Facts of the Scenario:At 3 boat lengths Yellow is overlapped with Blue. Blue is sailing on a course toward the mark. She continues on this course until she reaches 2 boat lengths and then turns down to give room to Yellow at the mark. At position 3 Yellow turns down to sail to the mark and her boom makes contact with Blue. They round the mark without further contact.
1. At position 2 who has right of way
2. At position 2 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break
3. At position 2 what rules(s), if any, does Yellow break
4. At position 3 who has right of way
5. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break
6. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Yellow break
7. Who should be DSQ; Blue, Yellow, neither
In response to Dick's comments and to stimulate conversation about Rule 14, I add the following facts to the scenario: Yellow's boom hit Blue's hull scratching it, requiring buffing to remove the scratch.
Does this constitute damage requiring disqualification under Rule 14? If yes, who should be disqualified? If no, why not?
1. At position 2 who has right of way
2. At position 2 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break
3. At position 2 what rules(s), if any, does Yellow break
4. At position 3 who has right of way
5. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break
6. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Yellow break
7. Who should be DSQ; Blue, Yellow, neither
In response to Dick's comments and to stimulate conversation about Rule 14, I add the following facts to the scenario: Yellow's boom hit Blue's hull scratching it, requiring buffing to remove the scratch.
Does this constitute damage requiring disqualification under Rule 14? If yes, who should be disqualified? If no, why not?
1 Yellow
ReplyDelete2 possibly 18.2b - she should have begun to yield mark room by this point. She is also obligated to keep clear of Yellow
3 none
4 yellow, who is taking he mark room, turning down gradually until minor contact occurs by blue not yielding mark room
5 18-2b, possibly 14a,
6 none.
7 blue . Yellow is exonerated via rule18.5a and possibly b
1. Blue has right of way (ll), Yellow has mark-room (18.2(b))
ReplyDelete2.18.2(b), preventing Yellow from proper (direct) course to mark
3. None
4. Blue by 11. Mark-room not the same as ROW
5. Continues to break 18.2(b) by not giving mark-room
6. 11, but exonerated by 18.5(a)
7. Blue by 18.2(b)
1. At position 2 who has right of way: Blue, rule 11
ReplyDelete2. At position 2 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break: 18.2(b): Blue does not give Yellow room to sail to the mark
3. At position 2 what rules(s), if any, does Yellow break: None
4. At position 3 who has right of way: Blue, rule 11
5. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break: 18.2(b), 14
6. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Yellow break: 11, 14
7. Who should be DSQ; Blue
I am going to agree with Anon #2 and Brass as follows but will add some comments and questions that will permit others with greater insight into the application and understanding of rule 14 to comment on my answers when it comes to the writing of facts and conclusions when there is damage as a result of contact.
ReplyDelete1. Blue is ROW, rule 11. But, as Anon #2 points out, while it does not make Yellow the ROW boat, the fact that Yellow is entitled to Mark Room, 18.2(b), is important to protest committee later when they make their decision.
2. 18.2(b). But, I still don’t understand the significance that 18.2(a) dose not include the words; “when the first of them reaches the zone”, words that are included in 18.2(b)? Can we say that Blue brakes 18.2(a) or must we say it was 18.2(b) blue broke? Anybody want to address this question?
3. None.
4. Blue is ROW, rule 11. And again, as Anon #2 says, yellow is entitled to Mark Room, 18.2(b).
5. Blue breaks 18.2(b) and also rule 14.
6. At position 3 Yellow breaks rule 14 and because yellow does not keep clear also breaks rule 11.
7. Here is where I will take a somewhat different approach than Brass and the Anons #1 and #2.
If there is no damage to either boat as a result of the contact then I agree that neither boat will be penalized or DSQ’ed for breaking rule 14. But, as Brass and the Anon’s conclude, Blue is still to be DSQ for breaking 18.2(b).
And yellow, as Anon #1 says, will be exonerated for her breach of rule 11 by rule 18.5.
However, the given scenario does not say if there was damage or if there was no damage. And, my decision would be different if there were damage. I feel strongly that if there is contact, then the jury MUST say if there was or was not damage and cannot be silent on that matter.
It is my opinion that it is not proper for the PC to say that if they are moot on the matter then there is no damage. Certainly, any appeals committee would need to know if there was damage if there were an appeal.
So, the protest committee must reopen the hearing and get more facts and then say one way or the other if there was damage or if there was not damage.
Here would be my conclusion if there were damage.
Blue can be penalized, DSQ’ed, for braking rule 14 and cannot be exonerated for the breach by 64.1(c) because he could have avoided the contact. Whether it matters if blue is DSQ’ed for 18.2(b) or 14, or both, may be a moot point in terms of the scoring. But what if yellow wants to convince Blue’s insurance company that blue should pay for the repairs?
Yellow may also be penalized, DSQ’ed, for breaking rule 14 and like Blue cannot be exonerated under 64.1(c)or 18.5 for breaking 14. Though she can still be exonerated for breaking rule 11 under 18.5.
So in the case of no damage only blue gets DSQ but if there is damage yellow will get the boot as well.
And isn’t that why we have rule 14 to keep those hot shot sailing buggers in my club from continually bumping into me when they are the right of way boat?
Participating in this quiz has enabled me to make some discoveries about the proper interpretation of the rules and how to write conclusions regarding rule 14.
Here is what I have arrived at regarding rule 14.
1. If there is contact the PC MUST say that there was contact whether or not if a boat will be penalized or exonerated.
2. The protest committee MUST say if there is damage or, if there is no damage.
3. The matter of a boat being penalized or exonerated does not alter the fact that there was contact and that both boats broke rule 14. The matter of a penalty or exoneration is a separate issue.
The conundrum or parallax for me in writing a conclusion is whether to say the boat is exonerated under 64.1(c), when it not penalized under 14(b), or whether it even requires exoneration by 64.1(c) if it has not been penalized under 14(b)?
I think now I am inclined to think that a boat that has contact requires to be exonerated by 64.1(c) (when allowed by the rules) even if a boat has not been penalized under 14(b). Any comments?
Here are my Conclusions and Decision without any damage
ReplyDeleteConclusion
A. B, overlapped outside at the zone, did not give Y room to sail to the mark. B broke rule 18.2(b).
B. Y, to windward, did not keep clear of B. Y broke rule 11.
C. When Y failed to keep clear of B, Y was taking mark-room to which she was entitled.
D. it was reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with Y. B breaks rule 14.
E. When B failed to avoid contact with Y, B was right of way boat and there was no damage or injury. B shall not be penalised under rule 14.
F. It was reasonably possible for Y to avoid contact with B. Y breaks rule 14.
G. When Y failed to avoid contact with B, Y was entitled to mark-room and there was no damage or injury. Y shall not be penalised under rule 14.
Decision
B is disqualified.
Y is exonerated from breaking rule 11 under rule 18.5.
Dick makes a very good point about the need for PCs to find whether or not damage occurred. If neither boat alleges it, then I don't think it would be an improper action of the PC not to do so, but it is certainly best practice to at least enquire in every case. I suggest Judges should write this requirement in the margin of their RRS Appendix M, and put it on their customised protest forms.
ReplyDeleteThe meaning of damage is discussed in Case 19 and in more detail on Jos' Look to Windward RRSblogsite here.
http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2008/04/serious-damage-and-mayhem.html
So the rules recognise four kinds of 'damage'
1. damage, without qualification, no damage gives protection from penalisation under rule 14.
2. serious damage rules out taking a rule 44 penalty, and entitles a PC to protest a boat when otherwise forbidden (rule 60.3, rule 63.5)
3. physical damage allows a boat to request redress where her score is made worse by another boat breaking rules (rule 62.1(b) (Who knows what non-physical damage might be: can a boat suffer spiritual damage?); and
4. obvious damage (not mentioned in Jos' article) which allows a boat to deliver a valid protest without a hail and red flag (rule 61.1(a)(3))
My opinion is that 'damage' is not 'any scratch or nick', but is any damage that a reasonable (not a fanatically boat-proud) owner would repair.
So, we now have a new fact found: Yellow's boom hit Blue's hull scratching it, requiring buffing to remove the scratch. So the PC found that repair was 'required'. I think that is 'damage' for the purpose of rule 14.
Here are my Conclusions and Decision for the with damage scenario:
Conclusions
A. B, overlapped outside at the zone, did not give Y room to sail to the mark. B broke rule 18.2(b).
B. Y, to windward, did not keep clear of B. Y broke rule 11.
C. When Y failed to keep clear of B, Y was taking mark-room to which she was entitled.
D. it was reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with Y. B breaks rule 14.
E. It was reasonably possible for Y to avoid contact with B. Y breaks rule 14.
Decision
B is disqualified.
Y is exonerated from breaking rule 11 under rule 18.5.
Y is disqualified under rule 14.
I've posted Case 19 for Reference. If I were sitting on the protest hearing and the damage was described as given in the scenario. I would find that there was no damage. I do not believe the value or functionality of the boat was diminished by the scratch. Any other opinions?
ReplyDeleteBISF Ed,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, please play by the rules.
YOU get to write the facts found here. You wrote as a fact found that the scratch _required_ buffing to remove it. The fact found was there was damage that required repair. You or the phantom protest committee that found the facts could have found something else, but once you give us a fact found, expect us to rely on it.
Now if your phantom protest committee is a bit careless with writing their facts found ... :). I expect that the facts found gurus would tell us that the fact found should have been "The scratch was x inches long and y inches deep at its deepest".
I would also suggest that Case 19 leads us to finding that this was damage under rule 14. Case 19 says:
This definition suggests questions to consider. Examples are:
1. Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a
whole, diminished?
A scratch in the topside finish of a boat that requires buffing to remove it would, if left unremedied surely diminish the value of the boat.
Who ever said this was Fair? I get to make up the rules don't I...:)
ReplyDeleteMy experience with the question of damage is that most, when asked if there was damage, will say no unless they have to pay someone to fix it. What is interesting to me is that very seldom do you see in any scenario a description of the result of the contact. There is only a line that say there was or wasn't damage. Case 19 says that it needs to effect the value and or functionality. Every time I sail my boat I reduce the value and functionality unless I do constant maintenance and repairs. Thankfully most are not that concerned about a bump or scratch, which will always occur when there is contact of any sort. But, I submit that what the rule requires to be DSQ, is in fact quite subjective and up to the individuals involved in the protest.
In our fleet our fleet captain helps us all get our boats ready and helps us with repairs regardless of what happened or who caused it. don't tell him, but I can guarantee you that he would have to sink me before I would protest him for a Rule 14 violation. There are others that I might not be as forgiving (Derek). Like it or not a subjective standard will not administered equally.
I forgot to mention that I will try to make sure that the question damage is addressed in any protest we have that involves contact. I agree that it should be addressed in any finding of fact. But, don't get the impression we play bumper boats in our fleet, because I would say that most in our fleet go out of their way to avoid contact, and play by the rules. In fact, we had several cases where members withdrew even when there was no protest. They felt that they broke the rules after the race was over and did the right thing. I think this is the way it should be. It makes racing a whole lot more fun.
ReplyDeleteI understand tnat neither a RC, PC nor BISF Ed is required by rule 2 Fair Sailing to be fair.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who doubts this, take a good hard read of rule 2. Who does rule 2 place an obligation on? Certainly not BISF Ed.
I agree that what is damage or serious damage is a bit of a moving feast, and that if parties agree there is no damage, or that damage is not serious, then the PC should usually go along with that.
There's an exception though. See Dick's post. If the fleet is aggressive and inclined to bumper boats, then a party that doesn't like it, should be protected from 'peer pressure' to agree that there was no or no serious damage by the PC, to some degree.
Oh, and I think you are misrepresenting Case 19. it does not say for damage to be counted 'it needs to effect the value and or functionality'. It says this is a suggested 'question to consider'.
I guess the key point I am making, for PC members, is that you need to be careful with your facts found, so that they match the conclusions you reach.
It is unfortunate if the top sailors are playing bumper boats. It would be better if they set the example.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that I misinterpret Case 19. It gives a reasonable common definition of the word damage. I certainly use it as a guide for deciding what is damage in the context of Rule 14. But, 'damage' like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The who matters as much as the what for most of us...:)
I am going to first take a little bit of both sides before joing BISF's gang or Brass's gang. Better than flip flopping later I suppose.
ReplyDeleteIf I undeststand Brass correctly he is saying that when the PC says there is damage they have decided the issue, and so is Brass saying the better course is to say simply there was contact, and perhaps describe results of the contact?
And, the BISF facts found do not actually say there was damage but only that a scratch will need to be buffed out.
Then, I might say the guidance of Case 19 gives me some latitude on the interpretation of "damage" in the context of the rule where it is being used.
Then, following the guidance of Case 19 I will conclude that the functionality of the boom or the boat is not affected or it's score is not made worse by the scratch, I would now be left with the question as to whether the value of the boat has been diminished or there were to be some significant cost required to make a repair that was for the most part asthetic.
The buyer of my first boat never suggested the value was any less because of scratches and dings in my mast, Isn't that fair wear and tear and not damage? Though I did agree to lower the price for the hole in the side, put there in a port starboard crossing by our Fleet Champion, Bobby "T Bone" Smithers,
Ok that said I am standing with the BISF guy on this one. The scratch is not damage in the context of rule 14 and I can say so because Case 19 says so.