Racing Rules: Protests by jury on the water

Print Page | Close Window

Protests by jury on the water

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=8734
Printed Date: 29 Jun 25 at 7:09pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Protests by jury on the water

Posted By: gordon
Subject: Protests by jury on the water
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 9:23am

I have often been asked whether the judges out on the water, charged with policing rule 42, will protest other infringements. The following is a quote froma policy document posted at several international regattas this year:

"Sailing is essentially a self-policing sport. The Jury expect that boats will take a penalty promptly when appropriate. The primary responsibility for protesting breaches of the rules is with the competitors, not the jury. However, in addition to taking action in accordance with Appendix P, the jury may lodge protests in accordance with RRS 60.3.

The jury will not usually protest for a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless they observe an apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2). Examples of such breaches are:

- deliberate breach of the rules without taking a penalty and gaining an advantage.

- failing to take a penalty after knowingly touching a mark with no justification for exoneration.

- intimidating other boats – often evidenced by unnecessary shouting or foul language.

- team tactics – sailing to benefit another boat to the detriment of your own position.

- reckless sailing – sailing that results in or is likely to result in damage or injury."

In a gap in racing, a raft of Judges discussed whether this list needed modifying. One suggestion was made:

When a Jury clearly observes contact between two boats and neither a protest is lodged or a penalty taken the the Jury may protest both boats. During the hearing it can then be decided which boat broke a rule.

The logic behind this suggestion is that if there is contact between boats a rule has been broken (rule 14 and probably another rule). The Basic Principle that governs our sport states "A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire."

If, after contact, no action (protest or penalty) then this fundamental principle of sportsmanship has been broken.

I would be interested to read your thoughts on this suggestion.

Gordon

-------------
Gordon

Replies:

Posted By: Neptune
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 9:31am

They are going to have a busy time observing that on a laser fleet start line!

-------------
Musto Skiff and Solo sailor

Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 9:45am

Part of the game though is the Risk Vs Reward decisions you make when you decide to protest someone, you know there is a chance it will go against you and you choose to protest or not based on how big that chance is. The other boat does the same, if neither of you are confident of who is in the right it should be your choice if you want to pursue it or not.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 10:06am

Originally posted by Quagers

Part of the game though is the Risk Vs Reward decisions you make when you decide to protest someone,

Well, no, that's not part of the game at all. I can find nothing about that in the rules. If you are uncertain whether you will win a protest you can take a 720, then you're in a no lose situation. If you win the other boat is DSQ, if you lose you've already taken the penalty.

Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 10:20am

I should perhaps have quoted th first sentence of the Basic Principle:
Competitors in the sport ofsailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.

The "and enforce" is interesting - sailors are also referees! The first person on who they should enforce the rules is on themselves.

Gordon

-------------
Gordon

Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 1:07pm

So If 'm drifting around in almost no wind, and there is accidental contact, say between a boom end and a shroud, maybe because a safety boat wash from 100yards away just made a boat wobble a bit, someone is at fault and a penalty must be taken or a protest heard, rather than both sailors shrugging and one pulling in the main a bit? And if they don't, a jury member could protest?

-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686

Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 1:15pm

Theoretically - I would expect judges to exercise some discretion. However, I have been at events where boats got broken and neither penalty was taken nor protest lodged.

Gordon

-------------
Gordon

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 1:36pm

Originally posted by Rupert

maybe because a safety boat wash from 100yards away just made a boat wobble a bit, someone is at fault and a penalty must be taken or a protest heard,

Well that's what the rules say, and if there's contact because of a bit of a wobble then it seems highly likely someone wasn't keeping clear...
I think that would be preferable to the current situation where all too often there is insufficient rule observation.

Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 16 Dec 11 at 10:31pm

Yes but we've been round and round on this one. And the rule observance issue is about self-policing not the effect of Juries!

Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 17 Dec 11 at 2:36pm

Originally posted by gordon

I would expect judges to exercise some discretion.

Gordon

I think you've hit the nail on the head Gordon.

I believe that sailors themselves do in the main exercise some discretion themselves, and ultimatelely it should be the [perceived] transgressed boats perogative to lodge the protest.

Your expectation that judges could exercise some discretion could only lead to more inconsistency with a far greater onus on the judges, along with their obligation to attend the protests as witnesses.

If you accept that the odd gunwhale scuff dismissed by the ROW boat as irrelevant (just as if the keep clear boat had caused the ROW to avoid, without making contact) that is the way to leave it. Why try and fix something that is not broken?

Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Dec 11 at 3:01pm

On the other hand, if a boat T bones another in front of the Jury boat but there is no protest then, under current policy, the Jury can do nothing. I can understand the frustration of some judges in this case.

Gordon

-------------
Gordon

Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 19 Dec 11 at 9:46am

Originally posted by gordon

On the other hand, if a boat T bones another in front of the Jury boat but there is no protest then, under current policy, the Jury can do nothing. I can understand the frustration of some judges in this case.

Gordon

Hard to believe that would happen...but accept that it has or it could.

So, take a hypothetical situation;

Final race of a regatta

ROW boat (despite attempts to avoid) has a major collision with a keep clear boat.

There is a close relationship/partnership between the two boats.

If the keep clear (guilty boat) takes a penalty, it will cost them the regatta.

The ROW boat is already out of overall contention for the regatta.

The ROW boat accepts the blame for the incident and takes a penalty...

Since a penalty has been taken for the incident, would that placate the jury boat?

Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 19 Dec 11 at 10:18am

Originally posted by gordon

I should perhaps have quoted th first sentence of the Basic Principle:
Competitors in the sport ofsailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.

The "and enforce" is interesting - sailors are also referees! The first person on who they should enforce the rules is on themselves.

Gordon

I would suggest that enforce has a different nuance here - enforce means carry out the necessary process to bring the offence to the enforcing body ie Protest Committee.

So there is an interesting argument to be had when you consider amending the process to allow juries to enforce it too.

In a sport which chooses to have such a system there is an inevitable risk/reward judgement to be made around any infringement or perceived infringement (which is not so different from rugby where one might be less inclined to handle the ball in a ruck when in the "red" zone where an opponent can kick the resultant penalty.

The risk reward can run through the pre-incident manoeuvre through the actual incident and to the decisions that follow. I am not convinced that I want to change the sport by allowing the "frustrated" on the water judge to interfere, especially as frustration can lead to over zealous enforcement.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 19 Dec 11 at 10:19am

Originally posted by Andymac

Since a penalty has been taken for the incident, would that placate the jury boat?

Definitely sounds like a Rule 2 breach to me. Maybe even be worth a rule 69. I know near enough nothing about jury powers and can't say what they are allowed to do, but in terms of natural justice for sure both boats ought to be looking at a DND at minimum.

Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 19 Dec 11 at 11:08am

At present rule 60.3 allows protest committee to protest a boat, either because they witnessed the incident or because they receive a report (in certain circumstances). ISAF policy (not a rule!) is to restrict the use of this power to a limited number of circumstances (see initial post).

Some judges have proposed widening slightly the spectrum of infringements that juries will protest to include contact between boats.

I would not consider the Jury as an enforcing body (except in the case of rule 42, for which there was general consensus that self-policing was not working). The Jury is primarily involved in dispute reslolution. The central principle of self-policing is that any infringement should be resolved by the infringing boat taking a penalty (ie enforcing the rules on themselves). Recourse to the protest committee should only be necessary when the parties involved are unable to agree on who infringed. The role of the jury is to facilitate and encourage self-policing. Most judges take this role very seriously.

If two boats make contact a rule had been broken. The infringing boat should take a penalty, or a protest lodged. The proposiotion is that the Jury be given the possiblity of deciding, in view of what they have witnessed, to protest both boats under rule 14 -once it is established who is ROW boat they may well be exonerated. As for all other jury protests this decision to protest would have to be made by the whole jury.

The case raised by Andymac is interesting. If the Jury was aware of the relationship between the boats (being members of the same national team would be sufficient in many cases) then they may well protest under rule 2 as this is possibly a case of team racing.

Gordon

-------------
Gordon

Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 19 Dec 11 at 1:44pm

Originally posted by gordon

The case raised by Andymac is interesting. If the Jury was aware of the relationship between the boats (being members of the same national team would be sufficient in many cases) then they may well protest under rule 2 as this is possibly a case of team racing.

OK, Fair enough.

Now what if the contact was minimal and the ROW/keep clear was less clear cut?

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 19 Dec 11 at 2:04pm

Originally posted by Andymac

Now what if the contact was minimal and the ROW/keep clear was less clear cut?

Lets go back to first principles.

BASIC PRINCIPLE

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

So if you know you have broken a rule then not take take a penalty is cheating, nothing more and nothing less. Of course eventually you do get to a gray area: did I or did I not touch that mark/loose tiller extension, whatever. Was I over the line or not? I can remember one incident when I shouted to the boats round me "does anyone know whose fault that was?"

But for every instance where I've seen the rules over-enforced I must have seen a hundred instances that verged on cheating.