protesting as a witness
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=13763
Printed Date: 25 Jun 25 at 12:54am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: protesting as a witness
Posted By: ClubRacer
Subject: protesting as a witness
Date Posted: 25 Mar 21 at 7:05pm
|
Example; Boat A on port crosses in front of Boat B on starboard but Boat B has to bear away to avoid a collision. Boat B is too kind to hail protest but can Boat C who saw it all clearly then protest Boat A for breaking rule 10? While looking through rule 63 it says; "63.3 Right to Be Present
(a) A representative of each party to the hearing has the right to be
present throughout the hearing of all the evidence. When a
protest claims a breach of a rule of Part 2, 3 or 4, the
representatives of boats shall have been on board at the time of
the incident, unless there is good reason for the protest
committee to rule otherwise. Any witness, other than a member of the protest committee, shall be excluded except when giving
evidence." Would Boat C have their protest dismissed?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 25 Mar 21 at 9:06pm
|
A boat seeing an incident between two other boats most certainly can protest one or both of them. This is specifically contemplated in rule 60.
60. RIGHT TO PROTEST; RIGHT TO REQUEST REDRESS OR RULE 69 ACTION 60.1. A boat may protest another boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless she was involved in or saw the incident ... The representative of the boat that saw the incident, and is protesting needs to have been on board at the time of the incident, but that won't usually be a problem. |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 25 Mar 21 at 9:51pm
Boat B might have born off behind Boat A to gain a tactical advantage... for instance to get to the left hand side of the course, or to get Boat A to overstand the lay line, or simply that he/she owed Boat A one  . Would Boat A still have to turn up to the protest hearing to explain their actions?------------- Happily living in the past |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 25 Mar 21 at 10:07pm
| A protestee that does not come to a properly notified protest hearing risks the protest being decided on the evidence of the protesting boat alone, and obviously forfeits the chance to explain or defend her position. |
Posted By: ClubRacer
Date Posted: 25 Mar 21 at 11:23pm
|
I guess as A you are pretty much banged to rights in this situation unless B deliberately turns up as a witness to exonerate A What would happen if Boat B hails A to allow them across in front. Boat C protests on the grounds B had to avoid A and B doesn't turn up to the protest? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 26 Mar 21 at 4:45am
|
There's no obvious reason why a protest committee would not believe A's evidence about B hailing them to cross in the absence of B.
Even if C gave evidence that she did not hear the hail that, on its own is not evidence that it was not made |
Posted By: Mozzy
Date Posted: 27 Mar 21 at 2:58pm
|
What rule would C protest A under? There was no collision, so not 14. And I don't think that B changing course is evidence of rule 10 being broken as C's opinion on why B changed course isn't a fact. B maybe altering course to avoid a collision, in which case it's an infringement. But they might also be changing course for tactical reasons. Just because RoW boat changes course, it does not automatically mean a rule has been broken. So unless B turns up and states that the course change was to avoid a collision then I don't think C has much hope of winning the protest. Even if neither B nor A turn up, I still don't know how C would win the protest as they can't offer any facts on why B changed course. If there was a contact then things would obviously change. If C saw the boats touch (fact), then rule 14 was broken. Without any evidence to the contrary I think the committee would have to disqualify A and possibly B. B might be exonerated under rule 43... but not sure how a protest committee would treat this without any evidence of injury or damage.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 Mar 21 at 4:32pm
| I agree with Mozzy. *Very roughly* speaking Port can sail what course she likes provided she keeps clear of Starboard. Starboard can sail whatever course she likes so long as she gives port room to keep clear of her. If there was no collision and no crash tack by starboard then it would seem that both boats fulfilled their obligations under the rules. |
Posted By: ClubRacer
Date Posted: 27 Mar 21 at 6:21pm
| So although B is too passive to lodge a protest C can lodge the protest but realistically requires B to stand as a witness to say she had to avoid A? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 Mar 21 at 9:51pm
It's a straight up rule 10. B changing course may not be CONCLUSIVE evidence of breaking rule 10, but it is evidence nevertheless. Case 50 Case%2050%20" rel="nofollow - https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1745?page=5 , Decision, Second paragraph, illustrates that a conclusion that a boat did not keep clear can properly be based on the positions and manoeuvres of boats alone. A protest committee is not bound by the rules of evidence. It's perfectly entitled to take account of an opinion expressed by a party or a witness. FWIW I'd be inclined to qualify a party as an expert.
See above. The protest committee does not need to get evidence of state of mind. I don't want to talk about 'presumptions' and 'defences', but in the case of a 'wave through', or a 'duck to keep going', I think the port tacker needs to bring the evidence of that, as I said, her own evidence of a hail, if uncontradicted should probably be accepted. C's biggest problem will be with the quality, completeness and detail of her evidence. In Match Racing, you need two perfectly positioned Umpire Boats to call close crosses reliably. C is going to have to give good solid evidence about: Where was C? How far away from A and B? At what angle? How good was C's observation? Continuous? What were the relative positions and speeds of A and B? How far apart were A and B when B changed course? How far apart were A and B at closest? How did C judge distances and angles? What tack was C on and why? Was Starboard tack favoured? Was Port tack favoured? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 Mar 21 at 9:53pm
No, see my reference to Case 50 above. I think if C gives good evidence about distances and angles, then the protest committee can infer breach of rule 10, and it's up to A to bring evidence to defeat that. |
Posted By: Mozzy
Date Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 8:35am
I know you are more the expert on this, but case 50 is a different situation. And it states "reasonable apprehension of contact on S's part". How can C possibly give any evidence that there was reasonable apprehension of contact on behalf of B? Now in case 50 that is determined as it's the starboard boat protesting and they say they had to change course to avoid a collision. But I would still say that there is no evidence that A can give as to whether the change of course was to avoid collision, or just Bs course. This would get ludicrous. Port and Starboard boats are on collision course all the times, and often a starboard boat tacks. Sometime 20-30 meters before the boat would have collided. Can a third party protest this also? Sound silly. So I'd say just that a boat changed course is no evidence they were avoiding collision. And rule 50 talks about apprehension of collision, and for that the only proper evidence is B saying so themselves.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 9:21am
|
I suppose if there was evidence of repeated and increasingly agitated hails from Starboard and a sharp last second course change I could be convinced a RRS10 breach had occurred, especially if third party were in a position to see the course change.
From the POV of friendly competition though if Starboard wasn't at least providing support as a witness I think I'd be very reluctant to penalise. |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 11:43am
Agreed.....
Summary as I would see it before opening arguments…. “Boat A on port crosses in front of Boat B on starboard but
Boat B alters course to duck A and continues; there was no collision and no
hail(s). “ We have 4 distinct possible protests, assuming the protest
is accepted as valid. 1, C protests; Neither A or B attend 2, C and A attend 3, C and B attend 4, C, A and B attend
In protests 2,3 and 4 we will get some version of what happened,
and I’d suggest some sort of decision can be made. It was either a P/S and
someone needs a DSQ or it was a tactical cross and no action. How would a PC resolve protest No 1. 1, Boat A on Port 2, Boat B on Stbd 3, A and B on collision course 4, B altered course to go behind A 5, No hails 6, No turns / penalty taken.
I suppose we (As Ctte) might ask: A, was the movements of B’s / tiller / mainsheet actions smooth
and measured or were they jerky and rushed?
B, was there any tactical advantage to the left / right side
of the course? Anything else? ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |