Page 31 - Microsoft Word - RYA Guidance - Misconduct a Reference for Race Officials (ex covers) - 01 13 v2.docx

Appendix D: Dissent Guidance

D Dealing with Dissent

D.1 Unacceptable dissent is defined as the dispute of a race official’s action or
decision in a manner which implies incompetence, prejudice or insult, and
which is offensive to the race official concerned.

D.2 Expressing a difference or disagreement are acceptable behaviours. Abuse
and rebellion are unacceptable behaviours. Expressing opposition is a
marginal behaviour. Dissent can occur on-the-water, ashore or in the Protest
Committee (PC)/Jury room, and sometimes race officials may find it difficult to
cope with a situation without appearing too authoritarian.

D.3 There can be a wide range of levels of dissent, and there are also differences
in the perceived level of acceptance of dissent in different forms of racing
(youth events, professional match racing etc).

D.4 Nevertheless, the RYA Racing Charter states that ‘foul or abusive language,
intimidation, aggressive behaviour or lack of respect for others and their
property will not be tolerated’. This applies to competitors, race officials,
coaches and other advisors. In addition, abuse of officials is identified in the
RYA Guidance as ‘behaviour that would justify action under Rule 69’.

D.5 It is important that all race officials work together to tackle the dissent when it
is encountered. Failure to confront unacceptable behaviour at the time can
lead competitors to think it is acceptable and repeat it in the future.

Event Officials

D.6 All event officials (whether or not a judge or umpire) are entitled to be treated
with fairness and respect. Almost all will have given up their free time to
officiate for no reward other than the fact they enjoy the sport.
D.7 It is helpful for the Chief Umpire or PC/Jury Chairman to remind the
organisers that any problems with competitors should be reported to them.

Hearings

D.8 The ISAF International Judges Manual states that, if a party to a protest
requires clarification, this should be given immediately, but no further
discussion should be permitted at this time. It may be that, if a competitor
remains unclear or unsure about a decision, the judges have not written a
clear enough decision (facts found, conclusions, decision etc).

D.9 Whether or not, and to what extent, discussion with a dissatisfied party at a
future time should be permitted will depend on the experience and confidence
of the chairman and members of the PC/Jury. Permitting an informal
discussion with the PC/Jury, and setting a time for this discussion, in
response to dissatisfaction when the protest decision is announced can often
defuse a stressful atmosphere; conversely, refusing any future discussion can
often exacerbate the bad feeling.

D.10 Alternatively, a PC/Jury member may be appointed to explain informally a
decision. If this approach is adopted, one PC/Jury member should explain

January 2013 30