You have a point.

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



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


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.


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...


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.



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.

Eric,
Lets say all things are equal when it comes to facts in the protest room. Starboard claims they had alter course. Port claims there was no need. A very close call when you look at all other circumstances. No witnesses. You cannot rule as a tie. What is the ruling? And why?

red herring

Applying the rules is the easy part of a protest hearing. The hard part is figuring out what actually took place on the water. The parties usually give conflicting reports. That doesn't mean anybody's evading responsibility - different people see things from different perspectives and can honestly tell different stories.

When faced with irreconcilable testimony, poor protest committees will often declare that they cannot determine what happened and dismiss the protest. A good protest committee will keep digging until they find something that sways their judgement one way or the other. Rule 63.6 states (in part) "The committee shall then find the facts and base its decision on them". PC must find the facts.

Protest committee can just keep questioning the parties and witnesses until some telling piece of information pops out. Sometimes, it boils down to which boat had the better view of an incident. Other times, one party will simply tell his story more believably than the other. It's very important to present your testimony as clearly and factually as you can.

Protest committees cherish hard data (distances, speeds, times, etc.). The committee can use them to place boats more precisely. Boatspeeds and distances are notoriously difficult to estimate accurately, however, and are hard to get without instrumentation. Times on the other hand, are easier to guage. If you start counting ("one-thousand one, one-thousand two...") as you approach another boat, you can give PC accurate times between maneuvers. The committee can then determine boat speeds (yes, we have a calculator for that) and reconstruct an incident with greater confidence. PC is also more likely to trust you when you say "I counted x seconds" than "I'd guess we were going y knots".

Regards,
Eric

Lots of good points there Eric.

In the absence of witnesses and good data, many (most?) PCs will give it to STBD. It's harder to prove you didn't foul, especially since STBD typically has a much better view of the final half of the crossing.

Mike

purple tuna


and, besides, my post was totally relevant. You are recommending using the relationship of (movable) sails on a boat to determine it's angle and heading. It's a fallible idea - they move in relationship to the boat...

Also a point Jake has made in this thread yet he has been accused of cheating.

Green Goldfish

Is a GPS track considered admissable? At least that would show your altered course. Maybe if both boats had GPS you might be able to determine the closing distance and speed?

oh, wait... you can't use GPS in buoy stuff... Never mind.

Wow, all this about what's probalby the simplest rule to understand too.

Most, not all, sailors I've sailed with, or against have a great deal of integrity, and know for sure if they genuinely had to 'alter course', etc.
Usually if someone crosses ahead of you (cleanly), than it gives the crossed boat something to shoot for (pun not intended) on the next cross or mark rounding.

To me it's simple (LOL), if I'm S, and I had to alter course, I HAVE to hail protest if I expect them to do a circle.

If I'm P, and it looked TOO close and they altered some, etc., I do the cirle- part of the game.

It's about integrity of the self, the spirit.

There has been alot of great discussion here, by alot of very experienced skippers.

Carry on

Go get'em Mark.

For a one-on-one situation, in the situation you just described, I agree with you 100%.

My only issue comes when there was clearly no chance P would make the cross, or any time multiple boats are involved, that would result in P gaining an advantage by crossing instead of ducking the parade. Both of those situations start to smell of Rule 2.

Mike

And in that situaton if anyone feels rule 2 was violated... protest. Like it or not arbitrage (risk management) is very much a part of the game... any game!

If it means anything and I'm sure it doesn't, it's been my experience that the game is run pretty clean on the course even when the douchebag factor is significantly high. This stuff is small potatos boys. I'd be thrilled if I could work the scales without a pro sailor walking up with his soaking wet boat expecting to get weighed. Then instead of getting belligerent just walk away when he is told his boat isn't getting weighed today. Or, when a group of sailors stick a garden hose down their snuffer sock to soak their spinnakers before they come to the scales. Bullsh!t like that should earn them a ticket home IMO.

More excellent points...

Mike

If you witness such behavior, please report it to the protest committee. If PC believes that a competitor may have committed gross misconduct (and I would consider attempting to subvert the weighing procedure to constitute gross misconduct), then it may call a hearing under RRS 69. Trust me, nobody enjoys being involved in a rule 69 hearing.

And in that situaton if anyone feels rule 2 was violated... protest. Like it or not arbitrage (risk management) is very much a part of the game... any game!

I agree... about managing risk in the game.
I agree with Jeff about using the rules as part of the game.
I continue to make the point that arbitraging the rules is wrong. We agree the recourse is to PROTEST....(but if the sailors' mindset is that all of the rules are to be pushed... it will be ugly)
I agree with Todd's simple statement and emphasize the need to protest



And the only solution is to protest... and then for everyone adminsitering the game to grow a pair and toss a few offenders.... AND then send it up the chain to USSA or ISAF. I have also seen how hard that is for even the most experienced race officers with hard proof to go ahead and pull that trigger....

So... it's not easy by any means....

Arbitraging the rules... whether its port pushing the line on starbord... or soaking your spin sock... has a begining somewhere in your sailing career... IMO... it starts on the water and then extends over time to the crap you speak of.

You can count on it my friend!

I'm with you Ding.

I've done my share of weigh-ins and it amazes me the arrogance and crap that sailors try to pull off and then claim ignorance as a defense. Like, leaving wrenches (as in several) in the hulls, or weighing in with hydration backpacks full of liquid, or two jibs rolled up together, etc.

Tossing a team sure would make an example for the others.

THAT's dirty rotten. Rule 69 territory.