Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Committee-meetings in Busan

On the ISAF Website a couple of articles have appeared about the meetings in Busan:

The article on the ROC outlines the goals of the committee to be more pro-active in educating race officials in 'underserved' areas, by attaching seminars to significant events.
Have a look at: Charley Cook On ISAF Race Officials.

With all respect for the work that can be done at a hands-on seminar - the ISAF should look into a more interactive solution on the web - giving potential new international officials a place where they can interact with race official from all over the world. A forum? A meeting place?

Also meeting in Korea yesterday was the Racing Rules Committee. Besides the strategy issues highlighted in this article on the website: The Racing Rules Committee, the RRC also has a multitude of submissions to go trough.

I've compiled a file with the submission regarding the RRS: RRS Submissions 2009
In the last weeks I've been going trough them, to give my opinion to the Dutch representative in the RRC. Now the committee has met, I'll share a few with you. I don't know yet what the outcome is - expect to learn that, when LPS returns.

How many people do you recognize?

Submission 147-09 wants to change the definition of how you finish in a match race; You finish when the boat's hull crosses the finish line. Not any other part of the boat or equipment - in normal or not normal position. I think that's a good idea, but... please do it for all disciplines! Also in fleet and teamracing. Let's not introduce another exception.

Submission 134-09; Agreed in principle; but then we need a definition or interpretation of "leaves the mark". When has a boat left the mark? Even with the mark clear astern of the perpendicular line trough her most aft part, she can still be "at" the mark.
PC's need a guideline if they are to establish if a boat has left the mark as a fact.

Submission 166-09; I'm not sure about this one. Basicly it states that the keep clear boat ALWAYS must choose the better option, in this case to tack instead of bearing away. While I agree in this particular case, I don't believe that this is necessary always true. I don't think the ROW boat did enough to avoid the contact and collision. Even when the port had luffed and started tacking, there would have been a contact. Therefore SB did not do enough and broke rule 14. She might then been exonerated because there might have been no damage. But you can also make a case stating that she broke rule 14 while returning to start and at that moment she was keep clear boat.

Do you have a submission(s) favourite? Let me know and I'll ask LPS about the outcome.

1 comment:

  1. Jos, I've been thinking about the finishing thing, and I''m not sure it's such a good idea.

    I race B14s. In light winds, our rather large assymetrics skim the water. If we have a downwind finish, it is entirely possible that a boat approaching the line at a shallower angle than the one closest to the committee boat could have part of its hull across the line unseen by the finish recorder whilst the nearer boat still only has its bowsprit and sail across the line.

    Then there's the likes of I14s, which can have snouts, moulded onto the hull but not part of the hull for measurement purposes, through which their bowsprit extends. Whilst the jib tack is restricted as to how far out it can be, the snout length can vary somewhat (I'm not sure what the restriction is). If you had a dark coloured hull, it might be difficult to distinguish the point where the bowsprit exits the snout, especially on a longish line

    Boats with fixed removable bowsprits, such as 18 and 12ft skiffs- where are you going to define the "hull"?

    The "Any part of the boat or equipment" definition requires no allowances to be made for different designs of boats, which is surely one of the core principles of the core rules?


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...