Windy wrote


Sorry... Liability assignment will not happen.
That's up to your insurance or civil court to assign $$$. It is explicitly ruled out by the RRS.



No question! And that is the process the sport has in place. the PC should be formed, testimony taken and the RRS applied. The PC must deal with misconduct and sportsmanship issues as well.



Sorry, the RRS do not require a competitor to have insurance or the PC to assign liability.

See the document on liability coverage for why OA's probably don't want to collect this info or require liability coverage.

I think you have the insurance coverage idea backwards... YOU purchase insurance for YOUR peace of mind and to cover YOUR assets when some bozo hits you and your liability when you screw up or an act of god zaps you. It only matters to your insurance company if the other guy has insurance.

You have coverage... you should be able to race hard because you KNOW you are covered.

Without getting into blame or recrimination, what would it take to change your opinion of EMSA? I haven't personally done any race management within EMSA, but everybody I know who's involved wants to hold high-quality regattas. I'm sure they're open to suggestions for improvement. I'm willing to be part of the solution. I hope you know that if Joleen or I am at a sailing event and you need assistance or advice, you can always come to us. We're happy to give whatever help we can.

Regards,
Eric

The case you cite only proves my point about the COLREGS(IRPCAS).

After a lively and mostly unnecessary round of discovery, the matter went to trial on the admiralty side of the bench. The district court found that because the IYRRs are the rules of a private racing organization, they "do not and cannot preempt the application of the COLREGS which have been adopted by treaty to govern worldwide." Juno, 865 F.Supp. at 17. The court thus ignored the findings of the International Jury and concluded that, under COLREGS Rule 13, 33 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 1602,4 CHARLES JOURDAN was an overtaking vessel required to keep clear of ENDEAVOUR. Pursuant to the "Pennsylvania Rule"5 the CHARLES JOURDAN was presumed at fault. Nevertheless, the court found that, under COLREGS Rule 8, 33 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 1602,6 the ENDEAVOUR's failure to take action to avoid the collision "was a significant cause of the accident," and found it 40% at fault. Juno, 865 F.Supp. at 18.

Cheshirecatman

Thanks Eric! I'm good with it now because I know what to expect, whether it be right or not it is consistent. At just about every skippers meeting something is said about not having protests and working it out on the water. It is obvious that they do not wish to hear protests or take the time to put together a protest committee. As long as nothing happens its a mute point.

And Mark you are correct, I can push as hard as I choose because my boat is insured but the arguments and bad feelings afterward are certainly not worth it. Its not like there is money to be won! I would rather be cautious and stay out of the way.

Well, there's definitely something to be said for that.

All of the most respected cat racers that I know avoid protests and entanglements on the water at all costs. If they find themseleves in a tough spot, they do their best to avoid it, even if that means sailing a longer distance and not pushing their rights. Doesn't work all of the time, but for the vast majority, they still manage to win.

Generally speaking, any time spent fighting for rights or position is lost to the rest of the fleet. Except on the finish line, it rarely pays.

Mike

Do you really want to start this here? I don't know who your wife overheard, but I never, ever, said anything even remotely approaching the phrase "to get some insurance money". It was the furthest thing from my mind. I was too glad to be alive and happily shocked that nobody was hurt. I wasn't going to file a protest but was urged to do so my certified PRO friend who was not involved with the organization of the regatta (I was new at this game too - it was my first ever protest and my first ever incident on the water). I had very little information about the protest process either but I don't think it was the race committee's duty to inform us about it...it's quite simple actually.

I also take issue with your "at fault" insinuation...but I'm not going to start to debate this.

Good stuff guys.

Best advise is have your own insurance. The insurance company will deal with the other party. Protest information and results will help. Are they the bottomline for insurance companies? NO. However that is their game, you have done all you can do as a sailor and the Insurance Company will appreciate it.

I have been on the other side of this issue. Protests should be heard. One of the most frustrating things I have seen is the tendancy to avoid protests. Yes I too hate them. However without them, the same bad sailors will continue to sail badly. As mentioned in this thread, it is best to sail and avoid the situations that would lead to questionable situations and decisions. That said if it happens, a protest must be held for everyone's sake, or the situation will happen over and over again. Self policing means just that. That means all of us. We all need to follow through with protests. This is not the other guys problem, it is our problem. Everyone needs to step up to the plate. I serve as a PRO for several regattas a year. I can not tell you how many times I get notified at the finish line of a protest. I put together the protest committee, only to learn the sailor had with-drawn the protest or simply did not file the protest by the dead line, to avoid it.
If you are on the race committee, be ready to follow through with protests. They are easy to do, it is spelled out step by step in the rule book. Just do what the rule book says...that is why we have a "rule book". One of the major reasons that racing is viewed negatively is people will not man up to the job at hand. They sail badly (meaning, breaking rules) and everyone looks the other way so they don't have to get involved.
Racing sailboats is like playing any other game. It is no fun unless all of the players go by the same rules. I have seen the rules pushed most by those viewed as the best sailors. All the more reason to strenghten the rules. This can only be done by all of us "the sailors".
That said, use you head. In the old days, I did serve on one protest committee where we had to hear 8 protests from one sailor. (Not a good way to try and win a regatta).
Also, the best way to learn the rules is to serve on a protest committee (it forces you to read the rule book and actually learn the rules before you end up on the wrong side of a protest committee).

Sorry Jake, not trying to start anything with you. But your response does bring the issue to light even stronger. If your friend had not been present how would you have known how to proceed? Would you have found it fair to have the situation reversed, my friend being a PRO and advising me only? In this instance a protest was heard and a decision was made which I abided by. This is how it should be settled but it would seem both parties should have access to experienced council in order to properly address the protest committee.

Keep reading. The District Court's decision was reversed by the First Circut Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court found that having two different sets of rules made absolutely no sense, and since all the parties involved had contractually agreed to use the racing rules, that those were the ones in force.

Sincerely,
Eric

It's not ok to be wrong, even if one is consistently wrong. When you attend a regatta, you should have confidence that protests will be heard. If you feel that hearings are being scuttled, let's fix that.

What I hear at skippers' meetings, is not that protests won't be heard, but that RC encourages competitors to 1) sail cleanly, and 2) exonerate themselves on the water. This is similar to when a boxing referee says "...no butting, no low blows, let's have a clean fight..." He's asking the competitors to abide by the rules, but he's there to respond if somebody doesn't.

Putting together a protest committee and holding hearings takes time and effort that regatta organizers and/or race committee would rather not spend. I don't deny that. Nevertheless, when a protest is filed, they are duty-bound to hear it.

Would it help for the larger EMSA regattas to have a jury (a protest committee separate from race committee)? That way, the competitors would know that is someone present to hear protests. If so, I'm willing to try to fit some EMSA events into my judging schedule for next year.

Regards,
Eric

Ummm, can I make some observations without opening a can of worms? It appears to me that in this instance, both parties:
1) were relatively inexperienced and did not know what the proper procedure was or how to go about following it, and
2) had just been through a harrowing experience and were shaken up, and
3) have a much better understanding of how to handle such a situation now.

Also, I know personally that both of you are nice people and would much rather not see others (including each other) in this situation. Therefore, I have a proposal. Let the three of us agree that, in the future, should we be at a regatta where a boat is damaged, or crew injured, to seek out the people involved, ask them if they are ok, and offer them help if needed and guidance on the process if they want it. Offer it to both sides if need be.

That way, we are all working to make it better. What do you say?

Regards,
Eric

Kaos nicely summarizes the consequences of cat sailor's overwhelming resistance to carrying through with protests .

Not only do sailors continually make the same errors... but clearly when the boats go crunch... the feelings of bad sportsmanship and irresponsibility persist for much longer then the boat repair or rule confusion lasted.
(see this EMSA example... and my fleet... we had two A cats go crunch in June and I don't think either sailor has raced the rest of the year... boats are all back together long ago.)

I know crewing on big boats on beer can wed's how amped up you can get over a dispute and then your complete non interest in following through on the protest when you hit the dock ... AND I also know that XXX was and is an idiot and will be wrong forever more.
I won't have a mechanism to resolve the issue either. but even though i can't remember the details... I KNOW that XXX can't be trusted.
Not good!

The PC hearing will resolve the rules dispute. AND a fair process will go along way to addressing the responsibility and sportsmanship issues that underlie the dispute.

I stand by my position that the PC must explicitly focus on this responsibility and sportsmanship stuff (and the rules admin) because the effect on the fleet will be corrosive in the end.

One of the purposes of a protest hearing is to help defuse emotionally explosive situations. When all parties are given a fair chance to tell their stories, then no matter what the final outcome, at least everybody can feel that they've been heard. This purpose isn't spelled out in the rulebook, but it is still important. Once the protest is over, people can move on. A hearing can go a long way towards eliminating this kind of ongoing recrimination.

But, if you don't protest, I can't help you.

Sincerely,
Eric
US Sailing Certified Judge,
Member, Area D Appeals Committee