New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: protesting as a witness
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

protesting as a witness

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1050
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 21 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by ClubRacer

So although B is too passive to lodge a protest C can lodge the protest but realistically requires B to stand as a witness to say she had to avoid A?


No, see my reference to Case 50 above.

I think if C gives good evidence about distances and angles, then the protest committee can infer breach of rule 10, and it's up to A to bring evidence to defeat that.
Back to Top
Mozzy View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king


Joined: 21 Apr 20
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mozzy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 8:35am
Originally posted by Brass


It's a straight up rule 10.

B changing course may not be CONCLUSIVE evidence of breaking rule 10, but it is evidence nevertheless.

Case 50 https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1745?page=5, Decision, Second paragraph, illustrates that a conclusion that a boat did not keep clear can properly be based on the positions and manoeuvres of boats alone.

A protest committee is not bound by the rules of evidence. It's perfectly entitled to take account of an opinion expressed by a party or a witness. FWIW I'd be inclined to qualify a party as an expert.


So unless B turns up and states that the course change was to avoid a collision then I don't think C has much hope of winning the protest. Even if neither B nor A turn up, I still don't know how C would win the protest as they can't offer any facts on why B changed course.


See above. The protest committee does not need to get evidence of state of mind. I don't want to talk about 'presumptions' and 'defences', but in the case of a 'wave through', or a 'duck to keep going', 


I know you are more the expert on this, but case 50 is a different situation. And it states "reasonable apprehension of contact on S's part". How can C possibly give any evidence that there was reasonable apprehension of contact on behalf of B? 

Now in case 50 that is determined as it's the starboard boat protesting and they say they had to change course to avoid a collision. 

But I would still say that there is no evidence that A can give as to whether the change of course was to avoid collision, or just Bs course. 

This would get ludicrous. Port and Starboard boats are on collision course all the times, and often a starboard boat tacks. Sometime 20-30 meters before the boat would have collided. Can a third party protest this also? Sound silly. So I'd say just that a boat changed course is no evidence they were avoiding collision. And rule 50 talks about apprehension of collision, and for that the only proper evidence is B saying so themselves. 
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6383
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 9:21am
I suppose if there was evidence of repeated and increasingly agitated hails from Starboard and a sharp last second course change I could be convinced a RRS10 breach had occurred, especially if third party were in a position to see the course change.

From the POV of friendly competition though if Starboard wasn't at least providing support as a witness I think I'd be very reluctant to penalise.

Back to Top
Scooby_simon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2415
Post Options Post Options   Quote Scooby_simon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 21 at 11:43am
Originally posted by JimC

I suppose if there was evidence of repeated and increasingly agitated hails from Starboard and a sharp last second course change I could be convinced a RRS10 breach had occurred, especially if third party were in a position to see the course change.

From the POV of friendly competition though if Starboard wasn't at least providing support as a witness I think I'd be very reluctant to penalise.


Agreed.....

 Shall we flip this and discuss how a protest Ctte might progress this; I feel this might provide some insight.

 

Summary as I would see it before opening arguments….

“Boat A on port crosses in front of Boat B on starboard but Boat B alters course to duck A and continues; there was no collision and no hail(s). “

 

We have 4 distinct possible protests, assuming the protest is accepted as valid.

 

1, C protests; Neither A or B attend

2, C and A attend

3, C and B attend

4, C, A and B attend

 

In protests 2,3 and 4 we will get some version of what happened, and I’d suggest some sort of decision can be made. It was either a P/S and someone needs a DSQ or it was a tactical cross and no action.

 

How would a PC resolve protest No 1.  

What facts can we find as a Ctte?

 

1, Boat A on Port

2, Boat B on Stbd

3, A and B on collision course

4, B altered course to go behind A

5, No hails

6, No turns / penalty taken. 

 

I suppose we (As Ctte) might ask:

 

A, was the movements of B’s / tiller / mainsheet actions smooth and measured or were they jerky and rushed? 

B, was there any tactical advantage to the left / right side of the course?
C, who gains by a DSQ of A?


Anything else?

 

Can we DSQ A based on the above facts found?   I’d wager not.  



Edited by Scooby_simon - 29 Mar 21 at 11:45am
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy