Here is a philosophical question. Here is the rule:
60.2 Intention to Protest- If a protest concerns an incident observed by the protestor in the racing area:
- If the protestor is a boat, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and, if her hull length is longer than 6 metres, conspicuously display a red flag, at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing.
If it makes sense that a simple hail of "protest" is sufficient notice of intention to protest in a 5.5 meter boat, what is the rationale for why it insufficient in a boat 6 meters and greater?
A redflag generally means a protest, if seen as it should be you can take a penalty.
I like the flag, as a protest committeeit is easyif you gave flown it.
To me optimists and other small singlehanded boats had developed simple ways of displaying flags.
I agree the size distinction is not justifiable.
All boats should display flags if it was my call.
Secund thing, imagine a TP52 race with a lot of noise onboard due to the fact of carbone structure, do you really think you could hear « protest » !
As to Didier's question: kodak film cannisters, under the boom. But we don't use film anymore ...
1. A boat should know if she has broken a rule.
2. A boat that has broken a rule is required to take a penalty even if there is no hail or flag.
3. It therefore follows that to only take a penalty if and after the protest notification requirements have been met is at the least verging on unsportsmanlike conduct.
4. Given a really strict and literal interpretation of 44.2 it could be held that the time interval for hearing a hail and seeing a flag exceeds the delay permissable for starting to get clear of other boats, and therefore makes the alternate penalty invalid.
My own view is less extreme. I find it unacceptable that a failure to follow procedure precisely on the part of the injured party should constitute a get-out-of-gaol-free for the guilty, but it could justify a PC imposing a lesser penalty than disqualification.
I'd like to respond point by point.
The RRS don't deal with what a boat 'should' do: they state what a boat is required or entitled to do.
It is not a breach of sportsmanship for a boat or competitor to not know or not understand a rule. There may be consequences but there is no obligation.
It may be that a boat will not necessarily know that she has broken a rule. Consider Case 50. A port tack boat can cut it fine, and the helm may be concentrating on steering. They may not know whether the starboard tack boat changed course or not. The port tacker may believe that there was no reasonable apprehension of collision, and the starboard tacker may believe the conntrary: it will be up to the protest committee to determine reasonableness.
This is referring to RRS 2. You can't possibly 'clearly establish' that a boat breached a principle of sportsmanship by not taking a penalty for breaking a rule if she doesn't know that she broke the rule in the first place.
If it's 'verging' on unsportsmanlike conduct then it is not clearly established and RRS 2 is not broken.
I heartily dislike attempts to turn RRS 44, which is permissive, or grants an entitlement: 'a boat may take [an on-water] penalty ...' into an obligation that a boat must take a penalty, by the route of RRS 2.
See my other post: I don't agree that a strict and literal interpretation of RRS 44.2 means 'instantly'.
Here's some history
Red Flag
Prior to 1961(?) the purpose of the red flag was to inform other boats that a boat was 'sailing under protest'. The red flag was the primary means of signifying this information, and was required, at least since 1947, to be displayed at the first reasonable opportunity.
Up to 1985, the requirement to inform the protestee orally was ancilliary and was not time limited: Rule 68 merely provided A protesting yacht shall try to inform the yacht she intends to protest that a protest will be lodged.
My personal recall is that in the late 1960s/early 1970s, at least by convention, for Lasers, a white handkerchief was acceptable in lieu of he red flag.
I'm not sure when the under size dispensation for dinghies was introduced, but I recall that it was originally 20 feet, which was exactly the loa of a Flying Dutchman.
The argument for introducing the dispensation was that for trapeze or solo boats it was impractical to display the flag without delay after an incident in manuy cases
Hail
The requirement for an immediate hail was introduced in 1985 in support of taking on-water penalties, which were introduced at that time as 'alternative penalties'.
The 1985 rules added the requirement for an immediate hail: A protesting yacht shall try to inform the yacht she intends to protest that a protest will be lodged. When an alternative penalty is prescribed in the sailing instructions, she shall hail the other yacht immediately.
The requirement that the hail include the word 'Protest' was introduced in the 1995 rewrite.
The hail thus became the primary means of informing the protestee, or perhaps better said the means of informing the protestee became the hail and flag together [at the first reasonable opportunity for each].
The requirement that the hail include the word 'Protest' was introduced in the 1995 rewrite.
Considering the background it is clear that the ONLY purpose of the hail of 'protest' is to facilitate the taking of a penalty.
Practicalities
In a small solo or trapeze boat it is often impractical to display a red flag without delay and continue to sail the boat to advantage. Incidents will usually take place at fairly low relative speeds between boats so that it will be usual for a hail to be readily heard.
For larger boats, it is usually quite possible to display a red flag immediately after an incident without affecting the performance of the boat. Larger boats may have greater speeds of separation after an incident so that it may be impractical to repeat an indistinct hail, and confirmation by the display of the red flag us useful. A protestee may be unsure that they have heard a hail of protest, but the red flag may assist them to make the decision to take an on-water penalty.
Protests were extremely rare. It was unusual to have a protest at a Championship .
Few people carried a red flag.
The red flag requirement served only to discourage protests and discredit the rules enforcement process.
And yes, we were lectured just as much then about how easy it was to carry and display a flag, and how it wasn't a pointless bureaucratic imposition, but the plain fact is that flags weren't carried, the rule was strongly resented, it did absolutely nothing to make the sport better and the removal of the requirement was arguably the best rule change of the era.
68. Should the owner of any Canoe duly entered for a Race consider that he has fair ground for complaint against another Canoe for foul sailing during the Race, or for any 'violation of the Club Rules, he must signify the same to the Racing Committee or Officer of the day on the first opportunity. The protest shall be made in writing, and delivered to the Racing Committee or Officer of the day within two hours after the arrival of the protesting Canoe at the winning post; and a sum of 5s shall be lodged with each Protest, which amount will be forfeited to the Club, provided the Protest is adjudged to be frivolous. The Racing Committee or Officer of the day shall, after hearing such evidence as they or he may think necessary, decide the Protest, and such decision shall be final unless they or he think fit, on the application of one of the parties—or otherwise—to refer the question at issue for the decision of the Committee of the Club. No Member of Committee shall take part in the decision upon any disputed question in which he is directly interested. In all cases in which a protest is lodged on the ground of foul sailing, evidence of actual contact, such as collision or grounding, shall be necessary to substantiate the Protest. The Racing Committee or Officer Of the day may, without Protest, disqualify any Canoe which to their or his knowledge has committed a breach of the Rules.
So the OA was asking Judges/Umpires to give them refereed racing. Were you OK with that?
So what? If you were satisfied that they took an on-water penalty you could withdraw the committee protest, or if not immediately satisfied, go ahead with a hearing and maybe conclude that they had taken an applicable penalty and not penalise them further.
Only if the NOR/SI have switched off RRS D2.1(b) which always requires a red flag.
Don't your team racers have red flags sewed into the cuffs of their sailing shirts?
If the hail is incorrect (NOT FIRST) or the flag slow then we are quick to say the protest is invalid.
We are less harsh on late penalties being taken, though there do not often come before a protest committee
I don't think I have ever declared a protest invalid because there was a hail of 'protest' around about the time of the incident, but that it was a few seconds too late.
My experience has been that late hails have been distinctly delayed, say until the next cross or mark rounding or after finishing.
There are numerous helpful cases and appeals about display of flag at the first reasonable opportunity, but as far as I can recall, the only case about delay in a protest hail is USA Appeal US122 The “first reasonable opportunity” to hail “Protest” is the first reasonable time after an incident when a boat is able to hail “Protest,” which is usually immediately.
I think the reason for this is that disputes about timeliness of hails are rarely prosecuted on appeal.
Neither 'immediately', 'promptly' nor 'at the first reasonable opportunity' mean 'instantly'.
I hope we have got rid of the idea, that got some currency a few years ago, that 'protest' needed to be the first word spoken. 'Do your turns, Protest', or 'You hit me, Protest' are quite acceptable.
I don't think there is any justification for thinking that a delay of a few seconds (say less than 5 or 10) is unreasonable or not immediate.
As to any inconsistency between hail of 'protest' and a boat beginning to 'sail well clear', the time between an incident and a hail is readily measurable, an umpire or judge (or experienced competitor) in the right spot can fairly readily tell if a protestee, say in a 'sandwich' coming off a starting line, is getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible, it might be difficult for a protesting boat to assemble good evidence, particularly against a crafty competitor who it trying to get well clear but not trying too hard. The getting clear can be a quite extended process, say up to a minute or more, compared with the instantaneity of a hail of 'protest'. That's just the way it is.
Until being the wrong side of it.
Racing assym dinghy in f5-6. Speed greater than 10 knots and high angles - the small boat less separation thing was not really valid!
We passed behind on port. Heard nothing.
Apparently there was contact between our spinnaker and the hiking helm (well aft) which we didn’t see.
Had we known then we’d have spun.
We lost the protest (no requirement to be heard just to hail).
Ever since I’ve been of the belief that flags should be back in.
While I like Jim’s point that generally a boat knows it has infringed and that there should not be procedural blocks to enforcement, for me the greater evil is a boat in the situation above not having the opportunity to exonerate because it does not know there is a protest.
Nice last name btw…
That in turn ..
-> feeds-back into the system of reduced protests,
-> that tends to increase the likelihood someone will break a rule "on the margins" and take risks (thinking that they will "get away with it"),
-> over time that tends to grow those margins
-> that over time deteriorates fair competition in fleet racing.
I wonder if it would be worth suggesting to some OA's, as an experiment in some regattas, to change RRS 60.2 and remove the flag requirement, keep the hail .. and see how it goes over time.
It might be that we have happier customers who feel better about the process.
I found a protest invalid in offshore yachts where protest was not hailed. I written complaint as made to the club commodore.
I reflected later, and decided especially with large yachts, they are out of effective range.
I accept protests otherwise notified at the first reasonable opportunity.
Perhaps we should use this more often.?
Helps for fast boats to.
Of no assistance to the boat protested againnst.
And we might well have seen it at the leeward mark.
The guess this instance skews my view somewhat: it made diddly squat difference to our national championship result 4th but led to another boat (a witness but not a party) being promoted from sixth to fifth.
We felt very bad for the sixth placed boat.
This is no longer true, at least in the US. If a boat breaks a rule and does not take a penalty, but the fouled boat says "do you turns" instead of "protest", then the boat does not get a penalty for breaking the rule.
If a protest committee find they broke a rule and penalizes them, it will overturned on appeal.
On the issue of not spinning unless one hears a hail, I could argue that "as soon after the incident as possible" in rule 44.2 is always later than "at the first reasonable opportunity" in rule 60.2, given that hailing is so much easier than getting well clear. So in an incident with no contact where there's uncertainty about whether a rule was broken, a boat that doesn't spin until she hears a hail is, IMO, complying with rule 2.
Interesting. I put it the other way interpreting "as soon ... as possible" approximating to "pretty much immediate unless circumstances are difficult". Just goes to show the difficulties of rule writing I suppose.
"As soon as" is arguably problematic for the precautionary penalty, where a boat does not believe she broke a rule, but takes a penalty anyway. Such a penalty cannot be initiated until another boat has communicated her belief a rule has been broken. I doubt anyone would argue against it being legitimate to delay taking a penalty until after an immediate dialogue between boats has happened and the crew has time to evaluate the rule situation, but that doesn't seem to be what the rule says. Unless, I suppose, its considered that a dialogue between boats including a protest hail is part of the incident.
Maybe that's where improvement can be made (or a better club-level experiment through RRS 60.2 changes in the SI's).
When there is no obvious/audible contact, the alleged offending boat might not "have a clue" ... so we keep the hail + flag.
However, if there is audible or obvious contact between boats, both boats should be keenly aware that:
In that instance, allow it to be a hail-only for validity.
Currently of course, RRS 60.2(c) alleviates both the flag and hail requirements when "serious damage" or crew danger/injury is "obvious". That combination is a high bar.
PS:
I'm just thinking that maybe, at club-level, we work a little more to meet our competitors where they are. The red-flag seems to be a consistent impediment to validity and whatever we are doing to educate isn't sinking-in well enough to get them to change their behavior.
Though I agree it's on the boat 100%, we can't control the impression it leaves in the club-racer's mind ... and how that impression is shared with others throughout the club-racing community.
In the end, their failure to fly the flag tarnishes the entire process in their minds, especially when the incident involved contact and was obvious to both boats.
I've heard it over and over and over again.
As the boat if they knew they had broken a rule, and perhaps would they have taken a penalty if they had heard the word protest.
If the reply yes, the PC proceed as a rule 2.
Pitty it has to be dne I used to like the option of dsq.
The WS RulesComm actually took it the opposite direction in the last quad, removing them from being a rule as they were in previous quads
Def: rule(a) - 2025