I don't think this is a validity issue. Validity is based upon a series of elements that must be satisfied. There isn't an "occurred in a race which was later abandoned" in 60.4.
The race is "voided" as far as scoring is concerned .. so any penalty will end up having no effect as long as the incident occurred while racing, but the hearing must proceed if the protest was delivered within the PTL.
If this incident occurred prior to the prep-signal .. and this was not the last race of the regatta ... would one apply any penalty to the next race of the regatta? .. since abandonment voids the race?
If a boat has broken a rule when not racing, her penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to the incident.
If a boat has broken a rule when not racing, her penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to the incident.
I haven't thought about this in the context of a regatta.
For club racing where the incident occurred at first or last race in a series I've had the view that the penalty should apply to the race in the previous or subsequent series (for which the boat was entered) as tested by simple comparison of dates and times.
I think for the last race in a regatta, the race nearest in time will be the preceding race.
A protest has to be heard if submitted. The committee must check validity before continuing to hear the Protest. The fact a race has been abandoned is not a reason to invalidate a protest. The reason for the protest is probably a final claim for redress. The problem the committee might have is if the protest ends up in a rule 2 with a DNE decision which race to apply the decision if any.
If the incident occurred before the Preparatory Signal, the boats were not racing and RRS 60.5(c) last sentence says a boat's penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to the incident.
If the incident occurred after the Preparatory Signal while boats were racing:
If the race is restarted or resailed RRS 60.5(c)(3) says a boat shall not be disqualified.
If the race is abandoned and not restarted or retailed no penalty applies.
Seriousness of damage makes no difference to the severity of a penalty unless the NOR/SI gives the protest committee discretion to give a penalty less than disqualification.
The parties are entitled to get a written decision in accordance with RRS 63.6(b) in any case.
John re: "If the race is restarted or resailed RRS 60.5(c)(3) says a boat shall not be disqualified."
In the context of an abandoned race in a regatta where subsequent races are completed, is the next race always a "resailling" of the previously abandoned race? (since the race is voided by abandonment?)
If not, how is the state of "resailed" determined and by what criteria?
In the context of an abandoned race in a regatta where subsequent races are completed, is the next race always a "resailling" of the previously abandoned race? (since the race is voided by abandonment?)
If not, how is the state of "resailed" determi...
I think 'restarted' is intended to refer to a race in progress that is abandoned by displayed flag N and 3 sounds, and the removing flag N with 1 sound and 1 minute later displaying the Warning Signal in accordance with RRS Race Signals Abandonment Signals N.
'Resailed' applies to a race that has been otherwise abandoned (N over A, N over H, or by notice from the race committee or decision of the protest committee) and is scheduled to be resaile at another time.
I think the purpose of the Protest is find facts . As the race was abandoned and no boats had a score for the race, presumably it is about facts found , and rules broken by either boat, with no penalty applied as no boats scored in the race. ??
According to the preamble to RRS Part 2: a boat not racing shall not be penalised for breaking one of these rules except rule 14 when the incident resulted in injury or serious damage. Another point: the PC may conclude that a boat broke a rule but cannot be penalised BUT that the other boat may be given redress (for instance due to damage preventing then from competing in a subsequent race).
Numbering of races can be controversial. I have always found that in a long series it is best to number the races in order of races completed, but add the date. This avoids the issue of having blank races and also allows to refer to a race as Race 3 or Thursday Race 7th May. An issue can arise in long-established classes in which a prize is given for instance for the second race of the third day of the Nationals. This causes problems when the donating dignitary turns up to present the prize for a race that has not yet been sailed!
The interest in having the protest hearing proceed could be high on the party with serious damage as it can be helpful with a subsequent insurance claim (obviously only if found to be in this party's favor). Curious - Why did the protest never materialize?
…. The owners decided to sort out damages by themselves. RYA prescriptions dictate that financial liability is not decided by a PC, but by court legislation. Tho any PC decision would probably be produced as evidence in any court case or insurance investigation. The facts were not disputed by the Parties.
On a related note, I had a protest last year that occurred after the Preparatory Signal but before the Starting Signal between boats on opposite tacks that resulted in serious damage. Neither boat started but the starboard tack boat protested. The protest form met the various validity requirements of RRS 60.4, but I asked myself why the starboard tack boat protested since the port tack boat had withdrawn. The answer was that although the event was in the USA and run according to US Sailing rules and prescriptions, the starboard tack boat (that suffered serious damage) was Canadian and was perhaps thinking of the Sail Canada Prescription to RRS 65.1: "Rule 65.1 – Legal Liability and Costs Sail Canada prescribes that a boat that has been found by a protest committee to have broken a rule and caused damage shall be considered at fault for the purposes of rule 65.1." This, of course, is in contrast to the US Sailing Prescription: "US Sailing prescribes that (a) A boat that retires from a race or accepts a penalty does not, by that action alone, admit liability for monetary damages. (b) A protest committee shall find facts and make decisions only in compliance with the rules. No protest committee or US Sailing appeal authority shall adjudicate any claim for monetary damages. Such a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. (c) A basic purpose of the rules is to prevent contact between boats. By participating in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for monetary damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules, and that she shall not 2 be governed by the legal doctrine of ‘assumption of risk’ for monetary damages resulting from contact with other boats." We found the protest valid and: - The port tack boat had broken rules 10 and 14; - The starboard tack boat had broken rule 14; and - Because both boats had withdrawn, no further penalty was assessed.
Clark .. I know the lawyers on the forum will pick the diff's .. but the US Rx basically says the same ..
"By participating in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for monetary damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules, and that she shall not 2 be governed by the legal doctrine of ‘assumption of risk’ for monetary damages resulting from contact with other boats."
I am fully aware that a PC ruling does not assign legal liability in the US. BUT - it is still a damn good piece of "evidence" that a PC found that your opponent broke the rules that both parties have agreed to follow by entering into the race; and that this was a significant factor in the damage incurred.
I think that the protestor thought that he would get a hearing decision that merely said that the port tack boat had broken RRS 10 that he could show to his insurance company. He didn't expect to get one that said that he also broke RRS 14, also a rule of Part 2. That, however, wasn't my problem. In the hearing, both boats admitted that they weren't keeping a lookout during the starting sequence. The RRS 14 decision for each of them was pretty easy.
Torruella J was emphatically of the view that a protest committee decision constituted a binding arbitration under US commercial arbitration law.
Thus, the CHARLES JOURDAN and the ENDEAVOUR were contractually bound to race by the rules of the road contained in the IYRRs, and to resolve issues related to fault for any collisions according to those rules. This is consistent with the long-established traditions and rules of conduct of this sport. See generally J. Rousmaniere, The Golden Pasttime: A New History of Yachting (1986). Moreover, there is a well-established public policy encouraging the private resolution of disputes through arbitration and other non-judicial forums. See Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.; Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 834, 130 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1995); Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 96 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1987); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 10, 104 S. Ct. 852, 858, 79 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1984). See also United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36, 108 S. Ct. 364, 369-70, 98 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1987) (labor disputes); Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V SKY REEFER, 29 F.3d 727 (1st Cir.) (COGSA), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 571, 130 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1994); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S. Ct. 2449, 41 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1974) (international arbitration agreements).
We also note that our decision here comports with Sec. 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which pointedly states that "[a] written provision in any maritime transaction ... to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of such ... transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable." These conditions exist here.9 Yacht racing is a maritime transaction, and the provisions of the IYRR establishing the racing rules and the protest procedures are in writing and binding on participants.
It’s interesting that the presiding Appeals Court judge, Juan Torruella, was an IJ from Puerto Rico, in addition to his day job. His decision did support the authority of PCs acting under the RRS in determining fault (& liability), and they have since been given deference in civil courts’ findings in the US, but it also supported the US prescription preventing US PCs from getting involved in assessing damages. Here is a pretty thorough article by Mary Pera describing the case and the ruling.
John M .. and importantly, the US Rx allow many of its Rx's to be changed in the race docs ... but not this one.
US Rx 88.2 US Sailing prescribes that the notice of race or sailing instructions may change or delete any prescriptions except: this prescription, Appendix R, the prescription to the preamble to Part 5, and the prescriptions to rules 65.1, 70.3(b) and 76.1.
The race is "voided" as far as scoring is concerned .. so any penalty will end up having no effect as long as the incident occurred while racing, but the hearing must proceed if the protest was delivered within the PTL.
If this incident occurred prior to the prep-signal .. and this was not the last race of the regatta ... would one apply any penalty to the next race of the regatta? .. since abandonment voids the race?
For club racing where the incident occurred at first or last race in a series I've had the view that the penalty should apply to the race in the previous or subsequent series (for which the boat was entered) as tested by simple comparison of dates and times.
I think for the last race in a regatta, the race nearest in time will be the preceding race.
If the incident occurred before the Preparatory Signal, the boats were not racing and RRS 60.5(c) last sentence says a boat's penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to the incident.
If the incident occurred after the Preparatory Signal while boats were racing:
Seriousness of damage makes no difference to the severity of a penalty unless the NOR/SI gives the protest committee discretion to give a penalty less than disqualification.
The parties are entitled to get a written decision in accordance with RRS 63.6(b) in any case.
Printed, framed and already hanging on the wall :-)
In the context of an abandoned race in a regatta where subsequent races are completed, is the next race always a "resailling" of the previously abandoned race? (since the race is voided by abandonment?)
If not, how is the state of "resailed" determined and by what criteria?
'Resailed' applies to a race that has been otherwise abandoned (N over A, N over H, or by notice from the race committee or decision of the protest committee) and is scheduled to be resaile at another time.
Sometimes NOR/SI say 'Abandoned races will not be resailed' or perhaps 'Abandoned races will be resailed on dddd'
OTOH, most scoring systems for weekly series just show a race as Abandoned and go on to the next race number. This avoids confusion.
Another point: the PC may conclude that a boat broke a rule but cannot be penalised BUT that the other boat may be given redress (for instance due to damage preventing then from competing in a subsequent race).
If the race is abandoned, RRS 36 applies and a boat may be penalised under RRS 36(b) for serious damage or injury.
An issue can arise in long-established classes in which a prize is given for instance for the second race of the third day of the Nationals. This causes problems when the donating dignitary turns up to present the prize for a race that has not yet been sailed!
Why should something as simple as this be left ambiguous in the rules?
Maybe a Case would be helpful (if there isn't one already)?
I had a related post regarding the effects of abandonment of all racing on the last day of a multi-day regatta a while back.
We talked about ...
The facts were not disputed by the Parties.
The answer was that although the event was in the USA and run according to US Sailing rules and prescriptions, the starboard tack boat (that suffered serious damage) was Canadian and was perhaps thinking of the Sail Canada Prescription to RRS 65.1:
"Rule 65.1 – Legal Liability and Costs Sail Canada prescribes that a boat that has been found by a protest committee to have broken a rule and caused damage shall be considered at fault for the purposes of rule 65.1."
This, of course, is in contrast to the US Sailing Prescription:
"US Sailing prescribes that
(a) A boat that retires from a race or accepts a penalty does not, by that action alone, admit liability for monetary damages.
(b) A protest committee shall find facts and make decisions only in compliance with the rules. No protest committee or US Sailing appeal authority shall adjudicate any claim for monetary damages. Such a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.
(c) A basic purpose of the rules is to prevent contact between boats. By participating in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for monetary damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules, and that she shall not 2 be governed by the legal doctrine of ‘assumption of risk’ for monetary damages resulting from contact with other boats."
We found the protest valid and:
- The port tack boat had broken rules 10 and 14;
- The starboard tack boat had broken rule 14; and
- Because both boats had withdrawn, no further penalty was assessed.
"By participating in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for monetary damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules, and that she shall not 2 be governed by the legal doctrine of ‘assumption of risk’ for monetary damages resulting from contact with other boats."
That, however, wasn't my problem. In the hearing, both boats admitted that they weren't keeping a lookout during the starting sequence. The RRS 14 decision for each of them was pretty easy.
Have a read of Juno v Endeavour
Torruella J was emphatically of the view that a protest committee decision constituted a binding arbitration under US commercial arbitration law.