New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Social Media and Rule 69
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Social Media and Rule 69

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 945
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 7:44am
Originally posted by Brass

Dare I say it, perhaps the Jury, having decided that DNE was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances, was trying to avoid ... exposure of competitors to further MNA sanctions [by] a rule 69 hearing.

Just checked this.

Rule 69.2j does NOT require report to MNA for a penalty of DNE or less.
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6100
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 8:22am
Originally posted by Brass

Rule 69.2j does NOT require report to MNA for a penalty of DNE or less.

Must have changed in the last revision. I hadn't spotted that. Used to be anything above a warning.
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 945
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 8:39am
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Brass

Rule 69.2j does NOT require report to MNA for a penalty of DNE or less.

Must have changed in the last revision. I hadn't spotted that. Used to be anything above a warning.


Yes. Matches up with dropping the 'gross.

Penalty for rule 2 also backed off to DSQ or DNE.
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1328
Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 9:36am
Originally posted by Brass



Originally posted by sargesail

Originally posted by Brass



[QUOTE=sargesail]Initiating thread drift already but in the context of what might be a trend in Race Management/protest/jury behaviour?

Decision from Opi Worlds in which a sailor is doubly rule 2 disqualified (DNE) for knowingly infringing and not taking a penalty and also for telling the other sailor to ‘suck my balls’.

http://2019worlds.optiworld.org/en/default/toa/race-privateprotest2pdf/id_protest/1651

I fail to see what the latter has to do with sportsmanship? Brass I think you posted something on this a while ago? Surely should have been dealt with as misconduct under Rule 69?

That's a pretty hefty International Jury and I'm hesitant to criticise. But I don't think that offensive words have any effect on the fairness of the competition.  See [[URL=https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1272?page=14]Case Dare I say it, perhaps the Jury, having decided that DNE was the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances, was trying to avoid the extra paperwork (and exposure of competitors to further MNA sanctions) of a rule 69QUOTE]

Yes that seems a plausible explanation. But it illustrates the issue in terms of no longer ‘gross’ misconduct: ‘suck my balls’ is part of the normal vernacular of 14 year old boys in many cultures. It uses no foul language. Given its everyday normality I find it hard to see it as abusive. It’s merely a colourful way of saying ‘I’m not spinning’.
Few contexts I can think of it's a colourful way of getting a smack in the mouth. I was thinking about this. ISTM that 'suck my balls' is significantly more provocative than Get F***ed or F*** Off.  Not only is it rude but it's homophobic. I think maybe that this sort of language at a junior event was the very sort of thing that removing 'gross' from rule 69 was aimed at.
BTW, your system seems to have mangled your previous post:  want to clean it up?


Hmmm. So I didn’t and probably still don’t see that usage as homophobic. But I can see that it’s possible to construct that case. And thus to deem it abusive.

Now if the lowering of the standard was in part about dealing with that sort of thing at junior regattas then all the more reason to use Rule 69 not Rule 2. And since there was already a Rule 2 DNE there was no need for more and no need for a report to the MNA ...

But I’d then go back to my original question about issues with lowering the bar.

I also think some of the distinction on junior sailors is artificial and inappropriate- kids at an Opi Worlds are spending professional amounts of time on the water.
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1328
Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 9:38am
https://sailinganarchy.com/2019/04/06/sham-69-3/

Some commentary (which I had not read until today) on the 49er decision with links.

The language used was stronger than I remembered- personally I think the SA commentary about relative levels of punishment and misconduct versus gross measurement cheating nail it.
Back to Top
A2Z View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 10 Oct 16
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 307
Post Options Post Options   Quote A2Z Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 10:55am
Originally posted by sargesail

   ‘suck my balls’ is part of the normal vernacular of 14 year old boys in many cultures. It uses no foul language. Given its everyday normality I find it hard to see it as abusive. It’s merely a colourful way of saying ‘I’m not spinning’.


Really?!

It's hardly language you would use to your teacher, wife, mum, co-worker, neighbour or umpire. It is wholly inappropriate language to use to a minor.

I find it incredible that anyone could claim it isn't a breach of good manners (69.1 b1).

In fact, worth noting that 69.1 b1 does not require bad manners, it just requires a breach of good manners.

Many would argue that not saying please and not holding the door open is a breach of good manners ;)
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 945
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 11:13am
Originally posted by sargesail

https://sailinganarchy.com/2019/04/06/sham-69-3/

Some commentary (which I had not read until today) on the 49er decision with links.

The language used was stronger than I remembered- personally I think the SA commentary about relative levels of punishment and misconduct versus gross measurement cheating nail it.

The linked hearing was not about bad language.  It was about:
  • an allegation that an international jury deciding a request for redress made a decision that was not right and fair;  and
  • an allegation that an international jury seriously abused their power;  and
  • there was a race officers mistake when the international jury had concluded that there was no improper action.
All of which the international jury must have been comfortably satisfied were published.

We (or at least I) don't know anything about the Hainan Regatta.

Well, I do now.

Some self-styled sailing journalist, who was not competing in one of the races reported (https://sailinganarchy.com/2019/04/01/dangerous-one/)

Sometime after the racing fleet crossed the start line for the leg from Haikou to Sanya down the east coast of Hainan in the recent Round Hainan Regatta we were in a Haikou hotel storeroom collecting our own bags for the drive south when I spotted the pipe-cots from one of the competitor’s boats.

What else was under those pipe–cots?

I am not sure, it wasn’t my gear so wasn’t about to go raking in it, but it was quite a pile and if they were willing to dump off the pipe-cots, what else had they left behind?

Mmm, I thought, surely they should most likely be on board so I took a photograph and forwarded to the official protest email address of the event confident that the matter would be looked into, 

So presumably no boat protested.

If the report ever came to the attention of the jury, we have no idea whether they considered it as a possible rule 69 breach or merely as an allegation by a person with no standing to protest, of a breach of Class Rules.

Before we start speculating about inconsistencies in jury penalties we have to be looking at actual rule 69 hearings.
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6100
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 11:28am
Well, presumably it would count as "information received from any source" so the PC would be entitled to hold a RRS69 hearing. However I'm not sure that a photo of a pipecot sitting in a store room would be regarded as utterly convincing evidence.
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1328
Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 4:45pm
Originally posted by A2Z

Originally posted by sargesail

   ‘suck my balls’ is part of the normal vernacular of 14 year old boys in many cultures. It uses no foul language. Given its everyday normality I find it hard to see it as abusive. It’s merely a colourful way of saying ‘I’m not spinning’.


Really?!

It's hardly language you would use to your teacher, wife, mum, co-worker, neighbour or umpire. It is wholly inappropriate language to use to a minor.

I find it incredible that anyone could claim it isn't a breach of good manners (69.1 b1).

In fact, worth noting that 69.1 b1 does not require bad manners, it just requires a breach of good manners.

Many would argue that not saying please and not holding the door open is a breach of good manners ;)


Yes I wouldn’t use it to a minor. But my point is this is minor to minor communication. I wouldn’t use it at all. My kids might. My daughter probably wouldn’t.....but having read this decision I know she’d enjoy imagining saying it to her brother if she was in a similar position to the NZL sailor when training.

And that’s the point - I read an earlier thread on language in which an Irish poster noted that the F word is more a verbal fill in than a swear word in Ireland. So here with ‘suck my balls’.

On your second point - yes exactly. By your please and thank you, holding the door example as a breach of good manners you illustrate the potential for the rule 69 bar to be set ridiculously low.

Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1328
Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 19 at 5:05pm
Brass,

The perils of a hasty post. Indeed not a language issue. And I should have been clearer that my equivalency point was not aimed at yacht measurement cheating but at the Ben Ainslie incident.

Now clearly the allegations made were inappropriate and constitute misconduct....but I don’t see 2 days of DNE as proportionate.

I saw some frustration towards an IJ last week because they are both jury and judge and higher court.

I think this can be really hard for competitors and they need to be able to ‘vent’. Gonna be more of that on social media in the future....



Edited by sargesail - 08 Aug 19 at 5:05pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy