I do a lot of handicap (PHRF) racing and a common post-race discussion topic is how the particular wind + sea state conditions favored some boats over others within our class. Usually that's used as an excuse for why we got beaten but I was curious if this were ever taken to extremes, could it be used as grounds to request redress? For example if a race has low attendance then the PHRF classes may have a wide variety of boats, with some bigger cruising boats and smaller sportboats. In that case there are definitely conditions where one style of boat would have a significant advantage. It seems like the disadvantaged boats would have their scores made significantly worse through no fault of their own thus meeting the condition for redress under 61.4b. However I think one would have to argue that the particular class breaks are an improper action by the organizers under 61.4b1. Could such an argument ever have merit?
It would have been in the. Nor and the boat chose to enter. So fault?
I suppose if the bias were malicious and sufficiently egregious and blatant, it might just shade into misconduct under RRS69, although it seems a stretch. Maybe if there were significant cash prizes. But otherwise I agree with Michael, this is the nature of the game. Every -or at least most- dog has its day. Its not an improper action to set class splits or even courses that favour some boats over others for handicap events, indeed its pretty much impossible to avoid.
As both a competitor under IRC and race official, I have no issue with conditions in some races favouring one type of boat over another, but in a series running over the course of a year, expect that every boat will have its day, provided the race official follows the guidance of setting a variety of courses.
What can be an issue is the safety argument: on a day with marginal conditions, heavy boats could compete safely and do well but the race organisers abandon races because it is perceived to be unsafe for light boats (though some do cope well), and in light conditions, the light boats are favoured.
There's an inherent contradiction in all these measurement handicapping rules which the administrators seem reluctant to acknowledge in public. The whole point of a measurement handicap rule is that a fast boat is handicapped so that it races equally with a slow boat. And by and large it says in such rules that if something unexpected comes along they are allowed, even required, to deliver up a correction more or less immediately. But the contradiction is that a subset of owners and designers (maybe not so much the rule writers) want the rule to encourage development and innovation, and they see it as a kind of competition between designers and rule writers to find loopholes, and if they find a loophole they should be allowed to exploit it, at least until the end of the season. But if the rule administrators are doing their job "perfectly" then loopholes would be plugged as soon as theboat is measured, let along raced. And plugging loopholes immediately is in the best interests of the majority of the fleet, who've signed up for fair handicaps.This row when someone comes up with a loophole that's promptly stamped on happens time and time again, and its because the administrators are always seeking to make their rules all things to all men and it just can't be done.
Here in the Chesapeake Bay, PHRF is controlled by PHRF of the Chesapeake and the PHRF-splits are predetermined at the start of each season. Therefore, a boat knows what PHRF-fleet they will be racing in at the time of entry. I would argue that is a key piece of information in the "decision to race".
Now, it is common for the NOR to state that fleets might be combined depending upon number of entries. That is very common in the PHRF B/C fleets as those numbers have dwindled over the past 20 years. Often an NOR will state this possibility.
So, IMO, if an OA intends that the RC will make PHRF-splits on-the-fly that differ than the established region splits ... then the NOR should have a statement that says exactly that ... and give a time/date that this information will be posted so that a boat can decide whether or not to compete. In doing so, I would suggest a statement added to such an NOR, "This changes Appx J1.1(4)."
PS: In other words ... it's a bit meaningless to state that PHRF A, B classes are invited to enter if the split between them or the rating-range they encompass is undefined or subject to last-min change.
For instance .. the AYC Wed Night Series has a single PHRF class ... but that is how it is described in the NOR. Other NOR's will list PHRF A, B/C for instance ... where others will have PHRF A1, A2/A3, PHRF B/C ... indicating separate fleet for A1, but combined A2/A3 and B/C PHRF fleets (and no D-fleet).
These distinctions are meaningless if the line between them and their bounds can be changed.
Not all RC improper actions/omissions are redressable ... but I do think an OA/RC can fail to meet the requirements of J1.1(4) if they don't carefully (and peoperly) spell out what's going to happen with the fleet definitions and assignments.