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?

Kitesurfing Rules! Part 2

Appendix BB is changing quit a lot of definitions;
For overlap the kite does count, but for finishing it doesn't. The competitor even has to be in contact with board to be able to finish according to the definition:

Finish  A kiteboard finishes when, while the competitor is in contact with the hull, any part of her hull, or the competitor in normal position, crosses the finishing line in the direction of the course from the last mark, either for the first time or after taking a Turn Penalty under rule 44 or correcting an error made at the finishing line under rule 28.1.

So if the rider gets separated from his board just before the finish line, he has to get it back before he can cross. Or cross again with the board. I think he can swim with it, over the line - or walk with the board over the line, if the water is shallow enough, as long as he's holding on to the board. But the experts next to me here say, he should be on top of it.... kiting. (That's not what the wording states, imho). But of course they are right, Appendix BB also changes rule 42:

42 PROPULSION
A kiteboard shall be propelled only by the action of the wind on the kite, by the action of the water on the hull and by the unassisted actions of the competitor. However, the competitor shall not make material forward progress by paddling, swimming or walking.

Another definition:

Start  A kiteboard starts when, her hull and the competitor having been entirely on the pre-start side of the starting line at or after her starting signal, and having complied with rule 30.1 if it applies, any part of her hull, or the competitor crosses the starting line in the direction of the first mark.

In this definition again the kite does not play any part. It may cross the line before the starting signal and may never come behind the line.

Not only many definitions have been changed. In the rules of Part 2 also a lot has been changed and/or added. For example rule 21,3 has been changed and a new rule 21.4 has been added:

21.3 During the last minute before her starting signal, a kiteboard that significantly slows down or stops, or one that is not making material forward progress, shall keep clear of all others unless she is accidentally capsized. 
21.4 A kiteboard that is jumping shall keep clear of a kiteboard that is not. During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two kiteboards are jumping at the same time, then the kiteboard required to keep clear under rule 10, 11 or 12 shall do so.

In practice this means all starts are more or less flying starts. Combined with a permanent black flag starting penalty, it means riders have to stay well clear of the line in the last minute and time their approach very accurately.


We're preparing for the second race of the day. The wind has picked up and looks like it is holding steady. The finish is straight before my window in the RC-tower. I'm enjoying myself here......
Have look at the website and follow the action: Kite World Tour
J.

Protest 1 in Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race 2011

The line honour winner of the 2011 Sydney – Hobart Race was protested by the RC for a possible infringement of rule 41 and sailing instruction 49.1.

Up until now it is the only protest lodged in this years race – according to the website. The International Jury published there findings: RSHYR11_Protest_Decision_1.pdf.

To understand you might also want to have a look at the Sailing Instructions:
RSHYR11_SI.pdf

The case hinges on the questions asked by a crew member of the winning boat to a helicopter pilot not long after start of the race and if the answers could be considered “race information”. In other words, were the answers helping the asking boat in there their race, tactically or otherwise?


The International Jury concluded that there was a clear commercial and personal interest by the crew-member in asking these questions, and of no ‘help’ as provided in rule 41 to the boat.

But even if that question was answered with yes by the IJ, the penalty would have been at their discretion. (SI 49.3).

Lets assume, for the sake of discussion, that there was no personal interest. Then I would ask the following questions:

• Rule 41 clearly provides for unsolicited information, so asking information is already breaking that rule, is it not?.
• Also, is information about which sail a opponent is using to be considered “race information”?
• Does it help the boat tactically or otherwise and break SI 49.2?
• What kind of discretionary penalty would you impose, if you answered yes to the previous question?

This is NOT to seconds-guess any Jury decision. I completely agree with there findings. Its is just to get some feedback on the issue. An issue that might be before your PC-panel in the next regatta…….

Please, give me your opinion.

Feed me, Seymour!

(pillow)Case of the week (49/11) – 32

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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 32

Rule 90.2(c), Race Committee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing
Instructions

A competitor is entitled to look exclusively to written sailing instructions and to any written amendments for all details relating to sailing the course.

Summary of the Facts

The sailing instructions included, among other things, the following:

1. All races will be sailed under The Racing Rules of Sailing except as modified below.
2. A briefing will be held in the clubroom 60 minutes before the start of the first race each day.
3. Shortened Course will be signalled by two guns and raising of flag S and the class flag. Boats in that class will round the mark about to be rounded by the leading boat and go straight to the finishing line. This changes the meaning of flag S in the Race Signals.

At one of the briefings, the race officer attempted to clarify the phrase ‘go straight to the finishing line’ in item 3 by stating that when the course was shortened, all boats should cross the finishing line in a windward direction.

This would ensure that all classes, some of which might be finishing from different marks, would finish in the same direction even if that were not the direction of the course from the mark at which the course was shortened.

Subsequently, a race was shortened. Six boats, which had not attended the briefing, followed the written sailing instructions, were recorded as not finishing, and sought redress. The boats alleged that the race committee had improperly changed the definition Finish and had failed to follow the requirements of rule 90.2(c). The protest committee upheld their requests for redress on the grounds they had cited.

The race committee appealed to the national authority, asserting that the briefing sessions were a numbered part of the sailing instructions, all competitors should have attended, and the briefings constituted a procedure for giving oral instructions. Also, it argued that the sailing instructions were not changed but merely clarified by the race officer as to what the words ‘go straight to the finishing line’ meant.

Decision

Appeal dismissed. The remarks of the race officer amounted to more than mere clarification. This is borne out by the fact that the boats that did not attend the briefing acted as they did. Competitors are entitled to look exclusively to the sailing instructions and to any amendments for all particulars of the course. Rule 90.2(c) requires changes to the sailing instructions to be in writing. However, under no circumstance can sailing instructions change the definition Finish or the definition of any other term defined in Definitions (see rule 86).

RYA 1975/3

There’s only one ‘escape’ in giving verbal instructions: That is also in rule 90.2(c):

“Oral changes may be given only on the water, and only if the procedure is stated in the sailing instructions.”

Any change that is discussed verbally in a skippers briefing, regarding the SI or RRS MUST also be written on the notice board with time and date at an appropriate time. Anyway, changing a definition is not permitted anyway.

ISAF Standard Sailing Instructions for Match Racing: Update August 2011

The ISAF Standard Match Race Sailing Instructions have been updated:

• The most important change is an interpretation of 8.6(b) to make it clear that this principle should also be used for the purpose of tie breaks in an incomplete round robin.
• There is a minor change to 10.3 course limits, in that it is now clarified that the limitations apply to the boat's hull only.
• The last change is to the list of what competitors are allowed to bring on-board and use.ISAF has  added PFD's to the list when not supplied by the OA.

You can download the Word document from this page: http://www.sailing.org/23244.php
Or if you want the doc directly: StandardSailingInstructionsMatchRaceAugust2011-[11007].doc

Regional Finals Nationscup, Match Race; Gdynia, Poland; Day 0 – Practise day.

Arriving one day earlier has the benefit that you can acclimate al little before the tournament begins. It is actually a short event – only three days, but we have ten competitors in the Open event and seven in the Woman’s. That means a full program for those three days. We are with fourteen umpires on two courses, plus two. With three matches in each flight we need an extra driver to be able to have a wing-boat on both courses.

Because of the qualifying nature of this Regional Final, we do need to have two winners at the end. They are going to the Nationscup Finals.

We have planned a full round robin for the Open Event followed by a short knockout stage for two Semi Final spots. The winner and runner up of the RR automatically qualify for the Semis.

The Woman event will do two round robins and then go to Semis and Finals.
Those are planned on Saturday for both.

Today I worked on some personal stuff and had a look at the Sailing Instructions. You would think that those are pretty much flawless by now, wouldn’t you. It is amazing how many little things still are to be found that potentially can create problems. And – when has it ever been otherwise -  there’s always the way things should be ‘interpreted’

I’m a big supporter of standard Sailing Instructions!

Championnat Du Monde de Voile

First stage in the Match Racing World Tour in Marseille, France
I’ve arrived in Marseille after a short flight. The weather is nice and warm and hopefully the thermal wind will provide enough breeze to start racing tomorrow.

Reading the SI, I came across an instruction I haven’t seen before:

“3.5 Spinnaker Pole restrictions.
After the warning signal, the bowsprit shall not be extended until the boat is on a downwind course and shall be retracted at the first reasonable opportunity when not in use. A breach of this rule is not open to protest by boats, but is subject to action by the Umpires in accordance with RRS C8.2. This changes RRS C6.2 and C8.2. The Umpires will try to warn competitors before penalising for not retracting the bowsprit at the first reasonable opportunity.
Unless the head of the spinnaker is above the intersection of the headstay and the mast, the bowsprit shall not be considered for the purpose of overlaps and finishing.”

We haven’t discussed this in our meeting yet, but for sure this needs some additional explanations. Do we warn them each time, or do we do it once per boat?
Unless the spinnaker (gennaker on these boats) is almost all the way hoisted – the distance between the intersections and the top of the hoisted spinnaker is only 40 cm – the bowsprit does not count for overlap or finish.
I wonder if we (and the wing as well) can remember each time to check.

LTW Readers Q&A (50);

 A LTW-readers Question from way down-under.
"Where they have been sailing al the time" he said between clenched teeth, while rolling his eyes in envy.....

At my club on the Swan River here in beautiful Perth, I sail on two different boats on different days:

1. a 25ft fractional rigged aluminium custom design sailing in a mixed fleet, and
2. a Herreshoff 28, a 28ft full-keeled fractional rigged boat (designed in 1942 by L. Francis Herreshoff, the fifth of Nathanael Herreshoff's six children) which sails in class races.

Each boat has a single rod or wire forestay.

My club’s sailing instructions include the following clause:

Spinnakers shall not be used during Mid-Week races or Twilights. For the purpose of this rule a spinnaker is defined as any sail set forward of the mast not attached to the forestay at regular intervals or hoisted in a continuous groove device.

As changing headsails during a race can be a bit of a job with a single forestay, not to mention the loss of power whilst the change is being carried out, I had the idea of using a spare halyard (or the spinnaker halyard on heavy days when we’re too scared to fly a kite or in races designated as Jib & Main only) to hoist a light but strong line attached to the bow as a second temporary forestay to which another headsail could be hoisted, thus enabling the headsails to be quickly swapped if the need arose.

On the basis that the second headsail would be hanked-on to the temporary forestay (& therefore meet the “attached ... at regular intervals” requirement), the only relevant question I can think of is:

Would a halyard & extension thereof that is temporarily fastened to the bow (i.e. not forming part of the standing rigging of the boat) qualify as “the forestay”?

I’m not aware of anything (other than H28 class rules perhaps?) that says a boat can’t have two forestays, but I think the question that will be asked is whether running rigging can be used as a forestay.
I’d appreciate your thoughts or comments.

Cheers
Col Delane

Let the wind take you to places
your imagination has not yet been.

Well Bruce, eeeeh sorry, Col,

There are a number of rules dealing with sails;
Rule 50.1; Changing Sails: No problem with your set up there;
Rule 50.4; Headsails; also no issue;
Rule 54; As long as you attach your line approximately to the boat's centreline, again no problemo.

I don't see any issue with using a line as a temporary forestay within the rules - unless something is written in the class-rules or the NOR about this.
These SI's prevent you from using a headsail without a forestay.

 Anybody else?

Slap, step back, raise knee, lower knee, step foreward, slap with great big Fish, step back, etc, etc.....
Oooh, sorry, that's English, isn't it?

LTW Readers Q&A | 044; On the Same Tack

A question from Bill MacNeill:

This happened last weekend during racing.  Boat A had rounded the leeward mark and was proceeding on starboard tack to the windward mark.  Boat B was coming downwind to the leeward mark under spinnaker on starboard tack, she was not within 2 boat lengths of the mark.  Boat A hailed Boat B that they had right of way.  Boat A continued, close hauled.  Boat B made no attempt to keep clear and said that she had no helm to avoid contact.  Boat A had to drastically alter course to try to avoid contact, which did occur with no damage to either boat.  As an observer I advised Boat B that they were in violation of RRS.
They did nothing to absolve themselves, perform a penalty turn or anything. 
I feel that boat B was in violation of rules 12 and 14, am I correct?  Your answer would be appreciated.  Thank you.
Best regards,
Bill MacNeill
P.S. Boat A did a penalty turn, just in case.


Dear Bill,
I think you are on the right track.
As a windward boat, boat B definitely broke rule 11 (not 12) by not keeping clear of A - the right of way boat. The fact that they might be unable to steer is no excuse under the rules!
They also broke rule 14 by not avoiding the contact - when that was reasonably possible to do so.
There's one other rule to consider - rule 23.2. Because one boat rounded the mark and the other had not - they were sailing on different legs of the course
Because boat A - close hauled - was on her proper course in the beat to windward, she therefore was entitled to sail in the path of boat B.
Boat A did not break rule 14, she did everything reasonably possible to avoid the contact after it became clear that boat B was not going to keep clear. But even if it was found that she did not, she's not to be penalized because there was no damage.
You also wrote that boat A did A penalty turn. In this case unnecessary in my opinion, but if she was not sure - for instance about complying with rule 14 - and she wanted to take a penalty, rule 44.1 dictates a two turns penalty.
Unless that was changed in the Sailing Instructions.
J.

(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.)

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

One Flag Is Enough!

The following mail came in from Bryan McDonald: I thought he was right in that this might be of interest for LTW-readers. He wrote:

This past weekend we tried an alternate protest filing system for team racing at a college regatta in the USA. I interviewed some of the sailors to get their feedback on this simpler procedure. I think your blog might be interested in the discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE03KzVJVMA

The first minute gives some background to the event and then it dives into the rules issue. People can skip the first minute if they want to dive directly into the technical aspects.

From a rules point of view, we used a slightly different rule than what’s in Appendix D:

1.2    Rule D2.2(a) is deleted and replaced by the following:
         (a) SINGLE-FLAG PROTEST PROCEDURE

When a boat protests under a rule of Part 2 or under rule 31, 42 or 44, she is not entitled to a hearing. Instead, a boat involved in the incident may promptly acknowledge breaking a rule and take the appropriate penalty. If the protested boat takes a penalty, the incident is closed. If not, an umpire shall decide whether any boat has broken a rule and shall signal a decision in compliance with rule D2.2(b).

1.3     Rule D2.3(b) shall apply. PR 25(a) shall not apply.
1.4     A competitor protesting under a rule listed in D2.2(a) shall consciously display a raised
          open hand at the time of the protest.
1.5     All races shall be umpired unless the race committee indicates otherwise.

This rule preserves many things typical to college sailing in the USA (namely the yellow flag and the the non-use of flags for protesting (FYI: it should be noted that the origins of rule 61.1(a)(2) (the no flag requirements for boats under 6m) came from USA College Racing)). The above sailing instruction also addresses a flaw in the current rule in appendix D (specifically, even if the protested boat takes a penalty, the above rule allows the umpires to penalize the protesting boat if that boat broke a rule).

There is additional video and coverage here:
http://www.sailgroove.org/videos/coverage/view_video/236730/315418-singleflag


I asked Bryan a couple of questions and recieved these answers:
Q: What is PR25a?
A: PR 25(a) is a collegiate sailing procedural rule:

Alternative Umpiring – when the sailing instructions state that RRS D2.3(b)  (Races with Limited Umpiring) is to be used, RRS D2.2(a) is changed to read  as follows:
D2.2(a) – When a boat protests under a rule of Part 2 or under Rule 31, 42 or  44, she is not entitled to a hearing. Instead, a boat involved in the incident may promptly acknowledge breaking a rule and take the appropriate penalty. If no boat takes a penalty, the protesting boat may request a decision by conspicuously displaying a raised open hand and hailing the word “Umpire.” An umpire shall decide whether any boat has broken a rule, and shall signal the decision in compliance with Rule D2.2(b).
All the PR's go into effect as sailing instructions (per rule 90.2)

PR 25(a) exists to get rid of the flag requirement in the two flag system. Under the single flag system, we use the SI above

Q: Can you explain the flaw you refer to in your mail:
A: Maybe Richard Thompson can explain the flaw better than me:

"1/ The single flag rule as written in RRS D2.3(a) is badly flawed. Specifically, the words "If no boat takes a penalty" prevent the umpire penalising when both boats have protested, both have broken a rule (eg 11 & 17) but only one has taken a penalty. "

 

I agree with this completely. In the few Team-race events locally we have already entered into the sailing instructions the provision that boats can wait for an umpire decision - that's a single flag rule although slightly different, in effect also.
The times that I've seen a boat taking a voluntary penalty are countable on one hand. Most times they look for the umpire flag. To loose a protest because of procedural issues while you are sailing in a team race is frustrating and not contributing to a fair 'sailed' outcome, in my opinion.

What do you think?

ISAF Q&A 2010 - 010 | SAILORS, this one is for you!

This ISAF Q&A 2010-010 is something EVERY sailor , who's ever been or will be in a regatta where the race committee is posting OCS - boats at the windward mark, should read. It can make the difference between getting a place in the race or being scored points as DNF or OCS.

Even if you successfully request redress in which you can prove that your boat was not OCS, the wording in the sailing instructions can make a BIG difference. That is because getting a result does not depend solely on the fact that you must convince the PC that the Race Committee made a mistake, it also depends on what you did (or did not do).

Most sailors seeing there number posted at the windward mark will leave the race. That is normal practice. That is what is expected, they claim:"If I don't do it I will get a DNE!"

It all depends on the wording in the sailing instructions. Posting numbers is not something that is written in the rulebook. There is a guideline how to do it in Instruction 14.6 of Appendix LE (Expanded Sailing Instruction Guide available at the ISAF website) and normally restricted to a boat that failed to start or has broken rule 30.3, where a clause requiring such boats to retire immediately is included in the sailing instructions.

But if that clause is written badly and does not place an obligation on boats to leave you MUST not leave the course and should finish the race. If you don't finish the race, redress cannot be granted because it is partly you own fault that you did not.

Here's the link to the Q&A: ISAF Q&A 2010-010
I suggest you have look.

.

LTW Readers Q&A | 025

Hi Jos,
I am a frequent reader of your RRS blog from Hong Kong. Yesterday, we held a friendly regatta with 4 races and a conflict arose in scoring as the race committee's intention differed from the Sailing Instruction. We are all amateur sailors and we hope you may give us some advise.
The intention of the race committee is to use the total scores from all 4 races to rank the competitors. Unfortunately, race committee made a mistake in writing the Sailing Instruction as the SI stated that low point system of Appendix A (RRS 2009-2012) will be used. Appendix A2 states that each boat's series score shall be the total of her race scores excluding her worst scorer, i.e. with 1 discard.
Prize giving was done on the same day right after the regatta and no one has requested for redress (RRS 62.1a) on this issue within the protest time limit (RRS 62.2)
This question was raised the next day and we are not sure whether the race committee shall re-calculate the score based on Appendix A2 or the score that have been worked out shall remain unchanged.
According to RRS 63.7, (the committee shall apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected), the race committee believes using scores of all 4 races is fairest to the competitors.
I hope you may shed us some light before we have a heated debate.
Best regards,
David Fan

Hello David,
I understand the dilemma, but in my opinion there’s actually only one solution. According to the RRS 85, the RC shall be governed by the rules in the conduct of the races.
That means that you will have to follow the SI and recalculate the result with one discard. I would suggest the RC does this regardless if there’s a request for redress or not. If this means that the prizes have to be re-awarded to others, so be it. The contract everybody agreed on to sail under i.e. the Sailing Instructions, state that A2 is applicable.
Rule 63.7 is only applicable if there’s a conflict between the NOR and the SI and only if that conflict has to be resolved before a request for redress can be decided. Did the NOR state that there would be no discard?
Intentions – however well regarded or perceived – are not rules. And if a RC would base decisions – which are dictated by a rule -  on intentions, there is no end in sight.
I would regard this as a valuable lesson for the future. The person or persons writing the SI, will never make this mistake again. But to leave the results as is would be far worse. Then sailors would need to ask the RC about their ‘intentions’ before trusting was was written in the SI……
I hope this is of some use to you,
Cheers,
Jos
Google produced this under Hong Kong Sailing: (note the date!)

Boats sail across Victoria Harbour during a regatta in Hong Kong, 12 May 2007

LTW Readers Q&A | 20 “How big is the ZONE?”

Received the following question from Sen which is about an issue all clubs will have to face in the coming year. So I thought it interesting enough to share with you:

Dear Jos;

I always appreciate your great work in LOOK TO WINDWARD.

Although you may not know, Japan intercollegiate sailing is very popular and has long history over 80 years.

The characteristic is as follows;
Racing classes are only 470 and Snipe, and the format is a fleet racing. By the way, regarding the RRS definition "Zone", I am searching which classes will adopt whether 3 lengths or 2 or 4. The SCIRA (Snipe Class International Racing Association) website says in Standard Sailing Instructions Template 2009;

"Rules: 1.1 The regatta is governed by: .......Under rule 86.1(b), in the definition Zone the distance is changed to two hull lengths."

Whereas the 470 International Association has already announced the 2009 class rules, but there are no description about zone.

Then I suppose 470 adopts new 3 lengths zone.

The Japan intercollegiate sailing championship is held at the same area and the starting sequence is made normally every five minutes because of 3 through 5 races per day. Then it is natural that 470 boats and snipe boats sail and round marks together at the same time.

If 470 adopt 3 lengths zone, how do I conduct as an event organizer or a race officer?

Do you have a good idea? Or is this a stupid question?

Reference:

IODA Regatta Committee News Feb 09

The introduction of the 2009-2012 Racing Rules of Sailing and some recent work by the Regatta Committee has resulted in some changes to both rules and format for some Continental Championships and to the Worlds. To give you all the opportunity to prepare for these changes and in some instances consider adopting them at National and Club level, we are detailing them here.

The RRS definition of zone has been changed to:
Zone: The area around a mark within a distance of three hull lengths of the boat nearer to it. A boat is in the zone when any part of her hull is in the zone.

RRS 86.1(b) permits the SIs to change the zone distance to two or four hull lengths. This year for all IODA Continental and World Championships, we will adopt the default distance of three hull lengths.

For team racing, IODA will adopt D1.1(a):
D1 CHANGES TO THE RACING RULES
D1.1 Changes to the Definitions and the Rules of Part 2
(a) In the definition Zone the distance is changed to two hull lengths

 

I would be very happy to receive your reply. But please don't regard this as an obligation because I know well you are very very ... busy.

Thanks in advance.

Sen Yamaoka

Dear Sen,

First of all, this is a very good question! I imagine that many Race Officers and Organizers face this same dilemma.

One:
I think it is not wise that a Class Organization decides this issue before talking to the local club who organizes their event. And specially if there are other classes involved in the same event. However commendable it is that they want to make it “easier” for their sailors, by choosing a fixed zone.

The rules specifically state that the zone is the same for all marks and for all boats that use those marks. So one of the classes will have to change the zone for this event.

Two:
Three hull lengths was chosen by the working party for a reason! We don’t have the “about to round the mark” in rule 18 anymore. The rule switches on instantaneously when one of the boats is in the zone. And with a zone of two lengths, this leaves not much room for error.

Three:
The working party intended the possibility in changing to two or four lengths only for very special occasions. Very fast multihull for example. Not to use them because it’s convenient and less different then last year.

Four:
The new rules are something all sailors will have to get use to. Why make it complicated by changing them before they had a change to test them?

 

I suggest you start a dialog with both classes and present your dilemma. Factor in the place you have to race, the preferences about the course and hope that you can reach a mutual agreed solution. If they can’t decide or are unwilling to compromise, the PRO will have to make a final decision. In my book he’s responsible for the length of the Zone. The SI will reflect that.

With regards,
Jos

Forms & Templates RRS 2009-2012

RRS: Protest Form
The 2009 edition from the ISAF site.

Except for a very small change in layout, exactly the same form as in the previuos RRS.

Also available the template to write a Notice of Race (word document),
Appendix L, Sailing Instruction Guide, in template format that will make it easy to produce a set of Sailing Instructions for an event
and Appendix LE, Expanded Sailing Instructions Guide in template format that it will make it easy to produce a set of Sailing Instructions. This is an expanded version of Appendix L containing provisions applicable to even the largest and most complicated multi-class events, and variations on several of the sailing instructions found in Appendix L. This version includes sailing instructions for a Medal Race.

LTW Readers Q&A | 12

Due to another Appeals Committee meeting yesterday, which started at seven so I had to leave straight after work, I wasn't able to post. Therefore today the Q&A which was suppose to go on-line yesterday. This one is from Sen from Japan, who has a question about race management and what to write in the SI:

Oct 28th, 2008
My sister yacht club is planning to conduct a big boat regatta. The regatta consists of three inshore races and one offshore race during three days.

There is a problem about the offshore race. The estimated course of the offshore race is as follows;
Race area ----- Pacific Ocean, the Kii Channel to the bay of Osak;
Course configuration ----- Start - Turning point mark – Finish

1. Starting area ----- Place: near the shore, Starting line: between RC boat and a buoy
2. Turning point ----- Place: at the middle of the Kii Channel, Mark: RC boat is set up
3. Finishing area ----- as same as the Start area

Sailing Instructions about the Turning point as follows;

1. The round mark at the middle of the Kii Channel will be a RC boat displaying flag M and shall be left to port.
2. Boats shall leave the round mark within 500 meters distance from the mark.
3. When course is shortened at the mark, the RC boat will display flag S. Boats shall finish the imaginary line which is drawn in zero (0) degrees direction indicated by magnetic compass from the staff displaying flag S on the race committee boat.

Background;

1. At the point of round mark, the depth is very deep and also the tide is strong.
2. It is all the RC boat can anchor at the point and the RC wants to evade to set up the other mark as possible as it can.
3. Case 45

Question; will such SIs follow the RRS?


Sen, I don't think there's anything in the rules which states there must be a 'pin-end' finishing mark. But theoretical it would then be an unending line and - as one of the International Judges I talked to about this, suggested - it could go round the globe and not end until it comes back to the RC boat. Which would make finishing on the other side also correct according to the rules.... Well, that is not something we would want.
I suggest the following amendment to the text in the SI:

3. When course is shortened at the mark, the RC boat will display flag S. The finish line will be a line in zero (0) degrees direction indicated by magnetic compass from the staff displaying flag S on the race committee boat. Boats shall cross this line within a distance of 500 meters from the RC boat, leaving the RC boat to port. This changes RRS 32.2

I've added the last short sentence because of RRS 86.1(b) which prescribes that you may change a racing rule in the SI, but only by referring specifically to it, as well as stating the change.

Any other opinions? Feel free to comment.

.

Seminar Preparations | 7

In answer to yesterday's questions: the following movements are illegal according to the rules: 1, 5 and 6

1. Sticking a foot in the water to slow the boat next to a mark. ILLEGAL
   It's the same as if you would stick a paddle into the water: Rule 42 does not only prohibits gaining speed in that way, but also loosing speed.
   
2. Pulling the main to accelerate down the leeward side of a wave. LEGAL
   This is specifically allowed in rule 42.3(c), but only once for each wave or gust of wind and not on a beat to windward. The latter looks a little redundant because, how can you surf down the leeward side of a way going upwind. But there are also other waves on the racecourse. A wake of a passing boat for instance.
   
3. Pushing down the centerboard in the mud in a shallow area just before the starting line to stay still in a current against the boat. LEGAL
   This is the same as anchoring, which is allowed in RRS 45. You may also stand on the bottom and hold your boat.
   
4. Repeatedly moving the tiller to turn the boat from head to wind to a close-hauled course. LEGAL
   Another exception in 43.2 (d). Watch out though! Only when your moving slowly or are stationary. You may scull to a close hauled course but not PASSED that.
   
5. Using the propeller (by turning on the engine) to get clear of another boat after a collision. ILLEGAL
   You may use any equipment and the force applied by the crew of either boat but NOT the propulsion engine.
6. Pulling in the anchor and let the momentum carry the boat over the starting line. ILLEGAL
   Rule 45 states that you must recover the anchor before continuing racing but nothing about the momentum you have gained by pulling it up. You can find the answer in the Casebook. In Case 5 it is clearly stated: Recovering an anchor, whether it was lowered or thrown forward, so as to gather way over the ground breaks rule 42.1.

New question:
At an event with sponsored boats the OA asks the jury to write a Sailing Instruction rule which would disqualify any boat which is responsible for a contact. With or without damage. This is a condition of the sponsor for using his boats.
How would you formulate such a SI?

.