LTW Readers Q&A | 024

Uli sent this diagram, that happens often, but finds the solution unsatisfactory;
Summary of the facts:
5 boats of the Star-class all with port tack and overlapped are sailing downwind towards a leeward rounding mark to be left on port. When the first boat reaches the zone in position 2, the leeward Red boat has no possibility to give room to the four inside overlapped boats.
The Problem is:
In RRS 2009-2012 I found no rule that force Red to sail a course different from the course she was sailing and make it possible to give room early enough before the mark. (The words of the old rules “when they are about to round” are deleted)
Question:
Is a boat obligated to give room before the rule requires her to do so?

Well Uli, this is my opinion:
Because of the deletion of "when boats are about to round a mark" the border where rule 18 begins to apply is exactly defined. If one of the boats enters the zone - in your diagram the Blue boat - rule 18 is immediately in force. In this situation Red breaks rule 18.2(b) as soon as Blue enters the zone. She is not giving enough mark-room to all inside boats to sail to the mark.
The only way she can prevent that from happening is to ANTICIPATE!
And act accordingly before one of the boats reaches the zone.
You are correct in stating that there's no rule in the RRS forcing her to sail any other course, but the consequence of sailing it, is that she breaks rule 18.2(b) as soon as one of the boats enters the Zone. If she luffs before any of the boats (including herself) reaches the Zone and stays out, she indeed breaks no rule.
What about 18.2(e) you will ask? That rule states that if a boat is not able to give room she is not required to. Not quite. The exact wording has additional requirements:

(e) If a boat obtained an inside overlap from clear astern and,
from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been
unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.

In this case the relevant requirement is "from the time the overlap began"! According to your diagram there was already an overlap well before the zone, so Red has no 'escape' in that rule.
.

Mark-room; For how long? |002

A reply on yesterday's post by Brass:

I think we are not disagreeing about the effect of rule 18, just the use of the words.

Mike B says that when a boat inside overlapped at the zone takes more than the mark-room to which she is entitled 'I believe her entitlement to mark room ceases here and the rules of part 2 apply.'

I think this wrongly describes the way rule 18 works. The boat remains entitled to mark-room, and the rules of part 2 continue to apply (which was a key change in the 2009 rewrite). What the boat loses is her entitlement to rule 18.5 exoneration for breaking a part 2 rule.

A boat's entitlement to exoneration under rule 18.5 may switch off when she is sailing outside her proper course at a mark or her direct course to the mark, but her entitlement to mark-room under rule 18.2(b) does not switch off until she leaves the zone or one boat passes head to wind (even though her need for mark-room may disappear).

Update Tuesday 28/04/09; 23:41 hours; on request of Brass I've changed the diagram to this new picture

Consider three boats, Blue, Yellow and Green on port tack approaching a port leeward mark, all overlapped at the zone as shown in the diagram. Blue, inside and to windward sails wide of her direct course while sailing to the mark, and contacts, without injury or damage, a leeward boat outside her (Yellow). Blue breaks rule 11, Yellow does not fail to give Blue mark-room to sail to the mark, so Yellow breaks no rule, and Blue is not entitled to exoneration under rule 18.5 for breaking rule 11. Following a valid protest, Blue should be penalized.

Blue continues sailing to the mark and reaches the point where she is sailing her proper course at the mark, when Green closes the door, leaving no space between Green and the mark for Blue to fit through, and again there is contact without injury or damage. Blue has never ceased to be entitled to mark-room, and Green has now failed to give Blue mark-room to sail her proper course at the mark. Green breaks rule 18.2(b). Blue breaks rule 11, but because she is now sailing her proper course at the mark, she is taking mark-room to which she is entitled, and is thus exonerated for breaking rule 11, under rule 18.5.

Blue's entitlement to mark-room under rule 18.2(b) never changed from the time it switched on.

Whether Blue was taking mark-room to which she was entitled did switch on and off, and thus:

• Whether boats close to or in contact with her broke rule 18.2(b) switched on and off and
• Blue's entitlement to exoneration under rule 18.5 switched on and off.

Mark - Room; For how long?

A guest Post by Mike Butterfield;

In the old Rule 18 applied “until both boats have passed the mark”.

This has been removed from the current rule so what is the effect?

Clearly the new rule ends the right to mark room sooner, but how much sooner?

Mark Room is “Room for a boat to sail to the mark, and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark.”

Here then we can say that once the boat entitled to mark room has passed the mark, and therefore is not at it, the right no longer applies. As the old rule was governed by the second boat we have the right to Mark Room ending at least a length sooner.

The rule also switches itself of as stated in the rule itself. This is when one boat passes head to wind or if the boat entitled to mark room leaves the zone. Pretty clear!

What then if a boat sails slowly deliberately when entitled to room, or deviates, or indeed takes a tactical rounding when she is not ROW?

I believe her entitlement to mark room ceases here and the rules of part 2 apply. Mark room can be an entitlement to either a ROW or a give way boat, but mark room has two effects;

1. It limits a ROW boat that has to give Mark Room and allows a Give way boat “room to sail to the mark and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark.”
2. It provides exoneration to (give way and ROW boats) in rule 18.5 but only while a boat a boat is taking the mark room to which she is entitled.

I believe a boat is entitled to mark room to perform only the actions specified in the rule (to sail to the mark and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark).

If she exceeds these parameters then she has lost her right to mark room and the rules of Part 2 apply.

Why do I say this? Well unless she is “taking the mark room to which she is entitled” she cannot be exonerated and thus Part 2 rules apply.

So let’s look at a few examples:-

1. Sailing excessively slowly to the mark. Mark room relies on the concept of room and in the definition the boat needs to manoeuvre “promptly” if she is sailing too slowly she does not comply and thus loses her right to mark room as she cannot be exonerated under 18.5.
2. The tactical rounding. If a give way boat she has rights if she sails to the mark, again is she takes additional space she cannot be exonerated under 18.5 and has lost her right to mark room.
3. An example of the thinking here has just been published as Rapid Response Team Racing Call 2009/006. A boat no longer has an obligation under rule 18.2(b) to give mark room if inside and overlapped and sails past where she could have tacked at the mark.

I know a number of you disagreed with me in posts before, but are you with me now?

Mike Butterfield

Sunday Rules Snap Homeground

Second in the new series 'Sunday Rules Snap' a rules picture from Menno:
He is sailing the red boat and has to give room at the mark to the sailor with the orange cap.
He writes: "The boat in the middle between the two other boats seems to break rule 18.3. It seems that the middle boat has tacked. You can see in the picture that the person has his hands at a position which you would have after a tack".

Whether or not this is a rule 18.3 infringement depends if Menno needed to luff above close-hauled. Perhaps after this snap was taken? In the photo he is still at a close-hauled course, his sail is fully 'used'.

Taken on the Sneekermeer, Class: Splash, Event: Easterregatta at a windward mark.

Thanks Menno!

ISAF Q&A 2009-026; Finished? NOT!

Have a look at:ISAF Q&A 2009-026

I've been stewing on this one for a couple of days and am still not happy.

Couple of additional questions:
What if boat X just skips one mark? Or rounds it the wrong way? Is she then not on the next leg of the course? She cannot - according to this Q&A - be finishing when crossing the line. She's never on the next leg, let alone on the finishing leg. She can and may correct her mistake any time, if the SI don't specify a time limit, the next day for that matter....

This one will be impossible for the RC to comply with. The people on the finish boat don't have the time nor the position to check if every boat that crosses the line, has complied with RRS 28.1. There are perhaps enough mark-boats at an International big event to check every rounding, but not at my local events. We just don't have the "manpower" or the boats. Do you?

So the people on the committee finish-boat will sound the horn and record a boat as finished. Only after protest, will the boat be DSQ-ed for not sailing the course.

Next, if the boat is not on the next leg of the course, what about rule 23.2? In a fleet race you cannot help but interfere with several boats who are then apparently on another leg. So you better be on a proper course ALL the time.

Also, rule 18 would be "off" for each subsequent mark rounding. Boats are not on the same leg of the course and one of the boats does not have a required side to which she must leave the mark....


Second half of this Q&A: What about the requirement in RRS 61.2; Informing the other party at the first reasonable opportunity?
If you don't want make your opponent aware that he has made a mistake - tactically sound - you should keep your mouth shut. If you protested later, the PC might ask "Was this the first opportunity, after you became aware of the error, that you could have informed the other boat?"
Answer: NO!
Out goes the protest with validity….

Or do you want to go with the premise that a boat hasn't broken RRS 28.1 until it's to late to correct that? Then you will have to wait until end of finishing time, find the boat or representative in the boat park and inform them of your protest.


We will have to comply with this interpretation of the rules, but in practice it will be very very difficult.

.

Flog the Fact Finding Friday – Mid-Term Review

By Brass from “The Room”

Introduction

We are about half way through the Fact Finding Friday program, so it's a good time to have a review.

Please respond and take the opportunity to discuss any of the things covered here, or any things you think have been missed out, so we can all develop and learn from our experiences.

Me Fundamental Goals and Our Development

I am not the Rules God: I don't get to tell people what they can and cannot do. All I do is make suggestions, and explain my reasons. Hopefully, looking at the suggestions and the good and not so good solutions submitted by others, each of us can improve and develop effective writing habits.

Whatever you may read or think, you should always do what your Chief Judge, protest committee chair or MNA directs you to do.

Fundamental criteria is that a decision should be ABC: Accurate, Brief and Complete. I think we would all agree that Accurate is a Fundamental Rule, but maybe there is a little 'wriggle-room' between Brief and Complete.

We have also discussed speed. In a busy protest committee we may need to be producing written decisions in about 20 to 30 minutes, or faster if possible. One of the primary purposes of FF Friday is to provide opportunities to improve our speed.

Evidence, Facts and Conclusions

We have discussed the dividing line between facts and conclusions and the progression from evidence to facts. The following references might be helpful

• Evidence and the facts LTW extract by Bryan Willis
• Case 104 Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding Facts
• ISAF Q&A 2009-11 Weighing credibility of evidence in protest hearings.
• What do we need to prove? LTW Guest Post by Brass

Facts include things which are inferred or deduced from other evidence or facts, and may include the intentions or other mental states of people, where this is relevant and proved by evidence.

Conclusions are what you decide by applying the rules to the facts.

Style

Style Guides

The purpose of style guides and discussion such as in FF Friday, is to

Simple style guides or standards help us to write decisions Accurately, Briefly, Completely and Quickly, with consistency.

Although I am not an American, I find the US Sailing Appeals Style Manual very useful as a guide to consistent style. If you are a US Sailing Judge, you may be obliged to follow this style guidance. If you do not like a specific rule in the US Sailing Manual, at least it indicates an area where it may be useful to develop and adopt a consistent style of your own.

Facts Found

I am a great fan of short, numbered paragraphs for facts found. One fact per paragraph. I know that the example decisions from the Olympics, World Champs and so on, usually run facts together in a single paragraph. This looks shorter, and fits nicely on forms and XML databases, but separate paragraphs are easier to follow (and to refer to in an appeal). They take up more space but no more words.

Conclusions

I have a very strong belief in using the words and grammar of the rules, as exactly as possible. I think this helps us remember the rules, and avoid confusion with previous versions. Thus there is 'contact' between boats, not 'collision', boats 'become overlapped', a boat does not 'establish an overlap', boats 'break' rules, they do not 'infringe' them, and so on.

Those of us working on the Protest Conclusion Wording project have agreed hat a conclusion should state the act that constitutes breaking the rule, using, as far as possible, the words of the rule, no more, no less. The Protest Conclusion Wording tool will help you get the exact wording needed for the appropriate conclusions for any of the rules.

The provisional version of the tool is on LTW at:

Protest Decision Wordings V7 (2009) provisional.xls

Background is discussed on LTW at:

Protest Conclusions and Decision Wording 2009

The tool is intended to time and effort. Sometimes the suggested wordings are a little more lengthy than you could come up with on your own, but by using them, you increase your chances of not missing steps in the logical chain.

I also think that, whenever a conclusion is about a boat breaking a rule, the conclusion should include express words such as 'X broke rule RR'. This leaves nobody in any doubt that the protest committee is going to act in accordance with rule 64.1(a). Other people might just bracket the rule after the conclusion. Still others might not to put the relevant rule in each conclusion, but to just list all the relevant rules at the end of the Conclusions: I think that this makes it unnecessarily difficult for readers to relate the conclusions to the rules.

We should usually omit 'rules discussion' and intermediate conclusions.

We should make conclusions about all rules that are broken, then make exoneration or non-penalization conclusions. We should not just skip over a rule because we know a boat will be exonerated or protected from penalty.

The Upside Down Test

Finally, you might like to use the 'Upside Down Test'. The test of a good written decision is to be able to turn the written decision upside down and write a well formed, logical paragraph, beginning:

'X is disqualified because [Conclusion] because [fact(s)]'.

This should highlight any Facts or Conclusions that are irrelevant or superfluous, and, perhaps more importantly, show up any inadequacies in facts found.

Summing Up

Accurate, Brief, Complete, and Quick – requires practice.

Please contribute to discussion about this post.

Boats 200904 Released

News from Thibaut:

Wednesday, April 22 2009, 18:18
Hello Everyone!

After another two month period a new version of Boat Scenario has arrived. This version brings:

• Tabbed view to have multiple scenarios open
• Trimmable sail angle
• optional Laylines drawing
• Printing support including PDF generation of the formatted call
• Overlap lines
• Animated GIF export
• a rib series (umpire pressure)
• contextual menu input from the scene
• recent files list and last session tabs restore

This tool is available for Windows, Linux and Mac as usual, and will let you create the same Scenarios on all those platforms.

The product is provided under the Open Source GPL licence.

Magic!. I've been playing with it during my Lunch Break. Do Yellow and Blue have contact or not?
Downloadpage

LTW Readers Q&A | 026

Hello Jos,

Your site is used and useful. Keep up the good work.

I need your help with the following scenario:

Two boats, Stan on starboard and Paul on port, are sailing downwind. Stan is clear astern of Paul. Stan is blanketing Paul and the distance between them is slowly decreasing. Stan is aware of Paul. Contact is made between Stan’s bow and Paul’s transom, but there is no damage. Stan did not alter course.

In the above scenario, did Stan break rule 14 and if so, is Stan then exonerated for breaking rule 14?

My answer: it depends on the pc chair. I have been a member of juries where the decision went either way.

It seems that some judges maintain that Stan must ACT to avoid contact. Stan did not ACT, therefore he broke rule 14. Others maintain that the rule 14’s However… (b) clause is a get-out-of-jail-free card. The contact did not result in damage, therefore Stan is exonerated.

Even the Senior Judges in our region (quietly) disagree amongst themselves on this one. It is a shame because the intent of the rule is there. My opinion is that the disagreement stems from the poor wording of the rule. What do you think?

Please use any of the above as you please.

I wish to remain anonymous.

Regards,

J.

Dear J.

Rule 14 has always been a source for many discussions among PC-members.

It's a special rule which should be used only when there's contact between boats and only AFTER the RoW or room issue has been addressed. That part in your question can be dealt with quickly: RRS 10 dictates that Paul, a boat on Port, shall keep clear of Stan, a boat on Starboard. Paul did not do this, so DSQ for Paul.

Regardless of the RoW/room issue, the PC then has to establish several facts to determine if any boat broke rule 14 and should be DSQ-ed for it. And there we run into your question.

The wording in rule 14 may be formatted as if there are two options for the 'RoW or entitled to room/markroom' - boat to not break rule 14, but that is not the case. The PC-members you refer to, mix two issues;
These are:
1, breaking rule 14
2. being penalized for breaking rule 14

A boat can break rule 14 and still not be penalized for it!

As a guide I've drawn a flow-chart to illustrate. Starting with the premise that there has been a contact, you can follow the Questions and Decisions until you reach either No Penalty or DSQ

In your incident Paul - as Port boat - did nothing to avoid the contact and therefore he broke rule 14. There's no exoneration for him, so DSQ for breaking rule 14 (As well as rule 10)

Stan - as Starboard boat - also did nothing to avoid the contact. He should have done so, the moment it became clear the Paul would not keep clear. He could reasonably do this by either luffing a little or by bearing away. Stan also broke rule 14!

But, because there's no damage or injury, he can not be penalized for it. Here the exoneration in 14(b) kicks in. Therefore Paul will not be DSQ-ed for breaking rule 14.

Like I said, the format of the rule suggest that 14(a) is equal to 14(b)
This is not the case.
14(a) limits the responsibility of a boat to avoid contact and if adhered to, prevents the boat from infringing the rule

In 14(b) the boat must first have broken rule 14, before is has any effect.

The confusion comes from the eventual outcome. In both 14(a) and 14(b), the right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or markroom, is not DSQ-ed.
The difference is that in 14(a) he doesn't break rule 14 and in 14(b) he does.

I hope this helps?

Regards,
Also J.

Snagging the Finishmark?

To good to leave in comments:



Tillerman asks:
So here's a video with some interesting Rules questions. What must Giddy Up do to exonerate herself and finish the race? And how would you score any boats whose finish was affected by Giddy Up's unorthodox manoeuvre?

DAIL UP; USMRC Newsletter Vol2, Issue 1

In the latest USMRC Newsletter “DAIL UP” an umpire call is being discussed, which I thought might interest you. It is written by Kirk Brown, an IU from the USA:

NEW RULES NEW WRINKLES

With new rule come new wrinkles. Congressional Cup 2009 provided an incident that continues to be discussed.

In the diagram below, the boats are coming to the finish with Blue owing a penalty. Neither boat has a spinnaker or jib up and are slow. Blue arrives at the zone clear ahead turning on rule 18.2(b), second sentence. Yellow must give Blue mark-room, which is room to sail to the mark. At position 2 and 3, Blue is not sailing to the mark, but away from the mark. At position 4, Blue is sailing above the finish line flag on the RC boat. At position 5, Blue cannot get to Yellow and both boats ‘Y’ flag. What rules apply and what is the call?

Rule 10 applies in this case, and Blue must keep clear (preamble to Section A). Rule 18.2(b) applies and Yellow must give Blue mark-room. As Blue always had room, neither boat broke a rule, Green and white flag. Look for a Rapid response Call to see if Blue can close the door.

My initial thought is that Blue must keep clear if Blue does not sail to the mark and gybes to port, since she is a port tack boat that has been given mark room but has opted not to take it. Stay tuned.

 

I’m interested to hear your thoughts about this call. A few of mine:

• Is Blue sailing to the mark in position 4?
• Has Blue finished?
• In position 2 Blue is RoW boat and can sail as wide as she pleases….
• Is Blue sailing her proper course – if you consider her AT the mark – in absence of Yellow , considering she still has to take a penalty?
• If yes, what about C2.2?
• Is 18.5(b) applicable considering this is a “passing” mark rather then a rounding mark?

To view the whole issue go to: http://usmrc.info/ml/dl.php?id=29
N.B.: there are no answers (yet)

.

Flog the Blog Day (17) +2

Being busy at the Criterium prevented me from doing a FTBD properly. (And to be honest I didn’t think about it until Outlook popped a warning when I got home.) So two day’s after the 18th, I’m catching up.
In the last FTBD I appealed to you as readers to send me pictures with something about the rules… That is proving to be harder then expected. Only one entry was ever send in and that is a shame. I was really hoping for a better response. I haven’t given up (yet), so please send me a rules pic or drawing, preferably unique but from any source. Does not have to be professional, does not have to be in color, it can be a drawing, but it has to be something about the rules……
Andraz, I’m counting on you, for sure!
To give you a whole lot of pictures I’ve uploaded the stash from Calpe to Flickr and you can have a look : http://www.flickr.com/photos/21650921@N03/sets/72157617094356218/
They are not all mine. Andraz, Sofie, César and Maria took most of them. Thanks for letting me use them. I’ve reduced the pixels to let you load quicker, if you want the original you’ll have to ask.

For next month a few interesting projects will be posted. I’m tempted to rename May in to Markroom month. An article by Mike Butterfield will featured, some idea’s I have myself about this subject and a couple of cases among them.
Watch this space for more about
”ROOM”.
On a different note I must mention my honorary inclusion in Tillerman's Top Ten Blog list. Thank you very much, Tillerman!
To all readers, go and have a look at his blog – if you haven’t already. This is what he writes himself:

“I am a grandfather who sails a Laser. Even though I am over 60, I suffer under the delusion that it is not too late to discover how to sail smarter and faster. In this blog I write mainly about sailing and my endless pursuit to become a better sailor. Read this blog if you want to learn from my mistakes -- there are plenty -- and to share in the fun of Laser racing Tillerman style.”

His subjects are wide and versatile and he writes far better then me. You will even come across a rules-issue now and then. Go to: Proper Course

MR Criterium, Calpe; Spain |006

18/04/09 10:34 hours; Final day. We will have to shorten the program definitely, there's NO wind. Semi Finals and RR for places 5 trough 8 is the plan, but if we will be able to make it, I don't know
Cases for the debrief? We didn't do a debrief yesterday because of the late hour. What we did have are two classics, I would say. What is the definition of Mark room and luffing as right of way boat. 18.2(a) & 16.1. I'll get back to them later. Delta has just gone up and we're going out.

It's now, 19/04/09 08:26 hours, I'm continuing this post I started yesterday but never got time to finish. My plane for Amsterdam leaves in less then two hours, so I'll have to check in pretty soon. Perhaps I can finish this post once I've done that.

Because of the lack of wind we didn't eventually do the finals. Of the semi-finals we sailed 4 matches. Claire against Lotte and Katie against Julie.
At first it looked like we would end up with a French final. After three races it was Claire 2 - Lotte 1 and Julie 2 - Katie 1. After a few shifts and some waiting we did the fourth match. Claire won again, but Julie didn't! A tie 2-2. The boats already struggled to get in, in the ever more light breeze. It was clearly not enough to start another match.

Then the waiting begun.

Calculating: one final match in the Semis; half an hour, Best of three in the finals / petit finals; potentially three races: one and a half hour?.. cut-of time was 19:30
So calculating back we needed to start at 17:30 to have a fair change of getting everything done.

No luck… 17:30 came and went still no wind.
At 18:00 hours Ewan - who also had a look at the forecast - pulled the plug; and we went in.

So now we need to calculate a winner using the tie rules in Appendix C. Here's your problem:
Semi finals:    CLAIRE 3 - LOTTE 1 &  JULIE 2 - KATIE 2
No Finals and No Petit-Finals.
How do you determine who has won the event? And who's second etc?
Have a go at the rule book and give me your answer in a comment with the appropriate rules

16:59 hours; I'm back home! Half my bags unpacked, last mail checked on the desk-top. Outlook reminded me that I've missed Flog the Blog Day. It will have to wait a little longer.

Fact Finding Friday | 008 QQ v RR v SS

Quebec Quadruped v Rangoon Reptile
Rangoon Reptile v Quebec Quadruped
Rangoon Reptile v Santiago Seafood

Introduction
The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence
You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received written protests with the details shown below. You have decided the protests are valid and have heard all parties and witnesses.

Description of Incident – Protest Quebec Quadruped v Rangoon Rattlesnake

Description of Incident – Protest Rangoon Rattlesnake v Quebec Quadruped and Rangoon Rattlesnake v Santiago Seafood

You have listed Facts Found and the protest committee members have agreed to endorse the attached diagram.
[Brass send me the file yesterday, but I dind't find time to go over it. The diagram was missing from the file. As soon as I receive it, I'll add it to this post; 18/04/09 07:43 now added]

Facts Found:

1. Sea, slight, Wind 8 to 13 knots. Boats are all 8 meter keel-boats.
2. Quebec Quadruped is the first boat, of Santiago Seafood, Rangoon Rattlesnake and Quebec Quadruped to reach the zone of the Port side gate mark, with all on Port, overlapped with Quebec Quadruped to windward of Rangoon Rattlesnake, and Rangoon Rattlesnake to windward of Santiago Seafood.
3. Quebec Quadruped sails outside the Port Gate mark, gybes to starboard, leaves the mark to starboard, then changes course to starboard, towards the wind.
4. Rangoon Rattlesnake and Santiago Seafood also sail to the same mark but leave it to port.
5. Santiago Seafood changes course to port towards the wind, expecting Rangoon Rattlesnake to do likewise to come to her proper course at the mark.
6. About the same time, Rangoon Rattlesnake bears away and gybes, attempting to keep clear of Quebec Quadruped.
7. Santiago Seafood then gybes in an attempt to keep clear of Rangoon Rattlesnake.
8. There is contact between Rangoon Rattlesnake and Santiago Seafood and between Quebec Quadruped and Rangoon Rattlesnake. There is no damage or injury.
9. No boat did any turns, but during the hearing Quebec Quadruped retires because she says she thought she was rounding the Starboard Gate mark, and acknowledges that she did not sail the course as required by rule 28.1

Problem
Write Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and the Decision for these protests. This is a more complex problem. Work methodically, don't rush it.
Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.

20/04/09; 12:25
I've attached the diagram John G made, before I added the endorsed diagram of the PC, so you can compare them:

MR Criterium, Calpe; Spain |005

Friday the 17th 11:28; Predictions have changed; 10 knots at 11:00 hours and decreasing later. Hopefully we will have enough wind to finish the Round Robin and start quarter finals.
At the moment it doesn't look like we can go out. Wind is still to low. In order to finish the flights inckuding the missed matches from the previuous two days we need to do four and three/quarter flights; 15 matches. About three and a half hours of sailing.

22:58 hours; back in my hotelroom after another long day on the water. We went out around 11:55 and came in around 19:15 hours, but we sailed all the remaining  matches in the round robin and did the quarter finals.

Semi- and finals we will do tomorrow. A couple of calls of interest but I'll save them for later. I first have to post Fact Finding on Friday before it's Saterday…
For the results go to http://www.rcnc.es/xi-criterium-internacional-femenino/

Oh, at dinner I got my "nickname". We were all given presents by Maria and Sofia, who went shopping just before. You can guess at mine, I'm not going to tell you.. save that a web is involved.

.

MR Criterium, Calpe; Spain |004

Thursday has come and gone again. A full day on the water with lots of sailing, lots of sunshine, bigger and bigger waves, and wind blowing 21 knots late in the afternoon.
More wind meant more breakdowns. Although we didn't have as many blank starts as the first day, we did have a few. For failing gib-haylards, for water in the boat and for hard to get up spinnakers, to name but a few.

Also - almost unavoidable - red flags a plenty. Bill, who's running the jury, had to organize panels on the water as well as on shore. I sat in a few of them.

The one on the water was over pretty quick. The two competitors sailed to different top marks. One of them was wrong and the other would win the match. Since the RC removed the "wrong" mark for the second rounding it was pretty obvious, even to the sailors, who that was going to be. Ten minutes, over and done. It took more time to get everybody of and on the boats…

What do you do with a protest about contact between boats before the sequence has begun?
We had to answer that, because of a collision - with damage - between port and starboard, both sailing without a gib.

Perhaps you can answer that in a comment?
Which rule do you need to look at, regardless of the situation?

7 matches the first day, 8 today, makes 15 in total. We need a couple more before we can do the next stage. Predictions are good - the same as last two days - so that should be do-able.

Until tomorrow then, I'm going to look for my pillow.

.

MR Criterium, Calpe; Spain |003

Today we started doing the actual matches. First flight at 11:00 hours provided the wind would fill in… Well, it was around 11:30 before we could go.
Since the wind kept increasing steadily we ended up going from 12 knots around one o'clock to 18-20 knots later in the afternoon. The wing boat - to which I was assigned for the first four flights - had trouble coping with the waves. Not enough horsepower was our conclusion. But beside that it was also on the small side and therefore very very wet in the big swell.
Uncharacteristicly cold in the afternoon for "sunny" Spain, I was not at all sorry to see the wind rapidly decreasing and Ewan deciding that with the decrease in pressure, boats couldn't sail in the continuing waves any more. We went in around five.

Oh, I didn't do any actual umpiring, at all. For the flight 5 I was Ump2 with David, but because of a breakdown of one of the boats - the main sheet traveller went bust - we had blank start and after that our own umpire boat had trouble. Later the mechanic told us it was the fuel delivery that caused engine failure.
After motoring in at half speed and discussing alternatives, we were just about to do some umpiring in the local police boat - yes, siren and lights and all - when AP over A went up.

As a case I've made a diagram of a mark-rounding situation:

What should the Umpires signal in response to this Yankee flag from Blue?

For umpires it's essential to determine if the inside boat is "AT" the mark. If she continues straight on, she's breaking RRS 11. Because she's no longer sailing her proper course. She has only markroom to sail TO the mark and when AT the mark room to sail her proper course. If she does anything else she must keep clear under the RoW rules….

In the group discussion we came up with this description: A boat is AT the mark when she first can turn to round it. Something umpires should establish and agree on.

MR Criterium, Calpe; Spain |002

I've arrived safe and sound, with all my bags intact and accounted for. It's a sunny 20 degrees and a nice breeze. Today is practice day and the first boats have gone out, for a couple of hours. The TOM 28 with a five woman crew is a bit crowded, so good discipline and fixed tasks is probably best.

The boats are well suited for Match Racing, fast enough to satisfy the sailing 'rush' but not so fast turning, you loose control. (Which suits us umpires better as well)

I've already had a look around Calpe and walked around the waterfront to town. (Forgot my toothbrush, so had to buy a new one). I'm also thinking about climbing the rock early one morning, although my condition is not so good. The view should be spectacular....

Scuttlebutt posted my Monday Q&A so welcome to all visitors. Have a look around and leave a comment if you want. (Subscription buttons are top of the sidebar)

More later, J

PS: Thank you Sen, for your kind wishes!
And to Anonymous: I'll ask about criterium instead of criteria....

UPDATE 23:32
I'm back at my hotel room after the first briefing with competitors, opening ceremony and dinner with the umpire group.

"It's a culture thing" Ewan said to me after the opening ceremony: "Apparently the alderman can hang a plaque in his office saying he did the opening of such and such sporting event"
Four serious guys in smart suits droning on about Calpe and the club... Titles left and right.
Booring!

Fortunately they included Silke Hahlbrock - last years winner - who kept it short and simple. And the last speaker actually tried to be a little more engaging and interactive. Which got him dirty looks from the prevoius three... The Spanish lady who translated was also very quick, but still.... If the words are boring, what can you do?

Calpe - as a town - does a lot for Match Racing and Sailing, so everybody will still turn up at these openings and applaud, but really......

The team of umpire is complete save one. With many of them knowing each other from other events - a smooth team already. And almost all, with a nickname apparantly.... (which I'm not allowed to post, so I'm told). I wonder what mine will be....
Time for bed, it's past midnight..
J.

.

MR Criterium, Calpe; Spain |001

Later this afternoon I'm flying to Spain for a Match Race Event in Calpe Spain. Faithful readers of LTW might remember I have been there once before. You can find posts about that event in 2008 here.

This year I'm going to XI INTERNATIONAL WOMEN MATCH RACE CRITERIUM
Flying with Transavia at 17:40 from Schiphol and arriving 20:15 in Alicante. With a car to bring me to Calpe, I should arrive around 21:30 at the venue.

Blogging may be a bit sporadic for next week, but I'll try to post about my experiences. Real Club Náutico Calpe does have WiFi at the venue, so I should be able to answer my mails and post on LTW.

Today my goal is to organise a balance between hand- and checked-in luggage, in case there's a repeat of my Italian adventure....

LTW Readers Q&A | 23 - Redressing

Rob Ware from Australia send in a Q&A about a request for redress and how to arrive at redress which is fair to all boats.

Scenario

At the start of an IRC keelboat race, the race officer decided to start the race early as it looked like the wind would die later in the afternoon and so he made an announcement to that effect on the radio. With the exception of one boat, the fleet heard the call over the radio, and started.

One boat, without a radio, did not hear the announcement and arrived at the starting area only to see the fleet already racing, about 10 min up the track in very light air. In an effort to recover from their error, the race committee told the boat to start and took his time across the starting line and, later, at the finishing line. The finishing times of the rest of the fleet were recorded in the normal way.

After the race, the race committee lodged a request for redress on behalf of the 'late starter'.

Redress Hearing No 1.

The protest committee granted redress which was to give the boats - including the late starter, their actual elapsed times, corrected in accordance with their respective TCF's.

As it happened, this gave the late starter a result some 4 minutes ahead of the next boat on corrected time. As a result, he won the race, the final race in the series, and this, in turn, critically altered the overall score of other boats in the race and the series.

Redress Hearing No 2.

The boat displaced from first place in the series, lodged a request for redress, claiming that the protest committee did not properly consider the fairness to all of the competitors.

His argument was that the late starter benefited unfairly from a number of factors including; he effectively got a 'perfect' start; he sailed the whole race in clear air and without interference from other competitors; the bulk of the fleet languished in a 'soft patch' whilst the late starter had a better breeze and, finally, there was a significant wind shift after the start with benefited the late starter.

This was all backed up with wind readings from a nearby weather station, statistics on boat performance, etc. This request for redress was heard by protest committee made up of different people.

The protest committee declined the request for redress on the basis that they could not do anything to correct or overturn the decision of the first protest committee.

Questions

1. Could the second protest committee have granted redress, effectively altering the initial decision?
2. Should they have sent it back to the first protest committee?
3. Is there some other process by which the second protest committee could have achieved a result fair to all?
4. If you were to accept that the first decision was not fair to all competitors, what redress could be given that more closely meet this criteria?

Regards,
Rob Ware

Well Rob, your questions are about the hardest part of requests for redress. How to get a solution which is most fair (to all boats). The rulebook has only a few guidelines on this subject, the manuals a few more. But because many requests are very unique the solution isn’t a matter of checking off a few suppositions and arriving at a proper compensation.

Let me first try to answer your questions:

1. Yes, the second PC could have granted redress if they decided that the first decision was not the most fair to all boats.
2. Technically it is a new request, not a reopening. The request cannot be made by one of the original parties (one of the changes in RRS 2009-2012) but in effect it will be handled as a reopening. For a reopening the rules state that, a majority of the members of the protest committee, if possible, be members of the original protest committee. A second PC is not required to send it back. I would however try to get as many members of the original PC involved, as possible.
3. Other process? No. The 2nd PC has the same options as the first, they can ask anybody or any source to help them. Rule 64.2 specifically states:

   “When in doubt about the facts or probable results of any arrangement for the race or series, especially before abandoning the race, the protest committee shall take evidence from appropriate sources.”

   If that means asking all boats in the fleet to give their opinion, the PC can do that.

4. To absolutely meet a criteria which is ambiguous at best, cannot be done. You can arrive at an approximation, but even then some will be unhappy with the solution. The solution the first PC arrived at, may lack in certain respects, but it at least has the pro that it is a ‘sailed’ result. Not a calculated one from averages.
   Perhaps a little more weight should have been given to the fact that the result had such a big impact on the overall score. Like in ISAF Q&A 2007-001, where the redress granted scored the boat in overall first place.

Robert, I can’t give you a clear cut solution. That’s why a PC is made up off more then one person. To get a balance of what is fair. If they also take the time in asking appropriate sources for their evidence and opinion, they have done their job.

By the way, I applaud the quick thinking and the initiative of the Race Committee to request redress in this case. They may have made a mistake, but they did their very best to fix that. Kudos to them!

.

UK-Halsey Rules Quiz Google Gadget

I received an Email from UK-Halsey about a new feature they've created:

For the last seven years UK-Halsey Sailmakers has been teaching the racing rules of sailing with our animated rules quizzes. To help get our quizzes out to more sailors, we have created a Google Gadget that can easily be installed on websites. The gadget has five quizzes, which once it is installed can be updated by UK-Halsey automatically. In fact we will rotate the quizzes every few weeks. When the user clicks to get the answer, a new window opens up for the UK-Halsey web site where they can find all 26 quizzes. We foresee the gadget creating traffic for the host's site as well as the UK-Halsey site.

By the way, we have posted just posted a new quiz that we have not even announced in our newsletter yet. It covers the rules at a downwind start. If you would like to be the first to call attention to it, please be my guest.

I've installed the gadget in the sidebar, after tweaking with the width of the blog a little. If you have problems with the page on a smaller screen because of it, please let me know so I can change the width accordingly.

Looks like a nice feature; your can go through a situation each time you have a few minutes, so you'll know them by hart after a while.

Oh, Quiz 26 is brand new!
The answer hasn't been even written yet on the UK-Halsey site.
Perhaps we can help them: You provide the answer in a comment here, so Rob Overton doesn't have to do all the work.....

.

Fact Finding Friday | 007 - Paris Pussycat v Oslo Ocelot

From “the Room” by Brass

Introduction

The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1.These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence

You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses as shown.
Write Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable and the Decision for this protest. Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.

Description of Incident

The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown.
Paris Pussycat and Oslo Ocelot are keelboats, approximately 10m LOA.
Wind conditions were about 10kts. Sea conditions smooth.

The Hearing

Paris Pussycat's Description of the Incident

• I was steering Paris Pussycat. We were approaching the leeward mark, to be rounded to port, with the wind over my starboard quarter. Oslo Ocelot was sailing a similar course about a boat length to windward.
• We reached the zone overlapped about three quarters of a boat length ahead of Oslo Ocelot.
• I sailed a course about one and a half boat lengths clear of the mark to allow me to gybe and come away from the mark on a favorable upwind course.
• I heard Oslo Ocelot shout something confusing that I could not understand properly.
• I called for Oslo Ocelot to keep clear because I could see she was getting closer. Ocelot did not appear to respond.
• I gybed for the mark when I was level with it, about one boat length away.
• As I completed my gybe Oslo Ocelot bore away and closed the gap between the boats and Oslo Ocelot's boom hit the stern rail of Paris Pussycat.
• I hailed 'protest' and my crew immediately displayed a red flag.
• Oslo Ocelot then sheered off and fell behind me.

Oslo Ocelot's Questions to Paris Pussycat

Q. Why did you sail so wide of the mark when you know you are only entitled to mark-room to sail the direct course to the mark?
A. I was right of way boat and could sail as high as I liked.

Protest Committee's Questions to Paris Pussycat

Q. Did the contact result in any damage?
A. No.

Q. When and how did the boats become overlapped?
A. Oslo Ocelot managed to blanket my wind and became overlapped to windward of Paris Pussycat some considerable way up the downwind leg, before coming near the mark.

Oslo Ocelot's Description of the Incident

• Both boats were on starboard tack coming into the leeward mark to be rounded to port, Paris Pussycat was inside Oslo Ocelot at the zone.
• Paris Pussycat was sailing well outside the mark, pushing me up to windward.
• I hailed to Paris Pussycat that she was taking too much room and to sail to the mark.
• Paris Pussycat did not respond to my hail.
• The gap between the boats closed up. I was trying to sail my proper course to the mark.
• Paris Pussycat gybed and our boom hit her stern rail.

Paris Pussycat's Questions to Oslo Ocelot

Q. Do you claim that I should have gybed any earlier than I did?
A. No.

Protest Committee Questions to Oslo Ocelot

Q. Was there any damage?
A. No.

Q. Did you take any penalty turns?
A. No.

Paris Pussycat's witness evidence

• I was tactician on Paris Pussycat, standing beside the helm.
• About 10 lengths from the mark I noted that we were overlapped with Oslo Ocelot and would have inside rights to mark-room.
• I reminded the skipper to sail wide in and close out.
• We sailed a straight course for a point about one and a half lengths outside the mark.
• About two lengths from the mark I heard Oslo Ocelot hail something that I did not understand.
• Oslo Ocelot closed the gap between the boats.
• We gybed for the mark and Oslo Ocelot's boom hit our stern rail.

Oslo Ocelot's Questions to Paris Pussycat's Witness

Q: Didn't you understand that I was hailing you to sail your direct course to the mark?
A: No, but that would not have made sense to me even if I had heard it.

Oslo Ocelot's Witnesses

Oslo Ocelot had no witnesses.

Paris Pussycat Summing Up

• Paris Pussycat was inside right of way boat with rights to mark-room.
• While we were on starboard tack Oslo Ocelot was required to keep clear as well as give us mark-room.
• When we gybed, we were sailing our proper course at the mark and entitled to mark-room.
• Oslo Ocelot did not keep clear and did not give us mark-room.

Oslo Ocelot's Summing Up

• Paris Pussycat took more mark-room than she was entitled to. Paris Pussycat broke rule 18.2.
• When she had gybed, Paris Pussycat was on port tack and failed to keep clear of Oslo Ocelot on port tack. Paris Pussycat broke rule 10 and 14.
• I had no reason to do penalty turns because I was in the right throughout.

Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence

Your fellow protest committee members agree that there is no evidence that Paris Pussycat as a right of way boat changing course, did not give Oslo Ocelot room to keep clear and that Paris Pussycat did not sail further from the mark than was needed to sail her proper course before gybing.

Links on Anyday; Books - CYA Appeals and Sailing Games

Links found in Scuttlebutt:
The Canadian Yachting Association Appeals book for the 2009-2012 rules is now available to download free of charge from the CYA website:
http://www.sailing.ca/news/the_cya_appeals_book/
The CYA and ISAF have also provided permission for commercial printers to print single copies from electronic files for the CYA Appeals Book for 2009-2012, and for the Case Book for 2009-2012 for the International Sailing Federation; http://www.sailing.org/9506.php;. Print the letter on the CYA website and take it with you if you have your Appeals Book and Case Book printed at a commercial printer or copy shop.

Yachting New Zealand has produced a brand new Sailing Games book. The book is a collection of forty fun games to improve skills and knowledge, ten for on shore and thirty for on the water. This fully illustrated book is a great tool for coaches and loads of fun for parents and sailors. It also makes a great birthday present or gift for another occasion. -- SailRaceWin, read on:
http://sailracewin.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-sailing-games-book.html

While you're on the New Zealand web site, a couple of Q&A's you might find interesting: Race Management Q & A

RR Match Race Call 2009-002

ISAF RAPID RESPONSE MATCH RACING CALL 2009/002 is about the normal place of the spinnaker when finishing.

Perhaps you recall an incident last year at the Monsoon Cup involving this very specific issue? (If not go to: Equipment in normal position? a blogpost explaining the situation in detail with photo's)

Before we can go to the Rapid Response Call, we have to look at CALL UMP 18 from the Callbook:

CALL UMP 18:
Rule C2.1 Changes to the Definitions - definition Finish
Definitions Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap

Question
At a close downwind finish, Yellow eases her spinnaker halyard, sheet and guy so that the sail is further ahead of her bow than normally. When does she finish? What action should the umpires take?Answer
Yellow finishes when her bow crosses the line. The definition Finish makes it clear that as the spinnaker is not in normal position it cannot be considered for the purpose of finishing.
Judging the finish is solely a matter for the race committee. However, if the umpires see the halyard eased they may advise the race committee, since the umpires may be in a better position to see the spinnaker before the boat crosses the finishing line.
The same reasoning would apply when two boats approach a leeward mark and there is a question about whether they are overlapped.

And now to the RR CALL 2009/002:
Definition Finish

Situation
The situation is the same as in Call UMP 18.

Question
Would the answer be different if Yellow was in the process of taking down the spinnaker?

Answer
No. A spinnaker in the process of being set or taken down is not "equipment in normal position" in the context of the definitions where this term is used.


We can all argue until we are blue in the face agreeing or disagreeing with the answer. But that's precisely why Rapid Response Calls are published; so we at least answer all the same, consistently.
.

Speed & Smarts (5) #105 IQ Test

The latest Speed & Smarts dropped in my mailbox last week. In it a new version of the IQ test: How well do you know the 2009-2012 racing rules?

I've scanned a couple of the questions and am giving you the opportunity to test yourself. If you want the whole test + all the information on how to sail faster you should definitly have a look at the web-site: SpeedandSmarts You can already subscribe for $35 for the Email version.

Here are questions 61 trough 74: In each you will have to choose how wide X can sail. If you want to leave your answers in a comment, please also write why you picked M, P or W.

Good luck!

I'll post the correct answers in a couple of days.

.

Rapid Response Team Racing Calls 2009/004 & 2009/005

New on the ISAF Website: Rapid Response Team Racing Call 2009/004 and 2009/005

The first call illustrates the application of rule D1.1(b) and answers this question:

A on starboard enters the zone of a windward mark clear ahead of X. X tacks onto port and then tacks back onto starboard. She then establishes an inside overlap with A from clear astern. Does A have to give X mark-room?

Read the answer in: RapidResponseTRCall2009004-[7186].pdf

The second is an official answer to the team race situation discovered by Chris Love from Sailgroove
and discussed earlier in this post: RRS 18.2(c) changed in US College Sailing!

The Move is Legal!
But we already knew, didn't we ?

Read the whole call here: RapidResponseTRCall2009005-[7187].pdf

PODCASTs on the Racing Rules of Sailing by Bryan Willis

Nobody knows the racing rules of sailing like Bryan Willis. Having chaired international juries at major events throughout the world including the Sydney Olympics and recent  America's Cups he knows a thing or two about what you can, can't or must to while out competing on the water.


These three podcasts were inspired by his new, bestselling book about the racing rules of sailing Rules in Practice 2009-2012.
Also available in Dutch!

Podcast 1. Why Change the Rules?

In this, the first of three racing rules of sailing podcasts, Bryan Willis talks about how he got involved with the racing scene, how and why the rules get updated and the main changes for the recent 2009-2012 revision.
Click here to listen to the podcast

Podcast 2: What rules do you actually need to know?


In the second of Bryan Willis; racing rules podcasts, he discusses what rules the club racer needs to know, what rules cause the most confusion on the water and offers a few suggestions for how to use the rules to your advantage.
Click here to listen to the podcast

Podcast 3. Umpiring and Protests 

In the last of the three racing rules podcasts, expert author Bryan Willis talks about the advantages of on the water umpiring, offers his own advice on making the most of the protest process and how to present strong evidence to the committee.
Click here to listen to the podcast

From:http://www.wileynautical.com/

On the same side!

A case by Mike Butterfield;

The new rules differ from the old in that at obstructions under the old rules RRS18 only applied if the boats were to pass the obstruction “on the same side”.

There is no side requirement under the new rules and thus the New RRS 19 always applies.

The difference can be seen in the “Old” Team racing casebook Call F2 as opposed to the “New” Casebook F2.

Under the old rules Blue has no right to room at 1 and can only bear of without breach of 17.2 at 2 if it is a proper course, possibly a challenge. At 3 there is a right for room.

Under the new rules there is no issue at 1 and 17.2 does not now exist. Yellow becomes required to give room to Blue when Blue “needs to commit to passing to leeward of the moored boat”. When is this?

Blues case may be improved is she hails but there is no requirement to do so. Under the old rules as soon as the boats were passing the obstruction on the same side, the rights were clear, now this may not be so.

What here:-

Under the old rules Blue was never passing on the same side and there is no issue.

Under the NEW rules as Yellow did not give “enough room” for blue to pass to leeward of the obstruction is she at risk of losing any protest from Blue?

When would Blue “have had to commit”, would it be different if she had hailed?

Would it be harder to resolve if the moored boat was smaller (of the transom of a boat they were both overtaking (as F2).

The clarity of the old rule has been lost. Blue as windward boat always is the keep clear boat, what if she tried to go to leeward and there was not room? Would she be disqualified, as well, as a windward boat failing to keep clear?

Under 64.1.c has she been “compelled” and thus entitled to be exonerated when she has a simple windward escape.

This appears to be an example of the different wording in the rules, causing basically the “same game” to have responsibilities described very differently.

How do you see it?

Mike, I think that the emphasis in the rule 19 has been shifted to give more weight to the RoW rules. 

This means that the keep clear boat has “to do” more to establish that she is compelled to break a RoW rule, when she’s not given enough room

Under rule 19 that means her intention to pass at the same side has to be very clear to Yellow. This intention has to be obvious either when first the overlap is established or in your second drawing - with a standing overlap - at least a boat and a half before the obstruction. Yellow has an obligation to give room – only when she’s able to. If Blue ducks at the last moment there’s no way Yellow can give room and therefore is not obliged to do it.

In my opinion when Blue does not make her intention clear and sails to the other side of the obstruction – as you depicted – Yellow does not break rule 19.

The size of the obstruction is only of influence, if it makes it obvious that Blue cannot pass to windward. The bigger the obstruction, the clearer it will be that Blue will also pass to leeward. If the obstruction is smaller, Blue has to be more obvious, that she wants to pass at the same side and needs room to do so.

There’s no exoneration within rule 19 – like you stated, only under rule 64.1(c).
Therefore Blue must show she was ‘compelled’ – if not, she breaks rule 11.

 

Comments, anyone?

.

Rulesphoto's | 001

I think this photo should be the first in the Rulesphoto's series I was asking for in the last FTBD-post.
Send in by Andrew Sadler:

Commodore Peter Nannenberg explains the changes to the RRS [and clears up a few misunderstandings on unchanged rules] at the opening of the VWDTP summer series in Groningen. Here's the link [Dutch]:

Thanks Andrew!

Fact Finding Friday | 006 - Manila Morning v Nicosia Night

From “the Room” by Brass.

Introduction

The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence

You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses.

You have listed Facts Found and the protest committee members have agreed to endorse the attached diagram:

Legend: Purple Manila Morning Orange Nicosia Night

Facts Found

1. Manila Morning and Nicosia Night (4m dinghies) on starboard tack at about 4kts approaching a windward mark to be left to starboard.
2. Boats were overlapped, with Manila Morning, the inside boat slightly ahead.
3. Manila Morning hailed for mark-room and Nicosia Night replied ‘Will be given when needed’.
4. When Manila Morning was 6m from the mark contact occurred, without damage or injury.
5. Manila Morning protested Nicosia Night for not giving mark-room when Manila Morning had asked for it.

Problem

Write Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and the Decision for this protest. Here is another opportunity to try your speed on just Conclusions and Decision.

Dick, it will save you time if you don’t regale us with your tales of the European nobility or the Wild West (much as we enjoy them).

Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.

 

Dick, in case you are feeling melancholy, because you’ve been curtailed in your endeavors, visit the following site; the Dutch Queen of the “smartlappen” will help you to overcome it: http://www.zangereszondernaam.nl/

If you look hard enough you’ll find the Mandolins from Nicosia

JmS (lol)

.

VOR Request for Redress Telefonica Blue: Decision

I posted about a request for redress by Telefonica Blue in this post: Links on Monday: Boats and VOR Request for Redress

In the request, Bouwe Bekking, skipper of the VOR -boat, asked for redress because his boat hit something under water just before the start of leg 5, remember?

The Volvo Ocean Race Official Noticeboard just published the decision of the International Jury:

No luck for Telefonica Azul!

The jury concluded that there was no error or omission by the Race Committee or Organizing Authority. One of the three conditions for granting redress was not fulfilled! Then, even if the other two are, there can be no compensation awarded.

From the Request fro Redress:
"GROUNDS FOR DECISION
17. The Race Committee made reasonable efforts to ensure the start was set in a safe area.
18. Whilst there was no obligation on the Race Committee to postpone or abandon the race had they known the reason why Telefonica Azul had suspended racing, there was no possibility for it to do so as it had no information on which to base such a decision.
19. There is no obligation on the Race Committee or the Organising Authority to provide constant access to a port."

You can read the whole paper: Telefonica Azul request for redress decision VOR09 JN12

.

AC 33 | revisited

We are back to were it started:
Read AC 33

and then the:
Decision of the NY Court of Appeals

The DoG-fight is on!

Paste & Copy for Judges Manual

From ISAF:

International Judges’ Manual
Edition 5 December 2008
Amendment Sheet No. 1

Issued April 2009

Please amend your copy of the Manual as shown below:
Section 5.4.1 First Paragraph
Restrictions to advertising, i.e. Category A
delete and insert
Restrictions to Advertising as stated in ISAF Regulation 20

Section 6.1.2
is observed e.g. rule 31.2
delete and insert
is observed e.g. rule 31

End

Small change can often be found under seat cushions

Racing Rules of Sailing - Search for Images:

http://www.woodspringmsc.webeden.co.uk/#/sailingdiagrams/4520163861

http://www.iceboat.org/elements/NEIYA_rules_no_club.jpg

Basic Separation Rules
http://www.royalmotor.com.au/sailing/news.html

http://www.leevalleymyc.org.uk/introtoyachting.html

Where are your Images? From FTBD (16) :

Since the new sailing season is about to get started here in the northern part of the Low lands, I will be going to events more and more. That means I’ll be less likely to have access to the blog or have time to write on it, during weekends. To compensate, I would very much appreciate your help!

Please send me (a) picture(s) of the event you are attending as a sailor or as an official (RC-member, RO, Judge, Umpire or whatever). The only thing I ask, is that in some way it has to involve the rules.

A mark-rounding to illustrate the use (or misuse) of mark-room. A boat with a red flag. The lady or guy from the protest desk receiving the form. The cover of your rulebook in the frame. Anything, but with a “rule-reference”. You can even just write a funny byline with the picture about the rules…..

Upon returning from my own event, I’ll sort those out and publish them on the blog with your story or one-liner attached. I will also try to use my own camera to that effect. If you don’t have a camera, ask a fellow sailor or official to snap one with his or hers. I’ll even accept a (very) short comic strip.

Small change can often be found under seat cushions