Visualization of the tactical position of a Racing Sailboat at a Markrounding

In the Zone there are four basic tactical position;
Or was it six? :-)



x times 2.

  

x times 2.












Do not, I repeat DO NOT, become RED!
(I mean the second one.....)

Rule 14; Always a mess?

Why is the application  of rule 14 always such a mess?

Couple of observations:

• Rule 14 is in part B, and part B mostly restricts the rights of the right-of-way boat. Does part B have any rules on the keep clear boat?
• If the ROW boat does nothing - or worse - the wrong manoeuvre, is the keep clear boat still breaking rule 14?
• If the keep clear boat is doing everything, even turning as fast  as she can, at the last minute, and still there's contact, because the ROW boat does not enough, is the keep clear boat still breaking rule 14?

I've send in a Q&A a couple of years back, about rule 14. I've found it in my archive, but be aware, it is NO longer in the Q&A booklet!

In later Q&A booklets it became 2011-028, and 2013-005 and now it is in de Casebook under number 123 (reversed upwind, but still)

Now for the new situation: It is from an Extreme Sailing Series event last year.
Here is the animation:

(I'm sorry about the quality - if you click on full screen it is a little better)

Alinghi is slightly changing course all the way, from the moment SAP has gybed, almost hunting them. But because the umpire boat is parallel to them, the Umpires fail to notice this, they cannot see this. And after protests from both boats SAP is penalized on the water for not keeping clear under rule 10. When boats are less than half a length apart, Alinghi gybes and luffs hard. Nevertheless there is contact with the aft quarter of SAP's port hull and Alinghi's starboard bow, resulting in damage. The bow of Alinghi is cracked and there are some scratches of the hull of SAP.

Now, IF Alinghi had gone the other way - and behind SAP - there would have been no contact. The course change was very minor that way. There was no reason that it couldn't have done this, other than loosing places in the race. Wind was slight, maybe 4 knots. Boats were not moving very fast.

SAP, having a view that allowed them to actually see the course change by Alinghi, claimed that they would have crossed IF Alinghi hadn't changed course - from the beginning. SAP was of the opinion that, because of this, they were not given room to keep clear. Once they had gybed they could do nothing else than speed up as best they could.... Gybing back would have made things worse.

Alinghi claimed, they had to come up fast, at the last possible moment, to avoid a collision. They did their very best, but it wasn't enough, and there was contact.

Because of the low quality of the video, I've tried to re-create the tracking in an animation:

My question to you: Did only one of the boats break rule 14? Or maybe both?
Please don't go back to the Part Two rules issue. Right or wrong, that was an umpire decision.
And tell me if Case 123 helps you answer.
J.

Is the definition finish done?

The 2013-2016 RRS has new wording for the definition: finish

A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment in normal position, crosses the finishing line from the course side. However, she has not finished if after crossing the finishing line she
(a) takes a penalty under rule 44.2,
(b) corrects an error under rule 28.2 made at the line, or
(c) continues to sail the course.

And in the new RRS, the time you have to inform a boat that makes an error in sailing the course, is now specified:

61.1 Informing the Protestee
(a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area that she was involved in or saw, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,

(1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;
(2) if the hull length of the protesting boat is less than 6 metres, she need not display a red flag;
(3) if the incident was an error by the other boat in sailing the course, she need not hail or display a red flag but she shall inform the other boat before that boat finishes or at the first reasonable opportunity after she finishes;

Let's have a look if we 'combine' these two. First of all, the informing part is mandatory; it says:"...but she SHALL inform…..". You must make a genuine effort to inform the other boat - but when? 

Now imagine this scenario:
A boat (call her CLEAVER) sails through the finish line, you are 20 meters behind. As soon as you also have finished, you manage to get closer to the first boat and tell her that she has missed the last mark before the finish. You don't need to hail protest or show a red flag, but you do anyway, to make sure you are seen 'informing' the other. After that you continue to shore, go to the race-office and fill in the protest form.

CLEAVER is scored in fifth position (you became third).

In the subsequent hearing you explain to the panel what you saw and did.

The representative of CLEAVER however, contents that she hadn't finished the first time. Because after you informed her she went back to the racing area, rounded the last mark and crossed the line again. And according to the definition, she only finished the second time crossing the line because she continued to sail the course. Whatever distances or where she sailed in between the second to last mark and the last mark before the finish, didn't matter. She sailed the course and should be scored.

What should the panel decide?
Can a boat still go back in this new definition?

J.

UMPIRE Call; Moving backwards through the water in 2013

Just below is an animation depicting a situation I encountered last weekend at our local match race winter series in Lelystad. Blue and Yellow do an normal dial-up after entry, but then get into a situation where I didn't know any more.

Before you read any further, take out your rulebook and read 22.3 and C2.9, please.

Wind fairly light, maybe 2 Beaufort; Boats heavy and big; J109's.
We start with 10 - P/SB - Yellow changing course 16 - giving room - Blue under 10 is doing everything she can.
Blue tacks - completes and becomes ROW under 11.
Yellow, to windward, is keeping clear.
Blue stops - does not push her boom, but uses her jib to stay head-to-wind and then starts moving backward.Yellow becomes ROW because Blue is moving backward - rule 22.3 as changed by C2.9 - no 15.
Blue moving backward swings her stern - and is effectively tacking, but still keep clear boat under C2.9. Yellow in the meantime stops and waits. But forces being as they are - even for heavy boats - eventually starts to move backwards. She's never changed tack, so still SB.
At the same time as Yellow is starting to move backward, Blue looses her backward momentum and starts to move forward again - Tack is complete, now on P.
Because Yellow moves backward Blue becomes ROW. Does Blue have a 15? No - she acquired ROW because of Yellow's actions. If Yellow hadn't started to move backward Blue would not have become ROW. Yellow realizing this is going to end in trouble, tries desperately - doing everything she can - to keep clear.
Blue, not wanting to get a collision either, bears away as hard as she can.
But we end up with contact anyway.


Before the 2013 rules, Yellow would have stayed ROW and only because she "changed course from going forward to going backward", with a 16 limitation. In the new rulebook she's keep clear boat.

In the old rulebook I would have penalized Blue for not keeping clear. Blue choose to do this risky manoeuvre and must bear the consequences if it didn't work. Only if Yellow had pushed her boom out, to get to move backwards she would have been penalized - then the situation becomes her "responsibility".

Under the 2013-2013 rules I'm not longer sure.

Does Blue have a 16? If yes, I would penalize Blue , if not - and by deduction Yellow had the 16 - perhaps Yellow should get the penalty. But what is the difference then between the old rule and the new?

If Blue started forward - as keep clear boat - before Yellow started to move backward, Blue does not have a 16. She "changed course" before she was ROW.
If Blue started forward, after Yellow was moving backward she does have a rule 16 limitation. But could she tell?
I couldn't say who started first, neither could my fellow umpire. And we were concentrating on that - not manoeuvring a sail boat.

Anyway, both boats where doing everything the could, once they realized the collision was going to happen.
Still penalize Blue for getting in this position? But she's ROW!
Penalize Yellow for not keeping clear? But she had no chance to so. She didn't push out her sail to go backwards…...

We ended up giving a green flag

But I'm not happy.
Should have been a yellow AND a blue…………
Or what?

Give me your opinion, please.

UK Sailmakers: Rules Quiz program

Received the newsletter from UK Sailmakers and wanted to pass on their latest:
The NEW UK Sailmakers Rules Quiz program
An excerpt from the mail:

 


UK Sailmaker’s online Rules Quiz Program has been called “the easiest way to learn the Racing Rules of Sailing.” Every four years, when the International Sailing Federation updates the Racing Rules of Sailing, UK’s Rules experts go back to the drawing board and create a fresh collection of animated quizzes to test sailors’ knowledge of key Rules, providing interpretations of the Rules, and giving detailed answers to the question of “who was right and why.” This year, along with updating the content of the quizzes themselves, UK has revamped the technology driving the Rules Quiz, creating more informative and interesting interactive quizzes.

The new Rules Quiz Program has been retooled from stem to stern, reflecting the latest techniques in online learning tools. To help better understand the situations as they unfold and the ultimate answers, UK has added graphic teaching aids including overlap lines, a circle showing the zone, a rotatable grid in one-boatlength increments, the ability to see the past positions of the boats as they advance through the situation, and the ability to see the track lines of the boats. A user-friendly slide bar allows users to easily advance or reverse the animation to a precise position. The new animations are bigger, more colorful, and the boats moving across the screen are more realistic and lifelike. More info...

Click here for sample quiz.


Last minute Holiday Shopping! Pre-Sales Discount!
The program currently has 45 quizzes with more to come throughout the 2013-2016 quadrennial. UK is in the final stages of preparing the program and plans to have it finished by the middle of January 2013. The new Rules Quiz will be available for $55.00 U.S. through the UK Sailmakers online store, but you can purchase a pre-release copy thru December 31,, 2012 at a discounted price of only $40.00 U.S. Since the program lives in the Cloud and won’t come in a box, you can order the program now and still be able give an e-mail gift certificate to someone for Christmas. This is a great present and even better last-minute gift idea.

  

I've not run every quiz yet, but the ones I did are great! Clear animations with lots of cool additions. Overlap lines, tracks and other information to judge the situations.....

I only wish it was as clear as this in a hearing!

J.

Changes in Rule 69; part Two

The second change in rule 69 is about the 'standard of proof' that should be used on the evidence:

Rule 69.2(b):
……. If it is established to the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that the competitor has broken rule 69.1(a), it shall either…...

I have had a very hard time finding out what 'comfortable satisfaction' means. The Casebook working party is preparing a Case to explain to protest committees what the “comfortable satisfaction” standard means and how they should apply it. But that will take - according to my sources - several more weeks, before that is finalized.

Search results

A search on the Internet spewed out several doping cases where this 'standard of proof ' is discussed;

A couple of quotes from an article by Daniel Dawer, with the title: Leveling the Playing Field: Why the USADA Must Adopt a Criminal Burden of Proof in Anti-Doping Proceedings

Article 3.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, states that such a standard "is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.“

Accordingly, the WADA established a burden of proof “greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”: namely, prosecutors must establish an athlete’s guilt “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body.” The standard’s ambiguity emerges from a failure to define “comfortable satisfaction.” Is it closer to preponderance of evidence—the evidentiary standard in civil proceedings—or closer to beyond reasonable doubt?

And from an article by Angel R. Puerta: Uncomfortable Satisfaction

Athletes need no longer be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in doping cases - a near impossibility in many instances - but rather they must be proven guilty "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the panels hearing their cases.

The new standard brings common sense into the pursuit of a level playing field. Obvious cheaters can no longer hide beyond a "we have never tested positive" gimmick that is built upon clever drugs and astute event and training schedules.

From an article on Velo News: Dick Pound talks Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong and the system

“Absolutely,” Pound said. “You can do a lot more with a confession like that and allegations and information that they can provide than you can ever do with results that come from the odd guy who pees in a bottle. In principle, I am very comfortable with it.”

In criminal trials, he said, “you can hang people even without bloodstained clothes. It’s a matter of having the kind of panels and the people on those panels who are in a position to weigh the evidence and arrive at the level of proof — to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel — that CAS has adopted as the standard of proof.”

Pound added that the more rigorous “comfortable satisfaction” standard is applied to anti-doping authorities when presenting their evidence “but the athlete must only meet a ‘balance of probabilities’ standard (when submitting evidence in their defense). It really is all well calibrated.”

Citing a hypothetical example of someone charged with distribution of 300 syringes of Aranesp, Pound said: “You don’t need the actual syringes to make the case. Eyewitness testimony of a delivery, credit card receipts … all of that is admissible and it’s up to the panel to weigh that evidence.”

The legal standards of proof can be found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
I've compiled a table and placed 'comfortable satisfaction' where I think it should be, which is level 8

Changes in RRS 69; part One

In the new RRS 2013-2016, Rule 69 has been extensively rewritten.

The main differences are:

1. It is now written in the rule that competitor may not commit gross misconduct - and for the purpose of this rule - what a competitor is.
2. The standard of proof in rule 69 hearings has been changed - in line with the doping rules and the practices of the CAS.
3. National Authorities have no longer a choice, they must start an investigation if they receive a report involving a rule 69 case.

Let's start with the first difference:
The change in wording makes it clear that committing gross misconduct breaks a rule in the RRS - something that was previously implied - but not actually written in so many words. And since 'breaking a rule in the RRS equals a penalty' is well established in other rules, the rule is now more consistent with the rest of the book.
 

It is now also made clear what is meant by 'competitor' in the rule 69:

Throughout rule 69, ‘competitor’ means a member of the crew, or the owner, of a boat.

There seems to be a typo in this sentence? Should it read 'or a boat'? Or perhaps the comma is misplaced and the sentence should read: 'or the owner of a boat'. I'll leave that one up to the rule makers…..

Several people, to whom I've had contact about this rule, expressed their disappointment that this last change is not nearly far (or good) enough.
Originally in the submission this sentence was:

For the purposes of rule 69, a competitor includes a person in charge, a boat owner and any other person who has agreed to be governed by the rules.

Let me put it this way, in asking this question:

If a parent of a sailor misbehaves, or a coach does something that is absolutely considered misconduct, can the PC or Jury start a rule 69 hearing? 

RRS 2013-2016; Rule 18.3

Rule 18.3 has been changed in the new RRS 2013-2016;
(duh, otherwise I wouldn't have had to write this)
I'm not quite sure if the chosen language does not have a much greater impact than first assumed;

Was it the intention of the Rulescommittee to change the rules for boats changing tack in the zone?

This is what the rule is now:
18.3 Tacking in the Zone

If two boats were approaching a mark on opposite tacks and one of them changes tack, and as a result is subject to rule 13 in the zone when the other is fetching the mark, rule 18.2 does not thereafter apply. The boat that changed tack
(a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact or prevent
     the other boat from passing the mark on the required side, and
(b) shall give mark-room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her.

This is what the rule in 2013-2016 is going to be:
18.3 Tacking in the Zone

If a boat in the zone passes head to wind and is then on the same tack as a boat that is fetching the mark, rule 18.2 does not thereafter apply between them. The boat that changed tack
(a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact or prevent
     the other boat from passing the mark on the required side, and
(b) shall give mark-room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her.

 I have two scenario's for your consideration:

Situation A

Situation B

The PC find as fact that Purple had completed her tack (was no longer subject to rule 13) when the other boats (Grey and/or Red) changed course.

Is in the new rules (RRS 2013-2016) the Purple boat breaking rule 18.3?

Leave a comment.
J.

RRS 2013-2016; Rule 18.2

I've been brooding on rule 18.2 for a couple of days - (weeks even). Originally had planned to post much earlier. I have a hard time finding a meaningful difference between our current rulebook and the new one, regarding this rule.

The wording has changed:

18.2(c ): When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b),
(1) she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins;
(2) if she becomes overlapped inside the boat entitled to mark-room, she shall also give that boat room to sail her proper course while they remain overlapped.

The (1) and (2) split is in line with the general change in the way rules are being written. It makes it clear that both apply all the time for a boat that does not have mark room.

Why the addition of (2)?
In the current rule book a boat that 'stuck its nose in' was not entitled to mark room and could be shut out by the other boat. As long as that boat was sailing its 'proper course' while rounding the mark, it was exonerated for any infringement of a rule of section A and for breaking RRS 15 or 16. It could luff as hard as it wanted - provided it did so, to sail its proper course. If she did more - sail above her proper course - she still cold shut out the inside boat, but she then had limitations under 15 and 16.


This is now directly written in rule 18.2(c)(2) in the RRS 2013-2016.

The definition of mark-room has no longer 'room to sail her proper course while AT the mark' part - so that needed to be addressed by the working party. They have chosen to write that part into the rule directly. Straight into 18.2(c). A proper choice, in my opinion.

The animation (and picture) show the Grey boat pointing its bow between Red and the mark, trying to 'sneak in'. Red doesn't want that, but leaves a wide enough gab between itself and the mark initially and then forcefully 'shuts the door' by luffing very hard.


In the current rules Red is entitled to mark-room and may sail her proper course AT the mark. She is however sailing well above that proper course. And therefor no longer 'protected' by the mark-room exoneration for breaking rule 16.
In the new rules this is still the case - only now it is written in 18.2(c) directly. Instead  finding this conclusion by way of the definition and exoneration, it's now in the rule.

Grey may try to go inside and she's entitled to a fair cop when caught. Not an entrapment by Red....

Ooh, the other change in rule 18.2 is one from long standing in Match - and Team Racing. To get out of another 'unfair' deal.

18.2(e) If a boat obtained an inside overlap from clear astern or by tacking to windward of the other boat and, from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give markroom, she is not required to give it.

From the Team Race Call book: E10:

The current rules dictate that the White boat must give mark-room to the Grey boat...... Even if she's not able to do so, because the overlap was not established from clear astern, but in the tack.
That has now been addressed by the change in 18.2(e).
If White is not able, she doesn't have to give mark-room.

Please leave a comment if you have a different opinion about 18.2.
J.

Next time 18.3. It is slow going, but we will get there, eventually

RRS 2013 - 2016; Mark-room & Tactical rounding

The New Racing Rules for Sailing have been published on the ISAF Website and I've been studying what the changes mean for sailors on the water. In the coming months I hope to write several posts about that and will try to publish on every Friday. (More, if I have time)

The The RRS 2013-2016 do not come into effect until the first of January, but if you want a head start on your competition, have a butcher.*

In order to find out what the effect of changes in rule 18 will be, we need to look first at the definition of mark-room:

Mark-room

Room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side. Also,

(a) room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it, and

(b) room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course.

However, mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack unless she is overlapped inside and to windward of the boat required to give mark-room and she would be fetching the mark after her tack.

A boat which has mark-room may sail a course that leaves the mark on the required side. Nothing new there, save it that leaving a mark on the required side can be done at many distances….
You can leave a mark to port (as asked in the SI) as close as the circumstances permit or at several boat lengths.This is important, because you want to know if you always can make a tactical rounding.

Low in - high out, right?

Do the a) and b)- parts of the definition provide you with an answer?

Let's start with b) -  room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course…., hmmm, I don't think so.  Necessary to sail the course is very close - as close as the circumstances permit. Closer if it's only 5 knots, than if it's blowing 30. But close, nevertheless. So no Donald Duck** there

Part b) does not give you the room to do a 'tactical rounding'.

Perhaps part a) does?

 - room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it,

Close to it? You will want to sail a boat length beside the mark initially, to do a tactical rounding!

Let me explain why this part was added;

In the RRS 2009-2012 the definition of mark-room gave you the room to sail TO the mark - in a straight line. That gave a windward keep-clear boat, the right to 'shut out' a leeward right-of-way boat. For instance at the finish line:

Purple enters the zone clear ahead. RRS 18.2(b) gives her mark-room. The room to sail TO the mark.

Purple might infringe rule 11, but is exonerated because she's sailing TO the mark.

This was never intended by the rules. Therefore part a) in the new definition now only gives the room to sail close to the mark, to the boat with mark-room, if her proper course is to do so. And in the example it is clearly not. Purple could finish much sooner if she kept on sailing close-hauled.

Part a) clearly also does not give a boat the room to make a tactical rounding. The use of the term 'proper course' is only when that course is CLOSE to the mark. It does not mean you can sail your proper course when that is WIDE from the mark - as is needed when doing a tactical rounding.

The final part of the definition is almost the same as in the previous rules. You get room to tack, if there's a boat to leeward of you at the mark. That is the same as in the 2009-2012 edition. But new: that room is only available if you can fetch the mark after your tack. Not if you have to do another one after that.

In effect the new definition of mark-room is initially more than it was in the RRS 2009-2012. You no longer have to sail straight TO the mark. But it is also less than it was in the RRS 2009-2012; AT the mark you can no longer sail your proper course. In fact it is the room as most sailors have always thought it was; rounding the mark in a seaman-like way to sail the course.
The right to do a tactical rounding however, is solely depending on whether or not you have right-of-way when rounding a mark. If you are the keep-clear boat, all the room you get, is to sail close to it and round it as necessary to sail the course.

Next issue: What is the effect of the changes in Rule 18, with this new definition of mark-room?

(butcher's hook = look)
(Donald Duck = luck)

Kite boarding in Turkey; part 2

Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap
The definition in the Racing Rules of Sailing says:

Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap One boat is clear astern of another when her hull and equipment in normal position are behind a line abeam from the aftermost point of the other boat’s hull and equipment in normal position. The other boat is clear ahead. They overlap when neither is clear astern. However, they also overlap when a boat between them overlaps both. These terms always apply to boats on the same tack. They do not apply to boats on opposite tacks unless rule 18 applies or both boats are sailing more than ninety degrees from the true wind.

In Appendix BB (the kite boarding appendix) there's NO change to this definition. The definitions of finish and start are amended so that the kite does not count, but not in clear ahead and clear astern; overlap. There, the kite is part of the equipment and does count for overlap.

Here's the problem:
The kite is a long way ahead and to the side of the rider. Depending on the length of his lines between 20 to 30 meters. The rider cannot see if his kite past the line abeam from the board in front. And it can change in an instant by just raising the kite or lowering it. The rider in front may be able to see if he pays attention to the kites behind, but he has to concentrate on his own - not interfering with kites in front.
To be able to see definitely if kite boarders are overlapped or not, you need a 'wing' boat to windward at every kite board. And that is clearly impossible.

I'm more than ever convinced that this particular definition also needs changing to work on the water.
We all know that the rules change with overlap from 12 to 11, with addition of limitations rules, like 15. The riders are not able to do this with the current definition.

 

According to the definition these kite boarders are overlapped; #4 has right of way.  The rider with the hat needs to keep clear.

I heard suggestions from judges and from riders what to use. My vote is on the hull alone. If the kite board is overlapped with another's hull, then the rules should change. Before that the rider has to keep clear under rule 12, including his kite.
Everybody can concentrate on their own kite and does not have to worry about someone coming from behind, until they are very near.

Perhaps something to think about when the new 2013-2016 rules will be published?
Appendix BB will be in that rulebook......

J.

YOU-TACK version 1.3

Please permit me a post about this application for your Android or iPhone/iPad. In recent months I’ve been (re)writing the comments for it and it has been a lot of work.

You-Tack is THE Racing sailors illustrated guide to the Racing Rules of Sailing. All the important parts of the rule book have been included. Part 1 trough 7 and Appendixes A, B, C and D.

You can lookup and scan all the pertinent rules when you want to study or if you are involved in a rules discussion. No need to bring a rulebook, they are on your phone! No more - out of date - paper books.
Writing a protest? Look up the rule number and impress the PC. You can even take it with you in the hearing and check out what your opponent is saying.

Lots of new features and new content. I’ve personally completely checked and rewritten the comments. There are also new illustrations, now viewable in landscape mode.


New search tool so you can find quickly what you need. And added a list of sailing terms with explanations.

We are working on new content for Match & Team Racing and are making sure that the changes for 2013-2016 are ready on January first.

Check it out in the AppStore or Android Market

If you want to try it out before buying; there is a Lite version available: You Tack! Lite. Completely free, so you can have a look, before buying.

Changing the ranks; one point at a time

From a presentation I witnessed last Tuesday about the upcoming changes in the rules 2013-2016, I learned that the Bonus point system will be deleted. Rule 90.3, Appendix A4 and A4.1 will be changed accordingly.

I've done a quick calculation, using the results of the recently sailed Yngling 2012 World Championship in Sydney Austrailia to see what the effect on places would have been. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any particular system, just wanted to have a look if it made any difference.

The first 10 boats out of a fleet of 45 with the Low Points System:

 Then the first 10 boats with the same results with the Bonus Points System:

Finally the first 10 boats with the Austrian Points System:

What is you opinion?
Is the Low Points System enough, or should we keep an option open for other systems?

In the Extreme Sailing Series we use the Low Points System - but in reverse. First place gets most points and the winner is the boat with the most points in the series. (This is because Joe the Public can't understand that someone with 0 points can win anything)


 Explaining

would be next to impossible.

(pillow)Case of the Week (42/11) - 39

(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.)

CASE 39

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 60.2(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule 69 Action

Except when it receives a report of a breach of a class rule or of rule 43 from an equipment inspector or a measurer for an event, a race committee is not required to protest a boat. The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitor.

Summary of the Facts
Throughout a five-race series, A competed with a crew of three. After the last race, B and others jointly protested A, alleging that she had broken a class rule that limited the crew to two. This was the first protest relating to the matter. It was refused because the hulls of the protesting boats were all over 6 m long, but none of the boats displayed a red flag. This decision was appealed on the grounds that the race committee ought, on its own initiative, to have protested A in all the races.

Decision
As provided in rule 63.5, the protest was invalid because no red flag was displayed as required by rule 61.1(a). To uphold this appeal would amount to a conclusion that a race committee ought to know the class rules of each class, and that it then has an obligation to enforce them when members of the class themselves fail to do so. No such obligation is placed on a race committee. Furthermore, rule 60.2(a) is clearly discretionary, except when a race committee receives a report required by rule 43.1(c) or 78.3, which it had not. As stated in Sportsmanship and the Rules, ‘Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.’

The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules therefore rests with the competitors. The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the protest committee is upheld.

CYA 1977/35

What if a measurer or equipment inspector does not include breaches of class rules in his report or even doesn’t hand in a report?

If that becomes known during or after the event, there’s is a problem. At the moment neither is mentioned as a party in rule 62.1(a). No request for redress possible for an improper action or omission by the measurer or equipment inspector. You cannot blame the RC, they never got the information. It is prudent for the PRO to ask the Measurer or equipment inspector for his findings, but not obligatory.

There is however a submission for this November’s ISAF conference to include those in rule 62.1(a).

I’m not sure if that will go into effect the first of January 2012. Till it does, only the Sailing Instructions can change this, by for instance stating that the measurer or equipment inspector are part of the Race Committee.

J.

ISAF Rapid Response Team Racing Call 2011-001

It took some time but, then it's a whopper. The first Rapid Response Team Racing Call in 2011 was published last week by ISAF. The subject is rule 18 and mark-room and how to exploit an "unintentional consequence" in the current rules to gain an advantage for a team.

The Call explains that the way Mark-room is written at the moment, a keep-clear boat can break a right-of-way rule and be exonerated as long as she's doing it within the boundaries of "Mark-room"

RAPID RESPONSE TEAM RACING CALL 2011/001
Rule 18 Mark-Room



Question
X on starboard tack enters the zone of the finishing mark clear ahead of A. X is sailing a course that will leave about half a boat length between her and the mark. After entering the zone X slows down without changing course, and A becomes overlapped to leeward of her. X then bears away to pass close to the mark and there is no longer room for A to finish between X and the mark. A bears away and protests. What should the call be?

Answer
When X enters the zone her course is high of the mark and she is not sailing to the mark within the space allowed by the definition Mark-Room. When X bears away after she becomes windward boat, she is sailing to the mark. X breaks rule 11, but is exonerated under rule 18.5(a). No penalty.

A complies with rule 18.2(b) by giving mark-room to X. If A is unable to respond when X bears away to sail to the mark, A breaks rule 18.2(b). Penalise A. However, if X bears away so that her course will not pass on the required side of the mark, she is no longer sailing to the mark and she is not entitled to exoneration. Penalise X for breaking rule 11.

As soon as X finishes, rule D1.1(d) applies and she can no longer act to interfere with A. She must trim in to a close-hauled course and clear the finishing line.

Published September 26;
This call is valid until 1 January 2013

In normal racing the infringement of rule 11 is usually unintentionally. And the windward boat would finish in front of the leeward boat anyway, so in a fleet race this will have no effect. (Except probably agitate the persons in the leeward boat).
But in Team Racing this can be used as a "weapon" to hinder a boat from the other team, so a team member can finish before the leeward boat.

Be aware however, to make use of it now!
If the submissions of the Rule C working party are accepted this will no longer be possible in the RRS 2013-2016