|
|
| http://bassfan.com/news_article.asp?id=1158 |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Nope,
Not a cheater!!! FLW has gotten egg on their face with this one.
I'll predict he gets the money and the trophy.
If it goes to court (as it should if the FLW doesn't change their mind) it will cost the FLW a lot more in money and respect.
Either way, the FLW has a black eye from this one. How they handle it from this time forward will show if they are a class act organization or not.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | I'm thinking the FLW would be better served with a simply rule that stated "No bass boats 20 feet or larger are allowed". Or until the CG starts rating these boats for horsepower. Nobody can get into the mind of this guy whos been disqualified, but you have to assume that if his boat didn't qualify for CG rating, and their is no FLW length rule, he assumed he was legal all the way. (IMPO) The whole thing is a shame for this guy, who must have thought he was playing by rules.
Edited by walleye express 11/4/2004 9:00 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | All they need to do is say all boats under 20' must have a USCG rating plate. They'll never limit the boats to less than 20' Dan. Boats will continue to get bigger and the motors will get bigger.
They need to reinstate this guys' victory asap and let him compete in the championship. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| no message
Edited by Juls_OH 11/4/2004 9:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Well, after reading the article it seems he could not have complied with this rule. Nor, could any of the contestants with a boat over 20'. It states it very clear that a boat over 20' cannot have a plate stating US Coast Guard, and yet the BFL requires a US Coast Guard plate on it. Soooooo, there is a catch 22 here. You have to have something on your boat that is not legal to have on your boat. Just like the article said, if his disqualification stands there will be several tournament finishes in the FLW family that will need to be scrutinized.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Juls, you jumped out?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| If he gets a lawyer going on this, the FLW will have to decide between DQ'ing everyone who has placed in any of their events in a boat over 20', dating back to the inseption of this rule, or give him his money and title. The other problem for the FLW on this is that they have now tarnished this man's name and reputation (FLW Cheater is the title of this thread), they took all the glory and possible exposure he could/should have had at the event with the press (even if they took pictures, it was sometime ago, and not current) and crushed any emotional high, or elation, he was justly entitled to. In other words, he is, by law entitled to PUNITIVE DAMAGES for the irreversible harm and loss that has been forced onto him by the mistake of the FLW.
As they say on the radio, "The hits just keep on rolling..." for the FLW that is!
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 194
Location: Northern Illinois | I am currently in a class for Power Squadron and am reading the rules book we have been provided. USCG requires a rating plate on boats less than 20 feet - LAW. USCG encourages boat manufacturers up to 26 to' also have a rating plate - not LAW.
I think the FLW/BFL may have created a rule without understanding the industry and coast guard perspective. Is Viper unique? Do the 620/621/2025 have rating plates? Otherwise, BFL would be legislating boat manufacturers for their tourneys - intened perhaps.
They may have to slug it out with this guy, rather than possibily unravel prior winners who may have similar boats. I also wonder if the fact that the article read like a 1 day DQ was more typical, if there are other issues leading up to this specific DQ. mike |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Out of curiosity...................does 621 Rangers have the USCG plate on them? Does this have ramifications for the wealleye circuits?
Great minds think alike Mike  I just finished typing and saw you asked the same qusetion....
Edited by Sunshine 11/4/2004 11:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 194
Location: Northern Illinois | Dennis, it is an interesting situation I think. As you said, what does this potentially hold for walleye events? Maybe the major brands do have plates on their over 20 footers. Mike |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Taken from the article:
After an investigation by BassFan, it appears that enforcement of BFL rule 9 "to the letter" may be problematic. The crux of the problem is this: Since the Coast Guard doesn't rate bass boats 20 feet and longer for horsepower, no "U.S. Coast Guard horsepower rating plate," as mandated in rule 9, exists for Snider's boat – nor for any bass boat 20 feet or longer.
Phil Cappel, chief of the Recreational Boating Product Assurance Division of the Coast Guard's Office of Boating Safety, told BassFan: "Manufacturers can put a plate on their boats and we appreciate it from the standpoint of safety. But if the boat's over 20 feet, the plate should not say 'U.S. Coast Guard' on it in relation to horsepower."
If I read this correctly, even if a Ranger 621 has a plate it can not be a "USCG" plate as required by the rule.................. very interesting.
|
|
| |
|
| Yes they have rules but a missing CG plate should'nt labael him as a cheater. I mean come on did that help him pattern fish or catch them give me a brake. |
|
| |
|
| Yippee!!!
Now I can through one of them hot, new 300 HP motors on my 621!!!
But, "the FLW has no plans to change its rating-plate rule." So I guess I won't be able to fish the new FLW Walleye Tour or League events next year. 
In the end, I bet FLW changes their rule #9 and gives this guy his prize money. It'll be cheaper than paying all those lawyers to drive trucks through the gaping holes in that rule. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | The 620 is not 20' just short 19'10"so the 621 only model that is a ? in rangers walleye line.
Never been in one so do not have first hand knowledge if there is a rating plate.
The 04 620 has a rating plate, that I do know.
I think they are way out there DQing for this the rule is to stop motor /hull mods.
Giving every one a fair shot.
No 350 's on a 620, thats the deal.
Plate is to prove to the public combo is safty rated I guess.
Not prevent 20+ footers from being used, they do not restict the type of boat.
That is a market boat and motor package.
Any one can buy it.
Unlike a few in the recent passed that were not used to FLW events.
Expairimental rigs they are called.
Nit picking , and a written rule was broken.
It will be interesting to see how this ends, I hope statisfaction is reached with out court, but in or day and age.
I bet the rules get a rewrite real quick like.
It is not stated if there was a non-coasty plate on the boat or not.
If there were it would be a illeage plate, if coasty approved.
They don to do over 20"ers.
I thought I used to read top hp restriction in the past, for some of the tours, just can not remeber which walleye set it was.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Rich:
All walleye tournaments that I know of have a max of 250 hp. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 22
Location: Sioux Falls, South Dakota | An Article from Yesterday:
http://www.bassfan.com/scotlaney_article.asp?ID=70
Some points from the article. QUOTE!!!
If FLW wants to stick with the "rules are rules" viewpoint, then I can go along with that – as long as they go back to the genesis of this rule and apply it fairly to all money-winners since inception. As we now know, there is no such thing as a Coast Guard plate in boats 20 feet and over in length. So it should be pretty easy to find all the money winners (all the way up and down the money list) from all the tournaments involved and go and get that money back.
That's called "equal application" of a rule, and most people can go along with that. But when we have a long list of winners that were paid under false pretext, and one lone guy who was not, that's called an "unequal application" of the rules. We Americans have a long and storied anathema to this type of "unequal" treatment. Heck, it got us so fired up at one point that we told the only reining superpower of the era to shove off, then backed it up on the field of battle. Kicked them right out of the country. UNQUOTE
Edited by Dutchman 11/4/2004 3:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Just re-read the FLW / RCL League rules.... Says the same thing and limits HP to 250 max. Now, I know I have fished two league events out of Ranger 621s... NO CG Plate on them or Lund 2025s.... Hmmmm
Gotta agree with Dennis on this one... They (FLW) will pay... Can't have a rule that you can enforce "whenever" you want to and ignore "whenever" you want to... And, I don't think you can apply a rule to a situation that it cannot be applied to...
Edited by hgmeyer 11/4/2004 4:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Wow, amazing the FLW did something like this. (We need a smilie that rolls its eyes, becuase it would be right here) |
|
| |
|
| I wonder if this whole thing came up because another competitor either filed a protest or called FLW on their 'rule'. Like, maybe, the dude who finished in 2nd place. If FLW was that concerned with their rules, this would have come up before. Did they disqualify all other competitors finishing in the money at this tournament that were in Ranger 521's or 522's? Triton 21's? etc, etc. |
|
| |
|
| Man is that guy getting screwed over.....what a shame
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 265
Location: Combined Locks, WI | I agree this guy is getting shafted. I just looked at my Crestliner TS 202 which is 20'2'' and it does have a US Coast Gaurd plate that does say max HP 250. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 38
Location: Laurel, MT | Did you confirm that it said Coast Guard or is it just a manufacturer's plate? CG says that manufacture's can't say Coast Guard Rating when it is over 20-feet. I have a 202 at home but am out of town and can't look.
Thanks,
Honsie
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | If the plate say's "u.s coast Guard approved" in wich my yarcraft says is that ok? |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | One can apply a tag that says:
This boat complies with all US Coast Guard regulations on the Date of Manufacture
And then list the builder's selected HP ratings, weight capacities, etc. If the builder decides to certify the boat, all tests have to be completed and turned in for a ratings plate by a certification specialist. The key here is that it's vluntary for a 20' plus boat to carry a ratings tag unless the builder is NMMA rated, then it's a requirement.
If the builder doesn't test the 20' plus boat for flotation, horsepower, etc. and sells the boat as a recreational boat in the US, liability is a HUGE issue.
If the builder doesn't choose to test the boat it is considered a 'ship' or unrated offshore boat. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 265
Location: Combined Locks, WI | I did go back out and look. At the very top of the plate it does say US Coast Gaurd Maximum Capacities. It then reads 6 persons or 840 pounds followed by 1425 pounds - persons, gear and motors. Then it says Max HP 250
it also says: This boat complies with US coast gaurd saftey standards
Jon Piette
Edited by crestliner 11/4/2004 6:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Steve, thanks for chiming in. I was wondering how long before you gave a manufacturers perspective...So please if you don't mind...what is your perception of what the FLW has done? I think they have lots of egg on their face again!
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| Yes, because after reading the story again, it didn't say whether or not he had a rating plate of any kind in his boat. I would be interested in knowing that information before making a judgement either way.
Juls |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | The builder isn't required to place a ratings plate on the boat ONLY if the boat is over 20'. The FLW has themselves in a darned if you do and don't situation here. The rules state a plate has to be there, but logic states clearly that if the boat is over 20' and the horsepower 250 or under, the angler is complying with the rules if the idea is to confirm the boat rates for the motor attached to it. Rules ARE rules, but in this case I feel the FLW needs to simply measure the boat and offer a variance if it's over 20' long.
The FLW may, playing devil's advocate here, be looking for the plate and in fact require it to insure the boat has been tested because of potential liability, but that's a grey area from what I read. My question would be; If the builder had a NON Coast Guard ratings plate indicating the boat might not have been tested but it's over 20' and rated for unlimited horsepower, would the angler have had this problem? If the answer to that question is no the FLW needs to clarify the rule for PR's sake. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| sworrall - 11/5/2004 8:33 AM
My question would be; If the builder had a NON Coast Guard ratings plate indicating the boat might not have been tested but it's over 20' and rated for unlimited horsepower, would the angler have had this problem? If the answer to that question is no the FLW needs to clarify the rule for PR's sake.
I agree with your above statement, and that's basically what I'm asking...did he have any kind of plate in the boat? If NOT, that may be the whole issue. It would then have been up to the angler to take care of that detail before fishing any events with that boat. We just don't know that information, so its impossible to speculate on whether or not he has a case against the FLW organization.
Juls |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin |
If I read rule 9 correctly, he would still have this problem and so would anyone else with a boat over 20'. The manufacturer's plate would not be enough because they (FLW) specificly ask for a Coast Guard plate. And a Coast Guard plate will not be issued to any boat over 20' SO...... the FLW is trying to apply a rule that causes all owners of boats over 20' to be in non-compliance.
I do a gree with Juls that we need to hear more facts....... something is not right here.............. Did someone protest? Was this the first time that someone protested?(if someone did) Has the FLW assumed that the manufacturer plates were in fact Coast Guard approval Plates......... none of this adds up................ There's more to this story that we are not hearing. Why did they keep this guy for 20 minutes, checking over his boat with flashlights, prior to take off on day 3 .............that didn't sound normal either.
Edited by Sunshine 11/5/2004 8:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 38
Location: Laurel, MT | I have a call into the Coast Guard Chief that was quoted in the article and a number for the Auxiliary Chief that is responsible for testing in the Chicago area. I will be talking with both today and will contact Charlie and Sonny at FLW once I have a good understanding on the plate requirements as seen by the USCG.
Honsie |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Thanks Duane!!!
Now that's taking matters into your own hands.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 874
Location: Neenah, WI | Just to satisfy my own curiosity I checked my Crestliner 202 RCL edition, model year 2002.
It says: U.S. Coast Guard maximum capacities, Then it lists weight and number of passengers, etc. On the bottom of the plate it says: This boat complies with U.S. Coast Guard safety standards in effect on date of certification. I'm assuming here that this means it's Coast Guard approved. There's no USCG insignia or anything. Maybe the regs have changed in the last year or 2. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | That tag indicates the boat was tested by a compliance specialist. If the boat is tested, and passes, the liability issue is taken care of. The tests used, and the folks performing those tests, are done by compliance specialists who DO NOT work for the USCG, they are private contractors. The USCG simply establishes the requirements and expects builders to comply.
Tuffy, for example, is NMMA rated and requires a plate up to 26'. That requires a plate that the boat was tested using USGC standards for level and upright flotation, horsepower, and fuel systems.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 22
Location: Sioux Falls, South Dakota | Steve, I believe the boat was a Viper and they are no longer made. However the Venom boat company purchased Viper. I still don't know if they place a USCG plate on their 20' plus Venoms though. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Now the FLW has issued a "clarification" that is almost "too weird". They "interpret" their rulle to require either a CG plate or an MFG plate; (The clarification states; "no boat may be used that does not clearly indicate the maximum horsepower and weight limits set by the manufacturer and/or the U.S. Coast Guard.") although their language is unambiguous in requiring a CG plate (no manufacturers alternative plate is mentioned or even hinted at in the language of rule 9). Well, if the FLW can interpret their rule to add language that isn't there... why can't a partcicipant add language to "find" a different exception for boats that don't require a CG plate. Clearly, if the rule isn't "black and white" then any reasonable interpretation prior to this published "clarification" is just as reasonable as the FLW's. If it is not clear then reasonable interpretations are acceptable.
The rule, despite the clarification, does not require a manufaturers attached plate...it requires a Coast Guard plate. The rule states; "Each boat must have a U.S. Coast Guard horsepower rating plate attached to the boat by the manufacturer." This "clarification" is really a post event rewrite of the rule... It's like they are saying, regardless of what we said it is not what we meant... we meant to say.... etc.
This does not help the FLW's case, rather it weakens it considerably.
http://www.flwoutdoors.com/article.cfm?id=142303
Edited by hgmeyer 11/5/2004 10:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Well................. basicly all they did was add "and/or" to the rule. It does make sense but may be too late. Obviuosly it's too late for this guy and it will probually be too late to deter a law suit.
I think the FLW learned a lot more about capacity plates in the last few days then they ever knew before.!!!!!! I know I did.
Tournament fishermen from around the country, whether they fish for bass, walleye or muskie, learned a great deal from this!! "Thank You's" go out to Steve, Duane and others for helping us all understand how the industry works!! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Well, actually, they addes the "and/or" language to the "clarification". Get this, the website STILL has the rule reading; " Each boat must have a U.S. Coast Guard horsepower rating plate attached to the boat by the manufacturer." So, if you follow the "rules"... the "and/or" is not yet a rule... More confusion... As my Daddy said; "they are still gigging frogs wearing a blindfold".... "so their toes are in danger"!
Edited by hgmeyer 11/6/2004 8:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 171
| I remember early this year when I stipped one boat and placed all my equipment on a new boat, including a 225 Merc, which the dealer told me the boat was rated for. A week later I was putting rods in the locker and happened to glance at the ratings plate which clearly stated the max HP at 200. What a sick feeling, but the dealer traded me even up for a new 200,(the 225 had some "serios" hours" on it.
The spirit of the rule is to insure that contestants do not jeopardize the safety of themselves or their passengers by overpowering their boats. I clearly think that this boat was in fact rated for 250 HP, therefor he should not have been DQ'd. The FLW should have recognized this was their problem in the rules and fixed AFTER this situation.
What should we do with an angler that KNOWS his boat is overpowered and fishes out of it anyways?
Rob |
|
| |
|
| BFL angler disqualification clarified
Wal-Mart Bass Fishing League
05.Nov.2004
For 25 years, FLW Outdoors has operated on the principles of integrity, fair play and wholesome, family-oriented competition. These principles, applied equally to all competitors, under all circumstances, without regard to background or industry affiliation, have allowed FLW Outdoors to grow competitive fishing from its southern roots into a truly national pastime enjoyed by thousands of men and women every year.
Recently FLW Outdoors disqualified an angler for violating a rule titled “Boat and Horsepower Regulation” that requires all boats in FLW Outdoors competition to have a plate attached by the manufacturer that displays capacity information. The boat used by the competitor who was disqualified had no plate.
The intent of this rule is to ensure that all boats used during competition are safe and will not endanger competitors or the boating public. In the case of boats that have no capacity information displayed, FLW Outdoors’ ability to ensure safe competition is diminished. Therefore, no boat may be used that does not clearly indicate the maximum horsepower and weight limits set by the manufacturer and/or the U.S. Coast Guard.
FLW Outdoors has an obligation to its competitors and the sport to enforce its rules, in letter and intent, without exception. These rules are readily available to all competitors and the general public. Furthermore, competitors sign a release indicating that they have read and fully understand the rules and that they willingly agree to comply with the terms and conditions for participation. The competitor who was disqualified signed this release.
It is our strongly held belief that the intent of this rule is noble and its enforcement is necessary to ensure safety.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | That's the response I expected. Liability, plain and simple. If the boat has a tag, it's easy to be sure the rig isn't overpowered as far as the builder is concerned. As an example, the new Tuffy 2060 could rate for any horsepower, but the builder limits it to 250. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Point well taken, Steve. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| It's just as I suspected, he didn't have a plate of any kind in the boat.
Without typing out then entire entry form...I will only type the sentence pertaining to this subject.
blah blah blah...."I have read this release of liability and assumption of risk agreement, and the attached rules, fully understand their terms, and understand that I have given up substantial rights by signing it, and sign it freely and voluntarily."
What do they always say, "Never sign anything without reading it first"?
A lesson that BFL angler had to learn the hard way. That's too bad.
He won't get the money or the boat, but I'm sure no one will ever forget his name. 
Juls
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Is this how the rule read, EXACTLY, before they changed it after this event, and made it read, US Coast guard and/or a manufacturers plate?
The applicable rule (FLW rule No. 9) states: "Maximum horsepower for all outboards used in tournament competition will be 250 HP, not to exceed the horsepower limitations as set by the U.S. Coast Guard. Each boat must have a U.S. Coast Guard horsepower rating plate attached to the boat by the manufacturer." (The same rule applies to EverStart and FLW Tour events.)
All supporters of him getting booted maybe better take a second read to this. It states that a US Coast guard horsepower rating plate needs to be attached by the manufacturer, Not a Manufacturers suggested HP Rating plate. If over 20 ft' it would only have a manufacturers plate, not a US Coast guard plate. They only changed it after they got there perverbial ___ in a ringer. Be careful whos camp you are in before you go pitching a tent. Weird stuff could happen to all of us as well in the future. Wording is very GRAY. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 164
| Who's Name?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| LOL..you're bad! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| In Kevin's case it didn't matter what the wording was. He didn't have any kind of plate. That's what the problem was all along. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 164
|  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Juls and Steve, I appreciate your position on this but I can not accept the position of the FLW. Stacker is right on this one and the previous wording without the and/or is what should be followed and if this is the case he should not be DQ'd in my mind. I will be thinking very hard about weather or not I continue to follow or support the FLW circuits. Yes a certification of the boat should be made by the manufacturer but to limit it to 250hp when not required by law is silly. If FLW wants to limit the hp to 250hp that is fine! Did his boat have a motor larger than that? Still lots of egg on their face if you ask me!
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | This requires careful analysis, so here is mine. Whether he had no plate or a "manufacturers plate" should not affect the outcome in this instance. The FLW's "diminished" ability (convenience...their sole justification for the clarification) to determine a safety issue does not trump the anglers rights. Nor, does his signature on the entry form allow the FLW to make up rules as they go along. His signature does not allow them to enforce or intrepret their rules outside some form of review in the courts. They have to be "unambiguous, clear and uniformly and fairly applied".
As of this posting (11-8-04), the FLW web site still listed (in relevant part) in BFL Rule 9; "Each boat must have a U.S. Coast Guard horsepower rating plate attached to the boat by the manufacturer."
They have not, at least according to the website, changed the rule. They have issued a separate "clarification" in an open letter or press release, however you choose to characterize it. The rest of this post, except for direct quotes is my opinion. I believe however that it represents a careful analysis of the facts as are known at this time. They, the FLW, are, in the "clarification" apparently stating their "interpretation" of the rule. That clarification states, again, in relevant part; "The intent of this rule is to ensure that all boats used during competition are safe and will not endanger competitors or the boating public. In the case of boats that have no capacity information displayed, FLW Outdoors’ ability to ensure safe competition is diminished. Therefore, no boat may be used that does not clearly indicate the maximum horsepower and weight limits set by the manufacturer and/or the U.S. Coast Guard."
Now, I believe that the FLW has a serious "credibility gap", and maybe a significant civil liability exposure in this instance. On one hand they have disqualified a participant and denied him the winnings because his boat violated rule 9. As they state on the website; "Recently FLW Outdoors disqualified an angler for violating a rule titled “Boat and Horsepower Regulation” that requires all boats in FLW Outdoors competition to have a plate attached by the manufacturer that displays capacity information." They conveniently delete any reference (from Rule 9 above) to "a U.S. Coast Guard horsepower rating plate". On the other hand, hundreds of competitors have been paid in RCL walleye tournaments fishing from boats (Ranger 621, Lund 2025, and Crestliner 202s to name just some) that have no "U.S. Coast Guard rating plate" under a rule that is, in the relevant part, identical to the BFL rule. Obviously, they can't disqualify all of those participants and they can't justify not admitting they have a problem. So, they have apparently attempted to extricate themselves by writing into the written rule, an unwritten "clarification" or "exception".
Again, I hope to make this point clearly... The rule, as written, requires a US Coast Guard Plate. Period. Unambiguous. However, the US Coast Guard does not "plate" boats over 20 feet. So it is impossible for a 20+ foot boat to comply. Now, the "clarification" appears to "magically" add a very material exception or unwritten interpretation... the published "clarification" states "no boat may be used that does not clearly indicate the maximum horsepower and weight limits set by the manufacturer and/or the U.S. Coast Guard." This is a very material "change"... The rule does not even imply that a "manufaturers plate" is acceptable. So, it is apparent that the "rule" is not a "black and white" issue. In fact, the clarification "proves" (to me, anyway) that the rule is, in the opinion of the FLW, "incomplete" and subject to further "interpretation" or as they call it, "clarification".
If the FLW does not enforce the rule.. or makes exceptions that are not clearly stated as exceptions... like this, what I would characterize, a "secret" rule exception... or whatever you choose to call it... They have a problem here. Their "clarification" might well embody what they "wish" the rule to say, but that is not what the rule says. So, unless they start DQing everybody who has won from a Ranger 621, a Lund 2025, Crestliner 202 they are selectively enforcing a rule. There is a legal theory called "laches"... It basically says if you do not enforce a right/rule you lose the right to do so over time.
Here it is so very obvious that they have a "bad" rule... (their own "clarification proves that even the FLW agrees that the rule does not state what they want it to say)... Next, they have failed to enforce it or have certainly allowed an exception for boats over 20 feet... They have lost the right to enforce the rule against boats over 20 feet in length. And, if that is not enough, there is the fact that they admit that the written rule can't/does not cover boats in excess of 20 feet so more "clarification" is needed. Since the rule needs interpretation (a necessity admitted by the FLW by issuing the "clarification") to arrive at the "intent" I believe that a court would find any other reasonable clarification that delivers the desired result (their stated intent, from the clarification; "The intent of this rule is to ensure that all boats used during competition are safe and will not endanger competitors or the boating public.") is just as good as another, if no "clarification" has been previously published. If there is any limit set by the manufacturer and that information is available that is what will be the "maximums" or if it is an "unlimited" hull then the tournament maximum of 250 hp will apply and the formula for capacity can be used to see if two anglers are allowed. The convenience of having an attached plate is nice, but I don't think it will magically be required by the court since it is not required by Coast Guard regulation and is only voluntary. It is certainly, entirely, too convenient, that subsequent to the disqualification that they publish a "clarification" that continues to deny the affected angler his win. I do not think they would prevail inlitigation. In fact, they affected Angler, might just have enough to hang his hat on in arguing "bad faith" and begin to open up the specter of additional (punitive damages), or at the very least, non-economic, additional damages beyond the stated prize value.
Edited by hgmeyer 11/8/2004 9:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Maybe I'm missing the boat here.....
The rule states the boat must have a plate. Yes wording change does nothing for FLW's credibility. But the rule requires a coast guard rating plate. The argument is that a 20'+ boat does not need this, that it's voluntary, however several boat manufactures still "plate" thier boats. Meaning the manufactures has rated thier boat and I ASSume that this is done by some standard that is regulated by the coast guard or industry standards as Steve mentioned.
This guy had no plate what so ever in his boat, weather he needed it or not is a seperate issue from a legality standpoint. But the tournament rules stated a horsepower rating plate is required.
Saying that all rangers crestliners and lunds over 20+ were also breaking the rule, I just don't agree with. I know the crestliner 202 has a plate, I know my Javelin 21 MSX has a plate......I'd be curious if about the Ranger 621, does it have a plate? I'm betting it does. How 'bout the Lund 2025 does it have a plate? Even though the Coast guard doesn't require a plate, why would any manufacture put a plate on a boat unless there is a liability involved? I believe it costs money to certify a boat, why spend it if you don't have to?
I think we're missing the spirit of the rule here, much less lets dig back to earlier this year when an angler died in a bass tourney (time frame may be off a little). It's a rule of saftey and I'm sure the awareness for saftey is at a much higher level after a recent death in the tournament "game".
In the bass world things are a bit different.....there is much more emphasis on speed. If the FLW were to lose a case on this stance. How long do you think it would be before a guy enters a tourney with an Allison with unlimited horsepower rating and comes in with a tweaked 300+ hp motor. Perfectly legal in the eyes of the coast guard and manufucture, but not "legal" in the eyes of the tournament.
becareful what you wish for....... |
|
| |
|
| Jayman...
You are missing a very big point... The absolute facts are that you are wrong when you state: "... the tournament rules stated a horsepower rating plate is required. " The tournament rules state that a "Coast Guard" rating plate is required. That is a huge difference. The "clarification", not the rule allows manufacturers plates. The Coast Guard plate is an impossibility for this boat.
Yes, the whole issue would have been moot if the rule read the way the clarification reads. But, the plain facts are that the rule does not read that way at all. In very unambiguous language it states a "Coast Guard" plate. So any post tournament clarifications are just obfuscation.
By the way, the Allison or bullet with a 300hp would not be allowed. The FLW tourney rules allow only up to 250 hp regardless of the boats rated maximum.
The guys boat was within the manufacturers safety specs... It just didn't have a plate put on it by the manufacturer that stated that. And, no plate, other than a Coast Guard plate is in compliance with the rule. So actually, all those manufacturers' plates are meaningless until the rule is changed. You cannot fish an FLW/RCL event in a boat over 20 feet in length and be in compliance with the "letter" of the rule.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Would someone please explain to me what the yellow plate with the horsepower rating is in my boat?!?! add sarcasm here.
It's a fishing tournament, not a lawyers tournament the last time I checked.
My point is, a 20'+ boat can still have a certified horsepower rating plate in the boat......the disqualifed competitior did not have a plate of any kind. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 116
Location: Germantown and Land O Lakes, WI | Why does'nt the FLW call the manufacturer and find out what max HP is for his rig? If he's at or under the specs or at/under the 250hp rating, he wins. Pretty simple stuff.
If the FLW has a 250hp max rule and this guy is under that and within the specs of the builder (builder only because the Coast Guard isnt rating it), then there should'nt be any violation.
If the USC rating is that important to them, then make a 20' and 250 law. Nobody can fish a boat over 20 feet with a motor over 250 hp
I bet there's alot of Bass boys scrambling to get thier manufactuers to stick a plate on thier rigs! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| And, no plate, other than a Coast Guard plate is in compliance with the rule. So actually, all those manufacturers' plates are meaningless until the rule is changed. You cannot fish an FLW/RCL event in a boat over 20 feet in length and be in compliance with the "letter" of the rule.
I have to politely disagree with that statement. I do agree, however, that it could be re-written to read a little easier.
"Maximum horsepower for all outboards used in tournament competition will be 250 horsepower, not to exceed the horsepower limitations set by the U. S. Coast Guard. Each boat must have an U.S. Coast Guard horsepower rating plate attached to the boat by the MANUFACTURER. The horsepower of the outboard engine must not exceed the rating specified on this rating plate or the 250 horsepower maximum set by FLW Outdoors. By signing the entry form, each professional agrees to submit their boats and/or motors to an inspection by factory-trained personnel. Falsifying information on entry forms or altering the horsepower numbers on the motor or rating plate will be cause for disqualification from the tournament and may result in future ineligibility to enter FLW Outdoors tournaments."
The USCG set limitations on the horsepower of outboard engines. The MANUFACTURER puts a rating plate on the boat using USCG horsepower specifications. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | That reads well but you forgot one thing.
20' and over are not rated buy the coasties.
You can not change the laws to meet FLW's rules.
So to make any statement true, you would have to include the line less than 20'.
Meaning that no boats larger than 20' could compete.
If it has a plate it would be from the maker.
20'+ unlimited horsepower is leagle and out there.
The only saving grace that they have is that his boat had no plate at all.
But I bet that rig is unlimited or 300hp.
If he was not over the 250hp as stated, he still met the" and /or " interpretation of the rules.
Who was the whistle blower that tattled after he had won the contest?
Shouldn't he have been stopped from competing , that would be to the intent of rule 9.
Boat insection was passed, there fore FLW "ok'ed" it for the guy to compete.
He passsed boat insepection.
The rules state he would not be able to compete, he was aloud to, he did, and he won.
And somebody whined. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin |
From Juls-oh statement above:
"I have to politely disagree with that statement. I do agree, however, that it could be re-written to read a little easier."
But it was not written this way when he signed the agreement, was it? re-written now is not an option.
Edited by stacker 11/9/2004 3:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Juls....
By what authority, other than the "clarification", do you "politely disagree".... The rule is unambiguous. If if said "red plate" in place of "US Coast Guard" and you had an "orange plate" would it apply... no... where does the "stretch and bend" of the rule begin and end. That is my original point... if it is not clear on its face,,,where does the reasonable interpretation begin and end. While rules "interpretation" are in the sole discretion of the tournament director he cannot be arbitrary nor can he interpret clear rules... six fish is six fish.... if it requires an aerated livewell does a small cooler comply just because the tournament director said it did? All of the entry forms and rules comprise a contract and contracts are the ultimate province of courts when reasonable people disagree. This will either be settled in Kevin's favor or he will sue... $58,000 is not something he is likely to walk away from... And, in my opinion, the FLW would be wise to bite the bullet and settle... Because it will end up giving them a black eye if they lose... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| Do I need an authority to politely disagree? Thought I was just being nice....;-)
The paragraph doesn't state that the rating plate MUST SAY "USCG" on it. It says that the plate put on the boat by the MANUFACTURER must show USCG rating specifications on the plate..."A U.S. Coast Guard rating plate".
It doesn't change the fact that Kevin didn't have a plate at all. That was the problem, and why he got DQ'd.
I'm done with this topic....I've said all I have to say on the subject.
Believe me HG, your well thought out view on this subject almost had me swayed, but I just can't read that paragraph the same way you are.
We will have to agree to disagree and move on...
Have a great night HG!
Wish'n I was fish'n, cuz we heard the big fish are bit'n tonight!!
Juls
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 389
| stacker - 11/9/2004 4:21 PM
From Juls-oh statement above:
"I have to politely disagree with that statement. I do agree, however, that it could be re-written to read a little easier."
But it was not written this way when he signed the agreement, was it? re-written now is not an option.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
He signed an agreement stating that he would have a freak'n plate in the boat and he didn't have one. LOL Geez.
I'm saying it could be re-written to read easier in the future.
I'm done with this subject.
Juls
Edited by Juls_OH 11/9/2004 4:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Actually, Juls is correct as far as the spirit and intent of the rule. Tho obvious intent is to be certain NO boat in the event is overpowered. It's true that the boat was not tagged, and it's also true that it wasn't illegal to not have the boat tagged, but the intent was to be certain of the actual horsepower rating of the boat without having to tape measure every single rig in the field.
Sure, the fact that NO boat is REQUIRED to rate US Coast Guard at over 20' indicates the builder's plate won't be reflecting USCG 'requirements' for that boat, but it will be listing the 'safe' horsepower acording to USCG compliance testing and standards and would indicate the boat passes flotation, fuel system, and performance testing according to the Compliance Specialist who tested the boat. Tuffy just float tested the 2060 under contract with a Compliance Specialist from Hayward, Wisconsin. All production 2060 models will be tagged.
The rule should read:
"Maximum horsepower for all outboards used in tournament competition will be 250 horsepower, not to exceed the horsepower limitations set by the U. S. Coast Guard. Each boat must have a US Coast Guard or Maunfacturer horsepower rating plate attached to the boat. The horsepower of the outboard engine must not exceed the rating specified on this rating plate or the 250 horsepower maximum set by FLW Outdoors. By signing the entry form, each professional agrees to submit their boats and/or motors to an inspection by factory-trained personnel. Falsifying information on entry forms or altering the horsepower numbers on the motor or rating plate will be cause for disqualification from the tournament and may result in future ineligibility to enter FLW Outdoors tournaments
The angler should (I said SHOULD) have questioned the ruling because he had NO tag on his Viper and could not comply. Both sides have valid points, and both can argue successfully their point of view is 'correct'. Since the FLW writes and enforces the rules, they have the final say. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 171
| But, what about an angler who competes in tourneys with a rig he KNOWS is overpowered? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 116
Location: Germantown and Land O Lakes, WI | If a guy knows he has an over powered rig, he should also know he's gonna get DQ'd.
I think the boat maker, Viper, should stand up for it's angler and give the FLW some poo. Yes, the rig didn't have a tag, No, the angler was'nt in violation of any HP limit regs or rules. In my opinion the FLW would have had every right to DQ this guy if he would have had a larger motor than required or pulled the tag off himself.
This whole thing seems very very petty. I really believe what should have happened is that the FLW gave him a warning, contacted Viper about thier rule and the whole thing would have been done with. |
|
| |
|
| What i see is odd about the whole things is that they went back and checked his boat after he had won.If that rule is so important it should be part of the boat check prior to the tournament?Either way like i said in a earlier post too bad for anyone who losses on such a thing. I guess it stresses just alittle more how important it is to be ready and have everything in order(boat) |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 39
Location: Coatesville, PA | I'd like to see the guy get a lawyer and let the courts rule on this one. I doubt the FLW could win with the Coast Guard wording in the rules. From what I gather, the Coast Guard won't put a plate on a boat larger than 20 feet, so for the FLW to require one, they are out in left field. They screwed up writing the rules, so in my opinion, they are as much at fault as the fellow not having any plate and entering the tournament. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | And, only the FLW can fix the rules... so it's kind of like "in their conrol" to get the rule right... Especially with all the over 20' boats out there in every tournament |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1188
Location: Chicago IL. | OK thats enough boys and girls. Alot of good points have been brought up that only a supreme court can can make a ruleing on. I`m just glad I dont fish out of a 20' plus boat or have to worry about being over horsepowered. I guess haveing to do 80mph on the water has its draw backs. So it looks like its a split Juls.
John Mannerino
#473 |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 714
| Sorry to bring up old hash, but........
I saw an article that said that Mr. Snider has indeed gotten a lawyer and is pursueing legal action against the FLW over his being DQ'd.
I think in the end he will prevail.
The "plate" issue will have something to do with it, but I'm inclined to think that the fact his boat was checked in and inspected before take off each day would suggest that the FLW accepted his boat as "compliant". Regardless what the wording of the rule is/was, and however they try to say what their interepation of that rule is. If it is as big an issue for the tournament directors as they are making it out to be, they should have checked on those things at the same time they check livewells, lifejackets, kill switches, registration numbers, safty inspection stickers, ect...
The court will probably say that it was the FLW's responsibility to check those things prior to allowing a competitor to participate, not after the fact. That allowing him to pass thru pre take off inspection was an admitance on their part that his boat was acceptable to compete in their tournament, and thusly, they are without grounds to deny him his just winnings.
He will probably be entitled to some punitive damages as well. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Jack my point earlyer exactly.
He was allowed to compete.
Passed their inspections, and competed.
Courts will rules this way. |
|
| |
FLW Cheater