat that did not break a rule.
|
Posted By: Medway Maniac
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 5:37pm
It didn't make any difference to your elapsed time whichever side of the mark you passed.
I presumed at the time that the SI's would have taken precedence, but that anyone disqualified as a result could and should have asked for redress.
As for the outcome of the request, I think the interchange between Brass and Gordon shows it would have been in the lap of the gods (if that's not elevating our commenters too highly). Frankly though, anyone awarded n+1 etc would imho have been entitled to feel extremely pee'd off after a 26 mile dinghy race.
One lesson we might all learn is to treat any course detailed in the NOR as not worth the paper it is written on, and accept the necessity of headless-chicken mode on the morning of the race.
-------------
http://www.wilsoniansc.org.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilsonian SC
http://www.3000class.org.uk" rel="nofollow - 3000 Class
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 10:47pm
Originally posted by Brass
OK, but if the protest committee does decide that there was a right side and a wrong side, I have difficulty scoring a boat that broke a rule with a better score than a boat that did not break a rule. |
Given that it was as likely to be luck as judgement that made one lot finish correctly and one incorrectly in those circumstances, like MM I'd feel pretty aggrieved at redress on an N+1 basis!
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Dec 14 at 11:54pm
|
How aggreived would you be if you protested a boat, she was found to have broken rule 28 and still placed ahead of you?
|
Posted By: Medway Maniac
Date Posted: 11 Dec 14 at 5:03am
Not at all if the correct course was ambiguous and indeed immaterial to the elapsed time, and the boat had clearly sailed better than me.
In fact, I'd be embarrassed to beat a faster boat on a technicality.
-------------
http://www.wilsoniansc.org.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilsonian SC
http://www.3000class.org.uk" rel="nofollow - 3000 Class
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 11 Dec 14 at 5:50am
Originally posted by Brass
I have difficulty scoring a boat that broke a rule with a better score than a boat that did not break a rule. |
Isn't it vaguely analogous to case 45?
| ...because of a race committee error, but none of the boats racing gains or loses as a result, an appropriate and fair form of redress is to score all the boats in the order they crossed the finishing line. |
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 11 Dec 14 at 7:05am
Originally posted by JimC
Originally posted by Brass
I have difficulty scoring a boat that broke a rule with a better score than a boat that did not break a rule. |
Isn't it vaguely analogous to case 45?
| ...because of a race committee error, but none of the boats racing gains or loses as a result, an appropriate and fair form of redress is to score all the boats in the order they crossed the finishing line. |
|
That was my take too Jim. And no I wouldn't object Brass.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 11 Dec 14 at 8:37am
I'm sure such things happen with a fair amount of regularity in club racing - we have a rule which says that if there is a difference betwen what is on the board and what is on the start hut, the start hut is correct. However, in reality it is usually the start hut that is wrong, with transposed ports and starboards for the mark boards (well, you are looking at them backwards!). At the point where we all reach a mark and half go one way and half the other (sometimes it isn't totally obvious which way it ought to be on an odd shaped lake), it is certainly the RO who gets the flack, not other competitors, and I'd find it very unfair if it was the competitors who suffered for the RO's mistake. I make it sound like it happens a lot - it doesn't really! We just have a very confused conversation and try and get it right the next lap.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Medway Maniac
Date Posted: 11 Dec 14 at 9:24am
An ironic post-script to my story is that the guy responsible for amending the course between NOR and SI's lost the lead of his class when he forgot, passed the wrong side of the buoy in question and had to go back, hoist by his own petard!
-------------
http://www.wilsoniansc.org.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilsonian SC
http://www.3000class.org.uk" rel="nofollow - 3000 Class
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Dec 14 at 9:31am
Originally posted by Brass
How aggreived would you be if you protested a boat, she was found to have broken rule 28 and still placed ahead of you? |
Originally posted by Medway Maniac
Not at all if the correct course was ambiguous and indeed immaterial to the elapsed time, and the boat had clearly sailed better than me.
In fact, I'd be embarrassed to beat a faster boat on a technicality. |
Then surely you would not have protested? I did try to make that point in my post.
Originally posted by JimC
Originally posted by Brass
I have difficulty scoring a boat that broke a rule with a better score than a boat that did not break a rule. |
Isn't it vaguely analogous to case 45?
| ...because of a race committee error, but none of the boats racing gains or loses as a result, an appropriate and fair form of redress is to score all the boats in the order they crossed the finishing line. |
|
It's highly analogous in principle, and thank you for pointing to Case 45 which I couldn't find the other night.
HOWEVER, that's all very well for a request for redress, as a result of which no boat may be penalised.
Different story is a boat that initiates action as a protest against another boat for breaking rule 28.
In that case the protest committee must hear the protest and decide whether or not any party broke a rule and if so, disqualify the boat unless some other penalty applies (rule 64.1).
Then, if the protest committee thinks that the conditions of rule 62.1 apply to a boat that has been disqualified, then they should give redress.
It's reasonable to assume that a boat that protests another boat wants them disqualified: that's why you protest.
|
Posted By: Medway Maniac
Date Posted: 11 Dec 14 at 9:36am
True, Brass, I probably wouldn't have protested, but someone else might, leading to the same result.
In the case of the course setter, though, I'd certainly have reminded him of the course... just after he'd passed the buoy!
-------------
http://www.wilsoniansc.org.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilsonian SC
http://www.3000class.org.uk" rel="nofollow - 3000 Class
|
|