Personal attacks on umpires

I love umpiring. Make that loved …

Late Oct 2006 I was subject to the most disgraceful attack which went way beyond the norm (rules knowledge, positioning, memory, eyesight and parentage are the usual suspects. And water off a duck's back) and questioned my impartiality and integrity.

Whether my call was right or wrong is hardly the point (although it was right) because even wrong umpire calls are 'right' in law.

For the only time in my life, I drove home wanting to give up umpiring.
Had there been a way to do so and still keep my word[1], I would have.

Those who have known me and worked with me will realise just how bad it was.

Still wanting what is best for the sport, I referred this to the sport's authorities. A year (and 3 reminders) later and it was one of the competitors who initiated the seeds of a solution[2].

What's the Problem?

There are existing sanctions but they can't work.

Ineffective sanctions.

Most dissent comes from the team which lost the race. Most 'desperation' incidents occur near the finish line. Since the debrief - usually of a losing team - takes place after the race, imposing the one or two turn penalty for dissent has no effect.

Draconian sanction.

The rules allow a 'black flag' protest which, if upheld, means the team lose the race. We've had the bizarre situation where the affronted umpire pleaded for the penalty, which he felt was far too severe, to be reversed!

So about 90% of the time the sanctions contain their own 'get out of jail free' card. That can't be right.
The sailors know this. One who spoke freely said that his team will automatically cheek any umpire whenever a call goes against them. Over time they try to discourage umpires from calling against them.

Overview

No other sport tolerates such abuse of their volunteers.

Other countries (Czechs, Americans) have reacted quickly to sportsmanship issues. They show a readiness to experiment, fine tuning if need be.

Anecdotally, some would be umpires have withdrawn because of endemic dissent.

Umpires who debrief proactively are more exposed than those who don't.

Sports which penalise the team a bit and the bandit a lot seem to have the right balance.

Other sports do have 'get out of jail' cards (A footballers yellow card which gets 'wiped' at the start of the next round) but they are the exception more than the rule.

The sailors want a solution, to which they are happy to contribute. This is a huge opportunity. While the subject is on the table, let's try and fix it. Not patch it.

The current initiative reduced dissent quite markedly, except when a team was eliminated. Just by showing that we (sailors and umpires) care, things got better. Hawthorne was right!

The most serious dissent either happens on the spur of the moment (usually followed by a swift apology) or from a very small number of persistent offenders. Such 'hotheads' are known to their team-mates, who are fully aware of, but do not condone, the behaviour. On the rare occasions when we ask the team captain to restore discipline a common response is "He had it coming!"

A Possible Framework?

A penalty which, if repeated, might prevent a good team from progressing to the next round. The detail will vary with the event (how many races per round, the size of the skills gap and so on) But in principle, when the umpire(s) is/are more satisfied than not that the dissent 'crosses the line', a penalty of X% of a race win should restore sanity.
It would bring a social pressure on the hotheads, to the benefit of them, their team and the sport.