Two boats in fitful wind (very thermic). In the top 3rd of the 2nd beat (2 and a bit legs to go). A-fleet

The boats become becalmed and make light but obvious contact - Frank claims that despite multiple changes of tack with no perceptible change of heading Ned's contact was an infringement.

Ned gets moving completes a penalty turn and resumes racing; over the course of the next two legs Ned sails a blinder and gains 10 places.

Frank however throws his toys out of the pram and after regaining way and completeing the race is 10 places below his infringer.

Frank seeks redress for the foul by Ned and the committee reason that Ned's turn was admission of fault and therefore appealed to Ned to retire or be lobbed. And, they awarded NED's place to FRAnk.

This appears to be a misapplication of the redress or unfair advantage rules.

In some guidance an "alternative penalty" is advised as a precaution in order to protect against DSQ, not as implicit admission of fault.

My view about 'Right of Way' assertion is that it should come with a strong caveat emptor warning - and the penalty for the Right-of-Way boat that infringes R14 is jeopardy.

It is not appropriate to comment on the findings of a Protest COmmittee - and the parties are free to file an appeal on the decision of the PC.

In general, once a boat has taken an appropriate penalty, they may not be punished further. For a simple contact, a one penalty turn sounds appropriate, as it is not clear that any advantage was gained. If there was an advantage, and the penalty was inadequate, then the PC may apply an additional penalty.

Redress is a separate issue altogether. To be awarded redress, there are a list of conditions that must be satisfied to be eligible for redress. Are any of them present in this incident? (rhetorical).

John

 

44 minutes ago, John Ball said:

It is not appropriate to comment on the findings of a Protest COmmittee - and the parties are free to file an appeal on the decision of the PC.

In general, once a boat has taken an appropriate penalty, they may not be punished further. For a simple contact, a one penalty turn sounds appropriate, as it is not clear that any advantage was gained. If there was an advantage, and the penalty was inadequate, then the PC may apply an additional penalty.

Redress is a separate issue altogether. To be awarded redress, there are a list of conditions that must be satisfied to be eligible for redress. Are any of them present in this incident? (rhetorical).

John

 

Why is it inappropriate to comment on a decision if it seems wrong - you may be in a different position from the average sailor. A vow of silence or reputation management is a dangerous place.

I am neither party so I will leave that alone.

I think the general point is important.

The appeals process is onerous especially if the race was inconsequential.

It would be helpful to understand the decision process.

Not commenting on a protest decision is normal practice. We don't have the facts and may only hear one side of the arguments as to what happened.

What I try to do is describe which rules may be applicable.

The benefit of a protest hearing is the learning opportunity for the participants. If there are misgivings about a decision of the PC, the appeals process adds to that learning process for the future for the parties and for the PC members.

Without commenting on the decision, superficially, there seem to be grounds for Ned, the DSQ boat to appeal on grounds that the PC erred in assigning an additional penalty, and the lack of grounds for redress and the specifics of the redress decision.

John

Is there a rule which defines a boat having taken a 'penalty turn', or for any other reason having tacked and gybed in the same direction, as an explicit admission of guilt for something/anything? Surely that would just discourage people from, if they not too sure, simply doing a sporting thing.

 

Edited May 20, 2025May 20 by Colin Helliwell

Hi Colin,

I think the answer is contained in the wording of 60.5.

60.5 However, the boat shall not be disqualified if
(c)(2) the boat has already taken an applicable penalty, in which
case she shall not be penalized further unless the penalty
for a rule she broke is disqualification that is not
excludable,

John

So if "the committee reason that [someone's] turn was admission of fault", that would be an incorrect ruling? (In your view - with it being a hypothetical case )

It is safe to say that if a boat believes that is has broken a rule of Part 2 or 31 it may take an applicable penalty. If they have taken an applicable penalty, they may not be penalized further unless the penalty was DSQ.  It is not worded as an admission of guilt nor fault.

I think the concept of fault applies more to to damage and insurance. I have heard that Insurance companies have been known to accept the findings of fact of a PC as a neutral and qualified party.

Redress may be awarded if a boat's position was affected by another boat's breach of a rule and involves a list of qualifying factors. Usually redress if awarded would be average points.

John

 

5 minutes ago, John Ball said:

Usually redress if awarded would be average points.

I've had to find that option in HMS a few times! 😉

During my last regatta I was awarded average points for being dragged OCS by a boat to that windward of me. Both of us were unable to see our boats until they bobbed into view 10 sec too early.

I argued that the only facts of which we were certain - where he was windward and that we were locked together temporarily.

I did not seek his punishment only my redress.

We both restarted and I stated that he had taken a penalty and therefore should not be DSQ, although I am not certain that was it true - it was more to focus on the issue of my redress not the cause of the incident.

Edited May 20, 2025May 20 by David Lapes

28 minutes ago, David Lapes said:

During my last regatta I was awarded average points for being dragged OCS by a boat to that windward of me. Both of us were unable to see our boats until they bobbed into view 10 sec too early.

I argued that the only facts of which we were certain - where he was windward and that we were locked together temporarily.

I did not seek his punishment only my redress.

We both restarted and I stated that he had taken a penalty and therefore should not be DSQ, although I am not certain that was it true - it was more to focus on the issue of my redress not the cause of the incident.

Trying to picture how a windward boat caused you to be ocs...  hmmm, ok maybe he hooked you - definitely a freak/unfortunate accident!

But redress for a start line incident? Not sure how you can argue that that is deserved; just the plain penalty of the moment. What sort of race/heat redress can you claim, so immediately? Perhaps you were indeed infringed - but if that's a right to redress then our rules really are a pointless mess....

With no offence intended, just a degree of "Eh?!!"

Edited May 20, 2025May 20 by Colin Helliwell

Well first you are bobbing along a start line sails flapping and minding your own business as best you can when you can't actually see your boat. Then without any intervention your boat appears and you try to control your boat and it's clear for a while (approx 20 sec) that the boats are entangled. Nobody could see from the restricted control area how the contact started. It was clear which boat was to windward as they processed up the course. After gentle persuasion the boats parted and I (to leeward) gybes back towards the line and he tacked back.

Anything else is supposition.

Temporarily 'disabled' due to an infringement by no action of your own is a redressable event.

Entanglement is always a mystery, what catches on what and the exacto nature of the contract and who might have anticipated what.

5 minutes ago, David Lapes said:

Well first you are bobbing along a start line sails flapping and minding your own business as best you can when you can't actually see your boat. Then without any intervention your boat appears and you try to control your boat and it's clear for a while (approx 20 sec) that the boats are entangled. Nobody could see from the restricted control area how the contact started. It was clear which boat was to windward as they processed up the course. After gentle persuasion the boats parted and I (to leeward) gybes back towards the line and he tacked back.

Anything else is supposition.

Temporarily 'disabled' due to an infringement by no action of your own is a redressable event.

Entanglement is always a mystery, what catches on what and the exacto nature of the contract and who might have anticipated what.

Good rules will make most scenarios clear and unarguable. Those which don't aid determining a fair resolution might be superfluous and take away more than they add...

 

12 hours ago, David Lapes said:

Well first you are bobbing along a start line sails flapping and minding your own business as best you can when you can't actually see your boat. Then without any intervention your boat appears and you try to control your boat and it's clear for a while (approx 20 sec) that the boats are entangled. Nobody could see from the restricted control area how the contact started. It was clear which boat was to windward as they processed up the course. After gentle persuasion the boats parted and I (to leeward) gybes back towards the line and he tacked back.

Anything else is supposition.

Temporarily 'disabled' due to an infringement by no action of your own is a redressable event.

Entanglement is always a mystery, what catches on what and the exacto nature of the contract and who might have anticipated what.

So, part of the problem is that too many people feel that redress is to be expected, and ask for it. At club level it is an easy way of diffusing a situation and in many cases at club/district level is just awarded to avoid delays or undue pressure on the volunteer race team.. This causes unrealistic expectation when moving to umpired events, where the umpires are there to consider and decide on unresolved incidents. Their major consideration is not the skippers standing around, it is in adjudicating on an incident to the best of their abilities.

To bring it back to David's post, a jury will go back to the last known certainty. If the competitors and officials cannot establish any facts, then despite the entanglement they may not award redress. If the contact cannot be seen by the competitors or the officials then there is no certainty, so they go back to the previous known point, quite often this may be well before the two boats are even close to each other and any rules have not been switched on.

The above is why the more experienced skippers will find a slot and defend this, both with their boat, and verbally (Politely!) alongside making sure that they can see their boat at all times.

 

 

  

There was a very restricted control area, where not all skippers got a front row seat - let alone a free view of their boat. I agree that experience may lead to different choices.

I also agree that being theoretically ROW does not imply that R14 exonerates you from risk of disadvantage. Ducking into a blind spot below the line carries considerable risk.

Darin,

Redress in this case - becoming disabled because of the action  of a boat breaking a rule of Part 2 - can only be given if :

 - the boat requesting redress's score has been made significantly worse

- through no fault of her own (however minor the fault) - for instance could she have avoided the contact

- if the boat breaking a rule of Part 2 has been penalised or took a penalty.

See RRS E6.6

NB: there is no minimum time for being entangled - just long enough for a boat's score to be made significantly worse. In some case's this may be only a few seconds.