Safety SIs in Conflict with Rule 4 - No hearing |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123> |
Author | |||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1144 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 05 Jun 15 at 3:07pm |
||
I agree with Jim's views that a small club running a rule 69 hearing is probably going to get a better result than a small club doing arbitrary disqualifications without a hearing by the race committee. People shouldn't be scared of using rule 69 at club level: its a very flexible rule, starting with the pre-hearing decision by the protest committee whether to hold a hearing at all, and going through to the wide range of sanctions ranging from warning to exclusion.
Sargesail has pointed ou a real potential problem. There are people who just like to boss other people around and who sometimes seem hungry for written authority to do so. Sadly, some of these people seem to have an uncanny knack of making unwise decisions which they then impose on others. As I said in a previous post it is not reasonable, in this litigious era, to advise clubs and organising authorities that they should not attempt to supervise and direct competitors at their events. If a club or organising authority feels the need, I don't think there is much harm in a SI saying aht boats are required to comply with [reasonable] instructions by race officials. This means that any breach can be dealt with as a simple protest hearing. It would be nice if there was also provision for the protest committee to give a discretionary penalty, or even a warning instead of a penalty, for breach of this SI. This may be more convenient than relying on the RYA Misconduct Guidance and the rule 69 process. I would certainly NOT, however, agree with penalisation by the race committee without a hearing. Investigating an alleged breach of this nature will often involve non-straightforward fact finding, which race committees are not organised or qualified to undertake, and judgement of reasonableness and severity which race committee members may well be partial or biased in making. Such matters are best dealt with by a protest committee, independent of the race committee, and following the protest processes contained in the RRS. If this involves the race committee in requirements for informing the protestee and preparing and presenting a case in a protest hearing, then this is probably a good thing. I have to say that I don't favour 'less formal' processes. In particular, I don't like the idea of a protest committee or its members taking competitors aside and having 'little chats' with them. The RRS give protest committees and judges no such powers. Such 'little chats' may involve reprimands or threats as to future actions which the RRS do not countenance in any way. The proper protection of fairness to competitors depends on following the proper processes laid down in the RRS.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6644 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
I've run an R69 hearing at a smallish club. Its not that big a deal. And you have far more backstop than for any other hearing so in many ways it's the lowest risk. As a PC if you have any doubts at all you can just refer your decision to the RYA, and tell the competitors that, and in any case if you issue any penalty other than a finger wagging its going to go to the RYA anyway. The only thing the PC *has* to get right is to get all the facts as fairly as possible, which isn't that hard. Smart money is that for most R69 hearings the end result is going to be that the PC says "don't be such a silly *** and don't do it again." If they do anything stupid the RYA will reverse it and sort things out. The main thing is to ensure that your PC is at a distance from your race team, which isn't that hard to manage. The PC should be able to tell quite easily whether its something minor or potentially major, and if its potentially major, like, I dunno, a fist fight on the launch ramp or something then consider not holding it on the day if you're not happy about the PC quality. There's excellent guidance from the RYA here. http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/RaceOfficials/Resource%20Centre/Best%20Practice%20Guidelines%20Policies/Rule%2069%20Guidance%20for%20Race%20Officials.pdf These paras, from the youth appendix for instance, make it clear that there it is possible to deal with things a little less formally than a full hearing:-
And from Appendix K
The one I was involved with was an allegation of bad language after a collision at a youth event. In the end we were not comfortably satisfied about what words had been used and took no action. The amusing followup was that the competitor's mother told me afterwards that she thought it highly unlikely the competitor would have used the words in question, but would have been unsurprised if the language used had been much worse than alleged! Edited by JimC - 04 Jun 15 at 1:15pm |
|||
![]() |
|||
piglet ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 04 Jan 07 Online Status: Offline Posts: 514 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
I'm with Sargesail on this, though Brass is spot-on in his break down.
It doesn't happen often but happen it does and if the only justification lies in 1 line of the R69 guidance notes,,,,,,,,,,
Fine at big regattas where all the sailors can sail and all the officials know their stuff.
But at club & small open AND club hosting small open level, we all rely on volunteers who have varied experience and rules knowledge. The thought of a small club running a R69 hearing when possibly some socially unskilled youth has p!$$ed them off doesn't inspire.
My thanks to Brass though for taking the time, I would never have worked it out.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1144 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Sailing is a game we play for fun isn't it?
It's hardly a good venue to be pontificating about the rights of the subject. As I've said, it's my opinion that the SI you have quoted doesn't amount to contradicting rule 4. In this litigious age you can hardly expect the RYA to tell organising authorities that they are not allowed to supervise and direct event participants. How likely is it that this SI will cause you and your sailors problems?
To put the issue another way, surely you're not going off to a regatta with the specific intention of disobeying some instruction by a race official? Sure, it's worth thinking about for a few minutes, but surely it's not going to keep you away from the regatta? So this is all an empty issue unless and until you or your sailors are penalised. You are concerned that despite the SI not expressly saying so, the race committee might implement the SI by imposing a penalty without a hearing. So you have some grounds to argue that penalisation without a hearing was an improper action. I would quite like this approach. Protest Committees tend to be a bit jealous of their powers, particularly if you could raise doubt of the reasonableness of the instruction. I also note that the SI deals differently with:
So if there was penalisation without a hearing, then you might question whether the instruction was a 'safety instruction': if it was not, there's no basis for penalisation without a hearing. Further, (contrary to my view) you have decided that the SI is invalid because it changes rule 4
I'll bet that the NOR doesn't say rule 4 will be changed either (rule J1.2(1)) Given that 'disqualification from the Championships' implies the exclusion of a competitor and the cancellation of an entry after the start of the first race, the SI appears to contradict rule 76.1, which it does not identify as being changed, and therefore does not validly change. So you have some grounds to argue in a redress hearing that the SI is wholly invalid. Thirdly, you could argue that the direction given was unreasonable and therefore should not have been obeyed in any case. The success of this ground would depend on the circumstances. If you really wanted to concentrate the mind of the Race Committee on the issue, you could submit some written questions to the race committee and the protest committee, asking the following:
|
|||
![]() |
|||
sargesail ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 14 Jan 06 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1459 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Thanks again Brass. I'm going to the event with those SIs.....thankfully not with my young crews! So this has a practical purpose and its that last sentence that worries me.....especially as the sort of club member that drafts SIs is often the sort that sits on the PC. But forgive me this little niggle and put me right as required: It appears instructive to see what preceded the current rules 'Old rule 1.3 originally said that 'All yachts entered or racing shall be subject to the direction and control of the race committee' I can see the logic of how the SIs can take affect, and I can also see that it's perhaps not necessary given Brass' citation of 'the RYA Misconduct Reference Guide for Officials identifies 'Deliberately disobeying the reasonable instructions of officials' as misconduct subject to Level 0 to 5 penalisation (after a rule 69 hearing).' But when I go back and re-read the RRS I still struggle with Rule 4 and directing a boat to stop racing. Surely in placing the responsibility on the boat: 4 DECISION TO RACE
The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to
continue racing is hers alone. the RRS also confer a freedom on the boat (intentionally or not). The flip side of RRS4 is that the only way to stop a boat racing other than its own decision to retire is to finish it, have a general recall, postpone or abandon: Racing A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and
clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee
signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment. Now I agree that the RC ought to have the power to make a 'reasonable instruction to retire', but I can't see how that is actually possible given that RRS 4 is unmodifiable. Unless the reasonable instruction is to 'decide to retire.'
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1144 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
I've heard a story that when Race Signals AP/N over H was being introduced in the 1995 rewrite, it was originally proposed to mean 'Race postponed/abandoned: Return to Harbour', but it was considered that the Race Committee did not have the power to give such a direction to competitors.
Edited by Brass - 04 Jun 15 at 12:01am |
|||
![]() |
|||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1144 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1144 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
As I said in my first post in this thread
A Sailing Instruction is a rule (Definitions: Rule). Boats by participating in a race agree to be bound by the rules (rule 3) If a protest committee concludes that a boat has broken a rule she shall be penalised (rule 64.1). As I also said before, I would expect a protest committee to be inferring a requirement of reasonableness in the direction, so if the reason you advanced for disobeying was that the instruction was unreasonable, and you convinced the protest committee, you might be off the hook. On the other hand you might strike a protest committee with the same authoritarian attitude as the race committee that wrote the SI. Edited by Brass - 03 Jun 15 at 11:14pm |
|||
![]() |
|||
Rupert ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 11 Aug 04 Location: Whitefriars sc Online Status: Offline Posts: 8956 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
We certainly have a rule where we can abandon racing and call every one in off the water, which is what I assume is what a warden can do, but as far as I know, all we can do is advise individuals. At some point, though, especially in winter, I would expect to be able to over rule someone who I suspected was too cold to make rational decisions.
|
|||
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
|||
![]() |
|||
andymck ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 15 Dec 06 Location: Stamford Online Status: Offline Posts: 397 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
What about Club rules and bye laws.
Most notices of race make you a member of the organising club for the duration of the event. At our club we have to obey the instructions of the warden who has the right to close the water for safety reasons. If you break the club rules you can be asked to leave. Interestingly we do not have a rule regarding the safety boat cover, apart from that they are not rescue boats. Andy |
|||
Andy Mck
|
|||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |