This was a round robin semi-finals for the Wed Night Races. The top two boats move up to the Championship and the other two are eliminated

Boat A and B are fighting it out for second. In the last race Boat A has 7 pts and B has 8. On the upwind leg A's forestay broke and was forced to retire. All B has to do is finish.

While the race committee was debating letting the results stand because everyone had been equally at risk, repairing Boat A and running anouther race, having the 2 skippers come back next week, etc, etc. Boat A crossed the line and then hit the mark with his stern. The race committee told the skipper he had not finished. The boat recrossed the line without losing a place.

The results

Boat A - 7 pts + DNF 2nd place
Boat B - 8 pts + DNF 3rd place

Why

(Sometimes problems resolve themselves

I presume you meant that boat B hit the finish mark while finishing. If so:

Generally, equipment failure is either the result of poor maintenance, or bad luck. Either way (unless the boats are provided by the venue, in which case the failure could be grounds for redress) the competitor just has eat the score for RET. So, boat A is simply out of luck.

Regarding boat B, she finishes when the first part of her hull, equipment, or crew in normal position crosses the finish line (see the definition of "finish"). However, B is still racing until she clears the finish line and marks (see the definition of "racing"). Since she touched a mark before clearing the finish line, she broke rule 31.1. Boat B could have exonerated herself by doing a turn, returning to the course side of the finish line, and finishing again (see rule 31.2 and the definition of "finish").

One could argue that RC inappropriately scored Boat B "DNF", and should have protested her instead. Technically, B did finish and only the protest committee is empowered to determine that she broke rule 31.1. This sort of thing is pretty common though, and not grounds for redress so it tends to slide.

Regards,
Eric

Been there, done that. Hit the finish pin, sailed back, did my turn, and finished again. Cost me 2nd place overall in our AC qualifier two years ago.

First of all, someone should smack the race committee for communicating that to the boat. It's not their place to tell someone if they finished correctly or not.

Secondly, if Boat B corrected her mistake (did a circle for hitting the mark, then finished correctly), then they should be scored in their finishing position.

Even if Boat B did not do her penalty turn, the only recourse of the Race Committee is to protest her since she "finished".

99.9% agree with everything Eric and Matt said. Except, RET is not a defined score. DNF is for a boat that breaks down and does not finish. RAF is for a boat that finishes, then decides to retire afterwards (normally to avoid a protest hearing after they realize they broke a rule).

Anyway, a boat cannot be scored DNF as a penalty for any infraction, per RRS 63.1. It simply means they did not FINISH, which has a clear definition in the RRS.

As the RRS are written, DNF cannot be used in place of a protest if a boat hits a mark, fails to sail the correct course, sails through a "closed" start/finish line, etc. (unless properly stated as a rule change in the SIs), per RRS A5. A protest is needed, which should be initiated by another competitor, or may be initiated by the RC. As a point of etiquette, the latter is normally only used if no competitor is around to witness the infraction.

Speaking to an individual boat brings up lots of questions in the area of "outside assistance." I've done a bunch of work with classes using VHF to communicate with the fleets, and we need to be very careful how to answer questions. Basically, we don't directly answer a question to an individual boat, we make announcements to the fleet. They may be based on an individual boat's question (such as, "Will there be another race?"). If a boat asked if they finished properly, we would inform them that we cannot answer that question. VHF or not, if a boat sails by and asks a question, we have to ignore them. If they persist, the PRO (no one else) tells them they cannot answer the question.

Unfortunately, both of these points (using DNF as a penalty and talking to individual boats) are abused somewhat frequently; normally by well-meaning RC volunteers who think they're "helping."

As the results were actually posted (per your original message), Boat B may have had a case to request redress for this and depending on the jury, may have been awarded 2nd place (I'm not a judge so I can't say for sure how this would turn out).

EDIT: After reviewing the RRS a little further, I have to disagree with Eric that this is "not grounds for redress." Per 89.3(a), the RC is responsible for scoring. Per 62.1(a), an error by the RC is grounds for redress. Per 62.2, Boat B may file for redress within two hours after the results are posted (the "relevant incident" is the posting of the results).

From the information given in the original post, without a protest hearing, the results should have been scored as follows:

Boat B - 8 pts + 1 2nd place
Boat A - 7 pts + DNF 3rd place

If Boat A was aware of the infraction (again, based on the original post, which does not say that Boat B did a circle), she could have filed for redress when the results were posted.

Hope this helps.

Mike

When I first started out in race management and went to certification classes, the instructors strongly recommended not talking to competitors. They would go so far as to turn their backs on boats that were sailing by. There were concerns about fairness, and about creating grounds for redress.

In subsequent years, I've seen a lot of softening of that position. Race Officials are putting a lot more emphasis on serving the competitors. The regional and national race officers I know are all very open and communicative with the racers. The general concensus is to help the sailors enjoy the regatta as much as possible.

Dick Rose (head of the ISAF rules committee) even endorses RC/Jury hailing protest to boats racing so they have an opportunity to exonerate themselves. He points out that nothing in the rules prohibits it and believes it to be a good, fair practice.

Good Race Officers know that they are there for the sailors benefit -- not the other way around. They do what they can to benefit the event. Now, at the Olympic level, I'd expect a very circumspect RC. At most events I've been to (including some national and world championships) however, there've been competitors who really appreciated a communicative Race Committee.

At the level I race, there's a lot of outside help going on, and nobody ever questions it. At a club race, are you really going to protest someone for asking you what the course is?

Regards,
Eric

Eric, you have some good points, and I totally agree that the RC is there for the benefit of the sailors. I make a point of stating that often at the events I run.

However, the school I am coming from is more conservative. Talking to competitors on the water is only OK if everyone has the opportunity to hear you (VHF or loadhailer), and normally, this is only OK between races, not during a race.

Matt and I are both certified ROs, some folks say we're pretty good. I can't speak for all of Matt's experience, but the ROs and judges who have been my primary mentors are Olympic-level, which could explain why I'm as conservative as I am.

I am unclear on what your last paragraph is saying. I don't know anyone that would protest someone for asking a question, at any level. I wouldn't answer the question as an RO, because the course would be properly posted, but I may point to the board at a club race.

Conduct of the RC at any race is somewhat subject to what the competitors want. But, unless you are intimately familiar with the sailors at the event, you have to be careful how much you lower the standards. There are plently of posts on this forum that speak to issues of perceived favoritism.

Mike

Interesting

The answers are close to my thoughts last night. If I were Boat B, I would have either have withdrawn or gotten out the rulebook and started looking for a definition of finishing. I don't think I would have had a chance of winning a protest and it does not really matter what you are scored, if it's not 2 or 3.


Remember the key point is it was very strange how while the race committee was thinking about what to do, the issue resolved itself.

From a big picture point of view, I think the results are correct. We have one skipper whose borrowed boat broke through no fault of his and anouther that did not complete his penalty. It would have been a lot cleaner if the race committee had stayed quiet

On the topic of RC communications to competitors (now that this thread is completely hijacked):

The level of communication depends on the type/level of event, what the competitors expect and just plain common sense.

Last week at the Melges 24 Nationals, I (on the RC) was asked by a competitor, "Do we need to wear PFD's while racing?" My response (which is pretty typical) - "Read the Sailing Instructions." Competitors at that level should know better.

On the other hand, at a CRAM weekend race, the guy who was trailing last in the standings went by the signal boat (in DFL) and asked, "Am I oversheeted?" I couldn't help but nod my head. (He still came in last.) Common sense said that there's no way anybody is going to protest him for receiving outside assistance for that.

At the same event, I shortened course at the gate (committee boat was tied to one of the marks to make it perfectly clear), yet one of the boats thought the line was between the boat and the pin which was still set a couple of hundred yards away. He didn't sail through the gate. It would have been foolish of me to yell at him, "Hey! You didn't finish correctly!" He should know better (and now he'll never forget that).

To Eric's point on another thread, we have to be careful not to mix what we "think" is right vs. what the rules say.

If Boat A broke, and Boat B finished cleanly, Boat A has no recourse to have a better finish position. As Eric said in his first post, unless it's a supplied-boat event, you are not eligible for redress for a breakdown of your boat, or a privately borrowed (or chartered) boat.

Boat B's issues are different, as discussed above. As stated, while he has the right to file for redress (for the scoring error), he may or may not actually be granted redress. I personally don't know if he can be DSQd as a result of the redress hearing if the jury realizes that he broke a rule, did not circle and was not protested.

As for the communication, I agree with Matt, it's all about judgement. My main point is it's safer to be conservative, because in this day and age of internet forums, etc. it doesn't take much to have your reputation tarnished. Of course, in a club race situation, with newbies, you give them all the help in the world (still better to do this between races, not during). If someone were enough of an idiot to complain about that, I think it's within your rights to get some class reps together, and take them out to the woodshed. If you don't do that, there's a decent chance that class will die from scaring away the newbies...

Mike

Technically, if a competitor asks a question of RC or another boat, and gets an answer, that consitutes outside help under RRS 41(e) because it was solicited. In practice, however, most such occurences are far too trivial to protest and are routinely permitted. In my usual fleet, it's quite common for a sailor to forget what the course is (or forget to look) and ask another sailor during the race.


I think we're actually pretty much in agreement. RC must strive to be fair to all competitors. RC can communicate with competitors quite a bit without prejudicing anybody, but exactly where to draw the line varies with the level of competition and traditions of the classes / event. If you are working a regatta, it is good to talk to the fleet representative(s) beforehand to understand how best to meet the sailors' desires and expectations.

I was simply saying (from my observation) that general opinion has changed from when I was first certified. Back then, the edict was "say nothing". Now the approach seems to be more open and communicative - within the bounds of what best serves to make a good event - and still be fair. I don't think that constitutes "lowering standards". For example, in the first PHRF races I worked, the PROs demanded radio silence during the starting sequence so that the flags and guns were the only information to competitors. Now it is common (and encouraged) for the PRO to announce the upcoming sequence and course over the VHF, and even to count down to the start. As long as the channel is disclosed, and all boats have a VHF radio (which is required by PHRF), it is fair - and the competitors love it.


Well, this summer, I sailed in a 2-day regatta where my wife was the PRO on my course. There was no wind (and no races) the first day. The second day there was enough wind to run one race, which I was lucky enough to win. My wife kept us out and ran another race in really light and patchy wind just to give everyone another opportunity to beat me. Yet another example of reverse favoritism - lol.

Regards,
Eric

Hey Eric,

This is a great discussion. I think a lot of this stuff gets brushsed aside and can lead to bad feelings between sailors and RC.

What you wrote in this post, I agree with, but there are some key words in the first section that were omitted from your previous posts. They would be: "and gets an answer." I previously said I wouldn't answer, as an RO, so there would be no grounds for protest against someone who asked a question.

The other key words are: "ask another sailor." We do the same thing, and it's perfectly OK (technically not legal, but no one cares). However, when I'm an RO, it is absoulely not OK for me as the RC to answer a question (except perhaps as mentioned in the total newbie discussion).

I agree with a lot of the other points, as mentioned, I tend to be cautious to be sure I remain fair. I probably should have said "lower the threshold" as opposed to "lower the standards."

The VHF stuff is a whole other story. I also like to do the live countdown, primarily for the mark boats. I've been told by a judge to be careful, because I might "confuse the competitors..."

I can definitely feel for your wife. Light air causes us to do weird things sometimes... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mike

Boat B can file for redress (within the time limit), but I doubt it would be granted. To paraphrase RRS 62.1, "A request for redress...shall be based on a claim ... that a boat’s score ... has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by ... an improper action ... of the race committee". There's little doubt that the boat's score was made significantly worse. I believe that it was an improper action for RC to score the boat DNF, although an International Race Officer I once met might disagree with me. If, however, the skipper admits that he hit the mark, I wouldn't say that it was "through no fault of his own". But without a protest hearing to find fact, this could go either way. If appealed, B's finishing place would probably be reinstated.


In this case, no. According to RRS 60.3 "A protest committee may... protest a boat, but not as a result of... information... in a request for redress". So, while the protest committee may decide to deny redress, they cannot convene a protest hearing to penalize Boat B.

Regards,
Eric

Thanks Eric. Regarding RRS 60.3, that was my gut reaction too, but I didn't see that when I was looking for the reference.

IMO, even if the skipper admits to hitting the mark, or even T-boned and sank the committee boat, the scoring error is not his fault. He should have been finished as 2, and protested. If no one protested, he gets away with it. Of course, then we'd be talking about a Rule 2 protest or a Rule 69 hearing, but he still gets scored as a 2 until the jury boots him...

Mike

Can't believe I didn't think of this earlier...

We are trained as RC (and judges) to NOT protest boats for hitting marks unless it's ABSOLUTELY obvious. The reason given is that unless your angle of view is perfect, you cannot tell that the boat actually touched the mark.

This would be particularly true in this example. Who on the RC witnessed the stern hitting the mark? Where were they located? If they were on the signal boat and claim they saw the boat hit the pin end, that could be a tough sell in front of a good jury. If they were on a mark boat, were they in such a position that they could see air between the boat and the pin, and could clearly see the contact?

This is easier to think about if you're consider the weather mark. If the mark boat is upwind of the mark, the RC cannot see whether a boat hits the mark. Lots of people think they can, but in practice, the physics don't work. Unless you see a Hobie 17 wing hit the mark, and you're close enough to see the mark fabric wrinkle, etc. which means you're too close anyway. Seeing a person hit the mark is different, but usually only if you see them pushing the mark away from the boat.

EDIT: What I'm talking about here is being able to see a boat on starboard rounding the windward mark to port. Unless the boat t-bones the mark, from a position upwind of the boat and mark, it is not possible to see the hull hit the mark. This is easier to describe in person, with salt shakers and sugar packets. Beer doesn't hurt either...

Just food for thought...

Mike

Well, if Boat B t-boned and sank the committee boat, then she could be protested (serious damage) and penalized. That, however, was not the scenerio posed.

There's no hard and fast rule about what a protest committee can do for redress. RRS 64.2 states "When the protest committee decides that a boat is entitled to redress under rule 62, it shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected...". That arrangement is limited only by the imagination of the committee.

When I'm considering what (if any) redress to grant, my litmus test is what whould have happened if RC (in this case) had done the correct thing. Taking the original facts as stated (i.e. Boat B hit the mark), then the right thing for RC to have done was to protest B (rather than score her DNF). If B admits to the infraction, then it is a short step to say she would likely have been disqualified. So, if RC had done it right, the score outcome would have been the same. That leads me to deny the "no fault of her own" claim. Or, possibly, to decide that the most fair thing is to let the DNF score stand.

If, however, B claims not to have hit the mark, then (in the absence of other information or sportsmanship issues) I would lean the other way. Without a protest hearing to find fact, and being unable to convene a protest hearing, I'd be inclined to grant redress. I think that is how an appeals committee would view things (based on my readings of the appeals casebook), which is why I said I think B would probably win an appeal. Reinstating B's finish position is a fair and likely redress.

Aren't hypothetical situations fun? The more you study them, the more the outcome is "it depends".

Regards,
Eric

Yes, hypothetical stuff can be fun.

Hypothetically, if he hit the signal boat and sank it, the last thing he'd need to worry about is being protested (i.e. I hope his life insurance has been paid)...

But, he still should be scored a 2. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Mike

Just as a follow-up, I ran this situation (without all the hypotheticals) by an IJ who happens to be a good friend and mentor of mine.

The IJ's take is that the redress request would be valid, but that the decision of whether or not to actually grant redress would come down to the jury's judgement on whether Boat B really has a case that the situation was no fault of her own. The IJ said he personally would not likely grant the redress if he heard the protest (the score would remain as DNF). However, Boat B has the option to request a reopening of the hearing.

Also, as Eric mentioned, The IJ poitned out that the PC cannot protest Boat B for hitting the mark, so she can't be scored DSQ.

My friend is an IJ for lots of good reasons, not the least of which is, he said: "The RC should be admonished for their indiscretion, and more importantly it should be done in an instructive/constructive way so they learn from their mistake." I think I was trying to make this point rather subtly, but certainly not as eloquently...

Mike