2015 AGM - Topic: Change to Class Championship Rules

[Barry Fox CAN262]

7.2 Change CCR 6.4 to ensure that main jury members have sufficient experience to manage Continental or World Championships – Submitted by IOM ICA Events Sub Committee

Class Championship Rule 6.4

Current Wording:
For World and Continental Championships, the Organising Authority shall appoint an International Jury according to the provisions of Appendix N of the RRS.

Changed to :
For World and Continental Championships, the Organising Authority shall appoint an International Jury according to the provisions of Appendix N of the RRS. IOM ICA ESC will propose a list of names to Organising Authority for International Jury chairman and approve other members of that jury. Minimum number of members of that jury will be 6.

Discussion :
IOMICA events SC wants to be sure that main jury members are experienced enough to manage Continental or World Championships.
Regarding number of jury members, 5 is the minimum within Appendix N, and 6 is a minimum to allow some rest during the day for umpires while 4 are "live".

[Hiljoball]

I do not think that we need this rule modification and suggest that we vote against it. The less we alter the ISAF rules and regulations, the easier it is to interpret and apply them. While the current rules specify a minimum of 5 IJs, there is no maximum, and our recent history at Worlds is to use around 8 to 10 judges.

When we make a rule affecting and increasing the minimum number of judges, we affect the regatta costs. The cost for a judge covers travel, hotel, meals and out of pocket and may be several thousand dollars per judge. Total costs for the jury can exceed $30,000 and be as much as 50% of the total regatta budget.

Rather than increasing the minimum number of judges at a World or Continental Championship, I would like to leave the rule as is and instead look at how we may use the judges differently to reduce the number to a minimum and thereby dramatically reduce the regatta cost. The challenge is to minimize any impact the flow of the regatta. What follows is ‘off topic’ for this year’s voting process but is intended to show that there are alternatives.

Currently we use judges as Umpires. They walk with the fleet and make ‘on the water’ decisions when an incident occurs and where neither boat takes a penalty. This requires about four judges per heat, and to avoid burnout with the speed and intensity of RC racing, requires a larger pool of judges to allow rest breaks. The ‘off duty’ judges may also form a Protest Committee as required.
I believe that we could run a World or Continental Championship with the minimum number of 5 judges by using the judges differently.

My suggestion is modeled on what New Zealand has done for its recent National IOM Championship. In this concept, the judges are not used as Umpires. They are used as judges in a three tier system.

Tier 1. On the water, the racers call protests and take penalties themselves. As now, each heat uses participants as Observers to call contacts. If no penalty is taken, then the parties go to Tier 2 unless they choose Tier 3.

Tier 2. If an incident occurred and no penalty was taken, the parties go to a simple adjudication process (NZ calls it FIRDO – Final Decision by Race Officer). In this case the Race Officer is an IJ. For this process, we assign two judges - so two concurrent streams are available if multiple rulings are required. The outcome can be either no penalty, or a penalty which may be Retire After Finishing (RAF). A Tier 2 RAF is worse than an on course penalty but better than a DSQ, so on course penalties are reinforced.

Tier 3 is a formal Protest Hearing of three judges. If a boat is found ‘at fault’ she shall be scored Disqualified – Non-Excludable (DNE) – unless the PC finds grounds to make the decision DSQ (which is an allowed discard). The harsh DNE penalty should reinforce the benefit of taking an on-course penalty and thereby reduce the number of incidents going to Tier 3.

Tier 3 normal provides for one protest committee, however the minimum judges for a qualifying protest committee is 2, plus another member. So if we had multiple Tier 3 protests, we could form two concurrent committees by adding one of the FIRDO judges to create two teams of 2 and supplement those committees with two additional members. The two ‘other members’ could be any experienced racers, chosen from either regatta participants or members of the regatta support team as long as they are not an ‘interested’ party.

So to summarize, I recommend against this proposal and suggest that we explore alternatives to reduce the cost of staging World and Continental Championships. By reducing the costs, we may encourage more countries to take on the risks of hosting our major events.

John

[Bruce Andersen]

I also believe this should be voted against.

By virtue of the fact that they are qualified to sit on a properly composed International Jury per Appendix N requires a certain level of competence in managing the duties of a Jury:

"N 1.1 An international jury shall be composed of experienced sailors with excellent knowledge of the racing rules and extensive protest committee experience."

In addition, ISAF has already specified the minimum make-up of this jury:

"N 1.2 The jury shall consist of a chairman, a vice chairman if desired, and other members for a total of at least five. A majority shall be International Judges. The jury may appoint a secretary, who shall not be a member of the jury.

I don't see any advantage to the proposed change in CCR 6.4 other than to increase confusion and cost.

[Olivier Cohen]

I am quite surprised by what I read :
John - You are against our proposal because you want to propose a system with just observers at a world championship, and DNE if there is a formal protest ! What a breakthrough ! Do you really believe it will help to get good racing ? All this to save 1 umpire/judge ???

Bruce - International Jury with experienced sailors : The problem is that usually those experienced sailors will be RACING at International championships...maybe I am not understanding your proposal.

Events SC proposal main aim is to be sure that Judges at those events are experienced in radiosailing, so that when you pay to enter an event, you get really umpiring, and not mute people on the bank (experienced...)
The change from 5 (ISAF minimum) to 6 is to ensure also good umpiring, because judges have time to rest.

What could be added (to control cost) is that minimum of 6 could also be a maximum. We don't need 8 judges. (But where have you seen so much of them at worlds, John ?)

[Hiljoball]

Hi Olivier,

I am against the motion because it is unnecessary. We should only modify rules where there is a compelling reason. The existing rules provide adequate description. Modifying them only further complicates the rules and ties the hands of future regatta organizers.

John

[Olivier Cohen]

Hi Olivier,

I am against the motion because it is unnecessary. We should only modify rules where there is a compelling reason. The existing rules provide adequate description. Modifying them only further complicates the rules and ties the hands of future regatta organizers.

John

I miss your arguments why it's unnecessary, in our opinion it's something to improve events quality.

[CHATIN Achille]

I appreciate the idea of having RC sailing experienced judges made compulsory at big events.

So far, we consider doing the same in France at major events.

Judges may have great knowledge, but if they are unexperienced with RC, they may rapidly be faced with difficulties to follow the high speed/long distance changes of situations between boats...
Furthermore, I consider that Umpires would need to go through a specialisation for RC Sailing boats, before being recognized for umpiring at main RC sailing events.

But please dear judges that are following that post, do not misunderstand my sayings, I absolutely do not want here to erase your qualities! I just wish to say that the approach to RC is somehow different than other classes of sailing boats.

[Gordon Davies]

First of all I would like to thank the class for voting this change.

To reply to some of the opponents of this change (better late than never):

1. If an International Jury is appointed then the minimum requirement under Appendix N is 5 judges, including 3 International Judges and no more than two from any one country. In practice this means one IJ and one NJ from the host country are invited.

2 Experience has shown that it is essential for any class to have some input into the process of recruiting a jury. If not, the risk is that the local IJ will invite on the basis of criteria that do not guarantee the success of the event. There is an elaborate system of exchange and mutual invitation that would interest an anthropologist. Every IJ has a list of colleagues to whom he owes an invitation. These invitations do not necessarily take account of an individual's competence and skills for the type of sailing involved.

There have been events in recent years at which the jury was not as good as it might have been, which is not good for the class.

3 Judge/umpires in radio sailing require a particular set of skills. Many judges, for instance, would find the constant contact with competitors in the control area especially difficult. Others have difficulty making umpiring decisions in the high speed environment of a radio sailing race. A team of competent judge/umpires can only train up one or possibly two colleagues during an event. Some forms of experience (team racing umpiring in particular) allow for rapid acquisition of the relevant RS skills.

We have made a point of recruiting at least one first timer at each event, preferably a local judge, so that the event leaves a legacy.

4. In order to run IRSA Addendum Q with umpiring a minimum of 6 judges are required. This allows judges to be 'off the water' for 2 heats out of 6. If a hearing is necessary with a panel of 3 that only leaves 3 umpires 'on the water'. With 7 judges then there are always 4 available for umpiring.

5. A jury of 6 or 7 still requires the same number of International Judges - 4

6 Finding judges from other countries is no problem in Europe. In North America and Oceania this may prove more difficult. It would be helpful if there was more cooperation between sailing clubs and event organisers so that IJs who have to travel long distances can officiate at one or more events when in the country, so as to share costs. Some airlines will allow local sailors to contribute air miles.

7. Even with full umpiring there are still a few unresolved incidents. Using the accelerated procedure used in Foster City these can be resolved rapidly. If there was no umpiring many more cases would come to protest, especially in the later stages of a competition. The risk of delays to racing would increase.

8 International race officials do not require luxurious accommodation. They are quite happy to stay with local club members (no room sharing, unless there is really no alternative), which greatly reduces costs.


To resume : it is essential that IOMICA retain some input in to the choice of umpires. This should be part of a strategy of training and giving experience to an increasing number of judg'/umpires. Steps can be taken to reduce the cost of an international jury.

Gordon