Redress...

[Olivier Cohen]

For now, not an official answer/interpretation from IRSA, but personal opinion from an International Judge, who was member of the Jury at 1 Metre Europeans 2010, 1 Metre Worlds 2011, Marblehead Worlds 2012.

"A boat that becomes entangled is disabled as she is unable to continue in the heat.

Rule E6.6 modifies rule 62.1 to allow for redress only when a boat becomes disabled and as a result retires from the race. Despite becoming disabled as the result of an action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part, a boat that was entangled but subsequently becomes free to sail is not entitled to redress.

Redress may be granted only if the conditions set out in rule 62.1 are met.

These conditions are:

a boat's race or series score has been made significantly worse;
through no fault of her own;
by one or more of the reasons set out in rule 62.1 as modified by rule E6.6.

When a protest committee decides that a boat became disabled as a result of another boat breaking a rule of Part 2, they then have to consider whether the first boat retired as a result of becoming disabled. If the boats had been recovered by a patrol boat, or were still entangled when the race officer closed the finishing line then the request for redress meets the conditions set out in rule 62.1.

However, if the protest committee decides that, having become free to sail, the boat had sufficient time to sail the course and finish, but instead chose to retire, then she is at least in part responsible for her score being made significantly worse. In which case rule 62.1 does not permit the protest committee to give redress.

There are two possible justifications for this apparent hardening of the conditions for giving redress:
- a general tendency through the sport of sailing to reduce the possibilities of redress;
- a feeling that boats should do more to keep out of trouble.

Gordon Davies, IJ"

[RoyL]

Wow! That's pretty harsh. Hard to believe that the intent of the latest appendix E rule revision was to effectively make redress unavailable with the only exception being damage that totally prevented a boat from sailing. Really highlights the need for a change in the sailing instructions until the rule can be rewritten. BTW, Olivier thanks for coming on to this forum and responding on this issue. Much appreciated....

[Hiljoball]

From the previous discussions and the provided judge’s opinion, this is my summary of where we are.
Appendix E.6.6.f says that to gain redress you must be disabled and retire. But Case 44 and the judge’s opinion say that if you retire, you affect your finish position by your own action and thereby lose the right to redress. This creates a nonsense loop, such that it is impossible to gain redress.

If the SI modify E6.6.f and remove the ‘and retire’, then it looks as though you may be able to request redress if your finish position is made significantly worse . . . as long as you do NOT retire (Case 44 is still there). So if you become disabled, entangled, damaged etc, try to get your boat repaired and/or released and try to finish the heat. Now the rules seem to say that you may request redress.

Another approach is to do away with redress altogether (except for redress against the action of the Race Committee). This would make all collisions, damage etc racing incidents. So an entanglement that cost you five places would be treated the same as a collision that spun you around near the weather mark that also cost you five places (and for which there is no redress). This way, all incidents are treated equally.

With this harsher version, everyone should sail more carefully and make greater effort to avoid collisions. And that bad race – it can become one of your discards.

Eliminating redress eliminates the need for a protest hearing – and that should speed up the regatta.

Eliminating Redress for ‘disabled’ is quite easy to do. Use the SI to delete R62.1.b and Appendix E.6.6.f. This is permitted under R 86.

What do you think? Should we fix ‘redress’ or remove it?

John

[TedFlack]

Fix it.

Getting entangled due to someone else's mistake and losing many places in a regatta is way too harsh in my opinion. You can say just be more careful but I don't think people are trying to run into someone and get entangled, I would hope that they are being as careful as they can be and probably would feel terrible if a mistake on their part caused a fellow competitor to have a bad finish. It isn't the five place issue that is the problem it is coming in last because you could not even start a race in the worse case scenario.

Entangled and unable to continue is the issue. All we have to do define in writing that entangled is actually disabled and we are all set...correct?

[Nigel28]

Fix it.
As some one who has been on the recieving end of this scenario (run down by windward boat on the start line) I think it is important to retain redress.
Imagine the situation at a club level regatta, who would want to race against beginers? If they mess up you loose. Not a good scenario.

I just don't understand why this wording "and as a result retiring" was used? why has it gone so far away from the "big boat" rules?
Have there been so many requests for redress at worlds and continentals that the harsh approach is waranted?

[Gordon Davies]

At the 2015 IOM Worlds the words 'as a result retiring' were removed from the rule. As a consequence a boat only had to convince the Jury that her score was made significantly worse through no fault of her own as a result of becoming disabled due to the actions of a boat breaking a rule of Part 2.

We refused one boat redress because the Jury established that she could have avoided the collision. In most cases once it was established that the keep clear boat had taken the applicable penalty redress was given. Due to the simplified protest procedure hearings lasted about 2 minutes!

This wording will be submitted as a rule change
Gordon

[Bruce Andersen]

Hi Gordon

We sort of went through this while working on the SI's for the WC regatta, but it might help to let others into the fray:

By removing the words "as a result, retiring" from the redress rule we, IMHO, have made it possible to use this rule as a racing tactic eg:

A boat becomes disabled for some period of time through no fault of her own.
The give-way boat agrees and takes her penalty turn.
The disabled boat continues to sail and finishes the race.
Her skipper then must calculate whether or not her earned finish position is better than her "average points" position if redress is granted.
If she thinks that "average points" are the better gamble, asking the protest committee to award redress carries with it no risk - if they award redress you finish with fewer points - if they don't - no real loss.

By keeping the words "as a result, retiring" forces the skipper to decide which way he wants to proceed 1) sail on and finish or 2) retire and request redress.

I would suggest that if we choose to keep the redress rule as presently written, we add some sort of a time interval after which, the option of asking for redress goes away eg. add "as a result, retiring on the leg of the course upon which the incident occurred".

This added verbiage would also prevent skippers that were temporarily disabled during the race from sailing on and deciding, just prior to crossing the finish line, whether to retire or request redress.

[Gordon Davies]

This is not a racing tactic, but the normal operation of redress.

It is in the nature of the redress procedure that a competitor must make a judgement call on whether any redress can actually improve his score. In many cases we tend to give 'average points or the finishing position, whichever was better' and redress cannot be worse than last in the heat. Normally redress can only improve your race score, or at the very least let it stay the same.

In at least one case we gave redress that turned out to be a discard.

By removing 'as a result retiring' it is clear that a boat that becomes free to continue her race then retires would not be granted redress as she made her score worse by retiring. I believe it is is everybody's interest for a boat to sail on when she can.

The effect of removing the 'as a result retiring' makes the PC's job far easier as they do not have to make a decision on why a boat retired.

In at least one case we gave redress that turned out to be a discard.

On the other hand the PC must be very strict on 2 points:

- disablement dis actually make the score worse
- the RoW boat did everything reasonably possible to avoid contact.

Gordon

[Bruce Andersen]

On the notion that the disablement actually made the score worse and the business of retiring:

If a skipper, having been properly fouled, becomes free and is able to sail the course but at a disadvantage eg: disabled for a long period of time or something became maladjusted on his boat, it appears that:

1) he is able to sail the course and finish, but not at his normal level of competition
2) he would make his score worse by retiring

Is his only option to complete the course then ask for redress?

I'm not convinced that it is in everyone's best interests for a boat to sail on:

What does continuing to sail a boat that is damaged but able to (technically) continue sailing do to the equipment?

How does his (perhaps unnecessary) presence on the course disadvantage the rest of the competitors?

It seems as though a skipper ought to be able to retire following a temporary period of disability that renders him unable to continue competitively without the worry of the PC determining that he retired on his own accord rather that consequent to a period of temporary disability.

[Olivier Cohen]

Hi Bruce,

Maybe a misunderstanding here, but in RRS as they are, "as a result retiring" can't be a decision of the competitor, for example because he is too far behind. It should be because of a failure, or because of assistance received. If your boat is still able to race you HAVE to continue.
So the result is that in fact you nearly never get redress for an entanglement during a long time (because our boats are usually strong), and it's not fair.

That's why "as a result retiring" was removed of rules for WC, and could be removed from RRS later as explained by Gordon.

[Gordon Davies]

'As a result retiring' was removed from the rules for the Worlds. It did not lead to a flood of redress claims. The Jury examined carefully in each instance whether the right of way boat could have reasonably been able to avoid contact.

A policy on redress was developed so that competitors would have some predictability. Redress was 'average points for all races before the lay day(or for days 4 and 5)' so that all competitors knew in good time, and especially going in to the last day what a boats score was. Redress was no worse than last in the heat.

If a boat scored better than this then their score probably had not been made significantly worse!

This worked well and no one complained. Not to us anyway.

Gordon

[Bruce Andersen]

I'm certainly not complaining!

I am struck by the fundamental un-fairness of having someone clobber you then having to non-competitively limp around the course and not withdraw (potentially affecting other boats as well as your own) in order to ask for redress.

IMHO, we should consider addressing the notion of including "being able to continue competitively" into "disability" rather than simply physical damage or entanglement.

It's important to keep in mind that the redress rules, while seemingly easy to interpret and administer in a large regatta with plenty of Umpires and/or Judges around, can be more challenging at lower levels of competition and is variably applied. Our challenge is to make the Redress issue clear and easy to understand and administer at the club level.

[Dick Carver]

Hi Gordon

I have a question. When “and as a result retiring” is removed from RRS E6.6(f), how does
that effect RRS E4.3(c) Taking A Penalty ?

RRS E4.3 Taking A Penalty
(c) if the boat caused serious damage, or as a result of breaking a rule of Part 2 she caused another boat to become disabled and retire, her penalty shall be to retire.

It seems that when redress is granted to a boat that is not damaged such that it cannot continue to race, but merely delayed by an entanglement for example, forcing the at fault boat to retire (take last place +1 in the heat and demotion to a lower heat) can become punishment that doesn’t fit the crime.

Should the SI’s modify RRS E4.3(c) to allow the at fault boat to exonerate herself with a penalty turn on the water, and still allow the other boat to get redress?

[Gordon Davies]

Dick,

You resolved your problem in yourposting
You wrote:

'It seems that when redress is granted to a boat that is not damaged such that it cannot continue to race, but merely delayed by an entanglement for example, forcing the at fault boat to retire....'

This is a case in which the RoW boat does not retire.

You also quote the rule. The rule is clear:

'or as a result of breaking a rule of Part 2 she caused another boat to become disabled and retire, her penalty shall be to retire.'

So, if the RoW boat does not retire then the at-fault boat can take penalty turns as appropriate.

The punishment DOES fit crime if we read all of the rule. The wording of RRS has been carefully crafted. You have to read the whole sentence and/or the whole rule.

[Gordon Davies]

I have just re-read this whole thread.

It would seem that much of the difficulty people are experiencing with this rule is due to a misunderstanding of the redress rules.

Redress can be claimed when a boat considers that her score has been made significantly worse, through no fault of her own either by:

- an improper action or omission of the RC, PC or OA, or
- injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of part 2, or
- giving help, or
- an action of a boat or member of her crew penalised under rule 2or 69
(this is a simpliifed version)

in addition in radio sailing redress can be claimed for:
-external radio interference, or
- becoming disabled and as a result retiring because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of part 2

A boat is disabled while she is unable to continue in the race. This may be a temporary condition. A boat that is entangled with another boat is unable to continue int he race, therefore she is disabled.

If there is contact and there is damage to a boat, that is dealt with under the redress for damage rule. The boat may continue the race and even finish it and still be granted redress.


By removing the 'as a result retiring' from rule E6.6 the protest committee no longer has to ask philosophical questions about whether the boat retired because she became disabled, or only because she was last in the fleet. The questions that need to be answered are:

- did the boat become disabled as a result of the actions of a boat breaking a rule of part 2
- could the RoW boat reasonably have avoided the collision
- was her score made significantly worse.

On the last point:

- If the incident occurs on the last leg HMS allows the Jury to adjust finishing positions rather than give points equivalent to. This is important when a boat was in a promotion position. Giving a finishing position does change the finishing position of other boats;
- if a boat's actual finishing position is better than 'average points' it could be argued that her score has not been made significantly worse!

In many cases the fairest redress is average points for a defined set of races but not worse than last in the heat or the actual finishing position which ever is better.