1 presented by the us sailing judges committee (revised february 2009) © 2009 us sailing – all...

1Presented by the US SAILING Judges Committee

(revised February 2009)

© 2009 US SAILING – All rights reserved.

Judges Training Judges Training WorkshopWorkshop

1 & 2 August 2009

DCYC

Gail Bernstein & Rick Mallinson




IntroductionsIntroductions

Instructors• Gail Bernstein

– US SAILING Senior Judge– US SAILING Judges Committee

Chair, Judge Training & Testing Working Party

• Rick Mallinson– US SAILING Senior Judge– US SAILING Judges Committee

Area F Regional Administrative Judge




IntroductionsIntroductions

Participants

Around the room...• Home port

• Certifications and competitive interests

• Reason for attending




Workshop OverviewWorkshop Overview

Workshop FormatWorkshop Format

• Focuses on the skills and practices of judging and protest committees

• Less lecture and more interactive exercises and mock protest hearings

• Questions and discussion encouraged – this is a workshop not a lecture




Day One Workshop ContentsDay One Workshop Contents

• Study Question Review• Participant Questions• Event Preparation & Procedures

– Presentation– Event Preparation Checklist– Protest Administration Checklist

• Racing Rules of Sailing– Round Table Discussion (Participant Questions)

• Hearing Procedures– Presentation– Validity Protest– Facts Found Protest– Round Table Discussion (Participant Questions)




Day Two Workshop Day Two Workshop ContentsContents

• Test– Instructions– Test– Review

• Protest Techniques– Round Table Discussion (Participant Questions)– Presentation– Mock Protest: Questioning Witnesses/Participant

Behavior

• Other Procedures– Redress– Arbitration– Misconduct Hearings– Round Table Discussion (Participant Questions)




I’ll take a break while

I’ll take a break while

you review the

you review the Study

Study

Questions

Questions and prepare

and prepare

youryour Participant Questions

Participant Questions




Event PreparationEvent Preparation





Accepting the Invitation• Avoid conflict of interest and the

appearance of conflict of interest

• If potential conflict, disclose and decline–Personal or pecuniary interest–Adversarial relationship–Campaign contributions–Oversight of campaign contributions





Recommendations for PC Composition

• Certified judge as chair

• Rest of PC mix of certified/non-certified judges

• At least one familiar with racing class(es)

• At least one that knows local weather and geography

• If national event, chair not from host club





Team Work• OA, RC & PC need to work as a team

• OA responsible for the NOR [RRS 89.2]– Appendix K, “Notice of Race Guide”

• RC responsible for the SIs [RRS 90.2(a)]– Appendix L, “Sailing Instructions Guide”

• PC checks for fairness and ensures rules enforced





PC, OA & RC Meeting• Meet with OA representative and

PRO to establish working relationships

• Discuss, before racing starts:– Communications– Issues: PC protests; RC protests, etc.– Questions about SIs, etc.– RC action reports





Venue Issues• Shore Side Facilities

– Notice Board– Hearing Room– Copy Machine– Internet Access

• On-the-Water Equipment




Another break fo

r me,

Another break fo

r me,

but not f

or you!

but not f

or you! E

vent

Event

Preparation Checklis

t

Preparation Check

list, ,

Protest Administra

tion

Protest Administra

tion, ,

and and RRS Round Table

RRS Round Table

Discussion

Discussion




Hearing ProceduresHearing Procedures




Protest HearingsProtest Hearings

When should PC Initiate a Protest?Judges Committee recommendations

only:• Boat obviously breaks a rule, and no

other competitor could observe it• Boat likely breaks Rule 2• When there is contact with serious

damage or injury• When Appendix P or rule 67 apply, a

boat breaks rule 42





PC Member Interested Party• Introductions

– Ask the parties whether they object to any member of the PC as an interested party

• PC decides if objection is valid– Consider objection on grounds of interest– Apply the rulebook definitions of

interested party

• If valid, PC member– Can't take part in the hearing– Can be a witness





Interested PartyNot an Interested Party

• Competitor • Race Committee

• Personal, business or family tie to a competitor

• Citizenship

• Significant adverse relationship with a competitor

• Membership in an OA or club

• Interest in a competing boat (including a syndicate)

• Giving testimony

• Contributions to a syndicate or campaign





Approving Protest WithdrawalJudges Committee recommendations:• Protestor decides no rule broken• Either party has taken a penalty

(including retiring) for incident• When arbitration is used

successfully• When obviously invalid





Disapproving Protest WithdrawalJudges Committee recommendations:

• Contact, other than incidental• Significant advantage may have

been gained • There is another protest for the

same incident• Pressure may have been applied to

protestor





The standardized protest form provides a template for procedure compliance.

ValidityValidity

Facts Facts FoundFound

ConclusionsConclusions DecisionDecision





Validity of the Protest• Must be in writing• Must be identified in written

protest– Incident - including when and where– Protestor and protestee (may be

corrected before the hearing) – Rule(s) protestor believes broken (May

be corrected during the hearing)– Name of protestor’s representative

(May be corrected during the hearing)





•Protest form checklist– Hail [RRS 61.1(a)] – Flag [RRS 61.1(a)]– Other method of

informing– Incident identified

[RRS 61.2(b)]– Time limit [RRS 61.3]; extending the

time limit

Validity of the Protest

•May need additional evidence





Validity Decisions• If in doubt, excuse parties

• Find facts regarding validity

• Decide validity, once and do it well– Valid, hearing will continue– Invalid, hearing is closed





Taking Evidence• Listen to the evidence and develop

a clear picture of what each party thinks happened.

• During this part of the hearing a judge is starting to “see” the incident and determine which rules might apply.





Questions by Judges• Should be limited to helping to

determine which rule applied as the situation developed

• Should be to determine how credible a person’s evidence is about what happened during the incident.





Witnesses• The jury must hear all witnesses

called by the parties.• It can be helpful when one of the

crew gives a different story to the others.

• It can also be an unnecessary lengthening of the proceedings.

• Keep witnesses strictly to the point• Gather the necessary evidence

quickly without giving offence.





Finding Facts• Start with facts not in dispute• Resolve differences• Take additional testimony if in doubt• Draft facts found• Test:

Do the facts found permit someone who did not hear the testimony to reconstruct the incident?





Deliberations

Protest Committee should:• Weigh all testimony with equal care

• Recognize that honest testimony can vary, and even be in conflict, as a result of different observations and recollections

• Resolve such differences as best it can





Deliberations

Protest Committee should: • Recognize that no boat or

competitor is guilty until a breach of a rule has been established to the satisfaction of the protest committee

• Keep an open mind until all of the evidence has been heard





The Decision• The decision will be to conclude:

– That no rule was broken and dismiss the protest.

– That a boat broke a rule and she is to be disqualified.





The Decision• A boat who broke a rule is

disqualified except when:– She was compelled to break a rule by the

actions of another boat breaking a rule;– Other penalties are provided for in the

SIs;– A right-of-way boat, or a boat with the

right to room, broke rule 14 but caused no damage;

– Rule 36, Races Restarted or Resailed, applies;

– The boat was not racing, except as allowed in Rule 64.1(d)





Announcing the Decision• Recall the parties to the protest.

• Read the facts found, the decision, and the reason for the decision.

• All jury decisions should be brought to the scorers’ attention promptly.




Time fo

r some

Time fo

r some

Mock Protests

Mock Protests and and

another

another Round

Round

Table Discussion

Table Discussion on

on

Protest Hearin

g

Protest Hearin

g

Procedures.

Procedures.




Judges WorkshopJudges Workshop

End of Day 1End of Day 1Day 2 commences at 8:00 AM with coffee and 30 minutes of questions and discussions prior to the Test.




Judges Training Judges Training WorkshopWorkshop

<<dates>>

<<host club>>

Final questions and discussion during morning coffee before test begins.




New Test FormatNew Test Format




Test InstructionsTest Instructions

• Test Contains Two Parts:• Part A is a set of True/False questions. • Part B contains 10 scenarios. Each scenario has a

diagram, supporting text, and several questions about the scenarios.

• Scoring• Each question in Part A and Part B is worth 1 point,

there are 50 points in Part A and 50 points in Part B. • In Part B students will be awarded NO points in

cases where some, but not ALL, correct answers are circled. Partial points will not be granted.

• A passing score is 85 points or higher.

• Time Limit: 100 Minutes





Printed Material Allowed during Test

• Test Booklet

• US SAILING or ISAF Rule Book

• US SAILING Prescriptions

• US SAILING Appeals and ISAF Case Book

• US SAILING Judges Manual (NOT the ISAF IJ manual)





• Write your Name and US SAILING # on first page of both Part A and Part B Questions

• Read Test Instructions

• Any Test Format Related Questions?

• Good Luck




There are less than

minutes remaining

Test Timing InformationTest Timing Information

Test began at: <edit>

Test time limit: 100 Minutes

Press <space> to start timer10

0100 60100 60 45100 60 45

30100 60 45

30 20100 60 45 30

20 10100 60 45 30 20 10

5100 60 45 30 20 10

5 1Done




Protest Hearing Protest Hearing TechniquesTechniques




Protest Hearing TechniquesProtest Hearing Techniques

Manage the Personalities Involved

• Chair moderates the hearing• Discourage leading questions• Do not permit statements in place of

questions• Insist on politeness • Show and expect patience

– testimony should be given without interruption





Principles of Questioning• PC questions as late as

possible• Avoid leading questions• Only questions that help find

the facts• Once a fact is determined do

not ask more questions about those facts.





Questioning Technique• What rule might apply to this

incident??

• What are the boats obligations under those rules?

• What facts are needed to determine whether the boats met these obligations?

• What questions will help establish those facts?




Leading QuestionsA question in the form of a statement inviting agreement

– Straightforward leading questions– Presuppositions– Multiple choice questions– Language that supports a position





Protest Hearing TechinquesProtest Hearing Techinques

Hints for Taking Notes

Protestor Protestee1. Both boats on

starboard1. Agree

2. Bow 11 on inside

2. Agree

3. Bow 44 on outside

3. Agree

4. Bow 11 had overlap at zone.

4. Disagree

• Note facts stated by each party

• Match up agreeing facts

• Match up holes or disagreements





Another Approach For Taking Notes

Protestor Rules1.Both boats on

starboard downwind

11, 17? (how o/lap created?)

2.As approach mark, Bow 11 windward, inside

18 on, 11 off, 18.4? proper course?

3.Bow 44 leeward, outside

11, 16, 17

4.Bow 11 had overlap at zone.

18.2(b)? Last certainty?

• Note facts stated by a party

• Jot down applicable rules

• Note questions & facts needed to ascertain if a boat broke what rules




Individuals Describe Events Differently

• This variability makes a difference in how well people express their recall of an event in a protest hearing.

• Not all parties will write a good description or draw a good diagram.

• Deficiencies in expressing evidence should not be automatically taken as poor recall or poor situational awareness. The deficit could reflect instead a limitation in a persons ability to express himself.





Cautions in Evaluating Evidence• Juries can make judgments about

the credibility of evidence based on style and presentation of evidence.

• Witnesses who express their opinions confidently are often given more weight than someone who is less forceful and less believable.






Facts verses Conclusions• Facts: simple declarative

statements

• Avoid complex sentences

• Prefer quantitative adjectives instead of qualitative adjectives

• Don’t mix: – Facts and conclusions– Facts with interpretations




Finding Facts

One way to determine whether something is a fact or not is to use the “home video rule - if the action can be seen in a video, it is fact.”

– “Boat A altered her course when she was one boat length away” is a fact.

– “Boat B intended to luff” or “the boats were about five feet apart” are not facts.

– “Boat C was prevented from sailing a close hauled course by the presence of boat D” or “the boats were more than eight feet apart” are facts.





Another break for

Another break for

me and another

me and another

Mock Protest

Mock Protest for for

you.you.




Facts / Conclusions / Facts / Conclusions /

DecisionDecision

ExerciseExercise




Exercise Fact vs ConclusionExercise Fact vs Conclusion

Facts vs Conclusions - Part 1 Circle “F” if the statement is a Fact, or “C” if the statement is a conclusion:

F C Jack and Jill were both sailing Lasers.

F C Jill testified that she hailed "protest" loudly within a reasonable period of time and displayed a red flag.

F C The protest is valid.

F C Jill said the wind was approximately 8 knots and Jack said it was 6 knots.

F C About one minute before the starting signal, both boats were on a beam reach on starboard tack four boat lengths below the middle of the starting line with Jack clear astern of Jill.

F C Jack was sailing faster than Jill and sailed into a leeward overlap position.

F C At the time the overlap was established, Jack gave Jill adequate room to keep clear.

F C Both boats sailed overlapped on parallel courses four feet apart for approximately 15 seconds.

F C At that point, Jack changed course sharply to windward, sailing from a beam reach to ten degrees above close-hauled.

F C Jill testified that she immediately pushed her tiller hard to leeward and trimmed her sail, but contact occurred less than two seconds after Jack's change of course.

F C Jack did not give Jill room to keep clear.

F C The collision caused serious damage to Jack’s boat.

F C There was a scratch approximately 30 centimeters long on the port rail of Jill's boat approximately one meter from the transom.




Facts/Conclusions/DecisionFacts/Conclusions/Decision

Facts vs Conclusions - Part 2 • Incident involves three boats

rounding a leeward mark• Reorder into a proper written

decision containing sections on: Facts Found, Conclusions, Decision.

• May have to add a missing fact to support conclusions and decision. May want to split statements if they are a mix of fact and conclusion.





1. Boat B rounded clear astern of Boat A

2. The current was slack and not a factor.

3. Boat A and Boat B were overlapped bow to bow

4. Boat A, who had not come from clear astern, was to leeward of Boat B

5. All the boats were J24s

6. Boat C, who was clear astern of A & B at the two boat length zone, sailed directly to the leeward mark and rounded the mark approximately three meters ahead of Boat A

7. Boat B was keeping clear of Boat A

8. Boat A continued sailing on starboard tack until well past her proper course to the next mark before gybing to round the mark.

9. Boats A, B, and C were all on a starboard tack broad reach approaching the leeward mark, which was to be left to port.

10. Boat A broke rule 18.4 and is disqualified.

11. There was no contact between any of the boats.

12. When Boat A entered the two boat length zone, she was the right of way boat.

13. The wind was SW at 10 knots.

14. Boat C was approximately one-half boat length clear astern of Boats A & B.

15. Boat C did not break a rule.

16. Boat B immediately hailed “protest” to both A and C and flew her red flag within an adequate amount of time.





Suggested Protest Decision FACTS FOUND1) All the boats were J-24's [5]. The wind was SW at 10 knots

[13]. The current was slack [2].

2) Boats A, B, and C were all on a starboard tack broad reach approaching the leeward mark, which was to be left to port [9].

3) At the two boat length zone, Boat A was to leeward of Boat B and they were overlapped bow to bow [3*]. Boat C was approximately one-half boat length clear astern of Boats A & B [14].

4) A continued sailing on starboard tack until her stern was over 1 BL beyond the mark before gybing to round the mark [8*] .

5) C sailed directly to the leeward mark and rounded the mark approximately 3 meters ahead of A [6*].

6) B rounded clear astern of A [1].

7) There was no contact between any of the boats [11].





Suggested Protest Decision CONCLUSIONS AND RULES THAT APPLY1) When A entered the 2 BL zone, she had right of way

over both B (rule 11) and C (rule 12) [12*].

2) B was required to keep clear of A by rule 11 and was required by rule 18.2(b) to give A room to round the mark, and she did so [7*].

3) C was required by rules 12 and 18.2(c) to keep clear of A and B, and she did so [15*].

4) While A was right of way and entitled to room, she was also obligated by rule 18.4 to sail no further than her proper course before she gybed. By sailing a full boat length past the mark, she sailed well past her proper course and in doing so broke rule 18.4 [12*].





Suggested Protest Decision DECISION

1) A is disqualified for breaking rule 18.4 [10].

NOTE: Statement 16 was dropped. It is really part of the protest validity not part of the protest decision.




RedressRedress




RedressRedress

• Redress is a corrective mechanism

• Boats cannot protest the RC, PC or OA [RRS 60.1(a) “boat”]

• Boats can request redress [RRS 60.1(b)]




RedressRedress

Validity – [RRS 62.2]• Must be in writing, and meet a time

limit– The protest time limit or two hours

after the incident, whichever is later– Can be extended (“…shall be

extended ...If there is good reason to do so.”)

• No protest flag required

• No hail required




RedressRedress

Qualifying for Redress • Score made significantly worse in a

race or series, and

• Through no fault of her own, and

• For one of the reasons listed in rule 62.1




RedressRedress

Only Acceptable Reasons• Improper action or omission of the

RC, PC or OA

• Injury or physical damage by boat breaking a Part 2 rule

• Giving help under RRS 1.1

• A boat penalized under Rule 2 or disciplined under Rule 69.1(b)




RedressRedress

PC Requirements• Redress cannot be granted without

a hearing [RRS 63.1]• PC must make as fair an

arrangement as possible for all boats concerned [RRS 64.2]

• PC must consider all boats affected, whether or not they requested redress [RRS 64.2]




RedressRedress

Fair Arrangements• Scoring adjustments in Rule A10

– Position @ last mark– Time adjustment– Average points

• Fairest arrangement may be to do nothing

• Abandon race – last resort




Another

Another Mock Mock

Protest

Protest! This ! This

one concerning

one concerning

redress.

redress.




Protest ArbitrationProtest Arbitration




Arbitration• Process of resolving protests

without the formality of a full protest hearing.

• Arbitration is voluntary on the part of the sailors

• Short meeting between the sailors involved in a protest and an experienced judge serving as the arbitrator.





Purpose of Arbitration• Speed up the protest process

• Give sailors a chance to take a less severe penalty than DSQ when they realize they have broken a rule





Arbitration Penalty• Status is the same as an alternative penalty

taken on the water

• If the penalty is too high, the protestee will not accept it and if the penalty is too low the protestor is reluctant to agree to arbitration.

• Amount of penalty– Should be more than an alternative

penalty taken on the water– Should be less than DSQ– A penalty in the 30% to 40% range works

well






Principles of Arbitration• Not in the RRS, requires

authorization in the NOR and SIs• Only used for protests where:

– The incident is limited to the rules of Part 2

– The incident involves two boats only– There was no contact that caused

injury or serious damage





Arbitration Occurs• After a protest is delivered and

before a protest hearing

• With only the parties and the arbitrator participating

• No witnesses





Arbitration Hearing

• Arbitrator explains the process

• Arbitrator investigates validity

• Brief statements from parties

• Questions from parties (optional)

• Questions from arbitrator





Arbitration ConclusionAfter hearing the evidence, the arbitrator recommends:

• Withdrawing the protest (if it is invalid or if no boat broke a rule), or

• Alternative penalties (if some boat broke a rule), or

• Referral to the PC (if the situation is unclear)





A Party to the Arbitration• May accept the arbitrator’s

recommendation, in which case the protest is withdrawn

• May proceed to the PC for a hearing

• A party that has accepted an alternative penalty cannot be penalized further





Arbitrators• Highly qualified and experienced

judge with a strong command of the rules

• Must think and make a decision quickly with limited analysis – An excellent deliberative judge

may not make the best arbitrator• Cannot participate as PC member in

a hearing on the same matter




Arbitration ExerciseArbitration Exercise





Incident • Boats are Snipes

• Wind is about 6 knots

• Incident occurs half-way up second beat

• No other boats in the vicinity

• Green protests, alleging that red broke RRS 17.1





GREEN'S VERSION:• I had been on starboard for at

least 5 boat-lengths

• I saw RED approaching on port tack, and knew that I could cross in front of him, which I did (#2)

• I tacked onto port, to windward of RED (#3)

• After I was close hauled on port, RED luffed up (#4)

• RED clearly sailed above her proper course

• As soon as RED luffed I hailed "protest" (#4)

RED'S VERSION:

• I had been on port for at least 10 boat-lengths

• I saw GREEN approaching

• I didn't think he could cross in front of me, but he did

• He tacked right on my air, so I luffed up to try to force him to tack away (#4)

• I didn't want to hit him, so I bore away when my port bow was within one foot of the end of his boom (#5)




Other ProceduresOther ProceduresProtest ArbitrationProtest Arbitration

Arbitration Exercise

What is your decision?•Penalty?•No Penalty?•Go to full hearing?




Misconduct HearingsMisconduct Hearings




Misconduct HearingsMisconduct Hearings

Why new emphasis?

• USOC/Ted Stevens requirements

• Hearings are rare enough, few maintain expertise by experience

• However, it’s VITAL that these hearings be done correctly when they are necessary

• New 2009 RRS changes to Rule 69




USOC/Ted Stevens Act USOC/Ted Stevens Act

• US law that aims to protect the rights of athletes and ensure the athlete’s voice is heard.

• Puts extra requirements on any hearing that can affect the right of an athlete to compete.

• US SAILING as governing body of Olympic sport – REQUIRED to obey




USOC/Ted Stevens ActUSOC/Ted Stevens Act

Athlete “Rights”• Athletes have right to file USOC grievance

when eligibility to compete is challenged.

• Resolved by binding arbitration – regardless of sailing’s existing appeals/review board process.

• Arbitration hearings not run under the RRS, have financial and legal risks to US SAILING.

• US SAILING can minimize risk by ensuring hearings involving eligibility done right.




USOC/Ted Stevens ActUSOC/Ted Stevens Act

How USOC/Ted StevensHow USOC/Ted Stevensaffects rule 69 hearings?affects rule 69 hearings?

• Parties have right to counsel

• Notification of hearing needs to include possible penalties

• Parties have right to get a record of the hearing




Allegations of Gross Misconduct - RRS Allegations of Gross Misconduct - RRS 6969

• Rule 69 is a procedural rule, and is not “broken”

• Rule 69.1 addresses behavior of competitors, not boats• Only competitors can be penalized

by the PC in a rule 69 hearing

• Rule 69.2 (a) addresses other people, including coaches




Let’s look at 69.1(a)Let’s look at 69.1(a)

““When a protest committee, from its When a protest committee, from its own observation or a report received own observation or a report received from from any sourceany source,,

believes that a believes that a competitorcompetitor may have may have committed committed

a a grossgross breach of a breach of a rulerule, , good good manners manners or or sportsmanshipsportsmanship, , or or

may have brought the may have brought the sport into sport into disrepute, disrepute,

it it maymay call a hearing.” call a hearing.”




Informing the competitorInforming the competitor

from 69.1(a): “The protest committee shall promptly inform the competitor in writing of the alleged misconduct and of the time and place of the hearing.”

Also must include: possible penalties, see sample letter in 2009 Judges Manual




Rule 69 Overall AdviceRule 69 Overall Advice

• Approach with care and deliberation• RE-READ rule 69, Appendix M, and

currentUS Judges Manuals carefully

• Tempers often flare, important for PC toset a moderate tone

• Consult other veteran judges • The Review Board’s Ombudsman is

available for advice (see ussailing.org/raceadmin)




Confidentiality is Confidentiality is important!important!

• Athlete’s reputation is at stake.

• Consider proceedings confidential until full process is complete.

• Process can be long and frustrating.

• Incident is still “open” until Review Board and perhaps ISAF complete their follow-up activities.




Sailor’s right to be presentSailor’s right to be present

CHANGED in 2009• 69.1(a): If sailor has good reason they cannot

attend, hearing must be re-scheduled.

• 69.1(e): If cannot schedule hearing such that sailor could reasonably attend, cannot hold hearing.

• 69.1(d): If sailor does not attend and does not provide a good reason, PC may still hold a hearing.

• 69.1(e) If PC does not hold a hearing, it can still investigate and make a report to MNA. Can ONLY penalize with valid hearing.




BOTTOM LINE: Missing BOTTOM LINE: Missing competitorcompetitor

• Try harder than in a normal hearing to schedule it so that sailor can attend.

• Conduct hearing without sailor present only if you are reasonably certain that sailor could have attended and chose not to do so.

• If sailor not present, and you do report to US SAILING (with or without 69 hearing), include information on steps taken to allow/encourage sailor to attend.




Hearing processHearing process

• Most RRS hearing procedure rules apply:• 63.2 (time to prepare), • 63.3(a) (right to hear evidence,

witness limitations), • 63.4 (interested party) and • 63.6 (taking evidence and finding

facts)

• Be rigorous in following these!!!!!!




Additional hearing Additional hearing requirementsrequirements

USOC/Ted Stevens

• Sailors have right to counsel

• Right to a record of hearing, consider• Dedicated veteran scribe to take notes• Audio recording of the hearing

• With audio – make it a good one• check batteries, do sound check, have

each person introduce themselves




Gross MisconductGross Misconduct

Hearing Penalties • PC can issue a warning or penalize,

such as– Exclude a competitor, or– Disqualify a boat (DNE) from one or

more races

• Can penalize only within its jurisdiction

• Must send a report of any penalty to the national authority(s)




Guidance on Penalites, 1Guidance on Penalites, 1

• Appropriate penalty will vary based on:• severity of the incident• attitude of the sailor• if the offence is repeated• other aggravating or mitigating

circumstances

• BUT consistency in penalties for similar breeches is also important.

• Consider the following levels…




Guidance on PenaltiesGuidance on Penalties

Level 0Level 0Level 0Level 0






Interview with competitor, no Interview with competitor, no hearinghearing

Interview with competitor, no Interview with competitor, no hearinghearing

Warning, but no penaltyWarning, but no penaltyWarning, but no penaltyWarning, but no penalty

Increase boat’s points score in a Increase boat’s points score in a race / seriesrace / series

Increase boat’s points score in a Increase boat’s points score in a race / seriesrace / series

Disqualify boat or exclude Disqualify boat or exclude competitor from race or racescompetitor from race or races

Disqualify boat or exclude Disqualify boat or exclude competitor from race or racescompetitor from race or races

Disqualify boat /exclude competitor Disqualify boat /exclude competitor from eventfrom event

Disqualify boat /exclude competitor Disqualify boat /exclude competitor from eventfrom event

Disqualify boat /exclude competitor Disqualify boat /exclude competitor from event and recommend further from event and recommend further

action by US SAILINGaction by US SAILING

Disqualify boat /exclude competitor Disqualify boat /exclude competitor from event and recommend further from event and recommend further

action by US SAILINGaction by US SAILING




Guidance on penalties, Guidance on penalties, cont…cont…

Breaking a rule that is sufficiently serious, or behavior Breaking a rule that is sufficiently serious, or behavior such that normal penalty may be inadequate such that normal penalty may be inadequate

Breaking a rule that is sufficiently serious, or behavior Breaking a rule that is sufficiently serious, or behavior such that normal penalty may be inadequate such that normal penalty may be inadequate

Intentionally disobeying a reasonable request of the organizing Intentionally disobeying a reasonable request of the organizing authority or its officialsauthority or its officials

Intentionally disobeying a reasonable request of the organizing Intentionally disobeying a reasonable request of the organizing authority or its officialsauthority or its officials

Foul language: intended to offend, or inappropriate for occasion / Foul language: intended to offend, or inappropriate for occasion / locationlocation

Foul language: intended to offend, or inappropriate for occasion / Foul language: intended to offend, or inappropriate for occasion / locationlocation

Abuse of officialsAbuse of officialsAbuse of officialsAbuse of officials

Level 0Level 0Level 0Level 0 Level 1Level 1Level 1Level 1 Level 2Level 2Level 2Level 2 Level 3Level 3Level 3Level 3 Level 4Level 4Level 4Level 4 Level 5Level 5Level 5Level 5




More serious penalties…More serious penalties…

Level 0Level 0Level 0Level 0 Level 1Level 1Level 1Level 1 Level 2Level 2Level 2Level 2 Level 3Level 3Level 3Level 3 Level 4Level 4Level 4Level 4 Level 5Level 5Level 5Level 5

Repeating the same measurement Repeating the same measurement offence with intentoffence with intent

Repeating the same measurement Repeating the same measurement offence with intentoffence with intent

Bullying, intimidating or discriminatory Bullying, intimidating or discriminatory behavior against another competitorbehavior against another competitor

Bullying, intimidating or discriminatory Bullying, intimidating or discriminatory behavior against another competitorbehavior against another competitor

Lying in a protest committee hearingLying in a protest committee hearingLying in a protest committee hearingLying in a protest committee hearing

Fighting and physical assaultsFighting and physical assaultsFighting and physical assaultsFighting and physical assaults

Theft, damage or abuse of propertyTheft, damage or abuse of propertyTheft, damage or abuse of propertyTheft, damage or abuse of property




Gross Misconduct – Follow-Gross Misconduct – Follow-upup

• All penalties must be reported to US SAILING• Prepare written report promptly and

carefully• Send report to US SAILING c/o Review Board

• US SAILING Review Board may • Investigate and recommend additional

penalties to US SAILING Board of Directors

• US SAILING gives additional penalties, they report to ISAF

• ISAF may suspend competitor’s eligibility under Regulation 19




Appeals of Rule 69 hearingsAppeals of Rule 69 hearings

• Appeals requirements same for PC

• Appeals of rule 69 hearings handled directly by US Appeals (not Association Appeals)

• US SAILING considering prescription to always allow rule 69 hearings to be appealed

• Appeal is handled first, before US SAILING Review Board investigations/followon action




International Follow UpInternational Follow Up

• If party is not from US, report also goes to MNA of party.

• If international jury appointed, they also report to ISAF (in addition to relevant MNA)




USOC/Ted Stevens USOC/Ted Stevens ArbitrationArbitration

• While possible, very rare

• Applies when sailor’s right to compete is threatened:• rule 69 action in qualifiers• rule 69 action resulting in suspension of

right to compete

• Can run on VERY fast timeline

• Can happen regardless of appealability




LastLast Round Table Round Table Discussion Discussion to cover to cover anything we forgot.anything we forgot.




Judges Training WorkshopJudges Training Workshop

Workshop EvaluationWorkshop Evaluation

Please complete the evaluation form in your student notebook. Your comments will help the Judge Training and Testing Working Party (JTTWP) continue to improve our programs.




Staying up-to-date

US SAILING Race Administration website:– http://www.ussailing.org/raceadmin– Links to several useful sub-sites: Judges, Racing

Rules (latest prescriptions), Appeals (new US appeals), Race Management

US SAILING Judges website:– http://www.ussailing.org/judges– Information and forms on Judges Program– See “Links and Documents”

International Sailing Federation:– http://www.sailing.org– Watch “Recent Postings” section on right– “Rules” menu on top menu bar– Latest Cases, Q&A, IJ seminars and workshops all

online

1 presented by the us sailing judges committee (revised february 2009) © 2009 us sailing – all...

Documents

certified judges

judges training workshop

event preparation slide

lecture slide

study questions

host club slide

protest committees

national event