Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
Party … (C)for a redress hearing under rule 61.4(b)(1): the body alleged to have made an improper action or improper omission; So whatever committee or authority that made the exclusion and the affected boat
However, a boat being affected by a request for redress doesn't make them a party on that hearing. As per RRS definition party, they become parties if they request redress or redress is requested for them (or a hearing is called to consider redress).
In this case the one requesting redress is a competitor. Will the competitor be a party on that hearing? Will the boat they intended to enter with be a party?
As per definition of Party The boat requesting for redress. Further if the redress is requested for an improper action or omission by a body, then in accordance with RRS 61.4 (b) (1), that body is also a party to the hearing. In this case (RRS 76.3) it is the Organizing Authority against whom the allegation of improper action / omission.
Just to clarify my question, RRS 76.3 mentions that a boat or a competitor may ask redress, the thing is that "competitor" is not listed in the RRS definition Party, so I'm not sure if they will be one.
One idea I had is to consider that the competitor can request redress for their boat (the same way a boat can ask redress for other boats) but that he can't request redress for himself. This way we can interpret RRS 76.3 in a way that is compatible with the definition party and with RRS 61.4(b)(1).
However, I wanted to see what other judges thought.
At first: Congrats to Joan, who has detected a gap in the rule!
Why do I think he's got a point?
RRS 76 rules on the exclusion of either a boat (i.e. the sailboat and the crew on board, see introduction) or a competitor (be it the helm or any crew member of a boat entering the event).
Now it becomes interesting:
RRS 76.3 states that both may request redress "a" boat or competitor that considers that the rejection or exclusion is improper or that it broke rule 76.2.
Nota bene: Literally, this would mean not only the excluded person or boat, but any boat or competitor of the entire event could request redress for the excluded boat or competitor.
And here we find the first inconsistancy of RRS 76.3 with RRS 61.1, because "a competitor who considers that a rejection or exclusion might be improper" is missing in the list in RRS 61.1.
Now, who's the party in the hearing? (Besides the body who made the exclusion decision, here we all agreed already.)
The definition "party" is clear: It's only the boat, not a single competitor.
My personal interpretation would be: Since any competitor is part of a boat, the request for redress by or for this competitor is affecting the boat, which I would interprete as "(a boat) for which redress is requested" according to the definition.
Thus, the boat which either is excluded, or one of her crew is excluded, would be party to the hearing (besides certainly the body who excluded her or him). Additionally: If another boat or competitor than the excluded one makes the request for redress, this boat would also become a party to the hearing, see definition party.
RRS 76.3 says 'Redress may be requested by a ... competitor ...'.
So the entitlement to request redress in RRS 76.3 is additional to the entitlement in RRS 61.1(a).
RRS 63.2 requires the protest committee to hear each protest or request... . So every request must be heard.
RRS 61.4(b) says 'A boat is entitled to redress... ' and RRS 61.4(c) says 'If a boat is entitled to redress, the protest committee shall make as fair an arrangement as possible ...'.
So the entitlement to be given redress is confined only to a 'boat'. If a competitor requests redress in accordance with RRS 76.3, the competitor cannot be given redress, only a boat associated with the competitor can be given redress.
So the boat associated with the competitor is 'a boat for which redress is requested' and, in accordance with RRS Definition Party, that boat is a party to the redress hearing.
@Joan Noguera, issues brought out by you regarding the competitor asking for redress is, in my opinion, has been rightly addressed by Frank and Allan. I agree to the logic put across by them.
I'm not sure if it's something that needs fixing, as far as I can see, with the way it's written now, there is no undesirable outcome. At the same time it manages to accomplish what it's there to do, so maybe "don't fix what ain't broken".
ad 1: If we come to the conclusion that the gap should be closed, I can do that.
ad 2: We really should think how to keep it as easy and short as possible. There is a difference between 61.1(a) and 76.3. You could change each one of these two. For rules simplicity, I tend to change 76.3. For saveguarding the rights of an excluded person, I would tend to change 61.1(a), and I am with you in your #3.
If we consider that rights are more important than simplicity, we might follow that path. In real life, I think we would not cut the rights of a person too much if we limit the right to request redress to boats. Remember: Any boat of the fleet is allowed to request the redress.
Frank .. just tagging the change-areas (if we decide it is worth proceeding with a submission). I think as we step through these individual rules .. one might conclude .. yea .. this should be submitted .. as the language of 61 is also pretty restrictive in the context of actions against a competitor themselves.
Def: Party (b) -> change "for a redress hearing: a boat [or competitor] requesting redress ..
Rule 61.1(a) -> change "a boat [or competitor] may .. "
Rule 61.4(b) -> change "A boat [or competitor] is entitled ... "
Rule 61.4(c) -> change "If a boat [or competitor] is entitled to ... "
Joan .. I hear what you are saying .. but it's only words on a page. IMO there is no reason to persist ambiguity once one is aware of it.
Several of the Codes (that are made a rule) are focused on the competitor, independent from affiliation to a boat (Eligibility, Advertising, Doping, Ethics, etc) .. so making it clear that a competitor can request redress has value IMO. Actually .. that list of Codes is a good argument against my #3 above .. limiting it to only RRS 76).
Terminology says a boat is “A sailboat and the crew on board, that are subject to the rules.” How can a competitor, who is a person who races or intends to race in the event, be a competitor if they are not part of the crew on board, and if they are not part of the crew onboard, how can they be excluded? If they are part of the crew on board they are covered by the term “boat”.
Mark .. Good questions and comments. So is it a competitor-boat combo that makes a single entity?
I think the question is begged based upon the wording of RRS 76 .. where a competitor, independent of the boat, can be excluded. It seems to me it is the rule itself that is drawing the distinction.
Mark, I think the only difference would be if a body excludes a specific person, but not the boat as a whole. So the boat would be able to enter with another person as helm, navigator, bow man, etc..
In this case, the right of the person to challenge the exclusion could be appropriate.
Given that redress can only be given to a boat, and the condition is that the boats place or score may be significantly worsened, i think it would make more sense to delete 'or competitor' in ŔRS 76.3.
Here is a recent example of excluding competitors that you may have encountered.
Until amended, the organizing authority will abide by World Sailing policy, which excludes from competition boats, competitors and support persons who register as citizens of or in any way represent the Republic of Belarus (BLR) or the Russian Federation (RUS) MNAs.
To Mark's example, I might add the possibility that a competitor might refuse to sign a waiver as a condition of entry that requires that the competitor "indemnify" or "hold harmless" the Organizing Authority, Race Committee, or other event personnel. This is in contravention of rule 81, which is a US Sailing Prescription.
Clark ... there are many other examples one can come up with when stepping through the Codes especially, where an OA/RC misinterprets/applies a Code against a person on a competitor-basis.
(C)for a redress hearing under rule 61.4(b)(1): the body alleged to have made an improper action or improper omission;
So whatever committee or authority that made the exclusion and the affected boat
However, a boat being affected by a request for redress doesn't make them a party on that hearing.
As per RRS definition party, they become parties if they request redress or redress is requested for them (or a hearing is called to consider redress).
In this case the one requesting redress is a competitor. Will the competitor be a party on that hearing? Will the boat they intended to enter with be a party?
The boat requesting for redress. Further if the redress is requested for an improper action or omission by a body, then in accordance with RRS 61.4 (b) (1), that body is also a party to the hearing.
In this case (RRS 76.3) it is the Organizing Authority against whom the allegation of improper action / omission.
Just to clarify my question, RRS 76.3 mentions that a boat or a competitor may ask redress, the thing is that "competitor" is not listed in the RRS definition Party, so I'm not sure if they will be one.
One idea I had is to consider that the competitor can request redress for their boat (the same way a boat can ask redress for other boats) but that he can't request redress for himself. This way we can interpret RRS 76.3 in a way that is compatible with the definition party and with RRS 61.4(b)(1).
However, I wanted to see what other judges thought.
Any thoughts on this?
Why do I think he's got a point?
RRS 76 rules on the exclusion of either a boat (i.e. the sailboat and the crew on board, see introduction) or a competitor (be it the helm or any crew member of a boat entering the event).
Now it becomes interesting:
RRS 76.3 states that both may request redress "a" boat or competitor that considers that the rejection or exclusion is improper or that it broke rule 76.2.
Nota bene: Literally, this would mean not only the excluded person or boat, but any boat or competitor of the entire event could request redress for the excluded boat or competitor.
And here we find the first inconsistancy of RRS 76.3 with RRS 61.1, because "a competitor who considers that a rejection or exclusion might be improper" is missing in the list in RRS 61.1.
Now, who's the party in the hearing? (Besides the body who made the exclusion decision, here we all agreed already.)
The definition "party" is clear: It's only the boat, not a single competitor.
My personal interpretation would be: Since any competitor is part of a boat, the request for redress by or for this competitor is affecting the boat, which I would interprete as "(a boat) for which redress is requested" according to the definition.
Thus, the boat which either is excluded, or one of her crew is excluded, would be party to the hearing (besides certainly the body who excluded her or him).
Additionally: If another boat or competitor than the excluded one makes the request for redress, this boat would also become a party to the hearing, see definition party.
Does that sound reasonable?
Thank you, Frank!
RRS 61.1(a) says 'A boat may request redress'.
RRS 76.3 says 'Redress may be requested by a ... competitor ...'.
So the entitlement to request redress in RRS 76.3 is additional to the entitlement in RRS 61.1(a).
RRS 63.2 requires the protest committee to hear each protest or request... . So every request must be heard.
RRS 61.4(b) says 'A boat is entitled to redress... ' and RRS 61.4(c) says 'If a boat is entitled to redress, the protest committee shall make as fair an arrangement as possible ...'.
So the entitlement to be given redress is confined only to a 'boat'. If a competitor requests redress in accordance with RRS 76.3, the competitor cannot be given redress, only a boat associated with the competitor can be given redress.
So the boat associated with the competitor is 'a boat for which redress is requested' and, in accordance with RRS Definition Party, that boat is a party to the redress hearing.
I agree to the logic put across by them.
Gordon a while back suggested that the forum should collaborate on submissions that seem obvious. This one is straight forward enough.
I'm not sure if it's something that needs fixing, as far as I can see, with the way it's written now, there is no undesirable outcome. At the same time it manages to accomplish what it's there to do, so maybe "don't fix what ain't broken".
ad 2: We really should think how to keep it as easy and short as possible. There is a difference between 61.1(a) and 76.3. You could change each one of these two. For rules simplicity, I tend to change 76.3. For saveguarding the rights of an excluded person, I would tend to change 61.1(a), and I am with you in your #3.
If we consider that rights are more important than simplicity, we might follow that path.
In real life, I think we would not cut the rights of a person too much if we limit the right to request redress to boats. Remember: Any boat of the fleet is allowed to request the redress.
Any further ideas?
That's what I found at first pass.
Several of the Codes (that are made a rule) are focused on the competitor, independent from affiliation to a boat (Eligibility, Advertising, Doping, Ethics, etc) .. so making it clear that a competitor can request redress has value IMO. Actually .. that list of Codes is a good argument against my #3 above .. limiting it to only RRS 76).
I think the question is begged based upon the wording of RRS 76 .. where a competitor, independent of the boat, can be excluded. It seems to me it is the rule itself that is drawing the distinction.
In this case, the right of the person to challenge the exclusion could be appropriate.
Here is a recent example of excluding competitors that you may have encountered.
Until amended, the organizing authority will abide by World Sailing policy, which excludes from competition boats, competitors and support persons who register as citizens of or in any way represent the Republic of Belarus (BLR) or the Russian Federation (RUS) MNAs.
Ang