tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post5076927513186976520..comments2024-01-22T09:45:29.790+01:00Comments on Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward: ISAF Q&A 2009-025Joshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-17022093212845644102009-03-25T18:04:00.000+01:002009-03-25T18:04:00.000+01:00Why we need rule 18.5(b) for exoneration of a boat...Why we need rule 18.5(b) for exoneration of a boat, if no other boat breaks a rule?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-72639023726329831382009-03-20T10:47:00.000+01:002009-03-20T10:47:00.000+01:00Uli Finckh (the German rules pope) uses these draw...Uli Finckh (the German rules pope) uses these drawings on his own website: www.finckh.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-25570107860185063372009-03-20T07:55:00.000+01:002009-03-20T07:55:00.000+01:00Program might be VisioProgram might be VisioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-60770686277981517492009-03-20T03:56:00.000+01:002009-03-20T03:56:00.000+01:00Agin the answers give rise to other questions.The ...Agin the answers give rise to other questions.<BR/>The answer to Q 1 is correct as far as it goes but it is silent on rule 19. Surely rule 19 applies between A and B (in relation to C) and if B does not give room for A to pass behind C then maybe B does cause A to break rule 10. It is not (as the answer implies) just mark-room that needs to be considered in this case. Whilst the Q and A committee may have answered the question as asked I do not find it particularly helpful if only a part answer to the scenarios is given as people start to use the answers as gospel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-29708227347084326762009-03-20T01:22:00.000+01:002009-03-20T01:22:00.000+01:00I perceive a big difference between Q&A 2009-0...I perceive a big difference between Q&A 2009-024 and Q&A 2009-025.<BR/><BR/>024 addressed a really difficult situation and provided useful clarification (although I can't say I have 'got my head around it' even yet.<BR/><BR/>025 seems to be answering questions that need never have been asked: all that was necessary was to apply the rules as stated. These situations are handled consistently in any number of rules commentary books.<BR/><BR/>The Q&A panel has already, in three months, produced more Q&As than were produced in the preceding five years: if they go on at this rate, we will soon have more Q&As than cases or rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com