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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
...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 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
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.
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
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.
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?
If you need more hands for a video jury, add me to your list. If you are unclear of my qualifications, PM me.
Mike
Everyone typically had a GPS unit for navigation and there was talk about having the teams submit their tracks to prove their innocence. I don't recall if this actually took place.
Sat nav (spots or EPIRBS) didn't exist. Epirbs at the time were a little more rudimentary in that they could signal a satellite to indicate an emergency but they couldn't transmit their location. The satellite would get rescue teams close but the EPIRB also emitted a warble locator signal on the aircraft beacon frequency that rescue crews could zero in on with radio equipment.
Thank you for all of the feedback on the Sailing Instructions. It will be taken into consideration. We will post the next revision on or before May 1st.
That's exactly what a race officer tells a judge when they have edits to SIs, when the RO really means,
FU, these are my SIs, not yours.
Not that you're saying that. Not at all.
That's exactly what a race officer tells a judge when they have edits to SIs, when the RO really means,
FU, these are my SIs, not yours.
Not that you're saying that. Not at all.
Craig is acting as punching bag here, relay-er of information, and punching bag on the other side. He's pretty skinny to endure all of that. There are a number of people that the changes need to go through.
Matt has a good point (and we see that a lot, so I was thinking along similar lines for a while), but reading through some of Craig's prior posts, it seems pretty clear to me that's not his M.O.
Never really hurts to run the SIs through another RO or judge, though.
Mike
Everyone typically had a GPS unit for navigation and there was talk about having the teams submit their tracks to prove their innocence. I don't recall if this actually took place.
Sat nav (spots or EPIRBS) didn't exist. Epirbs at the time were a little more rudimentary in that they could signal a satellite to indicate an emergency but they couldn't transmit their location. The satellite would get rescue teams close but the EPIRB also emitted a warble locator signal on the aircraft beacon frequency that rescue crews could zero in on with radio equipment.
IIRC their GPS tracks magically disappeared that night, and their course was blamed on a buddy who was also on RC. It definitely cast a bad shadow on that year, which goes to show it should have been handled swiftly and to the letter of the law in the SIs. If it had, no one would even remember it.
A couple of years later, I actually confronted the skipper of one of the boats at an A cat regatta (not Mischa) and it almost came to blows. Later that night we made peace, drank beers, became friends, and I found out he trained by boxing. Needless to say I was pretty glad it didn't come to blows.
That's exactly what a race officer tells a judge when they have edits to SIs, when the RO really means,
FU, these are my SIs, not yours.
Not that you're saying that. Not at all.
Craig is acting as punching bag here, relay-er of information, and punching bag on the other side. He's pretty skinny to endure all of that. There are a number of people that the changes need to go through.
+1 Craig is the messenger, and I've given him plenty of punches. I thank him again for all of his work on this. The end game is really making it work for the organizers, the RC and especially the racers;).Most of the organizers involved have never done one of these races and see it from an RC point of view. Hopefully,This thread has helped alot to balance the perspective from both sides. The times that I've helped with RC work at big events, I can't help but feel that sometimes there is an underlying trend of the RC feeling they are competing with the competitors rather than working to make the race better. This is the sole reason I speak out about the things I think need to be addressed. It'd be very easy to just go race, take advantage of the loopholes or absence of rules and go home, but that will not help to nurture this race , or any ,into thriving.
That's exactly what a race officer tells a judge when they have edits to SIs, when the RO really means,
FU, these are my SIs, not yours.
Not that you're saying that. Not at all.
Craig is acting as punching bag here, relay-er of information, and punching bag on the other side. He's pretty skinny to endure all of that. There are a number of people that the changes need to go through.
+1 Craig is the messenger, and I've given him plenty of punches. I thank him again for all of his work on this. The end game is really making it work for the organizers, the RC and especially the racers;).Most of the organizers involved have never done one of these races and see it from an RC point of view. Hopefully,This thread has helped alot to balance the perspective from both sides. The times that I've helped with RC work at big events, I can't help but feel that sometimes there is an underlying trend of the RC feeling they are competing with the competitors rather than working to make the race better. This is the sole reason I speak out about the things I think need to be addressed. It'd be very easy to just go race, take advantage of the loopholes or absence of rules and go home, but that will not help to nurture this race , or any ,into thriving.
I never thought of it this way - but I totally agree.
Todd, couldn't agree more with your last two posts.
Without getting into a lot of detail, I've been very fortune to have worked with some of the best ROs in the business. The single common trait that separates these guys from the rest is their unwavering commitment to the sailors. Their races, in all aspects including SIs, is all about giving the clients (sailors) what they want, and the best possible racing.
Obviously, this can be challenging at times, but this is my goal as well.
Mike
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.
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).
- 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.
- 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
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.
+1.
The SI's are confusing. Rule 8.5 is the issue:
It is suggested each boat to have onboard SPOT affixed in such a manner that it has a clear view of the
sky and is able to successfully transmit data to the Satellite Tracking System. SPOTs will be used for tracking
and are required to be activated and functional in
“tracking mode” at all times while racing. The RC will be
provided with relevant serial number information, etc. from
each tracking device so as to be sufficient to
allow the competitors to be tracked.
Care to propose better verbiage?
I think the intent is for them to be required...
Mike
Add
IF spots are used
in front of "SPOTs will be used for tracking
and are required to be activated and functional in
“tracking mode”. Shows that it is optional. I thought the same as Sam until Craig got me straight on it.
IF spots are used
in front of "SPOTs will be used for tracking
and are required to be activated and functional in
“tracking mode”. Shows that it ism optional. I thought the same as Sam until Craig got me straight on it.
Todd is correct. They are not required but HIGHLY recommended. We will work on clarifying it more.
IF spots are used
in front of "SPOTs will be used for tracking
and are required to be activated and functional in
“tracking mode”. Shows that it is optional. I thought the same as Sam until Craig got me straight on it.
Hey! I just had an idea. Todd, be sure to have a SPOT. I'll call you every 10 minutes and tell you where to sail. <img src="<>/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink" height="15" width="15" />
Now your on to something!
IF spots are used
in front of "SPOTs will be used for tracking
and are required to be activated and functional in
“tracking mode”. Shows that it is optional. I thought the same as Sam until Craig got me straight on it.
Hey! I just had an idea. Todd, be sure to have a SPOT. I'll call you every 10 minutes and tell you where to sail. <img src="<>/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink" height="15" width="15" />
But if I go where you tell me I'll be 3 or 4 positions behind where I already was. Still ahead of Ding though, so there is that.
Islamorada Video:
Delray Video:
Craig,you doing that fpv or los?
fpv. You could never get that line of sight.
I have a second receiver and can show on secondary screen like tv or jumbotron.