New RRS E6.6 - no redress for entanglement any more...

[Lester]

The 2013-2016 RRS has a changed rule on when you can ask for redress:

E6.6 Redress
Add to rule 62.1:
(f) becoming disabled and as a result retiring because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear.

It may be helpful to recall the old rule from 2009-2012:

E5.5 Redress
(a) Add to rule 62.1:
(f) an entanglement or grounding because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear.

So, the new E6.6 requires that you retire before you can ask for redress. No retirement, no redress. So far, so good.

Then, your retirement must be *a result* of your becoming disabled. Hmmm... So, shortly before the finish line, you hit me while I'm on starboard in second place, and you are on port in third place, and we become entangled. The fleet sails by, one by one passing us and finishing. Around 60 seconds later we become unentangled. The rest of the fleet has finished, so I decide to retire and ask for redress. At the redress hearing, I am asked if I retired as a result of becoming disabled. Well, I say, I was disabled while the fleet sailed by, and then became undisabled, and retired instead of finishing so I could ask for my second place. Sorry, I am told, E6.6 does not apply to your situation, redress denied, your retirement was not *a result* of becoming disabled. Besides, the Chair says, you were not disabled at the time you retired; after a little while, you were perfectly able to continue racing, and indeed sailed off the course without any trouble...

The way I read this is that, in effect, you'll never be able to ask for redress again. (Well, OK, sure, you can always ask for redress if you were damaged under RRS 62.1(b), but we are not talking about any damage here, just "normal" radio sailing entanglement or grounding.)

Have I got that right?

[Hiljoball]

Hi Lester,

The safest way is to call that you are retiring while still 'disabled'. That way you should have a valid claim based if the other boat is found 'at fault'. But once you become free, you may have left it too late. But also, you also have to comply with the protest requirements ie make a valid 'Protest' hail promptly for the incident and follow up with a valid protest.

There may be some ambiguity in the timing - can you retire and request redress immediately after become free - maybe (but why delay?) - but can you sail on for a leg or more and then decide to retire and request redress - No!.

John

[Lester]

The safest way is to call that you are retiring while still 'disabled'.

Hi John

I guess it might be advisable to retire while still disabled, certainly, but (in my scenario) was your retirement *a result* of becoming disabled? Or as a result of becoming annoyed at being robbed of second place?

FWIW, I do know about making a valid protest hail, no need to teach me to suck that particular egg...

[Hiljoball]

Hi Lester,

The reason for you retiring is not relevant - just the facts - you were on S and were hit by P and became disabled - You protested P and called that you were retiring whilst still disabled. Mental state or motivation are not factors!!!

(And I know that you know about the protest aspect - but this is a general forum and we all want to learn the correct procedure)

Regards

John

[Hiljoball]

HI Lester

should have added---

the fact that two or three boats passed you is not why you are requesting redress - it demonstrates that you were disadvantaged and to what extent.

John

[Lester]

The reason for you retiring is not relevant

I think it is the rule itself which makes the reason relevant:

E6.6(f) "becoming disabled and as a result retiring"

Let's try some "what if's":

(1) After surgery, the patient could talk again.
(2) After surgery, the patient celebrated his 50th birthday.

No difficulty with either sentence, they both make sense.

(3) As a result of surgery, the patient could talk again.
(4) As a result of surgery, the patient celebrated his 50th birthday.

There is clearly something wrong with sentence (4). The issue is that celebrating a birthday is not a result of surgery in any ordinary sense of the phrase "as a result". I think the phrase "as a result" requires a causal or necessary connection between a given event, a cause, and a subsequent event, its result or effect.

I think E6.6(f), as written, requires a good reason for a valid redress request, and requires the good reason for the retirement to be the disablement.

The next question is, is this intended? That is, is it the intention of the new rule to effectively eliminate almost all requests for redress from radio saling events? And if this was not intended, then what was? What was wrong with the old rule which allowed for redress that needed fixing?

(We already have new E4.3(b) whose wording is not what the rule writers intended, and I understand it will be fixed shortly by an ISAF Q&A.)

[Lester]

I have just found a relevant document on the ISAF Web site by Googling "Supporting Paper for Submission 201-11". It is at http://www.sailing.org/24289.php, and is a PDF which explains the reasoning behind most (but not all) of the Appendix E changes.

This is what is says about E6.6(f):

In (f), care is taken to distinguish between the boat being temporarily or permanently disabled and to state the reason for being disabled; this is intended to mirror rule 62.1(b) for crewed boats.

So the intention is to restrict redress to situations where the disablement is permanent... (But why is it considered necessary to align App E rules, specifically intended for radio sailing, to the rules which might apply to other types of boat?)

[Hiljoball]

It is interesting that the rule makers’ background paper says that they are trying to align Appendix E with R 62. Under big boat rules, in a request for redress, the boat does not have to retire to request redress – only that her possibility that her score may have been made worse . Appendix E is much more severe in stating that the boat must retire to be eligible for redress.
62 REDRESS
62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made
significantly worse by
62.1.(b) injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

In RC sailing, it is infrequent but happens occasionally, that a boat is damaged, eg drops the rig, and redress may be applicable. For RC we have an extra definition for applying redress : Disabled.

E.1.1 Definitions
Disabled A boat is disabled while she is unable to continue in the heat.

So for example, if we had a situation where a port tack boat ran up onto the rear deck of a stbd boat and they became stuck, clearly, stbd is unable to continue in the heat and will expect to file for redress. The new E6.6.f requires that she retire to be eligible for redress. This should still be allowed to be a valid claim even if a short time later, the boats slip apart. Clearly her score in the heat will have been made worse during the period she was disabled.

If while disabled, she calls that she is retiring - can she ‘unretire’ if the boats subsequently come apart?

If a rescue boat manned by helpers comes and separates the boats, she must retire (E 4.2 Outside help lists those allowed to help and a rescue boat is not included).

So I still think it is a reasonable reading of the rule that a boat may file for redress if she meets the definition 'disabled' even if for a short time, however, clearly she must retire to make the claim.

But also the port tacker that broke R 10 and caused this hypothetical incident, must also retire under E.4.3.c as she caused the 'disablement' and retirement of stbd.

John

[Lester]

I think it is a reasonable reading of the rule that a boat may file for redress if she meets the definition 'disabled' even if for a short time, however, clearly she must retire to make the claim

I think your reading is what we might have hoped the rule would say, that is, you can seek redress if your retirement follows a disablement (sentence 1 or 2 earlier). What the rule actually says is a little different, that is, you can only seek redress if your retirement is *as a result* of your disablement (sentence 3, but not sentence 4, earlier). This intention is made clear by the briefing document.

Some other ways of saying this is that your disablement must have been "permanent", or that your retirement must have been "involuntary", or that you had no choice about whether to retire as a result of the disablement.

I think the remaining issue is what constitutes a "permanent" disablement or an "involuntary" retirement -- until the disablement is fixed or corrected by the competitor? Until the first boat finishes? Until the heat times-out?

[Hiljoball]

Hi Lester,

I think it is reasonable to read it that way, because the reference to being 'disabled' is written in the present tense. Right now I am disabled due to your action - I am retiring because 'right now' I am disabled. To me, that meets the words of the rule and the definition.

One way to get to a formal decision, is to generate a protest with a finding and an appeal to the national authority. (Just as I did with my question of " was this a penalty turn"?) - but i don't want to be the one to do that again so soon.

John