tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post1337605990365651239..comments2024-01-22T09:45:29.790+01:00Comments on Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward: The strange case of the (non)competitorJoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-15835086419593789772012-09-05T07:39:21.754+02:002012-09-05T07:39:21.754+02:00I agree with John G in that the boat broke 23.1 (i...I agree with John G in that the boat broke 23.1 (i.e. that it was not racing). The preamble indicates that the boat's intention is part of the criteria that define whether the boat is subject to part 2. Since the contender new she had not started and did not items to finish, I would say she did not intend to race. Being entered into the event and being aware that other boats are racing, she is bound by rule 23.1. She deliberately interfered with a boat that was racing and broke rule 23.1; I agree with the PC's decision of giving a DNE unde rule 2. Depending on how gross of a breach of the other rules was, it might make sense to give her a DNE in all of the races of the regatta. The optimist could not know whether the contender was not racing, and it made sense for her to expect the contender to respect the RRS; I believe redress is in order.latindanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-26005000653381220702012-09-01T05:00:12.054+02:002012-09-01T05:00:12.054+02:00On the facts available, it seems to me that the co...On the facts available, it seems to me that the contender wasn't racing. By going back ashore, he abandoned his intention to compete and finish the race. After that he came out to just have a sail - to round the marks and return ashore without finishing. His actions were analogous to retiring, except that he abandoned the race before he had even started it.<br /><br />I believe the rule broken was rule 23.1 rather than 12, 14 or 18.2.<br /><br />Whether the contender broke rule 2 would depend on the context and nature of the regatta. There is no evidence that she deliberately sailed into the Optimist. Was the contender's actions, rejoining the fleet, consistent with good sportsmanship? <br /><br />In an ordinary club regatta, where participation is important, then I can't see that its clearly established that any recognised principle of sportsmanship was violated. The contender had, after all, travelled to the regatta, rigged and paid her money. However, if a national championship was at stake, then that would be different.<br /><br />In a club situation, I am very hestitant about invoking rule 2 unless a sailor has deliberately behaved in a way that is clearly unacceptable. <br /><br />John G<br /><br />John Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-13150798018006177172012-08-31T15:37:11.643+02:002012-08-31T15:37:11.643+02:00The sequence of events is consistent with a 'n...The sequence of events is consistent with a 'novice competitor' in the Contender. Someone who does not know the rules and is clearly not a contender (small c) in the regatta. A heavy handed approach might drive them from the sport. There is a chink of doubt though, a Contender is not a novice's boat.<br /><br />I began thinking the PC might consider redress for the Optimist. Then, if the Contender had started properly it could still have messed up the Oppi. There would be no question of rule 2, hence no redress. Tough, but that is the rule. <br /><br />I think the Contender retired, leave it at that. <br /><br />WagAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-37440141045071057842012-08-31T12:03:36.117+02:002012-08-31T12:03:36.117+02:00I disagree I think rule 2 is inapproprate. The boa...I disagree I think rule 2 is inapproprate. The boat effectivelly retired thus accepting and breach of the rules, and did not try to profit from any breach of RRs 28. Boats are allowed to sail after a rule breach with full rights this is an established pronciple.<br />You now have a problem should you be considering redress for the boat as 62.1(d) applies?<br />My advice would be not to mess with rule 2 when there has been a retirement. (DNF).<br /><br />Mike BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-38046337215584581502012-08-31T10:26:06.724+02:002012-08-31T10:26:06.724+02:00This is a relatively frequent occurence in Dublin ...This is a relatively frequent occurence in Dublin Bay club racing. Boats are delayed for whateverreason, then join in the racing. One hopes that they all do the gentlemanly thing and do not cross the finishing line.<br /><br />However, i have not heard of such a boat being involved in a protest. I beleive that such a boat has deliberately broken a rule and therefore rule 2 applies. <br /><br />GordonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-42072920965217593892012-08-30T13:14:54.649+02:002012-08-30T13:14:54.649+02:00I think it's definitely a Rule 2 infringement....I think it's definitely a Rule 2 infringement. He shouldn't have been rounding marks and screwing up other competitor's races (least of all a kid in an Optimist!) if he knew he hadn't even started properly and couldn't possibly score in that race.Tillermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00639738519386820997noreply@blogger.com