What took eric so long is probably this statement by orphan.

Quote

You can protest anything or be protested for anything. That does not mean you will win or lose in the room. But I beleive the onus is on the port boat to prove that it did not cause the starboard boat to take corrective actions.


Onus is one of those dated concepts that judges have to deal with and try to get sailors to drop from their vocabulary and how they race..... IMO I think it led to the belief that you can arbitrage the rules and in the worst cases... even the Protest committee. It is the gamesmanship we use in other sports. Good that "Onus" is no longer a term we use.

Eric writes
Quote

"Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire."

In a hypothetical close crossing, Boat P (port) is expected to keep clear (rule 10).


This is the call your own foul and Starbord had ROW that Jake and I are discussing.

So... what happens when things go sideways.

If port crosses and calls the foul on himself... the situation is resolved.

If port crosses and does not call the foul on himself.
Quote

If P fails in that obligation, then Boat S (starboard) is expected to protest (see rules 60 and 61).

If P honestly believes that she did not foul S, then P may sail on. Otherwise she is expected to take a penalty (see rule 44).


This is Ports Second bite at the apple of Call your own.
It is initiated by Starbords responsibility to hail protest.

If she honestly disagrees... she (in some regattas can go to arbitration)... This would give port a third chance to call their own... and ask to be RAF... retired after finishing if they finally agree with starbord.

If she still honesty disagrees... she can go with a full hearing... and if she loses... she gets the DSQ. I think that Port can pull the plug at any point in the hearing and RAF before the jury makes a finding ....(not sure of this one tho)

As a judge... he correctly ID the notion of ONUS and flagged it...
Quote

The rules do not place a burden of proof on either boat.


I don't think he should opine on the tactics of arbitraging the rules for your advantage.... (70/30 to clear... What are the odds that starbord will protest. etc) That gets managed by the fleet. As a working judge... you don't want to be in this position.

The facts that are evaluated by Port at every opportunity and by the judge and PC at the end of the day is this.

Quote
If S took avoiding action, then she must have had a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision. If so, then P broke rule 10. If not, then P didn't. See ISAF Case 50.


so... genuine and reasonable apprehension of a collision .... are the ... It Depends.... of these situations. There are lots of independent judgements made in time. So... back to the beginning we go.

The best analogy that I have would be to play basketball using the RRS. In this game, the DEFENDER would have to call a foul on himself when he contests the shot .....

If he did not call the foul.... the Shooter would have this recourse... "Really.... You are not going to call that foul.... Come ON... my hand is bleeding". which would give the defender a second shot at calling the foul on himself. If the defender honestly believed he did not foul... off it would go to a protest committee... where ... facts are found and the shooters Right to not be fouled is evaluated and supported.

There is no gamesmanship allowed here in this part of the sailing game ... because you call the foul on yourself.... you are not working the ref to make the call ... You are not working the ref for the next call.. ...you are not working your opponent with the rules as a cudgel.

Does it happen... sure!... but that is not the norm or the game I enjoy.


crac.sailregattas.com