J24 (Sail No. 4239) Dartmouth |
29er GBR 074 Tynemouth |
Laurent Giles 'Jolly Boat' Exeter |
List classes of boat for sale |
Standard of Proof? |
Post Reply | Page <12345 11> |
Author | |||
r2d2
Far too distracted from work Joined: 29 Sep 11 Online Status: Offline Posts: 350 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Topic: Standard of Proof? Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 1:51pm |
||
I read this to mean that the protest was still under consideration and not, as Brass has assumed, already decided on. Which is correct? Has the PC completed its work? |
|||
ohFFsake
Far too distracted from work Joined: 04 Sep 08 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 219 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 1:55pm | ||
I don't think anyone could reasonably deduce that. She was challenged in the first instance by B and agreed to take a penalty. If she later changed her mind she would know that B was unaware of this so to my mind she would remain guilty of deception unless she brought this to B's attention, which she did not.
That is perhaps a fair comment. So C coming forward as a witness for B is not enough, he needs to formally protest A himself...? In the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" |
|||
ohFFsake
Far too distracted from work Joined: 04 Sep 08 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 219 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:02pm | ||
The use of the present tense in my post was accidental. The PC met, deliberated, and gave their verdict. Some consideration has been given to asking them to re-open the protest, either on the grounds of a substantial error in their proceedings, or on the grounds of fresh evidence being available: B was not aware at the time of the protest that the safety boat crew had witnessed the incident, so didn't call them as witnesses.
|
|||
jeffers
Really should get out more Joined: 29 Mar 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 3048 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:04pm | ||
To address the above. The first job of a PC is to establish if the protest is valid. If not then they can dismiss it and no further action is required so the rest of what is or is not right becomes irrelevant. This is why it is important to hail protest as the first word out of your mouth and, in theory, say no more (except maybe identify the boat if it is not clear). Having a discussion and then hailing protest 'could' get it thrown out on a technicality (I have seen this happen before even when the situation is clear cut) and the offending party 'get away with it'. As much as I don't want to be seen as a stuffed shirt this is one part of the rules that are very clear and should be followed to the letter. That and after the incident try to forget about it and sail your own race... |
|||
Paul
---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
|||
Brass
Really should get out more Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1146 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:05pm | ||
I'll PM you about some other issues in your post.
You can call this off if you want to, but if it would help people, lets drill down on this.
If you really really want to play the rule 2 game, you need to get on top of this stuff What specific action of A was alleged to have deceived B?
Does anyone have any doubt that for deception to be a breach of sportsmananship there has to be an intention to decieve? One can't just say 'I saw A do XX and that caused me to believe that A would then do YY, I was thus deceived and for A to do XX was unsporting'. By the way, does anyone think that a false tack is a breach of rule 2?
Your somewhat lax english expression is causing me some difficulties.
An 'action by A in deceiving B' can't possibly be a 'definition' clear or otherwise, of 'not being in compliance with recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play'.
Can you state what you consider to be the 'recognised principle or principles of sportsmanship and fair play' that you consider relevant.
|
|||
ohFFsake
Far too distracted from work Joined: 04 Sep 08 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 219 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:15pm | ||
I wasn't a witness to this, but for the sake of argument let's take the minimum possible case: A fouls B, causing contact. B hails A and asks her to take a penalty A immediately turns to sail away from the course to the next mark. I would say that should satisfy any reasonable protest committee that A had signalled her intention to accept the penalty. A then waits briefly until B is not looking, then hads back towards the next mark without completing the penalty turns or signalling any intent to protest. I cannot see how that could reasonably be interpreted as anything other than deliberate deception.
Does "deliberate foul" get somewhere close to covering it? I agree that deception can be entirely within the rules and part of the game (eg dummy tack) but the combination of deception and a deliberate foul for me moves it well into Rule 2 territory.
|
|||
Brass
Really should get out more Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1146 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:22pm | ||
Thanks guys: this turns on whether there was 'deception' or not. Edited by Brass - 12 Jun 12 at 3:40pm |
|||
Presuming Ed
Really should get out more Joined: 26 Feb 05 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 641 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:26pm | ||
I'm not sure how necessary a call of protest is. BASIC PRINCIPLE 44 PENALTIES AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT 44.2 One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties There is no requirement for a shout of protest to trigger a boat taking a one turn or two turn penalty. If you acknowledge an infringement, but then fail to do the turns you say you will do, then that's a clear breach of 2, and the basic principle, in my book. Edited by Presuming Ed - 12 Jun 12 at 2:43pm |
|||
RS400atC
Really should get out more Joined: 04 Dec 08 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3011 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:27pm | ||
I think you are viewing this with the opinion that one person in your club is a cheat, while I suspect your club is a bit like mine and contains a lot of people who don't understand the rules fully and don't make enough effort to enforce them. There are always some kids (and some adults) who will get away with whatever they can, there are usually a few more who push the grey areas a bit, and a few more who make genuine errors of judgement. It sounds like you are trying to improve things, but you are in danger of being seen to be 'out to get' this one individual, put her absolutely in the wrong, whereas the process has failed in regard to this incident and nothing is proven. I would suggest, in pursuing an incident where the process of the rules has run out, you are in as much danger of transgressing rule 2 as the alleged miscreant. Accusing someone of cheating while failing to establish that, in a forum or anywhere outside the proper protest process is not good sportsmanship IMHO. Particularly where the person at the centre of all this does not have fair opportunity to state their case. Here we are talking anonymously so it's not personal, but around your club it becomes personal. I would suggest putting this incident into history, but working toward avoiding repeats. Make sure everyone, or at least key people, are aware of the correct procedures and pursue any serious rule-breaking through the correct process. By the way, I have known people be absolutely, honestly convinced they have done two turns when they have only done one! |
|||
JimC
Really should get out more Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6649 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 12 Jun 12 at 2:50pm | ||
I worry about the whole throwing out of protests thing. It does seem to contradict the desire for the sport to be self policing.
As I posted in another topic: People shouldn't be able to get away with rule breaches for legalistic reasons. In the fundamental rule it says that a boat that breaks a rule is required to take a penalty: it doesn't say that they should only take a penalty if another craft protests. What there does need to be, if there is no swift flag or hail and the other competitor is genuinely unaware there was a rule breach or protest hail, is some kind of alternative penalty to DSQ available to the PC: something to put the penalised boat in the same sort of position they would have been in if they had seen the flag or heard the hail and taken an alternative penalty. |
|||
Post Reply | Page <12345 11> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |