Nope not that one - I can't imagine what that would be like.

We scratch together a protest committee at local regattas with 8 boats. We did it a couple of months ago as a formality. There's really nothing magical to it.

For starters, the protest has nothing to do with an insurance claim although it is never a bad idea in this regard. A protest committee NEVER assigns "fault". Protest committees only assign penalties as it relates to breaches of the rules. The fact that this may or may not affect or influence the decision of an insurance company is completely arbitrary.

Ditto...

Protest Committee (in the USA) does not adjudicate any claim for damages (see USS Prescription 67(b)). However, "by participating in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules...". See USS Prescription 67(c).

1. Because an insurance company cannot apply the rules without knowing what happened, it is vitally important to have a protest hearing that provides finding of facts.
2. Because you cannot depend on an insurance company knowing anything about the rules, it's vitally important to have a protest hearing to apply the rules and determine fault.

So yes, protest committee does determine "fault", and yes, that determination directly affects an insurance claim.

Regards,
Eric

Not exactly the way I've heard it described at seminars. The insurance companies can take the report as evidence, but can then do whatever they want in terms of damages.

Mike

Eric +1 on every one of your posts in this thread.
Warren told me the arbitration comm. has the same effect("The results of an arbitration committee may be used for insurance purposes as the results of a Protest committee."). Not sure how it gets handled when no one is requesting redress but has a protest to lodge for a rules infraction, of which it is supposed to be your responsibility to protest.This concerns me, even though I've only ever filed one in my life also (to get redress).
I'm pretty much to the point where I'm done pointing out stuff on here because with the exception of Eric, many (Mike) seem to justify or create a straw man to try to argue their point for breaking the rules, that still doesn't make it right or legal. For example:Communication and outside assistance are different things. Outside assistance requires communication but not vice versa.
Sam, The Spots are not mandatory for the 300(per the SIs) unless you are going to use it instead of an Epirb.They may be for the sprint thing, not sure.

So now we can't have a debate about the rules without being accused of trying to break them? Wow...

Mike

You've swung and missed so many times on this thread it really doesn't matter.

You need to get out more. Not every event has to be run the same way, nor the way you personally desire.

No one is a bigger stickler for rules than I am, but rules can and do change. What is important is that they be clear and the consequences be well understood.

I'd love to see how you can allow unlimited communications, but censor the conversations on private devices. Get back to me when you have an answer for that one...

(I know, it's easier to just accuse me of promoting cheating, isn't it?)

Mike

Well, let's take a hypothetical example. Say Boats S and P collide on the racecourse, and boat S is damaged. S protests P. Protest committee finds that S broke no rules and that P broke rules 10 and 14, and PC penalizes P.

Although protest committee does not award damages to S ("such a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts" - rule 67(b)), P is responsible for any monetary damages - rule 67(c).

So, lets suppose that S repairs his boat, and asks P to pay the cost. P, being the honorable fellow he is, makes an insurance claim under his liability policy. P's insurance company might deny the claim, especially if it doesn't get the facts, doesn't understand the racing rules, or mistakenly applies the legal doctrine of "assumption of risk". That doesn't make P any less responsible. If P can't get his insurance to cover the (monetary) damages, then P has to pay them out of his own pocket.

The completed protest form (with facts, conclusions, and decision of the protest committee) protects both S and P. S needs it to pursue a claim in the courts (if P doesn't pay willingly). P needs it (and possibly other documentation) to support his insurance claim. If there is no hearing, then somebody is going to get stiffed.

I hope that helps,
Eric

Get over yourself.I called you irrelevant, not a cheater. You have nothing to do with this race and aren't a distance racer, and obviously don't know near as much as you think you do, so how 'bout quit trolling and go back to the Hobie 16 forum.

Past Tybee 500s had the same rule...you can talk to your ground crew, just not about strategy. David Lennard even had a waterproof bluetooth ear piece for that purpose (for whatever good it did). I remember him calling in to report that two teams had cut inside the forbidden exclusion zone around Canaveral....which was a rule application disaster. I think those teams ended up with a 20 minute penalty which was, at best, close to the advantage they gained. This was in contrast to the skipper's meeting statement that you would be disqualified if you sailed inside the zone (not only taking a buoy to the wrong side but inside a straight line between the buoys that are separated by miles).

That's been my one beef about the east coast distance racing I've done. It takes a lot of time and preparation to put together a campaign for an event like this and then you run into something that's just not fair and it takes away from it. It's not that complicated to put a genuine jury in place. Dealing with rule infractions swiftly and justly actually reduces tension and makes things go much easier.

On the flip side, I do realize that there just aren't that many bodies willing to organize and operate a race like this - so I do feel a little guilty complaining.

Has anyone ever tried a video conference jury?

One of those teams would not have fessed up if I hadn't threatened a protest.They admitted their fault (under duress) and I suspect that's why the penalty was a wash and so weak. That's one of the reasons the no protest thing worries me.

Obviously, you can't censor private phone conversations. But then again, you can't prevent a boat from breaking a number of other rules when she's sailing out of sight. When there are no witnesses, a boat can also get away with:

• skipping a mark or rounding it improperly (RRS 28);
• touching a mark (RRS 31);
• removing PFDs (RRS 40);
• prohibited means of propulsion such as rocking, pumping, ooching, or sculling (RRS 42);
• wearing weights (RRS 43);
• hauling out (RRS 45);
• adding or removing crew or equipment (RRS 47);
• sitting outside lifelines (RRS 49);
• flying multiple spinnakers, double-poling a spinnaker, or using an outrigger (RRS 50);
• moving ballast (RRS 51); or
• putting trash in the water (RRS 55); et al.

Imperfect enforcement is not specific to RRS 41 by any means. At some point, however, one has to assume that competitors generally abide by the rules. One can hope that those few who don't will eventually slip up and get caught - or one can get used to disappointment.

Regards,
Eric

I haven't been in one myself, but video conference protest hearings have been held. US Sailing even has (or at least had) a GoToMeeting account available for that purpose. The judges I've spoken to who have done it feel that it's very important to be able to see the protestor and protestee (as well as the witnesses). It's important to get the nonverbal clues, as well as to insure that the parties aren't getting off-camera advice.

I've signed up as "judge on call" for a couple of events, but wasn't needed to phone into a hearing.

I've attended a few regattas where I couldn't be on protest committee (conflict of interest as a competitor), but I've offered advice to the PC. I can't hear testimony, question witnesses, help deliberate, or otherwise participate, but I can be called as a witness to advise on protest procedures and rule application.

Regards,
Eric

...having no solution, you're back to slinging insults. So helpful to your relevancy.

Go back a few posts, you most definitely accused me of making a case to break rules. How is that not calling me a cheater?

Jake and Eric make great points, that this could basically be handled as a gentleman's agreement and protested under the existing rules. I would caution against too much naïveté, it only takes one bad situation to ruin the reputation of an event. And ultimately, I care deeply about this.

Mike

I can see how the visual aspect of being on a jury is important - it would definitely be important to me if I were sitting on a jury. But, I do believe that even a conference call committee is better than none. That could be a cool service.

Krantz and Lennard made a fuss too and did actually file a protest with a non existant protest committee. And we woke up to nasty crap on our boat because they mistook us for Krantz' boat. That whole thing was awful and took away from the event experience. Wanna have a good trip down memory lane? Go replay the TV special footage of that next-morning skippers meeting where one of the offending team's ground crew ironically called out (negatively) the people that had made a fuss about them cutting the corner as poor sports. The whole thing just wasn't handled well and took more than 24 hours for any penalty to be adjudicated.

As I said before, I feel pretty bad by harping on this incident and I don't want it to taint all of the work and effort that Chuck and his group put into the event. Lord knows they spent a lot of time, money, and effort to make it happen - and it was overall a terrific event. However, we should be able to learn from the couple of times that things didn't go as well as they could have.

This is just one of those deals where reality and "what should be" (sailors being happily self-policing) are different and the best way to deal with it is to have something in place to handle it efficiently should the need arise. That whole situation would have been much less dramatic if it was just dealt with swiftly and there was a mechanism in place to handle the situation. Frank and I both saw both teams cut inside - they were just inside of us on the course when they consciously deviated north while we were heading out to clear the first buoy. You have a hearing, you hear the witnesses (at least four teams saw it happen), adjudicate the penalty, and go back to racing. Rip the bandaid off quickly and move along.

I would be willing to be a jury member on-call by video or phone for this event. I might even be able to organize the voice conferencing system through my Ring Central account.

It sounds like a situation that a gps tracker could have simplified. We're such devices in use for that race?