Back to the Basics (Part 5); Barging II

A blog post in a series: Racing Rules for Novices*
(*I'm going to try to do one of these on Mondays)

In this series I would like to give you my insights into those issues in the Racing Rules for Sailing, that nine times out of ten are asked in one of my rules talks, I do for clubs, sailors and/or class organizations, during the winter season.

This post continues last week's post on barging. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do so now, here's the link: Back to the Basics (Part 4); Barging I

Barging boats break rule 11 by not keeping clear of the leeward boat. As I said, take away the committee boat, and you see immediately what is what. But that committee boat is there and at the end, it does have an effect on the situation.

This is because of rule 16.1; the rule that puts a general limitation on the right-of-way boat, in our situation the leeward boat. Rule 16.1 says. When a right-of-way boat changes course, it shall give the other boat room to keep clear.

Please compare these three situations:

  situation A

Blue sails a straight course toward the stern of the committee boat 

 

situation B

Blue leaves a gab, but luffs before reaching the committee boa.

situation C

Blue leaves a gab, and luffs next to the committee boat.

In situation A, the leeward (right-of-way) boat never changes course. Therefore it never has a rule 16.1 limitation and all barging boats must keep clear, without Leeward having to give them room to do so. If the windward boat forces the issue and Leeward is forced to go down - she has to, in order to comply with rule 14 - the windward boat has committed a serious breach of the rules and may well be penalized for rule 11 AND rule 2.

In situation B, the right-of-way boat initially leaves a gap between its course and the stern of the committee boat. Windward, can go there and is able to keep clear of Leeward. As long as both these conditions exist, this is within the rules. However, before Leeward reaches the committee boat, she luffs, closing the gap. Because she's changing course she must give room to Windward to luff as well and keep clear.

In situation C initially the same thing happens. But the luff made by Leeward is at a moment that Windward cannot luff any more without hitting the committee boat. She has no safe (seamanlike) 'escape,' any more. Because of this, although Windward is not keeping clear, she's now 'protected' by the general limitation of rule 16.1. If Leeward luffs, she does NOT give room to Windward to keep clear and therefore she is breaking rule 16.1 and Windward is exonerated for breaking rule 11.

What you have to take away from these situations is that either you leave no gab between the course you are sailing and the committee boat from the beginning, and if you do, to close it before the windward boat cannot go anywhere else. Once Windward gets her bow next to the committee boat you cannot force the issue any longer, without breaking a rule yourself.
This last part is that much harder if there is not one, but several boats to windward, who all want to barge in. Under the general limitation rule 16.1 they ALL have to be given room to keep clear.
Sailing a straight course is you safest bet....

J.

Haven't chosen next week's issue yet, but am sure to come up with something.

If you want to go back to previous posts in this series, here are the links:
Back to the Basics (Part 4); Barging I
Back to the Basics (Part 3): Sweet Seventeen
Back to the Basics (Part 2): Where's the referee?
Back to the Basics (Part 1): Keeping Clear

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.

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

German Consequences (2)

Somehow yesterdays post was not included in the feed; I.m reposting the text again and will delete (except for a link) the old post

Recently a ISAF Q&A was published and that changed the interpretation of Case 78. I'm referring to
Q&A 2011-022 A001. Here's the text:

Situation
In a fleet race, Boat A adopts tactics that clearly interfere with and hinder Boat B's progress in the race. While using those tactics, boat A does not break any rule, except possibly rule 2.

Question
In which of the following circumstances would Boat A’s tactics be considered unsportsmanlike and a breach of rule 2?
(a) Boat A’s tactics benefit her series result.
(b) Boat A’s tactics increase her chances of gaining selection for another event. *
(c) Boat A’s tactics increase her chances of gaining selection to her national
     team. *
(d) Boat A and Boat C had agreed that they would both adopt tactics that
     benefited Boat C’s series result.
(e) Boat A was attempting to worsen Boat B’s race or series score for reasons
     unconnected with sport.

* (my highlight)

Answer
In circumstances (a), (b) and (c), Boat A would be in compliance with recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play because there is a sporting reason for her actions.
In circumstance (d), both Boat A and Boat C would clearly break rule 2. In addition, by receiving help prohibited by rule 41 from Boat A, Boat C would also break rule 41.
In circumstance (e) Boat A would break rule 2 because, with no good sporting

For good measure:
Case 78 states: (but will be amended according to the wording in the Q&A):

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule A2, Series Scores

A boat may position herself in a tactically controlling position over another boat and then slow that boat’s progress so that other boats pass both of them, provided that, if she is protested under rule 2 for doing so, the protest committee finds that that there was a reasonable chance of her tactic benefiting her series result. However, she breaks rule 2 if she intentionally breaks another rule to increase the likelihood of the tactic succeeding.

Go to (pillow)Case of the Week 35 If you want to read the whole case.

As highlighted in the Q&A, the change is in (b) and (c). The number of 'sporting reasons' is increased to include selection for another event or national team.

My Google alert showed that this is something that is now heavily under debate in Germany. Specifically for the Woman 470 selection for the Olympics. An article in the sports section of a newspaper called: Frankfurter Allgemeine:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/mehr-sport/segel-streit-lutz-macht-weiter-wind-11609447.html

For those of you who don't read German: The article states that one of the teams - loosing the selection to go to the Olympics - has hired a 'high profile' sports advocate to go after the German MNA 'Deutsche Segler Verband' (DSV) to try to reverse its decision to send the other team to Weymouth.


Why is this happening?

At the World Championship 2011 in Perth the two boats had a final change to score points for qualification. One of the boats (GER21) made sure by blocking the progress of the other boat (GER 61) that they would do badly in the regatta and more importantly, would loose the selection to go to the Olympics. GER 61 protested and the International Jury gave its verdict: From the protest summary:

© picture alliance / dpa
GER 61 in front of GER 21

P113 (Closed) 470 Women;  Race 8, Protestor: GER 61, Protestee: GER 21, Witness: Tracking system, About RRS 2, date hearing: 16 DEC 2011/18:15, Decision: Protest Dismissed.


The International Jury found that GER 21 had indeed blocked the progress of GER 61 but not by breaking any rules and for the reasons mentioned under (b) and/or (c). Protest was dismissed.

But the consequence was very dramatic for the Crew of GER 61. The final standing in Perth might even have direct influence on their status (read support and money) in the national team.


In the newspaper article the lawyer states:

" The DSV and the (also to be dragged into this fight German Olympic Committee) Deutsche Olympische Sportbund (DOSB) should use there own selection rules and not the recently changed interpretation by ISAF in this case"
"GER 21 should be banned from participating in Weymouth for using this blocking tactic" That would mean automatic qualification for his client.

And in a related article in the same newspaper, the helms-woman of GER 61 declared:

"Some countries have forbidden the sailors of their national teams to use these blocking tactics

The German MNA, Deutsche Segler Verband defended their position on their website (here)

The OSA (The German Olympic Selection Committee) came, after extensive discussion and advice and in light of earlier decisions, unanimously to the same conclusion as the International Jury.

It is now up to the DOSB to make the final decision who's representing Germany in the 2012 Olympics.


Basically the problem boils down to the fact that the selection regulations/criteria in most countries were written long before this new interpretation was published. And therfore didn't take in account that changed interpretation. Sailors will use the rule that most suits their interest - and who can blame that?

Perhaps it would have been better to have waited with this particular Q&A until after the Olympics?
What do you think?

German Consequences?

The text of this post has been copied and pasted in Thursday's Post: Go to: German Consequences (2)

(pillow)Case of the Week (47/11) - 34

(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 34

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 62.1(d), Redress
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest
Committee

Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule 2 and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 69.1.

Summary of the Facts

As the sixth and final race of a championship series began, A’s accumulated score was such that the only way she could lose the prize was for B to finish ahead of her and among the first three of the 48 competitors. A crossed the line early and was recalled by loud hailer.

About 70 to 100 metres beyond the starting line, she turned back, but she had sailed only some 20 to 30 metres towards the line when she met B, which had started correctly. Instead of continuing towards the pre-start side of the line A turned and began to hinder B by covering her closely. The race committee hailed A again that she was still above the line and received a wave of acknowledgement in return, but A continued to sail the course, hindering B throughout the windward leg. When A and B reached the windward mark, they were last but one and last respectively, whereupon A retired. B ultimately finished in 22nd place.

Since it was obvious to the race committee that A continued to race solely for the purpose of hindering B, it protested A under rule 2. A, which had been scored OCS, was then disqualified for breaking rule 2. She appealed, asserting that she believed she had returned and started correctly.

Decision

A’s appeal is dismissed. It is clear from the facts found that A knew she had not started as required by rule 28.1, and that she chose not to do so. Facts are not subject to appeal. The disqualification of A for breaking rule 2 was appropriate.

A would not have broken rule 2 if she had returned to the pre-start side of the starting line and started and, after having done so and without intentionally breaking any rule, she had managed to overtake and pass B and then closely covered her.

B could have requested redress and was entitled to receive it under rule 62.1(d). The facts show a gross breach of sportsmanship and, therefore, of rule 2.
Such a deliberate attempt to win by unfair means should be dealt with severely. The protest committee could also have called a hearing under rule 69.1, as a result of which it could have disqualified A from the entire series.

NSF 1975/1

The Case hinges on the deliberate rule infringement by boat A. This tactic, of slowing another boat to gain an advantage in the overall results, is perfectly legal as long as you do NOT break any rules. As soon as a boat does break a rule, it is also considered a breach of rule two – or in severe cases -  gross misconduct.

See also Case 78.

The reasons why a boat can use this tactics has been expanded recently. Case 78 will be rewritten and in the meantime a revised Q&A has been published to deal with this. ISAF Racing Rules Q&A-2011 022 A01.

ESS Act 7; Nice, France

It was in Nice, but it wasn’t nice anymore.

I’m usually quit capable to find the positive side of and event and write about that. The last couple of days I wasn’t able to do that, so to avoid writing something I would regret later, I skipped posting altogether.

It is now Monday morning and I’m sitting at a corner table in terminal A café LE NIKAIA. My flight is in an hour or so and there’s free WiFi so I’ll be able to post this.

The wind in Nice was a deciding factor – or better said the lack of wind. It frustrated sailors who felt it was “pot luck” on the short courses. It frustrated the RC as they struggled to find reason in starting. It frustrated the Organisers as they wanted to have some races for all the VIP’s that were invited.

In the morning we did some fairly decent races a little way from shore. In the afternoon in front of the spectators and VIP tent it was bad. The Extreme 40s struggled to get some speed, were very slow manoeuvrable and we had multiple boat rounding's (and incidents) at marks. That cumulated in a couple of very dubious manoeuvres by several boats. Almost as if they deliberately were breaking the rules – something that is very hard to prove.

And when we gave a penalty all their frustration came out – you guessed it – against the umpires. I’m well aware that people need to vent their emotions sometimes, but being called an idiot in a five minute rant is un-acceptable. We were very close to getting out the black flag and disqualifying boats.

It didn’t get any better in the next races.

It feels like all the effort we have spend to build up a relationship with the sailors has been wiped away by this behaviour. The CU spoke with several skippers but found them uncooperative and emotional.

We will let things cool off and pick this up in Almeria next week. But the border has been reached. If this happens again, it will have consequences.

I’ll prepare some scenario’s to go over the rules involved.

I’ve qualified to stay an International Umpire by passing the test, but this time it was no fun being one…..

Until next time,

J.

(pillow)Case of the Week (48) - 65

(This is an instalment 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 65

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 30.3, Starting Penalties: Black Flag Rule
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest Committee

When a boat knows that she has broken the Black Flag rule, she is obliged to retire promptly. When she does not do so and then deliberately hinders another boat in the race, she commits a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.

Summary of the Facts 

At the start of race 4, A was clearly about three to four hull lengths on the course side of the starting line. Rule 30.3 was in effect, so the race committee disqualified her without a hearing. A, although she knew she was over the line at her starting signal, continued to race and covered B for the first part of the first beat. B protested A for breaking rule 2.

The protest committee confirmed the disqualification of A under rule 30.3. It also decided that, by continuing to race and cover B when she knew that she had broken rule 30.3, A broke rule 2.
As required by rule 90.3(b), it penalized her by making her disqualification not excludable. Later the same day, acting under rule 69.1, it called a hearing alleging that the behaviour of A’s helmsman in hindering B was a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2. It decided that the helmsman had committed the alleged gross breaches, and excluded him and disqualified A from all races of the series. A appealed the protest committee’s decisions.


Decision 

A’s appeal is dismissed.

A was correctly disqualified from race 4 for breaking rule 30.3. The protest committee found as fact that A’s helmsman knew that he had been on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal; that he had broken rule 30.3; that he was, therefore, already disqualified; and that he had seriously hindered another boat in the race.

A clearly committed a gross breach of sportsmanship (see Sportsmanship and the Rules) and of rule 2, and the protest committee acted properly under rule 69.1 in excluding A’s helmsman and disqualifying A from all races of the series.


RYA 1984/7




What is the difference between a boat that has started to soon and is OCS, with this boat, you might ask? Both are already DSQ-ed from the beginning – never having started the race.

The difference is in the knowledge of the helmsman/crew of this boat. He knew he was breaking a rule and still covered another boat. If you cover someone you better make sure you haven’t broken or do not break any rule, because if you do it is ‘go directly to rule 2’ for the PC.

Please go back to Case 78 – if you have doubt about that.
And it happens at professional sailing events. See this post: X40 Trapani 2010 – Team Racing?

(pillow)Case of the Week (40) – 73; Fair Sailing again!

(This is an instalment 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 73

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped

When, by deliberate action, L’s crew reaches out and touches W, which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule 11, then L breaks rule 2.

Summary of the Facts

W and L were overlapped on starboard tack beating towards the windward mark. The crew of L, who was on a trapeze, reached out and deliberately touched W’s deck with a hand and intimated that W should retire. L protested W. The protest committee disqualified W under rule 11 and she appealed.

Decision

W’s appeal is upheld; L is disqualified and W reinstated. Because L could sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and there was no risk of immediate contact had L changed course in either direction, W was keeping clear of L. Therefore, W did not break rule 11. The deliberate action of L’s crew, which could have had no other intention than to disqualify W, broke rule 2.
RYA 1971/6

X40 Trapani 2010 – Team racing?

Chasing the Extreme forties yesterday in perfect sailing conditions we were confronted with an unusual situation.
Before the race one of the sailors asked us a question: “Can I slow down an opponent when it’s no longer influencing the results in this regatta, but only on the total series result?”
In order to slow down an opponent – bringing him to the back of the fleet, so he gains points which will result in a lower ranking – you have to use match race tactics. Covering his airflow, preventing him from tacking, making him give you room when needed, etc.

You need a lot of skill to do this effectively and even more skill to make sure you don’t break any rules while doing it.

Normally in any fleet race everybody will sail as fast as they can to the finish without worrying to much about other boats. At the end of the race some do consolidate there place by covering the boat directly behind them, but that’s about it. There are however – what else is new - exceptions.

If you’ve been following the (pillow)Cases, you will have seen Case 78. In that Case a boat directly went for her opponent and made sure that opponent ended up at the back of the fleet. That is allowed as long as it is reasonable that doing so will benefit the result of the boat in the series. AND – this is a big AND – if the boat breaks a rule in order to achieve that objective, it not only breaks that (row) rule, but it also breaks rule 2.
If the PC draws that conclusion, the decision must be a DNE. The question how deliberate the infringement was also needs to be addressed.

(pillow)Case of the Week (39) – 74; Fair Sailing?

(This is an instalment 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 74

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped

There is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit; contact with a windward boat does not break rule 2 unless the helmsman’s or crew’s position is deliberately misused.

Summary of the Facts
W was overtaking L in sub-planing conditions on a close reach. L luffed slightly, the helmsman’s back making contact with W just forward of the shroud. At this point the hulls were about an arm’s length apart. Neither boat took a penalty. At the subsequent hearing, the protest committee disqualified L under rule 2, stating that W was correctly trimmed with full sails and her crew sitting by the leeward shroud. ‘Contact’, it continued, ‘could only have been made if L’s helmsman was sitting out flat.’ In the prevailing conditions this was significantly beyond the normal sailing position required.’ L appealed.

Decision
L’s appeal is upheld; she is reinstated and W disqualified under rule 11. In Case 73 it is clear that L’s crew deliberately touched W with the intention of protesting her out of the race. In this case there was no such deliberate action by L. There is no rule that dictates how a helmsman or crew must sit and, in the absence of deliberate misuse of his positioning, no breach of rule 2 took place.

RYA 1993/2