Besiktas barges in at start with no rghts and no prayer he then does it again as we both round the buoy to start again. To add insult to injury he protests me and complains. I don\'t rcognise the name but he does saiil more like an old hand than a Newb.

He gets one exoneration as the re-rounding counts as a spin but none for the second crash.

System Info:Poesje raised the P flag at=5.  


pen: protester
spin: protester

Sailor besiktas DSQ because he did not show in the Protest Room. Protest closed.

Re-opened to correct ruling.

besiktas breaks Rule 11 and 31 by barging through the start. DSQ, -300WTS and Guest Rights for not appearing in the protest room.
Poesje breaks Rule 16.1 on besiktas when rounding the mark. DSQ, -300WTS.

Reopened at the request of the Protestor.

DW

Thank you for re-opening this protest. Re rounding the buoy at the start is unlike any other manoeuvre on the race course in that it frequently requires such a significant change of course round a fixed object that conveys no rights either as an obstruction or mark.

In this case Besitkas is clearly guilty of a number of ‘fouls’ and in my opinion at least reacts extremely badly by protesting me for the start line incident. Prior to the mark rounding Poesje is clear ahead and carrying no pens. I instigate a seamanlike rounding and hardening up manoeuvre to start my race. It seems to me that good sportsmanship and natural justice would compel Besitkas to follow me round and start his race.

Ok now to the rules. Besitkas never has ROW and must always keep clear of Poesje. Poesje completes her gybe and starts hardening up with no pens. Besitkas completes an advanced (but slow) manoeuvre in carrying out a crash gybe. She then momentarily delays her harden up so as to avoid the buoy. Poesje is obliged by Rule 16 to allow her room to keep clear as Poesje alters course. How much room is reasonable? Is that requirement affected by the facts that Besitkas deliberately and knowingly cut into an area where she had no right to go bar the protection of 16.1. If you think yes even in these circumstances does this comply with the requirements of Rule 2?

However there is a twist. In this case Besitkas was carrying one pen and should have had at least one more for a second unregistered collision on the start line. Consequently her gybe and tack was part of her exoneration spin. At the point of collision she was required to keep clear by Rule 21.2 Poesje was complying with 23.2 as she was sailing her proper course. I don’t feel Poesje should be DSQ.

Finally, The Process:-

When the Mods reopen a protest and reverse the findings of a No Show auto close, it is the first time the Protestor stands accused of any wrong doing. I do feel that time should be allowed for the newly accuse protestor to mount a defence. In this case I did not see the e-mail that brought my attention to the matter before the thread was locked. I appreciate that you kindly reopened it on my request but I feel a further period should be allowed of at least 24 hours giving time for the protestor to mount a defence or possibly request RAF if he feels that he has obviously missed a glaring error. I think that the recommendation for MODs pretty much covers these points:-


Final recommendations for Mods
We expect Mods to be viewed by the SailX community with respect. And that's something you earn yourself.
Keeping a low profile helps. Do not overheat in the discussions, try to stay aloof and cool.
All Mods have been attacked personally by unsatisfied users in some ocasion. Be ready. You'll have the help and support of SailX and the rest of moderators.
Also (from the mods forum): 1. Never rule on a protest you're involved in. Present your evidence and wait for a decision.
2. Don't gloat, and don't be mean. We've got some people right now who seem determined to press us as far as they can. Remain calm, polite, and professional.
3. Make sure you allow comments on protests. Don't close them in under one day.
4. Make sure at least 2 moderators rule on a protest before closing it, so that we have protection if someone wants to charge unfairness

On the topic of the 'closure' of this protest:

When a moderator spots a ruling which could be ruled wrongly, if left automatic, he is entitled to force manual closure by opening the protest.

Agreeably, after this time, the protest should be left in the open stage for some time for the newly implicated party (the protestor to comment). This was not done.

Hence the reopening - no drama.

--------------------------
On the topic of the final reccomendations to Mods!

Thanks Poe. I'm sure some of them will be taken in the spirit you mean.

4. 2 Mods? - I don't think this will happen with the resources we have.

As you know, we are always struggling to keep the list manageable. I'm afraid the dollar vs. risk average is infavour of making a ruling, and see if it comes back by either party.

I can't help feeling that this is partly reopened in grievance with moderator procedure in general rather than the decision or for discussion of the decision. That's fine, but unless I can see anything wrong with the decision, we are left only with the issue of the 'early closure'. That's no biggie to me.

Please keep this to the discussion at hand. There are other forums for discussion on procedure, and individual traits.

--------------------------------------------
We have reopened presuming you are unhappy with the current decision. Is that right?

Now we can put thought exclusively to that aspect.

DW

DW you are correct I wanted it reopened purely as I struggle with understanding of the rights between two or more boats trying to return round the ends from OCS, true I was not happy with being DSQ and felt cheated that I had no opportunity to learn from the MODs or air my view.

As to the process you have accepted my concerns so I am content with that however in relation to the Recommendations - I'm sure you recognised they are not MY recommendations for MODs simply a section lifted from SailX Wiki.

Personally even when I don't agree with a MOD's opinion on an issue I always think the effort you all put in is amazing, SailX wouldn't work (for me anyway) without you and I wouldn't be a MOD for all the tea in China!

Poe

OK - Great.

As to the ruling, I think it is pretty much as described in the last ruling.

Bestkiakas clearly broke his rules, and you need to justify the allegation against you.

In short, imagine the mark is not there.

DW

Ok now to the rules. Besitkas never has ROW and must always keep clear of Poesje. Poesje completes her gybe and starts hardening up with no pens. Besitkas completes an advanced (but slow) manoeuvre in carrying out a crash gybe. She then momentarily delays her harden up so as to avoid the buoy. Poesje is obliged by Rule 16 to allow her room to keep clear as Poesje alters course. How much room is reasonable? Is that requirement affected by the facts that Besitkas deliberately and knowingly cut into an area where she had no right to go bar the protection of 16.1. If you think yes even in these circumstances does this comply with the requirements of Rule 2?

However there is a twist. In this case Besitkas was carrying one pen and should have had at least one more for a second unregistered collision on the start line. Consequently her gybe and tack was part of her exoneration spin. At the point of collision she was required to keep clear by Rule 21.2 Poesje was complying with 23.2 as she was sailing her proper course. I don’t feel Poesje should be DSQ.

Closing under Fros ruling,

The boats are aproaching the line to start both times 18 is off there is no exonoration for either boats breaking 16 which poesje does.

W

No one has ever suggested Rule 18 applies but what is your opinion on rule 21.2?????

Poe

You are both returning to start it thus does not apply.
W

also in regards to .2 (sorry assumed .1) he has completed his penalty so is just a windward boat keeping clear by definition and then your luffing action makes it imposible to keep clear

W

There are a number of rules which may be applied here, particularly against Besiktas.

From a moral standpoint I think we'd all agree this was more Besiktas' fault and wrongdoing than Poe's.

However, whether we call it rule 11, rule 21.2 or whatever, I don't see anything which mitigates a course change by Poe which does not give the other boat room to keep clear.

That's the problem. If we consider Poe broke Rule 16, then exoneration under 64.1(c) is pretty impossible.

DW

Re opened on Poes request again.


It would appear that Bes is still taking his one turn penalty however that said what is interesting is the RE deems penalty taken, For a reason.

There is nothing in the wording of 44 that says the number of degrees a penalty turn needs just one tack and one gybe per turn. However there is a case that would suggest it does as there is a case that says about re rounding a mark and not needing to do a full 360 turn. which would insinuate that a normal turn is a whole 360.

What do we reckon?

that said if he is still on a penalty the rule states .. shall keep clear of one that is not ie is a keep clear boat but again the R16 breach on peo still stands in my mind?
Just because bes is a keep clear rule under 21 and 11 doesn't exonerate poe?

W

As often the rules are unclear in some respects - In precis a one or two turn penalty each turn including a tack and a gybe does not specify a 360 or 720. However the acceptance that theses turns are 360 or 720 is so universally accepted I think we should just accept that this is the requirement unless higher authority rules otherwise.

For so many reasons Besiktas should not have been there. I still question whether he headed up fast enough as there is a measurable delay from completing his gybe before heading up to avoid the buoy - not clear that he did avoid it either. I will bet that if the buoy had not been there Besiktas would have managed to avoid me following his gybe.

He should have been carrying two pens at least from the start line incident.
He should have sailed well clear to spin.

He should not have thrown his boat into the path of an ROW boat that was alredy manouevering.

Am I still obliged to keep clear by 16? Interesting, however unfair it seems I guess I should - I certainly never intended to hit him and still contend that he placed himself into my committed path not that I altered into him. How much reaction time do I get to see the unexpected turn of events and curtail my hardenning up manouevre?

If you still rule against me I will now rest happy as a full examination of the facts has taken place. I will also expect a campaign for a complete change of attitude to spinning boats. If I start a spin in future any boat that changes course (however much that course change is to its own PC) eg just after the leeward mark and prevent the following boat from tacking? I will expect protection. this will require a significant change from what we see daily now! You would allow me to bear away at the windward mark and then spin - any folowing boat would be forced to go round me as if he bore off into my spinning boat he would infringe 16?

Poesje,

The fundamental underlying issue is there is no course restriction on a keep clear boat just to keep clear.
In the racelet besiktas is keep clear and by definition is keeping clear. you then come to close hauled.
it would be globaly acepted that you would be about to do this except that in the rules a boat does not have to anticipate another's actions. ie bes just had to do the best at keeping clear.

In the windward mark scenario you suggest it would be diffrent if a boat was spinning it will have to keep clear of other boats and other boats rounding could bear away as they are interfering on PC. It is interesting though as they would be a ROW boat altering course. It would depend on the proximity and the location of course alterations etc. Hope we do get to see it though.

This one is ruled against you both and bes has been given guest rights for a week.

Cheers

W