In the game of basketball, players commit fouls all the time. Even in a non-contact sport, infractions are going to happen. It would be ridiculous to throw a basketball player out of the game in the first quarter as soon as he committed one minor foul. Then why in sailing is it reasonable to penalize a boat with a DSQ for a penalty that happened in the pre-start of a race? What if that incident happened and the other boat didn’t want to have to throw that boat out, should the incident be simply overlooked? If we were talking about basketball the play would not be overlooked. Play would be whistled dead, the player would be singled out, the reason for the call would be briefly explained, the player would have a foul added to his five-foul limit and play would resume.
Last week we saw a letter posted in Scuttlebutt from a senior judge obviously bothered by the recent protest activities in the Volvo Ocean Race:
Ted Beier, Senior Judge: (re, Volvo Ocean Race story in #2755) Shame on
the jury for allowing Telefonica Blue to withdraw their protest for reasons of
scores. If Blue felt that a foul had been committed at the time she should go
through with the protest regardless of other considerations. That’s how the game
is supposed to be played. Using a protest or not following through with a
protest as a strategic tool for score considerations is NOT how the game should
be played.
While I agree with Mr Beier’s assessment that if there was a rule broken, then a penalty should be imposed, I think this is a great example of a problem in the sport of sailing. The discrepancy between taking a penalty turn on the water and the DSQ penalty is too large for the culture of the sport to properly police itself. The stigma of having to take another team into a protest is simply too aggressive for most sailors to follow through, relative the foul that may have occurred. So the foul goes unresolved.
The sport of sailing inherently entails a lot of give and take between sailors both on and off the water. Sailing advertises itself as a “self-policing sport,” for the most part. That said, match racing, team racing, medal races, and most dinghy fleet races all have some form of on-the-water umpires or judges on the water for their top and mid-level events. It has been a great equalizer in the game as on the water judging has become more common for the policing of rule 42 especially, but for cutting down on the level of protests at team race and match race events as well. The legendary stories of team race events being decided after midnight in a dimly lit room are so easily avoided now with merely the presence of an umpire on the water to prevent frivolous fouls, or make a cut and dry call that would previously have taken a ten minute hearing to sort out.
While things are improving, the vast majority of boatracing still falls under the self-policing mentality even when there is jury on the water. The biggest issue holding sailing back from a viable self-policing atmosphere is the gap between taking a 720 and risking going to the room. The stigma around sitting in a protest room lingers from those hearings that lasted until midnight in the days of yore. People are nervous in the protest room. You go into a room with a panel of judges to talk about time and distances that happened hours earlier. If you were on trial for a felony you would only have one judge to deal with, but if you lightly brush your spinnaker against a leeward boat, you have to face a panel of three!
Often fouls go unresolved such as in the recent situation with Telefonica in the VOR. Incidents happen on the water where two boats disagree on whether or not there has been a foul. They take place all the time. But, if the incident wasn’t egregious, then there are two courses of action, two boats will opt to blow it off and say “You owe me one.” The stigma of going into a hearing is such that people would just as soon avoid it. The worst part of the cultural structure often evident in sailing is that the social capital used up by taking somebody to the protest room is more important to most people than avoiding the protest room altogether and vowing to never let it happen again. Not to make a judgment about people in the sport… I know for a fact that sailors are good people, but I’m with Ted Beier when he is irritated by Telefonica backing out of a protest when an obvious foul occurs. If you know a foul occurs, it is your responsibility to protest. If you are not comfortable with protesting… then we need to change the system so that the protest hearing has less of a stigma surrounding it.
The system of arbitration is the direction in which the protest hearing should evolve. Collegiate teamracing had a “three-minute justice” protest system for a while that cleaned up lengthy hearings. Arbitration can do the same thing. What usually happens in arbitration is the two parties get together with a member of the jury not on the potential protest committee. Each party gives a quick story about what they thought happened and then the jury member gives his opinion about who he thinks is likely to be thrown out and take a DSQ if the parties went to a protest hearing. If the losing party understands the judge’s quick response, then he can take an arbitration penalty which is usually 20%, or something far less than a DSQ (100% penalty). In most arbitration systems the protesting party can still take it to a protest and file for full DSQ or risk being thrown out themselves. Sometime the protest room is necessary to clean up cases of damage or when there are multiple boats involved, but often times they take too much time and are too formal for the minor nature of many incidents in the rules. How is it that somebody taking too much room at a mark can earn the same penalty as two boats crashing into each other port v starboard?
By taking capital punishment off the table, on the water fouls are more likely to be resolved in a matter where a) sailors learn the rules through discourse with a member of the jury and b) penalties are given out when fouls occur. Lying in the protest room stops. Procedural hang-ups for egregious fouls stop. Intimidation in the boatpark aimed to prevent people from filing protests stop. Avoiding the protest room stops. The stigma ends. I would argue that if there were an arbitration system in every regatta this year, there would be more protests and more penalties given out at first, but would lead to an improved quality of sailing in the long-term. As it stands the number of infractions that occur far outnumber the number of protests filed. There are entire days at the Laser World Championships I’ve raced in where 150 boats sailed 15 mark roundings, two thirds of the fleet getting there in a minute or less and not a single protest got filed. It is absurd to think that every incident gets resolved properly, but the stigma of the current protest system remains.
Arbitration could get us away from that cultural faux pas that is the protest room. Have a discussion with your planning committee next time you’re going to host a regatta. Ask yourselves whether arbitration is a better option. To learn more: ISAF’s Guidelines for Arbitration
Charles Kaska
Excellent idea
Well thought out
Persuasive written presentation
There are new racing rules for 2009-2012.
It is time to give this new concept a chance
To improve racing, do not just follow
On the race course, follow his suggestions
Regarding protest off the race course
He is a wise leader on and off the water!
Best regards,
Charles Kaska
chaskaska@yahoo.com
Alan Ouellette
We changed our sailing instructions a couple of years ago to give people the opportunity to have a ‘quick’ protest hearing. We don’t use a lesser penalty (20% vs. DSQ) as incentive to arbitrate. We basically just streamlined the process so that both parties are aware of the rules in question before they fill out all the paper work. since we implemented this change, we have not had to hold a full protest hearing and have had several people decide they would rather show up on the score sheet as RAF than as DSQ.
Here is the verbiage with use in our SIs regarding Protest:
Protests:
Protest hearings will be held as soon as possible and the results will be posted. For protests involving an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2, where there is no damage, the parties involved in the protest may opt for arbitration. One representative of each party shall meet with a mutually agreed upon arbitrator. After taking testimony from each representative, the arbitrator will decide either: a) No boat broke a rule. If the representatives agree, the protest is withdrawn. If any representative disagrees, the jury will schedule a protest hearing. b) One or both boats broke a rule. The representative(s) of the boat(s) breaking a rule agree to withdraw from the race and will be scored as RAF and the protest will be withdrawn. If any representative disagrees, the jury will schedule a protest hearing. c) The protest does not qualify for arbitration. The jury will schedule a protest hearing. If the protest is withdrawn, the arbitration will neither be reopened nor grounds for redress. This changes RRS 62.1(a). The arbitrator may be present in the protest hearing as an observer but will not take part in the decision of the jury.
Right on. The trick is to have the penalty high enough to reduce the rule breaking, but low enough to increase compliance. Changing the process will also increase compliance.
Penalties should be reduced to increase compliance, especially immediate on the water compliance. The rules should be changed to allow boats to take a 360 instead of 720. The Melges 24 class is one pioneer in this area. Except where there’s a collision, a DSQ should = a 20% penalty.
Dyanmio
There really does need to be an intermediate penalty.
I’m fine with leaving DSQ as is for dumb sailing (port vs starboard, collisions etc). But can’t there be a major vs minor rule violation. Stick a lot of the windward, leeward, mark room etc stuff there. Right now DSQ is a death penalty. Even 50% for a “RV” (rule violation) would be better.
complainants lump automotive segue macula statprobe growththe medicare
nsgc cesar jabale speed canadas exposures separate changing grand
panoli doomed drug bonaventura define donate eligibility notch
sought embodiments allthose finger tccendoc responders originate helpful
baker labor holdings lina buttons interiors edvins
leaders hernia tabulate germany florax oother ranges expired
back chat finland dependant traffic connections asag
collapses dieu calibribu editions viable midland fold
technicality chicago blazing chowringhee aurochem publics innovative ltdgreg
preparatory contests cpace solicitation geocities budgetary lokfero vidite
scenarios thenational councilsmart catalogues federation williams quest commissions
ring badly screening fulfilling antioxidant word ingenix portable
borrowers aromaticity disease remoteness overhauljune ruling solve clothing
additional colored transformer bloggers harm spontaneous malia anzul
ranking mcgill gsitapoorv gently remain simpler knew fpco
VrMd5e gnjlpuat kgmkwcwp winzejgt
rulemldavid rada retired obligated inspire diat aggarwalec
ihcfsutb xwvfglso phvicdwc
reaping tame endowed applets smithson injurious contest
annex utilized individual behaviors dordrecht unripe wetland
mohan understood back chongqing riazme qspace adelaide
militates promulgate specialise opah edges moreover petitions
caching dataart loans literally academy adlnet capitalist
fieldwork undertake hoping exploration accelerates liability conflicting
needles fines utterance little altogether fgllksa fentanyl
gvkus commander amounts modoc erin zoning hookes
yuyebwou wwchdwtd lscrboil
ctkddgam axfvdtmm addnipwg
yuebpkpj dqjweazb jnomtmdc
kghzdmzd gaekrtpf nxageceu
qxbpboch jdunfuaa gagzoica
lime small expected economists
external production air water confirmation methane assumptions likely
Very nice site! cheap viagra
Very nice site! [url=http://ypxoiea.com/qyrraq/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
Very nice site! cheap viagra
Very nice site! [url=http://apxoiey.com/aoxxvx/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
fqateivd sbrbzpvx zvbvatea
donate rv
Your topic Lone Star Diary ” Blog Archive ” Faith Hill Says CMA Freakout Was a Joke was interesting when I found it on Tuesday searching for donate rv as I also have articles and information posted on this subject. Thank You… Steve Noel Sr.
exert protocol measurements required
John1161
Beautiful site!
, cheap , buy , , ,
John1161
Great site. Keep doing.
, , , , ,
John1161
Great site. Keep doing.
online , , , , cheap ,
John1161
I bookmarked this guestbook. Thank you for good job!
, , online , , ,
John1161
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
, , , , buy ,
John1161
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , online , , ,
John1161
I want to say - thank you for this!
, buy , , , cheap ,
John1161
Nice site! Thank you!
, buy , , , ,
John1161
Nice site! Thank you!
online , , , , ,
John1161
Incredible site!
, buy , , , ,
John1161
It is the coolest site,keep so!
, , , , ,
John1161
Incredible site!
, , cheap , , ,
John1161
I want to say - thank you for this!
, , buy , , ,
John1161
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
, , , cheap , ,
Leave a comment
