This is an example of where a protest hearing might have provided some closure. Let's suppose you had been protested. In the hearing you state that you believed that you rounded the mark (even though you couldn't see it) because you were in a pack of boats that sailed the course correctly. Let's further suppose that the protest committee does things right, identifies the other boats in the pack, protests them as well, closes the hearing and begins a new one. In that hearing, PC sifts through testimony from all the boats, and from any witnesses, and determines who did or did not sail the course. PC exonerates boats that sailed correctly and disqualifies those who did not.

Now, had that occured, then either way (exonerated or disqualified), you wouldn't be left wondering.


This raises an interesting point (and one sometimes missed by seasoned judges too). Rule 28 allows a boat to correct any errors before finishing, so she doesn't actually break it until she crosses the line (at which point there's no exoneration). Therefore, the requirement to inform the protestee (rule 61.1) occurs after the finish. If someone hails you on the course that you missed a mark, he is effectively doing you a favor. He is helping you keep from breaking a rule.

Regards,
Eric

Exactly what happened. I was behind pgp heading to "A" mark and hailed him as it was apparent that he forgot about the rounding mark. He unwound and continued to beat me.

Some really excellent points here.

Eric, I see your point (regarding the Case 80), thanks for pointing that out. I only made that comment because there are some pretty senior judges around here that might disagree with that, but I'm not a judge, so I'm not going any further with that. I can see the distinction the case is trying to make (an RC error vs. penalizing without a hearing).

Personally, I am a PRO, and I NEVER use DNF as a weapon (as I said in the other thread, this is one of my major pet peeves). In fact, for several years before I was a PRO I was doing scoring for all Hobie Division 12 regattas. Whenever I saw a DNF on the finish sheets with any kind of note (such as, crossed a closed line, sailed wrong course, etc.), I would always push back on the PRO.

Push back on what, you ask? Well, we all know that technically, this needs to be protested, no PRO wants to do it, and it should be up the sailors to police themselves. However, if there is a situation where it seems pretty obvious that a rule was broken, and no other competitors were in the area to witness, and the RC had an outstanding viewpoint of the whole thing, something should be done to keep blatant issues from getting out of hand.

Long, long ago I learned a very powerful trick from a short, bald PRO with lots of experience (PU). Simply approach the sailor, explain the situation (as the PRO or mark boat saw it), and ask them if they would like to retire. If you have a good case, this gets you out of something like 99% of these jams, and allows the sailor to save face with his competitors, and most importantly saves the aforementioned drinking time.

If the sailor thinks he was right, it's no big deal, just file the protest and let the PC work it out.

Mike

Well, lol, that's the purpose of the casebook - to clarifiy rule interpretations so that future judges won't make the same mistakes as past judges. For what it's worth, Case 80 surprised me too. When I was studying to become a judge, I read through the US Sailing Appeals and ISAF Casebooks. I covered up each decision, read the facts, reached my conclusion, and then checked it against the book (an exercise I recommend to anyone who wants to test their knowledge of the rules). Case 80 was one that I got completely wrong. There are a few cases where the conclusion seems counterintutive and take some study to understand (particularly those where a boat seemingly in the wrong was let off).


Good advice. Most sailors are reasonable people, and a reasonable discussion will settle matters much of the time. Just be careful that you don't run afoul of rule 63.1(b) "Informing the Protestee". Last year at Charleston Race Week, I was on RC when the PRO from my course went looking for a boat to discuss an infraction. I warned him that the protest time limit was about to expire, and there was no guarantee that PC would extend the time limit should he decide to file. He missed the limit, but fortunately did not need to protest in the end.

Mike, from what I can tell, you appear to be doing things right - keep up the good work!

Regards,
Eric

Thanks Eric.

In all fairness, I'm sure the judges here are probably aware of Case 80 and would act accordingly. As you pointed out, it seems counterintuitive to give redress in this situation, because of the no fault of their own clause, but my sense is that ISAF acted that way to avoid RCs getting out of hand with these types of things.

When I read Case 80, I just said "Duh" and went on. I think that's because of all the experience (aka pain and suffering) that I went through for all those years trying to reel in the PROs around here as mentioned above. Again, the big problem here was usually the mid-course, closed, S/F lines (another pet peeve)...

As for protest time limits, you're again correct. We typically use 60 minutes from RC hitting the beach, but it's always important to watch this carefully. I make sure my boat hits the beach after all competitors. This is less of an issue with Hobies, much more of a concern with Optis or leadmines racing 2+ miles from the club, in light air, etc...

Every day is a learning experience, for all of us. I get asked rule questions all the time, especially about filing for redress, and I always tell them to file, within the time limit if possible (though not as important for redress). I think that's the fairest way to handle things.

The entire reason I started working RC (with PU) back in 1997 was because of all the things local RCs were doing wrong, mainly because they didn't know any better (and honestly, partially because of egos).

Mike