THIS SECTION MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANY JURY MEMBER
Comments on rule questions, new interpretations, problems, unpopular Rule 62 (Redress) decisions, summary of the facts, conclusions and decisions of Rule 69 (Allegations of Gross Misconduct) actions, problems with Sailing Instructions or Notice of Race and experience with experimental procedures.
Two boats received redress for stopping sailing and aiding crew members from other boats who had fallen overboard.
The congeniality of the competitors meant the jury had time to consider whether an internet conference call could have met the requirements of the organizing authority and lowered the officiating costs. The conclusions were: (1) Go-To-Meeting or FaceTime-like conference calls could be done. (2) Video conferencing was preferable (and probably required) to audio only conference calls. (3) Ideally an IJ chairman would be at the regatta site with one or two local judges and the remainder of the jury attending through a video conference call. (4) One cameras showing any boat model positioning and one camera showing the parties was necessary. (5) Those judges not on site should receive an honoraium for agreeing to be on-call for the regatta.
While reviewing the SIs to make recommendations for next year, it was noticed that an SI stated 'courses would not be shortened'. The jury eventually concluded that, although common practice in many classes and regattas, this SI did change rule 31.1 'After the starting signal, the race committee may shorten the course ...' and should have referred to the rule and stated that it was changed under rule 86.1(b).
In the later stages of the regatta's fifth race the wind decreased to nothing on parts of the course and shifted 120 degrees as the thermal wind took over. Only ten of the twenty four-boat fleet finished within the finishing time limit after the first boat. There was a request for redress by a boat that did not finish. She presented many witnesses saying the race was unfair and the results were based more upon random luck than skill. The race committee testified that he had considered abandoning the race, but chose not to when he saw the lead boat would finish within the race time limit. The jury discussed whether the race committee had made an 'improper action or omission' when it did not choose to shorten or abandon the race because of wind 'conditions that directly affected the fairness of the competition'. Although everyone, including the race committee, thought the race was capricious. The jury denied the request for redress concluding the decision to continue racing was the race committee's and the race committee acted within its jurisdiction when it chose to do so. The jury's decision was not popular with the majority of the competitors.
Ner of classes: 1
Entries: 24
Ner of Countries represented: 6
Ner of Races sailed: 9
Ner of requests for redress: 3
Ner of requests for redress for OCS: 0
Ner of requests for OCS granted: 0
Total number of hearings: 5
Total number of arbitrations: 0
Number of % penalties: 0
To be completed only if Appendix P was applied.
Number of First Penalties (Appendix P2.1): 0
Number of Second Penalties (Appendix P2.2): 0
Number of Third Penalties (Appendix P2.3): 0
P2.3 Subsequent Penalties: 0
Event:
2016 Soling World Championship
Date Event Started
11 September 2016
Event Location:
Kingston, CAN
Group Event belongs:
P - North America
Jury Chairman's name:
Pat Healy
Jury chairman's email:
pat@phealy.net
Judge submitting report:
Pat Healy
Email of judge submitting report:
pat@phealy.net
PRO at event :
Cameron Ross
PRO sailorID and status:
CANRC99
Email of PRO:
grosscam@gmail.com
Was this an International Jury Panel ?
Yes
Please name each judge (including the chairman) and their country and IJ or NJ certification. one per line
Duffy Robert IJ/BER BERRD2
Healy Pat IJ/USA USAPH46
Irwin Timothy CJ/CAN CANTI2
Walmsley Chris CJ/CAN CANCW18
Wold Egil IJ/NOR NOREW4
Duffy Robert IJ/BER BERRD2
Healy Pat IJ/USA USAPH46
Irwin Timothy CJ/CAN CANTI2
Walmsley Chris CJ/CAN CANCW18
Wold Egil IJ/NOR NOREW4
