(pillow)Case of the Week (48) - 65

(This is an instalment 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.)

CASE 65

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 30.3, Starting Penalties: Black Flag Rule
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Committee

When a boat knows that she has broken the Black Flag rule, she is obliged to retire promptly. When she does not do so and then deliberately hinders another boat in the race, she commits a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.

Summary of the Facts 

At the start of race 4, A was clearly about three to four hull lengths on the course side of the starting line. Rule 30.3 was in effect, so the race committee disqualified her without a hearing. A, although she knew she was over the line at her starting signal, continued to race and covered B for the first part of the first beat. B protested A for breaking rule 2.

The protest committee confirmed the disqualification of A under rule 30.3. It also decided that, by continuing to race and cover B when she knew that she had broken rule 30.3, A broke rule 2.
As required by rule 90.3(b), it penalized her by making her disqualification not excludable. Later the same day, acting under rule 69.1, it called a hearing alleging that the behaviour of A’s helmsman in hindering B was a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2. It decided that the helmsman had committed the alleged gross breaches, and excluded him and disqualified A from all races of the series. A appealed the protest committee’s decisions.


Decision 

A’s appeal is dismissed.

A was correctly disqualified from race 4 for breaking rule 30.3. The protest committee found as fact that A’s helmsman knew that he had been on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal; that he had broken rule 30.3; that he was, therefore, already disqualified; and that he had seriously hindered another boat in the race.

A clearly committed a gross breach of sportsmanship (see Sportsmanship and the Rules) and of rule 2, and the protest committee acted properly under rule 69.1 in excluding A’s helmsman and disqualifying A from all races of the series.


RYA 1984/7




What is the difference between a boat that has started to soon and is OCS, with this boat, you might ask? Both are already DSQ-ed from the beginning – never having started the race.

The difference is in the knowledge of the helmsman/crew of this boat. He knew he was breaking a rule and still covered another boat. If you cover someone you better make sure you haven’t broken or do not break any rule, because if you do it is ‘go directly to rule 2’ for the PC.

Please go back to Case 78 – if you have doubt about that.
And it happens at professional sailing events. See this post: X40 Trapani 2010 – Team Racing?

(pillow)Case of the Week (47) - 66

(This is an instalment 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.)

CASE 66

Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Rule 85, Governing Rules

A race committee may not change, or refuse to implement, the decision of a protest committee, including a decision based on a report from an authority qualified to resolve questions of measurement.

Assumed Facts 

A race committee protests a number of boats, under rule 60.2, for measurement defects. The protest committee, after a hearing, concludes that it is satisfied that there is reasonable doubt about the interpretation or application of the elevant class rules. Acting under rule 64.3(b), it refers the matter to the class association, as being the appropriate authority qualified to resolve such questions. The class association reports that all the boats concerned have broken a class rule, and the protest committee, accepting the report, disqualifies the boats. The race committee then refuses to implement these decisions because it alleges that for various reasons they are unfair.

Questions

May the race committee change or decide not to implement the decisions of a protest committee, whether or not these decisions are based on a report made under rule 64.3(b)? If not, who may take what action?

Answers

Rule 85 states that the race committee shall be governed by the rules. A race committee has no jurisdiction over a protest committee and is not entitled to change or refuse to implement any decision that the protest committee may have made. Rule 64.1(a) provides that a protest committee’s decision to  penalize must be implemented.

In this case, the race committee and each boat protested by it are the parties to the hearing. Under rule 66 a party may ask that the hearing be reopened on the grounds that the protest committee made a significant error or that significant new evidence has become available. Also, under rule 70.1, a party may appeal the protest committee’s decision or its procedures.

RYA 1984/16

(pillow)Case of the Week (46) - 67

(This is an instalment 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.)

CASE 67

Part 2 Preamble
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Committee

When a boat is racing and meets a vessel that is not, both are bound by the government right-of-way rules. When, under those rules, the boat racing is required to keep clear but intentionally hits the other boat, she may be penalized for gross misconduct.

Summary of the Facts

Under the government right-of-way rules applicable, W, a boat that was racing, was required to keep clear of a sailing vessel to leeward, L, that was not racing. W wished to sail a lower course to a mark and hailed L, which refused to respond. W then intentionally hit L by bumping her boom against L several times, thereby causing damage.
L informed the race committee of W’s behaviour. The race committee protested W, and a hearing was called. W was disqualified for breaking rules 11 and 14. W appealed on the grounds that the racing rules did not apply, and consequently the protest committee was not entitled to disqualify her.

Decision 

W’s appeal is dismissed. The preamble to Part 2 of the racing rules makes it clear that, when W met L, W was required to comply with the government right-of-way rules. Moreover, W was also subject to the racing rules other than those of Part 2. W did not comply with the government rules and, by intentionally hitting and damaging L, committed a gross breach of not only a rule but of good manners as well.
The decision of the protest committee is upheld, but W is disqualified under the government rule applicable and not under racing rule 11 or rule 14. Both those rules are rules of Part 2, which would have applied only if both boats had been intending to race, were racing, or had been racing. W also committed a gross breach of the government rule and a gross breach of good manners, so the protest committee would have been entitled to call a hearing under rule 69.1.

KNWV 2/1982



One from the Lowlands; KNWV is the abbreviation of Koninklijk Nederlands Watersport Verbond.

It has been and still is sometimes very crowded on the inland lakes here in Friesland. Racing boats must share the water with all kinds of tourist - and recreational boats. It must be clear that the applicable government right-of-way rules are in effect between those two groups.

When I have a look on the water however, the shouting and cussing sometimes gives me the impression that racing sailors think they are entitled to the water all by themselves.

Beware, what was valid 30 years ago still applies!

(pillow)Case of the Week (45) - 68

(This is an instalment 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.)

CASE 68

Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Definitions, Racing

The failure of a race committee to discover that a rating certificate is invalid does not entitle a boat to redress. A boat that may have broken a rule and that continues to race retains her rights under the racing rules, including her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her rights to protest and appeal, even if she is later disqualified.

Summary of the Facts
In a long distance race, boat A protested boat B under a rule of Part 2 and boat B was disqualified. B requested redress. She stated that it had come to light in a protest hearing after an earlier race that A had failed to revalidate her rating certificate and therefore had been ineligible to enter the long distance race. B further claimed that since A was ineligible when she entered that race she was not racing in it; therefore B had no reason to take a penalty or retire, nor did A have the right to protest under rule 60.1.
The protest committee denied B’s request for redress, stating that the invalidity of A’s rating certificate did not change the fact that she was racing within the terms of the definition and so was entitled to her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her right to protest under rule 60.1. B appealed.

Decision
B’s appeal is dismissed. The failure of the race committee to discover the invalidity of A’s rating certificate and prevent her from racing was not an improper omission which worsened B’s finishing place within the meaning of rule 62.1(a).

Therefore, the protest committee properly denied B’s request for redress. A was a boat ‘intending to race’ prior to her preparatory signal and a boat racing thereafter. The rules of Part 2 applied to her and to all other boats that were racing. The principles of sportsmanship require a boat to take a penalty when she realizes that she has broken a rule, but if she continues racing she retains her rights under the racing rules, including her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her rights to protest and appeal.
The rules of Part 2 govern all boats that are racing, whether or not one of them is later disqualified for some reason.

CYA 1978/40



Same is valid when someone starts to early. They score an OCS – long before the race has finished – or – even that boat is finished. But that still does not mean they can’t protest someone else or that that boat should not be kept clear of when she’s right of way boat.

The case does not state if the boat with the invalid certificate was disqualified after that was discovered. But I think not. A request for redress or a protest for that matter does not permit the PC to go outside the alleged incident.

For that to happen someone should protest her first.

(pillow)Case of the Week (44) - 69

(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.) 

CASE 69

Rule 42.1, Propulsion: Basic Rule

Momentum of a boat after her preparatory signal that is the result of being propelled by her engine before the signal does not break rule 42.1.

Assumed Facts

In a flat sea and 1-2 knots of wind a boat enters the starting area under power shortly before her preparatory signal at a speed of 5-6 knots. At the preparatory signal she is moving at the same rate of speed but no longer motoring. At 2.5 minutes before her starting signal she hoists her sails and slows to 2 knots.

Question

Does she break rule 42.1?

Answer

No. A boat begins racing at her preparatory signal. During the period in which the boat was racing she was using wind as a source of power as required by rule 42.1. Her motion also resulted from momentum created by engine power that propelled her before she began racing. Nothing in the rule requires that a boat be in any particular state of motion or non-motion when she begins racing. Therefore rule 42.1 was not broken.

USSA 1986/269

 

She is however subject to rules of part Two. (See the preamble of that part)

That means that if she motors trough another racecourse in order to get to her start – she most likely will infringe rule 23.1 and can be DSQ-ed for it.