International 14 Worlds

any connection

Think it was a Worlds but not sure - someone else mentioned on the other thread that Percy had been sailed out of second when Loof took him further back than required to improve his own score.  There was no allegation of team-racing but the reading of case 78 above implies that there might have been a case to answer nevertheless!
I looked at both the Olympics and 2005 Worlds - there was no mention of it in the Y&Y report on the Olympics - which included an interview with Percy, where he blames his performance in the last race on poor cimmunication between him and his crew. He won the last two races in the Star worlds - so can't really blame another boat for that!
My point is that only A actually knows whether it is intended to improve A's score - or someone elses, when circumstances are as they are in the
Barker case.  So if this IJ decision was taken as case law we
would have a game change if A's actions could
also improve C's positions.  Effectively the tactic would be v high risk if more than one boat's position could be improved and especially if any connection between A and C could be construed or implied, whether supported by evidence of dinners to discuss tactics or not.
While Case 78 does
talk about "intent" ("provided that this tactic is intended to benefit
her own series result") it follows that this "intention" must have some
rational basis, and that once there is  no rational basis for continuing the  tactic (ie that  the boats have reached such a position in the race that A's series result cannot be benefited) then  A becomes increasingly at risk of a protest from  B  - and then it becomes a  matter for the Jury or Protest Committee to decide. If this were not the case, then A could come into the protest room with any old story about her tactics, saying this was her intent and the PC/Jury have to accept this because it was her intent, and that is all that is required. However if this is the case then ISAF should be amending the
rules and cases so that it is clear that it is permissible to take out
a boat within a fleet race, and leave everyone to do what they
will. Imagine the outcry in the last race of the Olympics when a boat
with a good shot at a gold medal got sailed off the course by some back
marker, just for the hell of it. If you think this is OK then you need
to look at Case 34 (the old Silvestri case) where it says in the
summary that "hindering another boat may be a breach of RRS2". 

Also interesting - surely A should have the right to put some extra places in the bag?  Especially as nothing is ever certain on a last beat.
But we are in agreement here - the current case law is fine.  What we may or may not disagree over is the
use it has been put to by this IJ who effectively made a decision based
on circumstantial evidence and a subjective assessmant of the situation made with hindsight to say that Barker and Co, the boat A in this situation, were not attempting to improve their own position , and were not in a position to do so.
Unfortunately PC's and Juries sometimes have to make decisions based on wildly differing evidence. All they can do in this situation is deduce the facts on the balance of probabilities and then make a decison based on the application of the rules to that situation - which maybe to dismiss or disqualify.
If one party thinks
the Jury has got wrong - even an International "no appeals" Jury they
have the right within a certain time-frame to request a re-opening. So
there is some protection against a "wrong decision".  I think
you'll find that in instances where the Jury has made a mistake, they
will be only too ready to amend their original decision and correct the
situation, if that is the appropriate action, and there is new evidence.
I also find it interesting because I have been in the
boat A situation with a great deal to achieve in a sailback situation
if I wanted to take second in a Nats.  I gave it my best shot and
failed by 3 places - had another
boat benefitted from my actions I could presumably have been protested
if this IJ's decision is used as a guide.  But had I been
successful I would by performance have proved my case.  That is no
way for the case law to lead us.
It would depend on when you started your tactics and other factors, but when you start the sail-back, you are always at risk of a protest if you get beyond the point of no return - when your tactic was clearly futile but you continued and disadvantaged the other boat in terms of  its series score.
We have all seen match races for fleet championships - but these normally start at the beginning of the race, between the top two boats, which will generally be close to the back of the fleet at the first mark and then start racing through to catch up as many boats as possible and at the same time get as many boats as possible between them and their opponent.

KS

Edited by Kiwi Spy