Monday 31 May 2010

(pillow)Case of the Week (22) - 93

 (This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

(If you are missing case 94; Don’t look for it, it has been deleted!)

image

CASE 93

Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 18.3(b), Mark-Room: Tacking When Approaching a Mark
Rule 18.5, Mark-Room: Exoneration
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Definitions, Room



If a boat luffs immediately after she becomes overlapped to
leeward of another boat and there is no seamanlike action that
would enable the other boat to keep clear, the boat that luffed
breaks rules 15 and 16.1. The other boat breaks rule 11, but is
exonerated under rule 64.1(c).

image
Summary of the Facts

As they approached a windward mark, and after W completed a tack within the zone and was on her new close-hauled course, L was directly astern of W. W’s course was far enough above the layline to allow L to pass between W and the mark. In position 2, L had borne off from a point close astern of W and was about to overlap W to leeward. When the overlap began L immediately luffed and struck W’s port side. The boats then continued around the mark without further incident. L protested W but L was disqualified for breaking rule 16.1. She appealed.

Tuesday 25 May 2010

MATCH RACE Germany; Red Flag Squared

Although the Round Robin and Quarter Finals were pretty calm in terms of Yankee Flags, that was made up by the number of calls in the Semi-Finals.
Well, in one of the pairs at least.
I’m going to give you the facts found by way off a diagram and animation.


Animation & BSS-file

The first incident was before the start, just below the committee-vessel. The start signal was made when boats where approximately in position 5. Before I start explaining what the umpire answered to the two Yankee- flags, try and make up your own mind.

Monday 24 May 2010

(pillow)Case of the Week (21) - 95

(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)
image

CASE 95

Rule 18.1(a), Mark-Room: When Rule 18 Applies
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.3(b), Mark-Room: Tacking When Approaching a Mark
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration 


 If two overlapped boats on the same tack are on a beat to windward and are subject to rule 18.2(b), rule 18 ceases to apply when either of them turns past head to wind. When a right-of-way boat is compelled to touch a mark as a result of the other boat’s failure to keep clear, she is exonerated from her breach of rule 31.

Summary of the Facts

Approaching the windward mark, Jagga and Freebird were overlapped on port tack, Freebird being between one and two boat-lengths to leeward.  Freebird tacked. Jagga then tacked into a position to windward of Freebird. Jagga luffed so that her swinging stern required Freebird to change course to avoid contact, which she did, touching the mark as a result. Freebird protested.
The protest committee disqualified Jagga under rule 18.3(b). Jagga appealed on the grounds that, as an inside overlapped boat, she was entitled to room to pass the mark.

image

Decision

When Jagga reached the zone she was overlapped inside Freebird. From that time until Freebird turned past head to wind, rule 18.2(b) required Freebird to give Jagga mark-room. However, after Freebird turned past head to wind, rule 18 ceased to apply (see rule 18.1(a)) and Jagga was no longer entitled to mark-room. The boats were then on opposite tacks, with Freebird fetching the mark. Freebird was subject to rule 15 after she completed her tack. She complied with that rule because Jagga had room to keep clear by crossing ahead of Freebird.

Between positions 2 and 3 when Jagga turned past head to wind, she became subject to rule 13 in the zone, and therefore rule 18.3 began to apply. When Jagga completed her tack, Freebird was overlapped inside her. Jagga was then required by rule 11 to keep clear of Freebird and by rule 18.3(b) to give Freebird mark-room. After Jagga crossed ahead of Freebird, Freebird had right of way, first under rule 10, then under rule 13 and finally under rule 11. Therefore, Jagga had no protection from rule 15 during that time. Rule 11 and the definition Keep Clear required Jagga to sail so that Freebird could ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action’.

The fact that, when Jagga luffed, Freebird had to change course to avoid contact was evidence that Jagga did not keep clear and did not give Freebird mark-room as required by rule 18.3(b). The protest committee correctly disqualified Jagga under rule 18.3(b), but she also broke rule 11.
Freebird broke rule 31 when she touched the mark, but she is exonerated under rule 64.1(c). Jagga’s appeal is dismissed.

RYA 2000/4

blogcolorstripe

Friday 21 May 2010

RED Flag Penalties in Umpiring MR

Below you'll find an article published in the latest International Umpires Newsletter: You can read the whole issue here: IU Newsletter may 2010

The article is about that bloody RED flag penalty! Bill's view on when to give it or not.




Red-Flag Penalties - rule C5.3 & rule C8.3
The 'red-flag penalty' rule seems to cause more discussion in debriefs and within umpire teams than even rule 16. It is important to understand the process that brought the rule into the rulebook.

In New Zealand, at the old Steinlager events, it was often a race winning move to either lead into the wall or out into the current, so much so that you could usually get enough distance to easily take a penalty and still be in a favorable position.

A sailing instruction was introduced so that if a boat broke a rule and a consequence of that breach was 'winning' the side they wanted, that penalty was turned into an immediate penalty.

Not all events used, or even wanted, such a sailing instruction, but eventually it was decided to take it out of the SI's and add it to Appendix C as a standard penalty option. This is where it went awry, as the red-flag penalty started being used for issues that were never originally envisioned.

Equally it has never been clearly described what the criteria for a red-flag penalty is, being variously described as gaining an advantage taking into account the penalty, which was already there and required a double penalty, and change of control, which is not referred to anywhere in the RRS.

For me Call MR 33 further complicates the problem as it rightly states that we should not take into account what happens later to decide an advantage.

So where are we now? Well most umpires, and I have to say me included, are not able to do the mental gymnastics required to consider advantage, double penalty, red-flag penalty, deliberate etc. and we follow a simpler path.

Deliberate or gross breaches to gain an advantage or not, we give a double penalty; gaining a significant advantage we give a red-flag penalty.

Not really exactly what the RRS says, but it has lead to more consistency.

So what constitutes gaining an advantage?

These are the criteria I have used recently;

1. Umpires will apply a red-flag penalty when they see a boat gain an advantage at or around starting time, or for an incident when rule 18 or Call MR 39 applies, or approaching a finishing line. The time before or after the starting signal is dependent on the boats position relative to the starting line in terms of time and distance back to the line.

Gaining an advantage will be judged by either a change of right of way, or gaining a 'strategic' control such as winning a side when the umpires are certain that that a 'strategic' advantage is a constant feature for that match for that side. Tide will normally be used more frequently as a criterion for a 'strategic' advantage than the wind.

2. When the umpires are immediately certain that the conditions for a double penalty exist they will signal accordingly. If they are unsure as to whether it is a double penalty or a red-flag penalty, they will signal a red-flag penalty immediately, and then discuss whether to give an additional umpire initiated penalty.

One of the systems I have been trialing at events is to determine before a flight starts whether there is a consensus opinion amongst the umpire team as to whether a consistent strategic advantage is apparent from either wind or current on the race track. (This approach is similar to all making a decision as to whether surfing or planning conditions exist for the purpose of rule 42.)
If a boat then breaks a rule and gets first use of that particular advantage that it wouldn't have had otherwise, it should be a red-flag penalty.

You will note that nowhere do I refer to a change of control as something that is a determining factor for giving a red-flag penalty, a change of control is just one factor that should be factored into whether a boat has gained an advantage.

Personally I would like to rewrite C8.3 to reflect what we do on the water.

Well I'm sure you are all confused at a higher level now.

The reality is we get just as many 'should have been a red-flag penalty' as 'shouldn't have been a red-flag penalty' so our balance is about right on the water and these are just thoughts to try and get better consistency amongst umpires.

Bill Edgerton


Thursday 20 May 2010

LTW Readers Q&A | 042; Juryprotest?

I'm skipping a few who have send in questions earlier; please forgive my redirection. I will get to you all - eventually. This Q&A is from Felix, a NU from Switzerland. This discussion has been done for many years, but because of judges going on the water for rule 42 observations, is now more in need of an answer, then ever before.


Dear Jos,
I would be interested on your (your readers) view on the following question:
"When should a jury protest an incident observed on the water?"

The Jury on the water is not present to enforce Rule 42 but simply observing the races. The Jury boat with two judges and identified with a jury flag was watching the start of the pin end of the line. The boat closed to the mark was not able to pass the mark despite luffing head to wind. The result of the luffing was, that the boat came to a stand still and the genoa got wind from port, which forced the boat to passed head to wind.

As a result, it made contact with the next boat approaching the starting line on Starboard and forcing it to luff in an attempt to avoid contact. The manoeuvre resulted in a "chain reaction" with multiple boats involved and making contact. There was no or only very minor damage. The whole situation was photographed from the jury boat and I have attached one photo from the series to this Email.

There was a lot of "protest" shouting during the incident from different boats, but only one boat (CAN 1034) displayed the protest flag. CAN 1034 however removed the red flag before reaching the windward mark. No boat involved in the incident took a penalty.

The jury agreed that because there was contact, a rule must have been broken.
The jury was, in disagreement if they should protest the incident. The disagreement evolved around the wording in the judges manual:
"Except where empowered by Appendix P or the sailing instructions, the Judges should only initiate a protest when they witness a clear infringement that is not observed by other competitors or when rule 2 (Fair Sailing) is involved."
Argument against protesting:
The witnessed infringement was observed by several other competitors and therefore the jury should not protest.

Argument for protesting:
A rule has been broken, as contact has been made. If contact has been made, one or more boat must be penalized by the jury. That no boat took a penalty after making contact nor protested, is not fair sailing (RRS 2) nor acceptance of the rules.

What is your position?
Best Regards,
Felix Somm, NJ / Switzerland

Link to the Judges manual: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/Judges%20Manual%20Updated%202008-[4880].pdf

Excerpt: "However, our sport continues to be based on the premise that the competitors, not Judges, have the lead responsibility for enforcing the rules on themselves and their fellow competitors. Consequently, the information that Judges who are afloat gather concerning interaction between boats does not generally lead to direct action. Except where empowered by Appendix P or the sailing instructions, the Judges should only initiate a protest when they witness a clear infringement that is not observed by other competitors or when rule 2 (Fair Sailing) is involved."

My personal view is that unless I'm absolutely sure about the infringement of  fair sailing, I would not protest. Since in this particular case that is hard to establish - I vote for no protest by the Jury members.
Sailing should stay "self-policing" as much as possible.

Tuesday 18 May 2010

FTBD (29)&(30)

Double billing this month, since I neglected to present the whip to you last month. I'm open to suggestions as always on this 18th of the month. And if you want to comment on the site, please go ahead.

I'm off to do another couple events tomorrow - first Match Race Germany in Langenargen and then the Delta Lloyd Regatta back home in Medemblik. Both as an umpire for Match Racing. Besides having a good time and enjoying myself, I have set two learning goals. Better communication during rule transitions and better prediction on what is going to happen in the match.
You can have a look at these events on: http://www.matchrace.de/en/home.php & http://www.deltalloydregatta.org/


I'm bringing my laptop so hopefully I can also find some time in writing long overdue posts about your Q&A's.

Monday 17 May 2010

(pillow)Case of the Week (20) - 96

(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

image

CASE 96

Rule 30.3, Starting Penalties: Black Flag Rule

When after a general recall a boat learns from seeing her sail number displayed that she has been disqualified by the race committee under the second sentence of rule 30.3 and believes the race committee has made a mistake, her only option is not to start, and then to seek redress. However, if the race committee does not display her sail number and she sails in the restarted race, she should be scored BFD, and not DNE.

Assumed Facts

The race committee displayed the black flag as the preparatory signal for the start of a class. Boat A was identified in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. After the starting signal, the race committee signalled a general recall. The race committee disqualified Boat A without a hearing for breaking rule 30.3.

Question 1

If Boat A believes that the race committee made a mistake when it identified her in the triangle during the last minute, do the rules permit her to sail in the race when it is restarted and then request redress?

Answer 1

Rule 30.3 clearly requires boat A not to sail in the restarted race and states that her disqualification will become non-excludable if she does. Her only remedy is to request redress, which, if given in a series, would normally be based on her results in other races.

Additional Assumed Facts

The race committee failed to display A’s sail number before the next warning signal for the race, and A sailed in the race when it was restarted.

Question 2

Is A entitled to a finishing place?

Answer 2

No. Boat A should be disqualified as required by the second sentence of rule 30.3. However, because the race committee erred by not displaying her sail number between the general recall and the next warning signal for the race, she should be scored BFD (Disqualification under rule 30.3), and not DNE (Disqualification not excludable under rule 90.3(b)). If she requests redress claiming that she is entitled to a finishing place because the race committee erred by not displaying her sail number, her request should be denied.

While not displaying her sail number is an improper omission by the race committee, it is not the omission that deprived her of her finishing place, but the fact that she had been on the course side of the starting line in the minute before her starting signal. However, if she was scored DNE, redress should be granted to the extent of changing her score to BFD.

RYA 2000/1

blogcolorstripe

By not sailing the race after the general recall boat A does not acknowledge she agrees with the BFD. But the rules do not permit her to participate in the next race – if she does, she not only breaks the first part in rule 30.3 but also the second part.

Now, if she successfully can convince the PC that she was not over the line and that the RC made a mistake by identifying her as such, she can get redress.

Because of the rules dictating redress and the second part in rule 30.3 – (she shall not sail in the race) – you can, theoretically, find a ‘dilemma’ :

  1. In order to get redress the rules state that the score should NOT be made significantly worse through ‘no fault of her own’.
  2. By not sailing in the race – while she was convinced she was not BFD – it was, at least partly, because of her own decision, that she got no score.
  3. Rule 30.3 specifically states that she must be identified – she was not.
  4. Therefore the second part of rule 30.3 is not in effect. She should have raced
  5. No redress……

The wording in rule 30.3 is to clear enough to decide either way. Therefore I would always give the benefit of the doubt to the sailor in this case and grant redress.

J.

Friday 14 May 2010

Umpire case from European Championship 2010

Currently I’m umpiring at the Eurosaf Open&Woman European Match Racing Championships in Hard, Austria. A very small part of the Bodensee has a border with Austria and there the Hard Yacht Club is organising this event.
With a course on the ‘Innenbecken’ and one outside at the lower part of the Bodensee.
We’ve been at it for three day’s in less then ideal circumstances – lots of rain and cold – but luckily almost on schedule. Tomorrow the final day we’ll do the last part ending of course with Finals and Petit Finals.
From today I have a case for you consideration. In the picture below you see two prestart boats about 20 seconds before the start. Blue (clear ahead) gybes and then luffs very hard.
HARD 01b 100514
For the first infringement (not keeping clear while gybing (RRS 13.2)) she gets a red flag penalty. She was not in control, the trailing boat was, but by gybing she gains control. Breaking a rule to do that, earns you a red flag penalty.
After that she luffs so hard that there’s contact. Yellow was not able to keep clear due to Blue’s lack of room to do so. Infringing rule 16 she get’s another penalty.
After the start she takes a penalty, by slowing down a little and then bearing away behind Yellow. My question to you is: Should she take two penalties or only one?
Please give me your reasoning with the answer.

Monday 10 May 2010

(pillow)Case of the Week (19) - 97

(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)
image

CASE 97


Rule 50.3, Setting and Sheeting Sails: Use of Outriggers
A jockey pole attached to a spinnaker guy is not an outrigger.
Question
Is a jockey pole (a pole that exerts outward pressure on the line that controls the fore and aft position of a spinnaker pole) an outrigger?
Answer
No. When a spinnaker pole is set, the line that controls the fore and aft position of that pole is a guy, not a sheet. A jockey pole putting outward pressure on a guy is therefore not an outrigger, defined by rule 50.3(a) as a ‘fitting or device’ that exerts ‘outward pressure on a sheet or sail’.

RYA 2000/2

blogcolorstripe

Once upon a time – a long time ago – someone asked the question and the discussion flared up. In the olden days that was done by ‘hand‘ instead of by twitter, facebook or blog. But the answer is proof that the wording of the rules is paramount. You must always use the rules, as they are written. And not as you think they should be written.

Monday 3 May 2010

(pillow)Case of the Week (18) - 98

(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

image

CASE 98

Rule 3(a), Acceptance of the Rules
Rule 63.7, Conflict between the Notice of Race and the Sailing Instructions
Rule 85, Governing Rules
Rule 87, Changes to Class Rules
Rule 88.2, National Prescriptions
Rule J1.1(2), Notice of Race Contents
Rule J1.2(9), Notice of Race Contents
Rule J2.1(1), Sailing Instruction Contents
Rule J2.2(6), Sailing Instruction Contents
Definitions, Rule

The rules listed in the definition Rule apply to races governed by The Racing Rules of Sailing whether or not the notice of race or sailing instructions explicitly state that they apply. A sailing instruction, provided it is consistent with any prescription to rule 88.2, may change some or all of the prescriptions of the national authority. Generally, neither the notice of race nor the sailing instructions may change a class rule. When a boat races under a handicapping or rating system, the rules of that system apply, and some or all of her class rules may apply as well. When the notice of race conflicts with the sailing instructions, neither takes precedence.

Assumed Facts

The notice of race and the sailing instructions for the Spring Tune-Up
Race stated that The Racing Rules of Sailing would apply, but made no
reference to the prescriptions of the national authority, the sailing
instructions, the class rules, the notice of race or any other document or
rule. Starts were given for a class of boats racing under a handicap system
and for two one-design classes. Buttercup, a J/24, raced in the handicap
class and was protested for breaking a J/24 class rule.

Question 1

Did any of the following apply?
(1) the prescriptions of the national authority
(2) the class rules
(3) the notice of race
(4) the sailing instructions
(5) other documents governing the event

Answer 1

Rules J1.1(2) and J2.1(1) require that both the notice of race and the sailing instructions inform competitors ‘that the race will be governed by the rules as defined in The Racing Rules of Sailing.’ If the notice of race or the sailing instructions includes such a statement, then the prescriptions of the national authority, the class rules, the notice of race and the sailing instructions all apply because they are all defined to be rules. Any other documents that will govern the event must be listed in the notice of race and the sailing instructions (see rules J1.1(3) and J2.1(2)).

In this case the notice of race and the sailing instructions for the Spring Tune-Up did not comply with rules J1.1(2) and J2.1(1). They stated only that ‘The Racing Rules of Sailing would apply.’ Nevertheless, documents 1, 2, 3 and 4 all applied. The reasoning that leads to this conclusion is presented in the next paragraph.

If a term appears in italics in a racing rule, that term is used in the sense stated in the Definitions (see Terminology in the Introduction). Rule 3(a), in which ‘rules’ is in italics, makes it clear that, by participating in the race, each competitor and boat owner agrees to be governed by the racing rules and by the rules in the documents listed in the definition Rule. That list includes documents 1, 2, 3 and 4. Rule 85, in which ‘rules’ again appears in italics, implies that the rules in all those documents also apply to the organizing authority, the race committee and the protest committee while they are conducting and judging the race.

A rule in any of the first four documents listed in the question can be changed provided that the procedures stated in the racing rules for making such a change are followed. (Note the statement under Terminology in the Introduction that an addition to a rule, or deletion of all or part of it, is a ‘change’ to the rule.) A sailing instruction may change a prescription or state that some or all of the prescriptions will not apply, provided that the national authority has not restricted changes to those prescriptions in a prescription to rule 88.2. In the absence of such a sailing instruction, all the prescriptions apply. See Answer 3 for the conditions under which a class rule may be changed. Rules 89.2(a) and 90.2(c) cover the procedures for changing, respectively, the notice of race and the sailing instructions.

Question 2

May a prescription or a rule in the notice of race or the sailing instructions be changed?

Answer 2

Yes, provided that the procedures stated in the racing rules for making such a change are followed. (Note the statement under Terminology in the Introduction that an addition to a rule, or deletion of all or part of it, is a ‘change’ to the rule.) A sailing instruction may change a prescription or state that some or all of the prescriptions will not apply, provided that the national authority has not restricted changes to those prescriptions in a prescription to rule 88.2. In the absence of such a sailing instruction, all the prescriptions apply. Rules 89.2(a) and 90.2(c) cover the procedures for changing, respectively, the notice of race and the sailing instructions.

Question 3

May a class rule be changed?

Answer 3

No, unless the class rules themselves permit such a change, or unless written permission of the class association for the change has been obtained and is displayed on the official notice board (see rule 87). Rule J2.2(6) requires the sailing instructions to inform competitors of any changes made to the class rules under rule 87. Rule J1.2(9) requires that such a change in a class rule also be included in the notice of race when that information would help competitors decide whether to attend the event or would provide information that they will need before the sailing instructions become available.

Question 4

Buttercup, a J/24, raced in the handicapped class. Did the J/24 Class Rules or the handicap system rules apply to her?

Answer 4

The rules of the handicap system applied to Buttercup (see paragraph (d) in the definition Rule). If her handicap was explicitly based on the assumption that she race in compliance with some, or all, of the J/24 class rules, then those J/24 class rules, or all the J/24 class rules, applied to her.

However, if Buttercup’s handicap was not based on such an assumption, then none of the J/24 class rules applied to her.

Question 5

If a rule in the notice of race conflicts with a rule in the sailing instructions, which takes precedence? Can the conflict be resolved?

Answer 5

Neither takes precedence. Rule 63.7 governs a protest or request for redress arising from such a conflict. It requires the protest committee to apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected. If such a conflict arises outside of a hearing of a protest or request for redress, the conflict can be removed by changing either the notice of race (as permitted by rule 89.2(a)) or the sailing instructions (as permitted by rule 90.2(c)).

USSA 2000/80

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...