Showing posts with label MNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MNA. Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

National Doping regulations and rule 5

In the Netherlands we have - whatever you might think - a strict anti doping regulation in sports. Including in the sport of sailing. Most jury members will think first off, this already covered in the fundamental rules, particularly in rule 5, the Anti-Doping rule.

Recently however, our national doping agency has been investigating sports in our country, on compliance with the rules. Specifically the rules about their authority to inspect during an event.
Our MNA (Watersportverbond) has been made aware that most events do NOT comply with their rules.


In the Notice of Race and in the Sailing Instructions, the NATIONAL Anti- Doping regulations have to be declared as a governing document. In that regulation the way inspections are conducted are described and how competitors should act and what rights they have.
Our MNA has now amended all championship NOR and SI to comply. And make a room (toilet is enough) available for the Doping Authority during events.

You can find the Dutch regulations here: Nationaal Dopingreglement_2011
All competitors; helm and crews, have to adhere to it.

What about your country?
Do you have a anti-doping regulation on top of rule 5?




Saturday, 17 March 2012

ISAF Executive Statement: RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie: CLOSED

ISAF Executive Statement:
International Sailing Federation
16/03/2012
 
The ISAF Executive Committee has met to consider the reports from the International Jury of the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships and the RYA Tribunal. The role of ISAF under Racing Rule of Sailing 69.2(a) is to first determine whether or not it is appropriate to conduct a further hearing into the reports received.
 
The Executive Committee has reviewed the decisions of the International Jury and the RYA Tribunal, the video evidence of the incident, other relevant documentation from Perth and has taken legal advice. Mr Ainslie was asked to comment and did so.

The Executive Committee supports the decision and the report of the International Jury and the report of the RYA Tribunal that found that Mr Ainslie committed Gross Misconduct and believes that the penalties imposed to date are appropriate. Accordingly, ISAF does not regard it as appropriate to conduct a further hearing into the incident and no further action will therefore be taken.

The issue of Media Boats is a separate matter from the decision issued today. The ISAF Media policies were clear and the issue of adherence will be considered separately.



All three parties in rule 69.1(c) have now investigated this matter according to rule 69.2(a):

69.2 Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF
(a) When a national authority or the ISAF receives a report alleging a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, a report alleging conduct that has brought the sport into disrepute, or a report required by rule 69.1(c) or 69.1(e), it may conduct an investigation and, when appropriate, shall conduct a hearing. It may then take any disciplinary action within its jurisdiction it considers appropriate against the competitor or boat, or other person involved, including suspending eligibility, permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event held within its jurisdiction, and suspending ISAF eligibility under ISAF Regulation 19.
The MNA of the sailor, (the owner of the boat) and the location, and now the ISAF have issued a statement. There will be no further action. This matter is now CLOSED. Yachting Australia and ISAF didn't find it was appropriate to conduct a hearing. The statement of the RYA does not specify if it did or did not conduct a hearing, but in any case, the RYA tribunal concluded that no further penalty was appropriate.

I'm a bit unsure about the difference between an investigation and a hearing, when for instance the person involved is asked to give comments, but rest the statement by ISAF makes it clear that they still regarded that as an investigation.

Perhaps the definition of a hearing is that all parties involved are physically brought together in one meeting, like in a protest hearing?

Ben Ainslie can now prepare, without this 'Damocles sword' hanging over his participation in the OG.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

RYA Code of Conduct for Race Officials

Something went wrong with the feed yesterday. Somehow my post about the Seven boats at the Leeward mark got abbreviated and was not visible. My apologies to all feed- and mail subscribers.
Please visit http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2012/02/seven-at-leeward-mark-ltw-readers-q-60.html
if you want to have a look. The discussion in the comments is really heating up, and I could use some help :-)

As I'm preparing two presentations, I do not have much time today to write a post.
I looked to my 'draft' folder and came across an old post which somehow never got posted.
Published by the RYA in 2007:
CODE OF CONDUCT
RYA race officials (race officers, judges and umpires) are among the most exposed officials of the sport. It is therefore essential that they behave with the highest degree of competence, propriety and integrity. At no time can or should a race official do anything to bring the sport into disrepute.
Specifically, RYA race officials are expected to:
  • Maintain a good level of understanding and application of the racing rules, cases, procedures and RYA policies.
  • Ensure that decisions are based upon the rules and principles of fairness and objectivity and are made with care without prejudice.
  • Uphold the confidentiality of jury deliberations during and after the regatta.
  • Be polite, open-minded and patient, and deal with dissent in a fair and courteous manner.
  • Declare any conflict of interest before accepting a race official invitation or when one becomes apparent at an event (a conflict of interest exists when an RYA race official has, or reasonably appears to have, a personal or financial interest which could affect the official’s ability to be impartial).
  • Plan to arrive at an event on time and remain until relevant issues are resolved.
  • Incur only expenses that are necessary and when expenses are reimbursed claim only legitimate and essential out-of-pocket costs.
  • Be on time and wear appropriate clothing on the water and ashore.
  • Abstain from consuming alcohol until duties are over for the day. Race officials must never become inappropriately inebriated during an event.
I was wondering if your MNA has ever written anything similar? Do you have a guideline?
If so please send me a copy (rrs-study at home dot nl), so that we can compare.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Yachting Australia statement; RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie


Media Release: Yachting Australia statement regarding Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship incident

Yachting Australia agrees any action on Ben Ainslie's incident that occurred at the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships is a matter for ISAF.


Thursday 16 February 2012
On 10 December 2011 Yachting Australia received a report from the Chairman of the International Jury at the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships. This report was provided under RRS 69.1(c) and related to an incident involving Ben Ainslie (GBR) at the event.

The matter was reported to the Royal Yachting Association (RYA), as the competitors’ Member National Authority (MNA), ISAF and Yachting Australia, as the MNA in whose jurisdiction the event was held.

Yachting Australia has considered the matter. It is the view of Yachting Australia that, given the incident occurred at an ISAF event and that the matter has been formally reported to ISAF, any further penalty should now be considered and determined by ISAF.

"Yachting Australia does not consider that this a matter for us to deal with," explained Phil Jones, Yachting Australia CEO. "This was an international event that happens to have been held in Australia and involved a competitor from another country. Whilst under the Racing Rules of Sailing we have the authority to investigate and conduct a hearing, it would clearly inappropriate."

Accordingly Yachting Australia will not be taking any further action in relation to the matter.

Craig Heydon
Yachting Australia


Now there is only one left: ISAF

Saturday, 11 February 2012

RYA Tribunal Decision: RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie


Press release:

RYA Tribunal proceedings relating to Ben Ainslie conclude:



The RYA Tribunal met on 9 February 2012 to consider a report dated 14 December 2011 received pursuant to the Racing Rules of Sailing Rule 69.1(c) from the International Jury at the ISAF Sailing World Championships held in Perth in December 2011.

The Tribunal agreed with the decision of the International Jury that the behaviour of Mr Ben Ainslie amounted to a gross breach of good manners and conduct that brought the sport into disrepute.

Having considered all the evidence put before it, the Tribunal was satisfied that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to impose a penalty over and above that imposed by the International Jury at the event.

In reaching its decision the Tribunal acknowledged that the effect of the penalty imposed by the International Jury was to deny Mr Ainslie the possibility of taking part in the medal race for the event.  
The Tribunal also recognised that there was an apparent lack of active management of media boats at this and previous events leading to repeated infringements of the provisions of the event media boat guidelines. In addition, formal rights of redress against official boats were not available to competitors.

The Tribunal noted that it had had an opportunity to view evidence that was not available to the International Jury during the hearing at the event.

The RYA, as the ISAF Member National Authority for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has jurisdiction under Rule 69.2 to take action in response to reports made to it under Rule 69.1 relating to British sailors and the Council of the RYA has delegated its authority in such matters to the RYA Tribunal. 

Article Published: February 10, 2012 15:01


It is now up to ISAF (and Yachting Australia) to decide if they want to pursue this matter. It is remarkably hard to find any jurisprudence in rule 69 matters. Most MNA's and ISAF do not publish records on these [sensitive] issues.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Heineken Green Photo competition.

I don't know about you, but when the word 'advertising' is written on a protest form, I always hope it goes away, before my panel has to deal with it. You can argue that this is an "Ostrich reflex", but there you have it, I'm flawed.

11/2/13; Received a mail on 15/10/13;

Hi,
Please be advise that the Heineken image you have in your blog belong to Yachting Insider.com If you want to use this image credit http://www.yachtinginsider.com/yachtads.html
This is my IMAGE I TOOK IT, AND IT WAS MY BOAT AT THE TIME!!!
Yachting Insider.com


In the Netherlands there's a prescription in the RRS about boats that want to display advertising. They need a certificate from our MNA, the "Watersportverbond". That part can be checked relatively easy. But it gets tricky when a boat claims it is not advertisement. They just painted their boat "Heineken Green".


If you look at the definition on regulation 20:

20. ISAF ADVERTISING CODE
20.1 Definitions
20.1.1 The following definitions shall apply to this ISAF Advertising Code only:
"Advertising" a name, logo, slogan, description, depiction, a variation or distortion thereof, or any other form of communication that promotes an organization, person, product, service, brand or idea so as to call attention to it or to persuade persons or organizations to buy, approve or otherwise support it.
In order to be able to keep my head ABOVE the sand, I have a request.
Do you have a picture of a boat where advertising is implied but not actually displayed?

Dog food?

Irish Luck?

Please send me your picture(s) together with your opinion whether it is or is not, 'advertising' according to the definition. If you don't have one now, keep your eyes peeled this year and make the photo.
I'll repeat this request every month or so. At the end of the year I'll raffle a prize among the senders.

J.


Tuesday, 31 January 2012

LTW Readers Q&A (59): ORC and stamped sails


Manuel from Portugal has the following questions:
(I've edited some of his text for clarity)


I was asked to say my opinion about the following issues:
Type of regatta: ORC cruisers racing (club regatta) around an island.
1st question: Is the direction of rounding the island free, if nothing is stated in Sailing Instructions?
The SI only describe the starting line, the finishing line and the words “rounding the island”.

My answer was YES (RRS 28.1)

2nd question. After finishing (the ORC event only had one regatta) a boat presented a measurement protest against another boat referring to the main sail as being not measured (the sail did not have the normal stamp/signature of any measurer person). Before the regatta the boats were not supervised by any Measuring Committee. The Protest Committee accepted the protest (no red flag was displayed on board of the boat) and confirmed the non existent stamp/signature.
The protested boat confirmed the measurer forgot to indicate on the sail any reference to proof that the sail was really measured. There are serious doubts if the sail was measured by anyone. The protested boat says that the protested sail has a smaller area than the sail expressed in the boat certificate.

To answer I looked at:
ORC Rating System 2010
304 Owner’s Responsibility
304.1 The owner or his representative shall be responsible for:
  • a) Preparing the boat for the measurement in accordance with the IMS
  • b) Declaring any required data to the measurer
  • c) Ensuring compliance of any measurement data to those printed on certificate. Measurement shall be deemed to comply with the one printed on the certificate if all the measurements are smaller or equal to those on the certificate, except MSW, that shall be bigger or equal. Sails shall be deemed to comply if the sail area is smaller or equal to the respective one printed on the certificate.
  • d) Using the boat and equipment as prescribed by the RRS, IMS Rules and ORC Rating systems.
The owner or his representative shall sign the statement on the certificate: “I certify that I understand my responsibilities under ORC Rules and Regulations”.
And also at:
305 Measurement Protests
305.1 When, as a result of any pre-race inspection or measurement, it is determined that a boat does not comply with her certificate:
  • a) When the non-compliance is considered to be minor and can be easily corrected, the boat may be brought into compliance with her certificate, and, when necessary, a new certificate may be issued. The Measurer shall inform of such correction to the Race Committee who shall approve a new certificate issue.
  • b) When the non-compliance is major (even if it can be corrected) or if it cannot be corrected without requiring significant re-measurement, a boat shall not be eligible to enter a regatta. The Measurer shall inform the Race Committee who shall act in accordance with RRS and inform the Rating authority.
RRS 2 and 3 may also apply
My answer was to suggest the following decision: The protested boat must be DSQ under ORC Rating System 2010 (rule 305.1b). The red flag was not necessary in that case .

Can you comment?


I wrote back to Manuel asking him if I could get some help from my readers, since my experience with ORC is very limited. I would appreciate any and all comments - specially on the second question.

Here are my thoughts:

ONE
If there's no direction stated in the SI and the description of the starting line or the finishing line do not give any indication about which side is the course side, I think that the Race Committee has a big problem. There will be boats starting on both sides of the line. I wouldn't know how to solve the problems between the rules in section A, B, C and D. Is a boat returning to start? Is a boat OCS?
Any boat who got into trouble over this and could show it considerably effected her score, would have a good chance to get redress.

If there was an indication in the description of the starting line about which side was pre-start and which was course side, but that line was laid out so, that it did not give any indication about in which direction the island should be rounded, then I agree with your answer.

TWO
The second answer is harder. 305.1 states ..., as a result of any pre-race inspection or measurement, .....
This protest was AFTER the race, and - if you don't assume the "pre-race" should also be applied to measurement in this sentence - the sail was never actually measured at the event. Therefore I'm not sure you can use it to decide a protest after the race, without getting a measurer to actually measure the sail.

If you do get a measurer to come to the event and have a look at the sail, then you can use 304.1(c) to decide if the boat should be DSQed or not.

Does the OCR Rating System have a rule stating that a sail must have a stamp or signature? Or is it in the Portuguese RRS? In the Netherlands this done by a MNA prescription. Is that also done in Portugal?
If it is, then the protest is about rule 78.1. And rule 61.1 should be on the table and validity is an issue.

When did the protesting boat became aware of the lack of stamp/signature?
Did he see this on the water? If so, then a Red flag is necessary to make it a valid protest.
If he saw this after racing on shore, what did she do to inform the other boat?

Provided the protest was valid, then any DSQ should be for failing to comply with rule 78.1.


 
I've also had a look at the latest ORC Rating System 2012 and found this:
305.2 When, as a result of any measurement protest by a boat or by the race committee, it is determined that a boat does not comply with her certificate, the non-compliance shall be calculated as a difference in percentage of GPH:
a) If the difference is less than or equal to 0.1%, the original certificate will be maintained, the protest will be dismissed and the protestor will have to cover any cost involved. RRS 64.3(a)  will apply but no corrections are needed.
b) If the difference is more than 0.1% but less than 0.25%, no penalty shall apply, but a new certificate shall be issued based on the new measurement data and all races of the series shall be rescored using the new certificate data. The Protest will be considered accepted and the protestee will have to cover any cost involved.
c) If the difference is 0.25% or more, a boat shall receive a 50% place penalty in any race in which her rating was incorrect. The Protest will be considered accepted and the protestee will have to cover any cost involved and the yacht shall not race again until all non-compliance issues are corrected to the limit defined in a) above.
Was 305.2 in the 2010 ORC Rating System? Problem solved.

Anybody else?

Saturday, 21 January 2012

German Consequences (3); LTW Guest Post

By Thorsten Döbbeler

CHANGE OF DIRECTION?

In the current version of the case book, updated November 13, 2011, there is no case 78. Currently, case 78 reads:

"CASE 78
As a result of action taken by the ISAF Council on 12 November 2011, Case 78 has been withdrawn for revision."

The story behind that is that the Irish Sailing Association filed a submission to the ISAF annual meeting to change case 78.

Submission 259-11: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/25911RRSNewCase78-%5B11191%5D.pdf

You will notice that the wording of this submission is almost the wording of the new Q&A. The submission was accepted, but instead of directly replacing case 78, it was made a Q&A, while case 78 was "suspended".

The new Q&A A001 is replacing the old Q&A A001. Q&A Booklet:
http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/QA2011.022A001-%5B11686%5D.pdf

So, no case was amended or changed.
Case 78, which was binding, was replaced by a Q&A, which is a recommendation.
Still, we have a change of direction in my opinion.

 

BEFORE

The situation we had before the annual meeting was that we had case 78, referring to a "series" and we had the old Q&A A01 that clarified on the term "series".

The old Q&A states:

"... For the purpose of ISAF Case 78, a race or series is restricted to those races governed by a notice  of race as published by the organizing authority for the race under consideration. ..."

Last version of the Q&A booklet before the change: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/QAbookletNovember52010-%5B9631%5D.pdf

In my opinion case 78 and the old Q&A A01 meant that if you started "match racing" for your Olympic selection, could run you into problems easily.

 

AFTER

The situation we now have, is we only have the new Q&A A01, which goes in the other direction. This means we had not exactly a rules change, but a change of direction in which to go.

The German Sailing Federation (DSV) and the Olympic Sailing Council (OSA) agree that GER 21 did win the Olympic trials according to the RRS and according to the regulations of the German Olympic trials. Those regulations were written well in advance of the three events that counted for German Olympic trials (Sail for Gold in Weymouth, Kiel Week and Olympic Worlds in Perth) and it was agreed that those regulations were fair and transparent towards all competitors.
Those regulations did not prohibit "match racing" as in Q&A A01. Hence, GER 21 is recommended to the German Olympic Sports Association (DOSB) to be sent to London. RRS and regulations for the German Olympic trials are clear on this.

On the perception in the German sailing community: While the German newspaper that is quoted is a serious newspaper, the story they printed did not precisely reflect the way the German sailing community perceived what happened. The story he printed seems somewhat one sided. If you understand German, you might find the articles and comments on segelreporter.com interesting. Some 5 or 6 articles with tons of comments on that topic. To summarize in short, most people recognize that GER 21 acted according to the RRS.
logo-para

MORAL?

However, the German sailing community does not seem to agree on the moral aspect. Some think that from a moral point of view, GER 21 should not be allowed to go to London. Others think that everything that is allowed under the RRS should be morally ok as well.

Both points of view were discussed in the comments very controversy.
Most moderate and realistic opinions were that while this way of winning the Olympic trials was not nice, it was according to the rules and nothing could (and should) be done about it. Next Olympic trials should take care of situations like this, though. GER 21 gave an interview in Perth saying that this is "no nice fight, but according to the rules, it is allowed".

GER 61 earned much sympathy for their good performance in their "free" races in Perth. They earned even more sympathy for the fact that, in the last race in Perth, they won the Olympic ticket for German 470 sailors (nation criteria), knowing that it most likely will be the ticket of GER 21.

As to the "lawyer case": Some people seem to think that taking this to court is basically the same as what GER 21 did - do everything possible within the rules and fight hard. Many others think that going to court is no option at all. GER 21 would waste the sympathies they earned - they should accept the decision that was made by the German Sailing Association (DSV), according to the rules.

These points of view are again discussed - I have the impression, though, that the "court is a no-go" opinion overweighs a little.

This is probably not a complete overview, it is only what I understood and noted.
What I posted above is my personal view and does probably not reflect the opinions of any majority or of the DSV, OSA or DOSB. Just trying to give some background here. ;)

TD

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

PERTH 2011; Case 48; RRS 69.1 against Ainslie

From the Perth 2011 Jury Notice Board: Case 48.pdf:

DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL JURY IN CASE 48

Rule 69.1 Hearing based on report from Organizing Authority
Ben Ainslie (Finn GBR 3)

Facts Found

As the first two boats in Finn Race 9 rounded the gate for the second beat and headed towards the shore, a media boat followed close to leeward of the leader. This caused wash for GBR 3, who attempted to wave the media boat off.
When the leaders passed through the gate and headed towards the finishing line, the same media boat followed the leader to the finishing line leaving a large wake, which again affected GBR 3's race.

The media boat crossed the finishing line and then stopped in front of GBR 3 after GBR 3 finished. As GBR 3 came alongside, the skipper jumped aboard the media boat.

The skipper grabbed and shook the boat driver, shouting 'You have no respect!' He then walked towards another member of the media boat's crew, but made no contact with him. He then jumped into the water, swam to his boat and sailed away.

On coming ashore, the skipper of GBR 3 wrote a letter of apology and delivered it to the media boat driver. The media boat driver accepted that apology and apologised in a letter for disturbance during the race.

Conclusion

The action of jumping on a media boat with anger and grabbing the driver constitutes physical aggression. Such behaviour is never an acceptable response. Such behaviour not only constitutes a gross breach of good manners but also, coming from a top athlete at a world championship, brings the sport of sailing into disrepute.

However, the repeated nature of the media boats interference over multiple legs is a mitigating circumstance, as is the prompt and unsolicited written apology given to the boat driver.

Decision

GBR 3 is to be scored DGM (disqualification non-excludable for gross misconduct) for Races 9 and 10.

 

Decision given at 22:40 December 9, 2011
International Jury: Bernard Bonneau (Chairman), Jim Capron, Josje Hofland, Ana Sanchez, Marianne Middelthon

blogcolorstripe

The matter has been dealt with at the event. Is it now over?

Reading Rule 69.1(c):

The protest committee shall promptly report a penalty, but not a warning, to the national authorities of the venue, of the competitor and of the boat owner. If the protest committee is an international jury appointed by the ISAF under rule 89.2(b), it shall send a copy of the report to the ISAF.

That means that four ‘higher’ authorities will be send a report. The Australian MNA: Yachting Australia (because the venue was Perth), the RYA (Ainslie is from GBR), the MNA of the boat-owner (if that is an MNA other than from Australia or Great Britain) and the ISAF.

In all likely hood Yachting Australia and the ISAF will defer from investigating and leave the matter in the hands of the RYA. They are now the first to respond. But if the decision of the RYA is not appropriate in the eyes of either YA or the ISAF, they can then start there own investigation and decide on whether an additional sanction is warranted.

Monday, 26 September 2011

(pillow)Case of the Week (3/11) - 55

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

Case 55

Rule 70.1, Appeals and Requests to a National Authority
Definitions, Party

A boat cannot protest the race committee or the protest committee. However, she may request redress or, if she is a party to a hearing, request that it be reopened. A boat that was not a party to a hearing does not have the right to appeal. When she believes that her score has been made significantly worse by an improper action or omission of the race committee, her only remedy is to request redress. She may then appeal the decision of that hearing.
Summary of the Facts
A ‘protested’ the race committee because of inadequate rescue facilities in contravention of the club’s constitution. The race committee abandoned the completed race. B appealed.

Decision 

B’s appeal is refused because it cannot be heard under rule 70.1. B does not have the right to appeal because she was not a party to a hearing. Therefore her ‘appeal’ is in fact not an appeal but a request for redress that could have been addressed to and heard by the protest committee. The following points may assist in the understanding of this case:

1. There is no provision in the racing rules under which a boat can protest the race committee or protest committee. The only actions a boat can take against one of these committees are to request redress when she claims that her score in a race or a series of races has been made significantly worse by an improper action or omission of the race committee or protest committee, or to ask for a hearing to be reopened under rule 66 when she is a party to it. In this case, A made no such claim; her ‘protest’ was merely a criticism of the committee, having no standing under the racing rules.

2. Quite apart from the racing rules, a competitor is at liberty to point out to the race committee that it has made an error. When aware of its error, the race committee may try to have it taken into account by asking the protest committee to consider giving redress as permitted by rule 60.2(b).
3. If B had been a competitor in the race and had lodged a valid request for redress claiming that her score had been made significantly worse by the abandonment of the race, she would have been entitled to a redress hearing at which she would have been a party. She then could have appealed the decision of that hearing.

RYA 1982/11

blogcolorstripe

If you feel aggrieved by anything the Organizing Authority, the Race Committee or the Protest Committee does or not does, you can ‘Request Redress’. Be aware however that, before the redress is granted, you also must show that it was trough no fault of your own and that this action (or non-action) had a significant negative impact on your score.

At most events it is usually more productive to go to the information desk and ask if you can have a word with the Race Officer or the PC-Chair. Just telling them about the issue you have, might have the effect you desire. If not, then you can still get a form and ask for redress. If the answer is still unsatisfactory you then have the opportunity to appeal the decision.

In a final note; The racing rules state that before the PC makes a decision on redress – especially before abandoning a race – it must consider the effect on all boats.

In the USA that is even brought a step further, because the US Sailing has issued a couple of prescriptions for RRA 60 & 63.2:
NEW PRESCRIPTION TO RULE 60
US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, any boat may participate in the hearing provided she makes a written request before the hearing begins. When she does so, the protest committee shall act under rule 60.3(b) to consider redress for her at that hearing.
That boat then in effect becomes a party to the hearing
NEW PRESCRIPTION TO RULE 63.2
US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, the protest committee shall make a reasonable attempt to notify all boats of the time and place of the hearing and the nature of the request or the grounds for considering redress. Before holding the hearing, the committee shall allow reasonable time for boats to make written requests to participate.
Mind, the PC will most likely just publish the protest hearing schedule, with the request for redress on it, on the notice board and consider that a reasonable attempt to notify all boats involved. Don’t expect the PC to go looking for boats and/or crews in the boat park!
J.

Thursday, 16 September 2010

FIN

Hyvä LTW-lukijat,

Tämä on ilmoittaa teille, että tästä lähtien kaikki viestit Katsokaa Windward on kirjoitettu minun uusi äidinkielellään.  Olen hyvin onnellinen Suomessa. Maaseutu on kaunista, kaikki tytöt ovat vaaleita ja siellä on paljon ja paljon purjehdus käynnissä.
Ainoa asia kaipaan puhuu muille ihmisille - koska tietoni suomalainen on hyvin, hyvin rajallinen ......
J.

Scuttlebutt 3178

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

Tuesday, 16 February 2010

ISAF Q&A 2010 – 007, 008 & 009

Again a triplet from the ISAF Racing Rules Q&A panel.
imageFor one thing you can’t say they are not active. With the publication of the new rules cycle 2009-2012 in total now 41 + 9 = 50 Q&A’s have been published, on top of the 20 from previous years.
The smart thing to do is to download the most recent Racing Rules Q&A booklet (20100215). That way you have all the pertinent information in one place.
The new Q&A’s published on the Website are:
ISAF Racing Rules Q&A 2010 – 007 about national prescriptions not complying with rule 86.1(a) and therefore does not validly deny the right of appeal.
This Q&A makes it clear that it is not so easy to deny appeal rights to competitors. The OA or even an MNA might want to do this for the sake of simplicity or for any other reason, but they better make doubly sure they do it the correct way. A sentence in a national rules book as prescription does not comply. The only sure way is to get an International Jury to the event.
ISAF Racing Rules Q&A 2010 – 008 is about redress when boats get entangled with marks. From the answer:
For a boat that gets entangled in a mark’s ground tackle to be entitled to redress under rule 62.1(a), there must first be an improper action or omission by the race committee. This will be so only if there is a risk of entanglement that boats could not reasonably be expected to anticipate and the race committee could clearly have done something different that would have avoided or substantially reduced this risk.
ISAF Racing Rules Q&A 2010 – 009 about the finishing mark and rules 18.2 and 18.5.
In short; a finishing mark is not different from any other mark with regards to rules 18.2 & 18.5. You have mark-room depending how the zone is entered and you’ll be exonerated for breaking a rule in Section A. The fact that you can sail another course to also reach the finish line, does not in itself switch rules 18.2 or 18.5 off.
image
About the Q&A’s: Unlike the ISAF Cases, which are authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules, these answers are solely to assist Race Officials in applying the rules consistently.
International Race Officials who would like to submit a question to the Q&A Service should do so via email to the ISAF
.

Monday, 24 August 2009

Question to the National Authority (RRS 70.4)

In the beginning of this year I asked a couple of question to our National Authority in accordance with rule 70.4. These questions are looked at by our National Appeals Committee: "De Zeilraad".
If you want to know what an Appeals Committee usually does, have a look at this post: Appealing the PC.

I asked about the right to appeal and the time allowed to do that:
Is an appeal valid if it is received within the time limit after receiving the written protest decision of an request of reopening which is denied, but after the time limit of receiving the written protest decision of the original protest?

In other words, someone appeals the decision of the protest committee after first having asked for reopening. That reopening is denied, but the time it takes to do that is very long. The appeal is then send in, after the time is should be send in if you start counting from the original decision.
If this is allowed you could theoretically keep asking for reopening and never loose the right to appeal.

Our National Appeals committee answered. They indeed allow an appeal to be send in after the request has been denied. The protest is not finished until the reopening has been decided. So the time starts after that decision has been made.
There's no specific rule about this in our rulebook - so they looked at how it is done in common law and criminal cases. There the right to appeal is also not lost if you ask for reconsideration.


Even if you don't have a written decision from the original protest, only from the request for reopening, our appeals committee will still look at all the facts found, conclusion and decision in that original protest. That was my second question.
Again the protest is not decided and is not "finished" until a request for reopening has been made.

The time it is allowed to send in is fifteen days - look at Appendix F, but you can extend that a litlle by asking for a reopening first...

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Delta Lloyd Regatta 2009 | 02

We had an interesting discussion about mark room yesterday evening - which I'm going to publish in a separate post as soon as I've checked with the participants. I want to make sure that I got the viewpoints correct. More on that later.

I think everybody was a little anxious how it would go with Ynglings as the match race boat. Since the Elliot will not be arriving in Europe before Kiel-week, the organisers of DL Regatta had no choice but to choose another boat. Since our MNA owns several Ynglings from the previous Olympic campaign, the choice was not that hard.

Before coming here, I heard from several people having doubts about the suitability of the Yngling. I was watching the boat perform today, trying to find fault with it, as a match race boat.

First of all, this boat turns and accelerates fine for match racing. It is complicated enough to need three people to handle efficiently. They all have to hike hard to keep balance in these difficult wind conditions. Spinnaker set and down, gib sheet and main sheet, traveller & hiking all need attention. You can do tactically practically everything - except maybe sail backward with a rudder that doesn't hang off the back.

As far as I can see this boat is fine for match racing. The Elliot will be faster, more modern and even more manoeuvrable, but it will nevertheless depend on the skill of the sailor who will win the match. Like in the Ynglings at the Delta Lloyd Regatta.

And now for something completely different: Sailbiking
Today in front of the Regatta centre I photographed this nice piece of equipment:
I will have to visit their website and find out more: www.whike.com

Friday, 10 April 2009

Links on Anyday; Books - CYA Appeals and Sailing Games

Links found in Scuttlebutt:
The Canadian Yachting Association Appeals book for the 2009-2012 rules is now available to download free of charge from the CYA website:
http://www.sailing.ca/news/the_cya_appeals_book/
The CYA and ISAF have also provided permission for commercial printers to print single copies from electronic files for the CYA Appeals Book for 2009-2012, and for the Case Book for 2009-2012 for the International Sailing Federation; http://www.sailing.org/9506.php;. Print the letter on the CYA website and take it with you if you have your Appeals Book and Case Book printed at a commercial printer or copy shop.

Yachting New Zealand has produced a brand new Sailing Games book. The book is a collection of forty fun games to improve skills and knowledge, ten for on shore and thirty for on the water. This fully illustrated book is a great tool for coaches and loads of fun for parents and sailors. It also makes a great birthday present or gift for another occasion. -- SailRaceWin, read on:
http://sailracewin.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-sailing-games-book.html

While you're on the New Zealand web site, a couple of Q&A's you might find interesting: Race Management Q & A

Thursday, 19 March 2009

Rob Overton appointed Chairman US Sailing RR Committee

PRESS REALEASE FROM UK HALSEY:

UK-HALSEY’S RULES QUIZ GURU APPOINTED CHAIRMAN OF U.S. SAILING’S RULES COMMITTEE.

The highly regarded on-line racing rules program developed by UK-Halsey Sailmakers just had its authority made more compelling by the recent appointment of Rob Overton to be the new Chairman of US SAILING’s Racing Rules Committee (RRC). Rob is the author of the answers to all of the Rules Quiz questions, and now he is the US’s chief rule writer.

Having Rob Overton contribute to UK-Halsey’s widely used Rules Quiz program was a deliberate decision made far in advance of his new appointment. He has been a member of US SAILING’s Racing Rules Committee since 1993 and one of just five international rules writers who drafted the new Section C rules that took effect on January 1st of this year. He is a member of the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) Team Race Call Book Working Party as well as an International Umpire.

RobOverton

“I am really excited to participate with the rules quiz program,” said Overton. “I think it is a great way to learn the rules. Because the quizzes are animated, you get to know the game as well as the rules, and knowing the game is what you really have to learn. Plus the animations makes learning the rules less dry and more fun.”

The changes to the rules were so substantial that the boat “in the wrong” changed in three different quizzes. “With so many sailors depending on our quizzes to understand the rules, we needed someone with Rob’s breadth of knowledge to make sure we got it right,” said UK-Halsey’s President, Butch Ulmer. Rob also served on the small international group that re-wrote the rules of Section C for the 2009-2012 rules.

In the past the Rules Quizzes were sold on a Compact Disk, but that format was too limiting. With modern technology and increased use of the web, we now offer an expanded rule quiz program as a download. The download format allows users to receive numerous free updates with the click of a button. For example, the Rules Quiz program was updated 10 times within the first 6 weeks of 2009. Another advantage of being a download is that buyers do not have to wait on the post office go get the program.

The UK-Halsey’s Rules Quiz program has several other advantages. The animations can be played at full-screen size and users can adjust the speed of the animations. A members-only section, named The Lifted Tack, provides instructional videos, a blog and a PDF library. In many of the videos, which were show at Butch Ulmer’s rules seminars, you see the quizzes being used to teach the rules, an approach which makes the explanation and tactical considerations much easier to understand. Currently there are seven videos as part of the program and more will be added shortly.

For those who want see a stripped down version of the rules program, take our quizzes online for free at: http://www.ukhalsey.com/ To buy the full Rules Quiz program for $55, ($40 for owners of UK-Halsey Sailmakers’ prior Rules Quiz CD) go to the UK-Halsey secure online store.

blogcolorstripe

My congratulations to Rob with his appointment. I wish him all the best to resolve the – no doubt – many questions this year’s new rules will bring.

Like in the press release I too find the change in the rules much more substantial, then first anticipated. The flurry of ISAF Q&A’s recently published, proves that a lot of questions have to be answered. And some of the answers need careful study to understand the logic behind them.

We will need all the ‘GURUS’ to take the lead!

Friday, 13 March 2009

Closed Class Rules; by the Dutch RR Committee

Today on the website of the Dutch MNA, a guideline and "warning" was published about Closed Class Rules. I've posted the text below. In the posting the Dutch Racing Rules Committee explains that with a national class - which are almost all sailing under closed class rules - nothing may be taken aboard which is not written explicitly in the class rules. If the class rules don't mention a GPS, you can't take it with you on board - whether you use it or not. If the class rules don't mention a tell tale, you can't use them and so-on.

If you want to read the whole story, use the Google translate box in the sidebar or Google translate with copy paste.

And to all my fellow Dutch sailors: You have been warned!


From the Watersportverbond website:
De implicaties van “gesloten” klassenvoorschriften

...en de procedures als iemand die voorschriften overtreedt.

Inleiding
Bij een kampioenschap in een nationale klasse in 2008 is een protest ingediend omdat een deelnemer een GPS aan boord had. Hierbij kwam de vraag op tafel wat wel en wat niet mag onder klassenvoorschriften.
Deze vraag is zowel door de protestcommissie als door de reglementcommissie beantwoord. De Zeilraad heeft de vraag ook voorgelegd gekregen, maar kon deze vraag in deze casus om procedurele redenen niet beantwoorden. De Zeilraad heeft de vraag doorgestuurd naar de Reglementencommissie van het Watersportverbond.

Open en gesloten klassenvoorschriften
Om te beoordelen wat wel en niet toegestaan is onder klassenvoorschriften is het heel belangrijk om eerst te kijken over de klassenvoorschriften open of gesloten klassenvoorschriften zijn.
Bij gesloten voorschriften is over het algemeen een regel opgenomen in de zin van , alles wat niet expliciet in deze klassenvoorschriften is toegestaan, is verboden. Bij vrijwel alle nationale klassen komt een regel van deze strekking voor.

Consequentie van gesloten klassenvoorschriften
De consequentie van een gesloten klassenvoorschriften voor een klasse is dat een GPS alleen toegestaan is als dit in de klassenvoorschriften is toegestaan. Staat er in de klassenvoorschriften niks over het toestaan van een GPS, dan mag je een dergelijk apparaat niet aan boord hebben.
Dit geldt ook voor een (elektronisch) kompas, voor tell tales, voor een vaantje, ja zelfs voor een starthorloge. Let dus goed op als je spullen aan mee neemt aan boord in een zeilwedstrijd. Als je in een nationale klasse vaart mag je er vanuit gaan dat de klassenvoorschriften gesloten zijn. Alles wat niet is toegestaan is verboden.
Van geen belang is of je je GPS, kompas, vaantje etc. ook gebruikt, of je een voordeel of een nadeel hebt van het instrument. Als het niet toegestaan is in gesloten klassenvoorschriften, dan mag je het niet aan boord hebben. Ook speelt het geen rol dat anderen het ook gebruiken, immers regel 78 RvW stelt dat de eigenaar en de verantwoordelijk persoon aan boord er voor verantwoordelijk zijn dat de boot blijft voldoen aan de klassenvoorschriften.

De procedurele kant
Natuurlijk is dan ook de vraag hoe je onder de regels moet handelen als iemand met een GPS of een kompas vaart, terwijl dit volgens de klassenvoorschriften niet mag. Zo gauw je dit in het wedstrijdgebied ziet moet je protest roepen naar de betreffende boot (Regel 61.1(a) Regels voor Wedstrijdzeilen. Zeil je in een boot die langer is dan 6 meter, dan moet je ook meteen een rode vlag tonen. Vervolgens moet je na de finish een protest indienen dat voldoet aan de vereisten van een protest. Dat wil zetten je moet tenminste schriftelijk het incident (het varen met de GPS) vermelden inclusief de tijd en plaats waar je dit gezien hebt (regel 61.2 RvW). Het protest moet ook binnen de tijdlimiet bij het wedstrijdbureau worden ingediend (regel 61.3 RvW). De tijdlimiet staat meestal in de plaatselijke Wedstrijdbepalingen vermeld.
De protestcommissie zal je informeren over tijd en plaats van het verhoor. Meestal door middel van een briefje op een bord bij het Wedstrijdbureau. Je hebt het recht om bij het verhoor aanwezig te zijn, dus zorg dat je op tijd op de aangegeven plaats bent. Als de protestcommissie tot de conclusie komt dat een boot die partij is in een protest een regel heeft overtreden, dan moet de protestcommissie die boot uitsluiten tenzij in de wedstrijdbepalingen staat dat een andere straf van toepassing is. De protestcommissie heeft hierbij dus geen vrijheid. In strijd met de klassenvoorschriften een GPS aan boord, betekent een diskwalificatie als de protestcommissie besluit dat de klassenvoorschriften zijn overtreden.

Niet eens met de beslissing van de protestcommissie
Ben je het niet eens met de beslissing van de protestcommissie, ga dan niet bij de uitspraak mopperen of schelden. Er is meestal een procedure om in hoger beroep te gaan. Vraag op een briefje bij het Wedstrijdbureau om een schriftelijke beslissing van de protestcommissie(regel 65.2). Doe dit binnen die hiervoor geldende tijdlimiet (zie hiervoor ook de wedstrijdbepalingen, meestal is de tijdlimiet 1 uur na de mondelinge beslissing).
Stuur vervolgens binnen 15 dagen een brief naar het Watersportverbond waarin je aangeeft waarom je het niet eens bent met de beslissing van de protestcommissie. Houdt hierbij in de gaten dat je niet in hoger beroep kunt gaan tegen de vastgestelde feiten in de beslissing, wel tegen de conclusies of als je vindt dat er verkeerde regels of procedures zijn toegepast (regel 70.1). Voeg de schriftelijke beslissing van de protestcommissie, de aankondiging van het evenement als je die hebt en de wedstrijdbepalingen als je die hebt, bij je brief.

Twijfel bij de protestcommissie
Het komt ook wel eens voor dat de protestcommissie zelf twijfelt. Als de protestcommissie twijfelt over een beslissing in een protest dan kan de protestcommissie vragen om bevestiging of verbetering van zijn beslissing. (regel 70.2). Ook hierbij moet de protestcommissie binnen 15 dagen een brief met zijn vraag sturen naar het Watersportverbond.

De Zeilraad
Een hoger beroep aanvraag en een vraag van een protestcommissie worden bij het Watersportverbond voorgelegd aan de Zeilraad. Dit is een raad van 7 zeer deskundige kenners van het wedstrijdreglement die uit verschillende plaatsen in het land komen.
De Zeilraad zal zo snel mogelijk de hoger beroep aanvraag of de vraag van een protestcommissie behandelen, maar realiseer je dat de Zeilraad ongeveer 1 keer per maand bijeen komt en er normaal gesproken tenminste 2 vergaderingen van de Zeilraad nodig zijn om de Beslissing van de Zeilraad definitief te maken. Overigens zal de Zeilraad in de tussentijd ook gegevens en commentaren opvragen bij alle partijen en de protestcommissie, zie hiervoor Appendix F van de Regels voor Wedstrijdzeilen. De Zeilraad kan beslissen om de beslissing van een protestcommissie te bevestigen, te wijzigen of te vernietigen. Het protest ongeldig verklaren, het protest terugverwijzen voor heropening of voor een nieuw verhoor en nieuwe beslissing door het zelfde of een ander protestcomité (Regel 71.2 RvW).

Conclusie
Bij gesloten klassenvoorschriften zoals die gelden voor vrijwel alle nationale klassen, mag je alleen spullen aan boord hebben die toegestaan zijn volgens de klassenvoorschriften. Staat er niks over in de klassenvoorschriften, dan mag het niet.
Dus als een gps, een kompas, tell-tales of een vaantje niet in de klassenvoorschriften genoemd staan als uitrusting die je aan boord mag hebben, dan mag het niet.
Wil je protesteren, volg dan de formaliteiten, je kunt het niet een ander kwalijk nemen als die zich aan de regels houdt.

Leo Pieter Stoel
Voorzitter Reglementen Commissie

Sunday, 1 February 2009

Dag van de Wedstrijdsport 2009

Voor iedereen die mijn presentatie nog eens wil nalezen:
DvW Regelwijzigingen 2009-2012

Let op: Het overzicht is niet volledig, maar aangepast op de beperkte tijd die de voordracht mocht duren.

Saturday, 3 January 2009

RRS 2009-2012 Changes

Google Alert came up with a couple of presentations on the changes in the Racing Rules of Sailing.
The first one is by USSailing via the Florida EC-12 Association:
Changes to the Racing Rules of Sailing for 2009–2012

The second one is from Bill Kirkpatrick: Changes to Racing Rules of Sailing 2009-2012

Both presentations are written for the USA, with references to some of the prescriptions. Nevertheless, a good point to start to learn what is new.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...