ISAF Q&A’s | Make it a rule!

ISAF Q&A 2011 – 025 M013 & Q&A 026 G013 were published on the site yesterday. The above quote struck me as one we should keep, don’t you? It would make some issues a lot simpler.

The first one:

ISAF Q&A 2011 – 025 M013

Questions the legalities of abandoning a race when there’s a wind shift of more than 20 degrees, because of a list of rules in 'Rules of Conduct for Conducting National and International Championship Regattas' which is a document incorporated in the rulebook for an ISAF International Class.

Ok.

Read that again.

Done?

Got it?      Okay.

This document includes a rule that says, 'A sustained wind variation of 20
degrees or more from the posted bearing during the first leg of a race shall result in that race to be abandoned and re-sailed, or abandoned'.

The rest you have to read yourself… I’m sticking with:


Here is the link to the document: ISAF Q&A 2011 – 025 M013

On with:

Q&A 2011 - 026 G013

Again abandonment.

Does nobody want to sail anymore?

What is this, with all those questions about abandonment?

Situation The sailing instructions has a Mark 1 time limit and also states 'If no boat has passed Mark 1 within the Mark 1 time limit, the race will be abandoned.' Even though no boat passed Mark 1 within the time limit, the race committee did not abandon the race. Some boats requested redress under rule 62.1(a).

It was IN the bloody Sailing Instructions!

That makes it a rule!

How can they not abandon this race! (*&%(*%*()&*()).

They used:

and still they didn’t abandon!

The ff-ing PC can do this one. I’m going home.

You can read the Q&A yourself: ISAF Q&A 2011 – 026 G013

And the booklet too: ISAF Q&A Booklet January 9 2012

(&^(^)(^%#$^)(*&)

I’m abandoning this post.
J.

Is the Equipment Inspector part of the RC?

Yesterday evening we had a rules clinic in my club - as we do a couple of times each winter - this time with the tricky subject of the role of the equipment inspector slash measurer at an event.

In the discussion ISAF Q&A J 021 was presented:

Question 1
Is an equipment inspector or measurer at an event a member of the race committee for that event?
Answer 1
Not normally. Equipment inspectors or event measurers are responsible for checking that the boats or the personal equipment used by competitors comply with the class rules.
According to the Terminology in the Introduction to the Racing Rules of Sailing, ‘Race committee’ includes any person performing a race committee function. The race committee functions are stated in different rules in Part 7 (conduct races, publish written sailing instructions, score races, etc) and equipment inspection is not one of them.
If however the equipment inspectors or event measurers were appointed by the race committee to conduct such responsibilities on behalf of the race committee, then they are members of the race committee.

If you look at the wording in the answer there seems to be a contradiction. The first part states that equipment inspection is NOT one of the functions the Race Committee has to fullfill.
But if that same RC appoints a person to conduct those inspections, then it suddenly is the responsibility of the race committee..... because they are part of RC?

RSA and ERS

In the RRS an equipment inspector is not defined, but in the Equipment Rules of Sailing it is:

C.4.6 Equipment Inspector
A person appointed by a race committee to carry out equipment inspection.

We also have a submission that would make the equipment inspector or measurer a party in rule 62.1(a). That would suggest he is not part of the Race Committee - otherwise why the change?

Submission 270-11

Proposal
62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by

(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee, or organizing authority or an equipment inspector or measurer for an event, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;

I hope by the time I have the next measurement protest, I know the answer.....

International 420 Class - 2010 Class Rules permit use of Electronic Compasses

The International 420 Class Association has published Amendments to the Class Rules for 2010.
Of interest for sailors and officials is that electronic compasses are now permitted! N.B: These class rules go into effect 1st March 2010. You still have a couple of weeks to go shopping.

From the amended class rules:

Rule C.5.1 (a)(2) – Permit Electronic Compasses
Amendment: Replace existing rule with:

“C.5.1. a.2) One compass fixed to a mounting bracket. The compass shall not recess into either side tank or deck. The mounting bracket may be attached on the mast or may be used to close the mast gate. If electronic, only a compass with heading, heading memory and timing functions is permitted.”

Better make sure that your new compass does not exceed the limitations.

The 420 is still a pretty big class, with over 56.000 registered boats. I wonder how long it will take to trickle down to other dinghy classes?
What do you think? Do you want an electronic compass on your boat?

Berlin Woman MR 2009 | 2

Another long day on the water, fourteen flights.
We finished group B round robin and also did the quarter final round robin (again with eight boats).
It was very exciting and sometimes very close. A lot of pre-starts with many Yankee flags.

I will have to look at the equipment rules.
In rule C73(a) the requirement for a boat taking a penalty is to have the head of the spinnaker below the main-boom goose-neck from the time she passes head to wind until she's on a close hauled course. Something every umpire misses a couple of times before he learns to look for it. But what about a gennaker? The rule says specifically a spinnaker, not down-wind sail or any other description..
I'll have to check the equipment rules to find a definition: Is a gennaker only an asymmetrical spinnaker? Is it even defined... ?

Now I'm getting changed and going to the "sommerfest" they are having here tonight. More then a 1000 guests (members of two clubs who jointly organise this biannually) are expected.. All outdoor, so we all hope the rain will not fall....

J.

.

LTW Readers Q&A | 9

Answering a couple of questions from James Ricketts about hull and zone:

Q1) Is there a possible anomaly in the definitions?
- Starting, Finishing and Overlap definitions all refer to "hull and equipment in normal position" whereas the definition of Zone references "any part of hull". Is there a good reason why these aren't all aligned? It seems slightly unfair that an overtaking boat can establish rights (ie an overlap) with the end of its bow-sprit whilst a boat ahead has to sail 'further' (ie until the bow of the boat enters the zone) to deny/break such an overlap. -

A1) I think there are a couple of reasons why these are different, in my opinion.

At the zone you need to ‘guess’ when you enter. Something which is hard enough to do, even with a fixed measurement as a hull. But impossible if you add equipment like bowsprit or spinnaker into the mix. If for instance a boat with an extended bowsprit enters the zone – measured with the sprit extended – and it then retracts its bowsprit, it would be outside the zone again. A boat is x meters long. Times three is xx meters. By using the hull (that never changes) you can learn to judge that distance.

Whereas starting and finishing are very specific timed moments which are not primarily judged by the crew but by the RC. For start and finish by the people on the line, who can perfectly judge if spinnaker of bowsprit cross a certain point. No doubt or guessing involved. Overlap is something which can change any moment and has an instant effect on the rules. There, a retraction of say a bowsprit, would simply put the trailing boat clear astern. OR – like in your example – extending the sprit create an instant overlap. That is not unfair because the clear ahead boat has the protection of rule 15. With a zone entrance such protection is not available.

In my opinion it is not an anomaly but purposely differently.


Q2) What constitutes the "hull" (as in hull-length)?
- This quite key concept does not appear to be defined. I assume it is the conventional definition of the "body" of a boat (ie the bit that makes it float!), but what about bow-sprits or transom-hung rudders, or yacht push-pits? Should this be clarified in the definitions or have I missed it somewhere? -

What constitutes a “hull” is defined in the ERS section D.
If the ERS have been validated in the Class-rules, the latter only give the measurements. Olympic classes have the ERS validated in the class rules and therefore the hull is defined, all be it through a series of documents.


.