Redress...

[RoyL]

I observed a recent incident that made me question the newly revised Appendix E "Redress" rule....It appears that under the latest revision of the rules, a boat in order to receive redress has to be unable to continue to race. On its fact this would seem to mean that a boat that is entangled for over five minutes at the start of a heat due to an acknowledged rule violation of another boat still would have to sail the heat so long as the boats eventually became untangled and were undamaged. Effectively this puts the innocent boat in last place in its heat through no fault of its own. And, in a close race, this large number of points could cost multiple overall finishing places. How is the problem being addressed? Do race committees simply ignore the damage requirement of the rule? Is the problem being addressed in sailing instructions? Should a clarification or modification of the rule be requested from ISAF?

[Hiljoball]

Hi Roy,

I was there and saw the aftermath of the incident. As I understand it, three boats all on stbd, and overlapped, became entangled on the start line and drifted back, locked together until they drifted to the shore, where someone untangled them. One boat had a damaged rudder, one boat was undamaged, and one boat (the weather - keep clear boat?) took a penalty turn and sailed on in the race.

This is what I think should have happened for that incident -the boats were locked together and to me fit the definition of 'Disabled' as they were unable to continue to race. So the ROW boat(s) should first protest the keep clear boat, and then hail that they are disabled and retired. That way they have fulfilled the requirement for a successful protest and request for redress. As one boat took a bent rudder, I think we can call that significant damage, and so the keep clear boat cannot take a penalty turn and continue to race, and must retire or be DSQ.

I agree with you that the rules around redress need improvement. I have written a document outlining some changes that I would like the IRSA Rules committee to discuss as they prepare for the next go-round on Appendix E. This is one of the items and here below is what I wrote.

John

3. Clarification that you must retire to claim redress.
Make it clear that to request Redress a yacht must be disabled (fits the definition) for some period of time and must announce ‘Disabled’ and retire. (Even if it subsequently becomes free and otherwise would be able to finish the heat).

E4.2 Outside Help
Rule 41 is changed to:
A boat or the competitor controlling her shall not receive help from any outside source, except

(b) when her hull, rig or appendages are entangled with another boat, help from the other competitor;

This section allows two competitors to free their boats (but not a race officer or recovery boat). As the boats collided, at least one of them has broken a rule. The question is “Can the ROW boat request and be awarded redress for the incident if they resume sailing in the heat?” Under the RRS, the answer is No unless the boat is disabled (disabled is in the list for redress, but entangled is not). At the 2013 Worlds, the SI added Entangled to the list for redress. There was an incident (Race 11 heat A) where two boats became entangled and subsequently became free and continued in the race. This led to a controversial protest hearing finding.

In the Australian 2014 National Championship regatta, they added ‘entangled’ as grounds for redress.

If Entangled (but becomes free again) is not entitled to redress, then the entanglement/collision becomes a racing incident, just like any other collision and no redress is available.

I suggest we clarify that to be eligible for redress an entangled ROW boat must declare to be disabled/retire from the race.

[Bruce Andersen]

Tough to define "entanglement" without some sort of elapsed time criteria after which "entangled" becomes "disabled"

Inasmuch as retirement from the heat is required to request redress allows skippers to decide how serious the entanglement was and whether or not they would be better off continuing in the heat

The important aspect of this rule is that a boat must retire to ask for redress

This was added to prevent folks from having an incident, completing their heat, and either taking their finish position or asking for redress depending upon which situation will result in a better score

IMHO, the weakness in this rule lies in the fact that a boat can become entangled or disabled, break free, and continue to sail to complete the race only to decide, just prior to crossing the finish line, whether to retire and ask for redress (average points) or take the finish.

My suggestion is to allow retirement/request for redress only during a limited time window following the disabling incident - perhaps before the next mark is reached?

[Hiljoball]

To provide a contrast to the above scenario, here is what happened at the 2013 Words in Israel in Race 11 , A fleet.
The leading boat rounded the last mark (a gate) to port and shortly thereafter, tacked on to stbd and then collided and became entangled with a following boat. This allowed the second and third placed boats to cross the finish line as first and second. Meanwhile, the (old) first became un-entangled and crossed the finish line in third place. He now filed a protest against the keep clear boat and requested redress.

The SI for the regatta had added ‘Entangled’ as grounds for redress.

The International Jury granted redress and using a rule in HMS, that says a boat rounding the last mark in first place and granted redress, shall be awarded first place points, gave a first to the affected boat.

What happened next was, in my opinion quite wrong. The IJ then rescored first and second as second and third. To me, this is quite contrary to R63.1 that says a competitor’s score shall not be made worse without a hearing. I spoke with one of the above boats and they were not invited as a party to the hearing and so altering their scores was quite wrong. The PC should have allowed first and second to stand, and then awarded an additional first place to the redress boat.

If ‘entangled’ had not been added to the list for redress, then the lead boat would not have been able to claim redress for what would have been just a racing incident, and would have finished in third.

On the other hand, if he had claimed ‘disabled’ and retired, he would not have crossed the line in third, he would have still have been granted redress of ’joint first’, but the rest of the fleet would have been scored one, two, three, four, five, etc as their finish positions.

So clearly we need the RRS to clarify what is required for a request for redress.

John

[RoyL]

It would seem at minimum then that the sailing instructions for races should include the addition of the word "entanglement" in the redress rules. Is this something that IOMICA should send out to the NCA's as a suggested change and/or pass on up to ISAF to have changed?

[Hiljoball]

Hi Roy,

I don't agree with that approach. The problem at the Worlds happened because they added 'entangled' as grounds for redress.

I think the current rule is ok if you look at it this way. You are ROW and a Keep Clear boat fouls you and hooks up with your rigging. At that point, you can call Protest and claim 'Disabled' and retire. At that point in time, you fit the definition of disabled, as you are unable to race. Once you retire, you cannot 'un-retire'. So you go through with the protest hearing and take your chances that you will be awarded redress. This should hold, even if the boats subsequently come apart and you are freed up.

If you add 'entangled' to grounds for Redress, it is still an undefined term. Now you have what happened at the Worlds - the affected boat got the benefit of two possible finish positions - the actual one as they crossed the line and another one from the redress request. (And the result of trying to score the race confused the IJ.)

I think you should choose you 'poison' and either retire (with possible redress) or continue to race (and loose the right to redress).

John

[TedFlack]

John,

Your approach sounds logical and should work, but it requires the Protest Committee to agree that "Entangled" is in fact "Disabled".

The whole thing is just a little messy, if you hit a mark you do a turn, fine I get that. If you get entangled for 3 minutes and then get free what happens? Who knows? If one person on the Protest Committee decides you should have kept going you are in trouble as far as getting Redress

I do have a question, under HMS redress is only allowed if you are fouled on the last leg...is that true? Reading the HMS instructions I don't see that but I do see that Redress can be anything the Jury decides.

"REDRESS.
Redress can be either a fixed number of points or some sort of average decided by the Jury."

[Hiljoball]

Hi Ted,

What I am suggesting is that at a point in time, when you are 'entangled'. you are effectively 'disabled' per the definition. You cannot predict the future,, so you cannot assume that you will become free as any point in the future - so it is probably in your interest to claim disabled and retire and request redress.

HMS says
1.5 Redress
(a) Decisions on redress shall be made in accordance with RRS 64.2.
(b) In all races the finishing place of a boat may only be adjusted if the boat was on the last leg of th e
course when the incident occurred.

So HMS is saying that the PC should only adjust the boats finish position to an actual position if the incident was on the last leg. So if you were first at the last mark then it is ok to assign you first place points - but not to do that if you have not yet reached the last leg.

The Redress rule 64.2 says that a PC can assign you any position that it feels is appropriate and suggests things like 'average points'. But the committee is not limited to just average points.

I see a conflict between HMS 1.5 and RRS 64.2 and personally would prefer it if HMS did not have 1.5.b and leave it to the PC to decide.

John

[RoyL]

I agree that when requesting redress you should have to retire and not sail the heat. However, I don't think the term "disabled" can be stretched to mean "entangled" particularly since "entangled" was removed from the language of the redress rule in the last revisions of Appendix E. Some sort of clarification would seem to be needed in either the rule itself or recommended sailing instructions to fix this situation.

[Olivier Cohen]

In last revision of appendix E, a ROW boat can only get redress if he is disabled and then retire, because the damage due to entanglement prevents him to continue the race.

It's not possible to get redress if the competitor DECIDES to retire.

So in fact you NEVER gets redress, because with IOMs, incidents causing a failure are the exception.
That's why at IOMICA events SC we have added "entanglement" as ground for redress (in fact copy of 2009/2012 RRS) in last WC SI.

Roy, you are right, we have to update IOMICA SSI and let NCA use them.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Olivier,

Great to have you join the discussion.

I disagree with your view and it comes down to use of English. The definition of Disabled says essentially, unable to race.

So to me, entangled is a subset of Disabled. While you are entangled, you are unable to race, and so fit the definition. So if you call protest against the keep clear boat, and then call 'disabled and retired' You are telling the fleet to treat you as an obstruction. I think you have met all the requirements for redress. And yes, as you retired, the keep clear boat that hit you has to retire too or be DSQ.

If you are correct in your note above, then Disabled is not needed as a definition, as your interpretation of Disabled is 'damaged' and damage is already in the rules as grounds for redress.

If you want to add entangled as grounds for redress, then I think you have to define it. The risk with adding Entangled for redress is to do with the length of time and /or whether a boat retires as a result. Is there a difference between the boats coming free some time after the incident, and needing to get help to physically untangle the boats? Where do we draw the line?

If you are entangled and become free and continue to finish, why should you be able to receive redress? If you are stuck in a raft of boats, but not actually entangled (as sometimes happens at a weather mark or on the start line), is that 'entangled'? If not, then the Entangled gets and advantage over the rafted (unable to sail on) boat. I would call them both racing incidents with no redress.

John

[Olivier Cohen]

Hi John,

it is not MY definition of disabled, it was confirmed by IRSA racing comitee.
You cannot decide to retire, it has to be the result of the incident.

Change in SI is just applying previous rule. Nothing really new, and clearly more fair than losing a championship because being entangled twice on a starting line.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Olivier,

What have the IRSA published about disabled? Where do I find a copy.

Thanks

John

[Olivier Cohen]

Hi Olivier,

What have the IRSA published about disabled? Where do I find a copy.

Thanks

John

Hi John,

I am not supposed to publish emails on a forum.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Olivier,

What is the use of a 'secret' interpretation?

Please send me a copy of the email. You have my email.

Thanks

John

[Olivier Cohen]

It's not an official interpretation. A case book for radiosailing will be available soon.

[RoyL]

It would seem that no matter how you look at it, some official clarification is required--if "disabled" can be defined to include entangled and retired than it should be put in writing and sent out to the NCA's. (No offense John, but your interpretation is only yours and not binding). On the other hand, if "disabled" means only damaged, then the rule should be changed or the SI's modified to include entanglement as a basis for redress and require a party seeking redress to retire. I don't think you do have to get into issues of how long someone is entangled, that can come up on in the hearing requesting redress. But in all events, official clarification would be most helpful.

[Hiljoball]

I agree with you Roy.

I sent in a document to the IRSA Racing Rules committee a few weeks ago that included this item for inclusion in the considerations for the next iteration of Appendix E.

I was ok with the Disabled piece, as that seems to infer that one needs to retire/disabled in order to be eligible for redress. (but even that is open to discussion/interpretation)

What is bothering me now is the inclusion in some SIs of 'entangled' as grounds for redress - but with no definition or interpretation to guide a protest committee.

John

[Charles LeMahieu]

It would be nice to get this definition available for Race committees to incorporate into their SI's as soon as possible.. anything to make this issue clearer would be helpful.

[Barry Chisam]

Would a boat be considered dissabled if it received damage that slowed it's progress in the race but did not prevent it from finishing.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Barry,

I would suggest 'No'.

To get redress Appendix E6.6.f says you must be disabled and retire. And the definition of disabled says 'unable to race'. So being damaged, but able to continue sailing slower, falls short of the definition and the rule requirements.

John/

[Barry Chisam]

So if a boat suffered a tear in its jib and decided to retire it would not meet the dissabled criterea as it could continue in the race.

If a boat were able to continue to race however inefective it would not be dissabled.

Probably only leaves sinking and dissmasting as grounds for redress.

[Hiljoball]

Hi again Barry,

You are highlighting a problem with the interpretations currently available. This is something I am trying to get reviewed at present (as a request from CAN NCM).

John

[Bruce Andersen]

why not simply add the phrase "to sail competitively" to the definition of "Disabled"?

"APPENDIX E
RADIO SAILING RACING RULES

The Racing Rules of Sailing

E1 CHANGES TO THE DEFINITIONS, TERMINOLOGY AND
THE RULES OF PARTS 1, 2 AND 7
E1.1 Definitions

Add new definition:
Disabled
A boat is disabled while she is unable to continue in the heat"

would then become "A boat is disabled while she in unable to continue to sail competitively in the heat"

that would eliminate the need to define "entanglement" and would allow the skipper to determine the extent of damage and the degree to which she was hampered by damage, entanglement, or whatever else we have not defined that effectively takes her out of the heat knowing that requesting redress from a formal protest committee was an option upon retirement from that heat

[Hiljoball]

Hi Bruce,

I don't think your suggestion resolves the problem. The main issue lies in E.6.6.f which says that being disabled, you have to retire to get redress. (Not how disabled is described)

I have seen some correspondence that indicates that an ISAF Case Book Case #44 applies. If that case is used, and if you choose to retire – your action affects your finish position and so you lose the right to redress. In case 44, an RC started a race over three minutes early. A boat heading out to race a bit late, would have been on time for the original start, but when they got to the line, the race had started. So they sailed home and filed for redress against an improper action of the Race Committee. They made no effort to sail the race. The ruling was that they made their position worse by their own action (of retiring) and so did not deserve Redress.

So the problem is that using Case 44, if you chose to retire you cannot get redress, but the E.6.6.f says to get redress, you must retire. This creates a nonsense loop. In big boat sailing it is not hard to get redress, so why should it be hard in RC sailing?

Hence my request to Olivier to raise this question (the validity of applying Case 44) to the IRSA Rules Committee.

The 2013 IOM Worlds dealt with this problem by using the SI to replace E.6.6.f completely and so removed the ' and retiring' from the context. This is what they did:

1.5 Racing rule(s) E6.6(f) will be changed as follows: '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'.

John

[Bruce Andersen]

Step back and think about the basic idea of the rule: if you're racing along and minding your own business then someone clobbers you and your race just went down the drain through no fault of your own, and the bloke that hit you broke a rule in doing so, you should be entitled to redress.

Choosing to request redress is sort of a "bonus" offered by organized racing to offer some solace to the innocent bystander.

This largess comes with a price however - you have to decide pretty much right then (or at least before rounding the next mark) how badly the rest of your heat is going to be.

If you think you can recover, do so and sail on.

If you think you're pretty much in the basement, retire and ask for redress.

It would be disingenuous to continue to sail on then ask for redress after calculating that redress would give you fewer points than finishing.

The only issue concerning redress that I think needs fixing is the definition of being disabled, and rather than publish an encyclopedic list of situations and times, let the affected skipper decide whether he/she can continue to race competitively.

[Barry Chisam]

I know this is going off at a tangent but here goes.
I personally find it unsatisfactory that all the onus goes onto penalising a wrongdoer but nothing is done to help the poor soul who is wiped out.
I know that a double penalty is available for boats gaining a significant advantage but what about those that are significantly dissadvantaged?
Nothing infuriates me more than the offending skipper saying '' ive done my turn'' while you are now struggling out of relegation from a good position.

I know there is probably not much that can be done about it but it does leave a nasty taste. Even if that skipper were to retire it doesnt make it any sweeter.

Rant over.

[Bruce Andersen]

well ranted!

[Charles LeMahieu]

The thing I worry about here, and have seen happen in person is when skippers start using these redress rules as a sword rather than a shield. (isn't that why they were changed in the first place?)

"Damage" should be something that is actually visible and tangible in my opinion, not " my backstay got knocked loose, i need redress" etc. I would infer that in any case redress would have to go to protest committee in any of these cases. If there is a definition out there that is equitable and reasonable , I would love to see it. As someone who has been on the RC of many national level IOM events, and has one approaching quickly what is a good definition for this siutuation?

[Bruce Andersen]

All requests for redress are addressed to the Protest Committee

IMHO, the skipper needs to decide if he can continue to compete - sure you can limp around the course without a back stay or with a tear in your sail, but functionally, your race is over. If you're already in last place, why not continue if you're having fun? If however, fame and fortune are at stake, why even consider continuing sailing with less than competitive equipment?

Once we start making qualifying decisions about what and why redress is applicable, things get cloudy.

To prevent redress from being used tactically, the rules require you withdraw from that heat. When to withdraw is the issue.

My suggestion: in order to be able to request redress, the boat must withdraw prior to the next mark of the leg upon which the infraction occurred.

On the issue of what actually constitutes a redress-able bit of damage or impairment? Let the PC decide after hearing the requesting skipper's reasoning. As long as skippers know that the have to convince the PC to award them redress, a lot of the questionable requests may vanish.