MISCONDUCT JOHN DOERR & JON NAPIER

Misconduct Introduction The new rules 3, 69 and significant changes. The new World Sailing Cases The World Sailing Disciplinary Code The status of the Misconduct Guide Scenarios for open discussion Question Time

Introduction Reason for changing: Adapt to changing culture in sailing and attitudes to rules compliance We are losing sailors due to the behaviour of others bullying, for example, so we need to protect competitors and keep their interest in the sport Top-level direction to include coaches/parents, initially in 69. First we needed to establish jurisdiction in RRS 3 More flexibility and options for tackling poor behaviour, so it is not always so heavy handed. Avoid protest committee members being; accuser, prosecutor, adjudicator for misconduct.

Introduction All villages adopt behaviours acceptable to them. These behaviours are part of the culture of the village. Some of these are not acceptable to other villages, so when they get together, there may be a need for changes of behaviour for them to cooperate. The world of sailing is no different and so conduct that is acceptable in one place or event, may not be acceptable elsewhere. Some adult behaviours are not acceptable for children, but we enjoy an integrated sport. RRS 69 attempts to base misconduct on generally acceptable concepts. It is important that all participants (competitors, officials, support persons etc) are playing by the same rules, including conduct.

RRS 2 Fair Sailing Penalty may now be DSQ or DNE No guidance yet on when each would be appropriate May lead to more RRS 2 cases > more possibilities of redress under RRS 62.1(d) A new Case will say RRS 2 affects the competition. So, bad language or behaviour on the water could be RRS 2 Bad language or behaviour in the clubhouse would be RRS 69 Not mutually exclusive. From an RRS 2 Case it is possible to move to a RRS 69 case, but they need separate hearings.

RRS 3 Support Persons Fundamental rule - creates acceptance of the rules, penalties and procedures by participants From 1 Jan 2017, applies to Support Persons: Definition Support Person wide ranging: coaches, medics, team manager, team staff Always parents or guardians Requiring competitors or owners to sign an entry form is an important step. In parental/guardian consent forms it would be wise to include As a parent/guardian, I acknowledge and agree that I am bound personally by the rules, including the responsibilities of a competitor under rule 3 with regard to support persons.

RRS 3 Support Persons Competitors: Agree on behalf of support persons to be bound by the rules accept that they must ensure their support persons are aware of the rules. The 'person in charge' must ensure that all crew, the boat owner and support persons are aware of their responsibilities under RRS 3. RYA Prescription to RRS 3: Add new rule 3.6: Each competitor and boat owner shall ensure that their support persons comply with the rules

RRS 3 Support Persons Support persons are now subject to the RRS. They include: parents, coaches, advisors. [RRS Definition: Support Person and RRS 3] Enforcement through calling a hearing for breaking rules [60.3(d)] or reported for misconduct [69.2(b)] Hearings are conducted in the same as any other hearing as RRS 63 and RRS Appendix M.

RRS 3 Support Persons If breach found in a non-69 hearing, penalties may be [64.4] A warning Exclusion from the event or venue or removal of privileges Other action within the jurisdiction of the protest committee A scoring penalty, up to one race DSQ to the competitor(s), if:- The competitor(s) gained an advantage or The support person has committed a further breach and the competitor has been warned previously

Handling Misconduct It is well accepted that there are means of dealing with misconduct that avoid formal proceedings under the RRS. These would include: Having an informal discussion A more formal interview It is seldom wise to conduct any discussion or interview alone. It is not uncommon that some form of apology to the aggrieved people to be a sufficient remedy. It is likely that the availability of formal proceedings will help these discussions when they are made known to the person(s) concerned. However, such informal proceedings must not compromise the formal proceeding, particularly with regard to timeliness and those who will have to make the final decision.

RRS 69 - Misconduct Now misconduct, not gross misconduct, so much wider scope. [Title and 69.1(a)] Applies to support persons as well as competitors and boat owners [69.1(a)] Misconduct is described [69.1(b)] further description will be found in a new Case. Confirms RRS 69 is not grounds for protest, but resolved by provisions in the rule itself [69.1(c)] See also RRS Appendix M and N. Some items in N as an International Jury has greater duty of care as it is not subject to appeal.

World Sailing Case xxx Generally, competitor action that directly affects the scoring or fairness of the competition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule should be considered under rule 2, Fair Sailing. Any other misconduct should be considered under rule 69. List of potential misconduct is included Guidance when to proceed under RRS 2 or RRS 69

Process up to a rule 69 hearing Observation or report from any source > protest committee [69.2(b)] If PC need more information to decide to call a hearing > appoint investigator(s) who shall not be members of the deciding PC [69.2(c)] Investigators must declare all information, favourable or unfavourable, to the PC, and if a hearing is called, to the parties. [69.2(d)] Protest committee decide to call a hearing or not [69.2(b)] (Note: only the protest committee may make this decision)

Conducting a rule 69 hearing Specific to RRS 69 see also RRS Appendix M and N. If PC calls a hearing > prompt written allegation and follow: 63.2 time and place of hearing with reasonable preparation time 63.3(a) right to be present 63.4 conflict of interests 63.6 taking evidence and finding facts. PC (or World Sailing) may appoint person to present the allegation [69.2(e)(1)] they become a Party [Definition] The person against whom an allegation is made is entitled to have an advisor present AND a representative who may act on his behalf [69.2(e)(2)] Hearing may be rescheduled or proceed if the person is unable to attend [69.2(f)]

Standard of Proof for rule 69 The standard of proof is: the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct unless changed by national prescription. This is the same test as WADA use for allegations of doping. It is higher than balance of probabilities, but lower than beyond reasonable doubt and varies with the seriousness of the misconduct.

Penalties for a breach of rule 69 A warning Change a boat s score in one or more races (may include DNEs) Exclude a person from the venue or remove privileges or benefits Other action within the PC jurisdiction as provided by the rules. If breach is by a support person, then also [64.4] up to DSQ in one race for the competitor if either: the competitor gained an advantage the competitor has been warned that further breach > penalty.

No Rule 69 Hearing Practical at Venue If PC decides not to conduct a hearing without the person present or if the pc have left the venue the OA or RC may appoint the same or new PC. If not practical to conduct a hearing, the PC shall send all information to the MNA of the person or for certain events, World Sailing.

Reports for breaches of rule 69 PC shall report findings to the MNA of the person (or World Sailing for certain events); [69.2(j)] If any penalty imposed is greater than 1 x DNE If the person is excluded from the event or venue Any other reason it considers appropriate. A new Case will help here. For example: Serious misconduct in a single race event. Knowledge that the person has committed a similar breach at other events.

World Sailing Case yyy When to make a discretionary report to the MNA under rule 69.

Disciplinary Code RRS 7 invokes the World Sailing disciplinary code, Regulation 35. It distinguishes between Major international events Other events: Report to National Authority 3 months for National Authority to investigate and take any further action necessary Onward appeal

Misconduct Guide RYA has agreed to transfer its guidance to World Sailing Currently being updated in line with new RRS and Cases Aim to be issued by March 2017 by World Sailing

Scenario 1 During a junior regatta, a parent in a private RIB goes to the committee boat and complains about the conduct of the race in an aggressive manner and using foul language.

Scenario 1 During a junior regatta, a parent in a private RIB goes to the committee boat and complains about the conduct of the race in an aggressive manner and using foul language. Needs a report, ideally in writing. If not, make a note of the report, including the detail. Ask reporter to sign. It must go to a protest committee to decide if they will call a hearing. So a protest committee may need to be appointed. No other person or body can make this decision. If they want more information before deciding, they will have to appoint an investigator.

Scenario 2 After the prize giving of an open meeting a number of competitors adjourn to the local pub. Their behaviour becomes rowdy and results in an altercation between two of them. They are clearly identified by other customers of the pub who phone the organizing club to complain. The reporter has clearly linked the behaviour to the event and organising authority, so, although the event may have ended the RRS still apply. This behaviour brings the sport into disrepute, so is misconduct, if proven. The OA need to create a report and inform the protest committee. They may need to appoint a new committee if the original are no longer available.

Scenario 3 On being notified of being disqualified by a protest committee, the penalised competitor is abusive towards the protest committee and walks out slamming the door. A few moments later, the partner of the competitor approaches a protest committee member and tells them they are a bunch of idiots who should learn the rules. Needs separate action for the competitor and the support person. PC should immediately write up exactly what happened. One member of the PC may be appointed to present the allegation if a hearing is called. That person is excluded from being on the protest committee, so a new member may be needed to bring the panel up to 3 members. An international jury would remain constituted with 4 persons. If another pc is available to hear the case, that would be preferable.

Scenario 4 At a regatta held under IRC a competitor submits a rating certificate. The technical committee are suspicious and contact the rating office to be informed that there is no certificate for a boat of that name. The technical committee report the matter to the protest committee. There is insufficient information here. First ensure there is a protest committee. The protest committee then appoint an investigator. Investigator must present all evidence for consideration, both favourable and unfavourable.

Scenario 5 At a match racing event all teams are informed that the downhaul is required to be used when the spinnaker is set. One team races without a downhaul and is protested. The protest is upheld, but no penalty applied, using C6.6(b)(3). The team races the next race without a downhaul.