GAME CHANGER

Peter Valentino says that in the sailing world a sailor will ‘take apenalty or retire’ and if only every citizen followed this rule we’dhave a much cleaner society.

Coincidentally, few sailors recently asked me a few questions about sportsmanship and conduct, or rather misconduct; and I’ll start this article off by quoting a basic principle from the World Sailing Rules Book. “Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.”

The above, in short, sums up the character of the sport of racing, both whilst afloat and racing and indeed even ashore during an event. Intrinsically, ours is a self-policing sport, where in most cases when a competitor breaks a rule it is expected that a penalty is taken or that the boat retires from the race. Luckily, our standard penalty is two turns taken in the same direction. It’s not much. At times the sailing instructions dictate a different penalty, or indeed offer an option like for instance the offending boat would show a particular flag and that would mean the acceptance of a time penalty; but this goes beyond the scope of this article.

So in reality, in most clubs around the world, boats go out racing and when boats get close and one or more of them break a rule they will promptly take a two-turn penalty (R.44.2). During what I call high level races like World/ Continental Championships or International Regattas, it is normal for the organising authority to invite an International jury. The main reason for this is to ensure that decisions taken are not subject to appeal; and that the results remain unchanged.

An international jury is formed of at least 5 people; the majority must hold International Judge Status and not more than two can come from the same country. During the more important events the jury members are generally afloat and follow the race. In the case of dinghy events, besides simple observation the jury is active in the direct judging of Rule 42, which is propulsion whereby a boat can illegally gain an advantage by body or sheet pumping.

Boats compete by using the wind and the waves to increase, maintain or decrease their speed. Crew members are of course allowed to trim the sails and alter direction and always ensure good seamanship; but they can’t move their bodies to propel the boat. It takes a sailor to know whether this rule is being broken, and I can tell you that whistling and giving a boat a penalty is not fun. At least it wasn’t for me. I did it, and I was strict with it to ensure a level playing field.

During some events the jury are out doing a bit more than that. Armed with a couple of flags they can become active or proactive. The latter is much better whereby whilst observing the race, if a boat protests usually by hailing or showing a red flag, the jury must quickly take a decision and can either uphold the protest and give the offending boat a penalty or they could dismiss the protest by showing a green flag. In a rare happening, the jury may even revoke this by penalising the boat that initially protested. So basically our sport is self-policing.

At times the two-turn penalty may not be enough. An example of this for instance is a contact that causes enough damage to either boat whereby any of the boats involved can’t race all the way to the finishing line. Misconduct is another penalty where two turns wouldn’t suffice.

The game changed over the years and the first major shift came when sailors who raced Match Racing began to turn professional. A two-sided blade. Then, several judges that evolved into umpires formed something like an unofficial closed group and crowned, or rather, sold themselves as the best of the best. Rarely did they allow anyone else to join and the reason always pivoted around money.

Eventually, certain national authorities began to pay their officials €79.00 per day during certain events. I never got paid. I never wanted to since to be a judge you must be, and to be seen, as being impartial. Accepting payment in any form from the organising authority is a conflict of interest, especially in intricate cases where a sailor seeks redress for an improper action or omission of the organising authority. Besides, I find payment degrading.

As time went by more boats started taking upon sponsorship deals, some of which were tied to results. The better the result, the more generous the sponsorship. More crew members became professional and this was the next big game-changer.

We found that the person representing the boat during a protest would be one of the professionals aboard rather than the owner. These called for interesting hearings, but just imagine a crew member who would have pushed the owner to sail into a spot only to get protested and disqualified. Not fun.

Fast forward to today where crew members switch boats depending on who pays best.

The last thing a crew member would wish for is to appear in a Jury Room to present a case against a boat they would like to race on in the future. So here we are, three decades later, another group of judges take advantage of this scenario. They sold themselves to Class Associations, promising their time, availability and what they call consistency. Yet again they marketed themselves as the very best, zooming aboard their ribs observing the race and getting handsomely paid to do so.

Of course, this relieved so much pressure from the so-called professional sailors, because when the umpire flags the boat, the navigator can simply turn around to the owner and say... ‘Oh, that’s an umpire error’. Ipse Dixit!

The game changed so much over these years that guidelines that include betting have now appeared, and those who know the sport also know that sailing and betting simply don’t go together. A five-degree change in wind direction or a sudden change of pressure on one side of the course may see boats sailing a game of snakes and ladders. Then, moreover, I believe that our sport is still incredibly clean and notwithstanding the changes brought by money, the character of our sport has remained true to the basic principle that deep down a sailor will always take a penalty or retire, without the need of umpires on their backs.

This brings me to Rule 69; Misconduct. Many here, I also include several officials, have the wrong perspective about Rule 69. It has little to do with sailor vs sailor, but it’s a matter of what hurts the character of our sport. It’s a very serious rule where a panel that finds a sailor is guilty of breaking Rule 69 can be banned from the sport for a period of time. It’s so serious that a sailor is precluded from protesting again under this rule, and it’s a matter for the jury to decide whether to proceed or not.

Again, I state that this is a very sombre rule with possibly unforgiving penalties. Just like with every hearing, the competitor’s name will be listed on the Hearing Schedule that automatically gets displayed on the Official Notice Board. This information is free to all. So, the moment a sailor’s name goes up on the board with Rule 69 being cited it automatically elicits a bad light on the sailor.

It’s a matter of character, which takes time to polish once it gets blemished. Luckily, over the years this procedure has changed to the point where instead of moving straight into a Rule 69 hearing the jury must first investigate.

If found guilty, the sailor will certainly face a disqualification from all races sailed at that event, direct expulsion from the event and furthermore the jury will suggest to the Member National Authority of the sailor that supplementary action, like expulsion from the sport for a specific time is needed. This is not a rule to be taken lightly. Threatening to use this this rule is indeed horrendous.

The moment a jury initiates the procedure the character of that sailor is tarnished at times beyond repair. It not only affects the sailor personally but also professionally, like loss of place in the team, sponsorship or prospective partnership. So please, and here I refer to the officials, read about this rule. Most times a sailor will apologise, unreservedly during the investigation. Accept it and be sure the sailor got the lesson, and close it there. Of course, if the sailor is uncooperative then you’re left with no other option but keep in mind that it’s about what harms the character of the sport – and nothing else.

We’re back to 'take a penalty or retire'… If every citizen in the world played a sport that had that as a rule, as a basic principle, then I think we’d have a much cleaner society. If only sport and fairness had a heavier impact on our daily life!