Hiking and rule 49.2

By mail I received a comment on yesterday's Case from Bill Heintz:
He has done some research on the subject across the Internet:


Rule 49.2 is not enforced on any level racing except under extreme conditions.  If everyone is doing it, it is fair across the board right?  Apparently the purpose of the lower lifeline for hiking purposes and has nothing to do with safety.

Rune 49.2 . . . On boats equipped with upper and lower lifelines of wire, a competitor sitting on the deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline may have the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline.

Maybe "sitting" needs needs to be defined in the RRS as in regards to Rule 49.2.  According to one dictionary "position in which one's weight is supported by one's buttocks rather than one's feet and one's back is upright"  this does not seem to include "hanging by a wire across your belly like a sack of potatoes."

Photo 1?  http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2010/01/sunday-rules-snap.html
There did not seem to be consensus on whether this was legal in 49.2 (or people reading the rule)

Photo 2?  http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/38306-racing-question-anyone.html
According to this Forum this is legal - Rule 49.2 is open to on the spot interpretation.

Photo 3? http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=110190&st=125
Remember the old line "it's there to save your ass, not support it"? A life line failure is going to cause crew who are hiking that way to end up in the water. If half of a 6 person crew are swimming, how well is recovery going to go?

Photo 4? http://www.vsail.info/2011/08/25/rob-weiland-tp52-class-manager-talks-to-vsail-info/
Rob Weiland implies that this is legal under 49.2 as long as you "try to enforce by regular inspections."
ISAF ORC Special Regulation Cat 3 for Monohulls 3.14.6 Table 8 Lifeline Minimum Diameter wire rope diameter 3/16" wire - working load limit 940 lbs (4,700 lb breaking load) , 12 crew hiking on typical TP52 = each crew member can weight up to 78 lbs (even the Morning Light crew weighs more than that)

Comment? http://www.j24class.org/news/j24-hiking-position-2011-rule-changes-and-looking-forward/
"We were only slightly ahead of our times since the ISAF has a proposal before it (130-06) to delete the section of RRS 49.2 that allows hiking between the lifelines."

Score or Place: Threshold Test for Redress

A guest post by Brass

For those of you that have noticed the Farrah Hall v Nancy Rios dispute in the USA (*), here's a twist.  Even if Farrah Hall had had a request for redress against the grant of redress to Nancy Rios heard, it is likely she would have not been given redress because her score, rather than her placing, was not made worse.

In 2001-2004 rules the stem of rule 62.1 read:

A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s finishing place in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse (emphasis added).

In the 2002-2005 rules this was changed by replacing 'finishing place' with 'score, so that the rule read, as it does in the 2009 rules

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

The effect of this change is highlighted in the 2008 ISAF Judges Manual Chap s9.30, page 90, which states:

SCORE
For redress to apply it is a boats score in a race or series that must have been made significantly worse. The worsening of the position of a boat in a race or series is not grounds for redress.

EXAMPLE: A boats position in a series may be made worse if a race is abandoned in accordance with the rules, however, it would not be entitled to redress because its score has not been made worse by the abandonment as its score remains the same as it was before the race was abandoned.

Using the ISAF document search utility, I am unable to locate any submission, minute or other document that explains why this rule change was made, but perhaps it was made to 'head off' the problem described in the Judges Manual example.

I believe, however, that the change in the rule has had a serious and unfair consequence.  There can be cases where a boat's place in a series can be made worse without her score being made worse:

• Grant of redress to another boat that gives her a higher score
• Penalisation of a boat so that a third boat gains a higher score in a particular race that enables the third boat to beat the disadvantaged boat on points in the series.

__________________________________________________________________(*) The Farrah Hall and Nancy Rios Olympic windsurfing selection trials case in the United States provides an example of how this could happen.  Farrah Hall initially had the better score.  Nancy Rios was given redress that made her score better.  Although Farrah Hall failed to meet the requirements for a valid request for redress, had she done so, under the above interpretation, she would not have been entitled to  redress, because her score, rather than her placing, was not made worse.

In light of Brass’ post I was wondering if the readers of LTW already have had dealings with this particular issue? If you have, please leave a comment.

Mark-Room – Revisited

A guest post by Mike Butterfield

I have been reflecting on the position of the boat giving mark room as has been discussed. A lot of friends have shared their thoughts with me and I am revisiting the position.
The simple one first!

On leeward marks.
Generally RRS 18 applies between boats when they are required to leave a mark on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone.
When does it end?
Clearly the right to mark room has ended when both have left the zone but in reality it ends when the boat entitled to mark room has been able to sail her proper course at the mark. See Definition of mark room.
If this is when it applies, are the relationships between the boats changeable?
Well no not really once the relationship is established it remains, 18.2(c) even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins.
The exception is when the boat entitled to mark room leaves the zone or if either boat passes head to wind.
In this circumstance we rely on 18.2(a) unless the circumstances for 18.2(b) become applicable again. Here basically an inside overlapped boat is entitled to mark room.

What is mark room?

Well it is a two sided advantage.

Initially Room to sail to the mark. I look on this as giving the boat a corridor of opportunity. If it stays in that corridor (even if give way) it is protected. The protection is in 18.5, this is protection from breaking a rule of section A.

If she strays out of the corridor and the Right of Way boat has to take avoiding action then she has taken too much room and is subject to a penalty as the exoneration is not available. Just as before I believe if the right of way boat freely gives additional room and that is taken by the boat entitled to mark room she may not be in breach, this was the same under the old rules.
When at the Mark there is the right to sail a proper course while at the mark. There is extended exoneration here as it covers not only part A rules but also 15 and 16.
This allows for a sudden course change at the mark to sail the proper course which may be a luff at a leeward mark or a bear away at a windward mark.

Overriding all this, is the obligation of the boats under rule 14 to avoid contact, there can be no exoneration here. The rule itself though assists the boats in that a boat that is right of way or entitled to room or mark room need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark room, and shall not be panelized unless the contact causes damage or injury.
There will be other scenarios but this gives the basic idea.

Time factor?

I still think there is a time factor in the concept of Room, so if a boat entitled to mark room goes too slowly and a right of way boat has to alter course, she is at risk of losing her exoneration. You have mark room but I believe you have to use it or lose it! On this point we will see.

.

The Last of the Royal Snooty Nose

A guest post by Brass.

Bad Manners at the Royal Snooty Nose presented a simple rule 69 problem, and Mike B gave a very complete answer at Snooty Nose 2.

Thank you Jos for drawing attention to the recently published RYA Misconduct Guidance.

People other than RYA members might find the old RYA guidance material more succinct and containing less RYA procedural matter that may not apply elsewhere.

Here are some notes, highlighting the things I had in mind when I wrote the problem.

Questions were:
Question 1: What do you do next?
Question 2:  Supposing the PC has decided to call a rule 69 hearing:

1. Analyze the allegations and rule 69.1 and list what will need to be proved if the PC is to penalize Brass Spiderman.
2. Draft the written information that the PC is required to give to Brass Spiderman under rule 69.1(a).

What do you do before calling a hearing?

There were two Questions. The first one was 'What do you do next after showing the complaint to other protest committee members?'

The key issue here is that the protest committee, as a group must make a decision whether or not to call a hearing, before taking any further action, such as giving a notice to a competitor. It might help you to clarify issues if you do the analysis of what needs to be proved, and perhaps prepare a draft notice before you have that meeting, but you must not pre-empt the decisions of you fellow protest committee members about whether or not to call a hearing. As we saw, if Mike B and I had been on the protest committee we would have had different opinions about whether to call a hearing or not.

There was a little side issue in the first question, which Mike B picked up, which was the effect of one of the protest committee members being the son of the Commodore. Clearly he is an interested party and should be asked to remove himself from the protest committee for all considerations of this matter. Fortunately in this case, there are three protest committee members still left, so there is no problem. If you had less than three protest committee members left, it would be necessary to find a third member for any hearing, but I think you could safely proceed to make the preliminary decision whether or not to call a hearing with just two members.

Analyse the elements that need to be proved

Once you have decided to call a hearing, it will be necessary to give a written notice to the competitor, but before you do that, you must get clear in your mind, so that you can include proper details in the notice, what it is that the competitor is alleged to have done, and how that may have been a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or may have brought the sport into disrepute, and exactly which one or more of these breaches are alleged.

Mike B quite rightly listed three elements

1. Was a competitor
2. Was during the event
3. Had committed an actionable breach. Rule, Good Manners or Sportsmanship, or sport into disrepute.

Mike also listed some other important considerations, but I don't think these are things that the protest committee needs to seek proof of.

Note that if the incident had not been at the event venue and during the event, it would be necessary to prove that the incident was sufficiently associated or connected with the event to be subject to a rule 69 hearing by the protest committee. Guidance on this is contained in the RYA Misconduct Guidance, Section 8.

I would go a bit further than Mike on the third element.

Firstly you must identify which one of these it is:

1. is it a breach of a rule, if so which rule?
2. is it a breach of good manners?
3. is it a breach of sportsmanship?
4. is it some action that may have brought the sport into disrepute?

It is unlikely to be all four, and probably will be only one. It is not fair in a notice to the competitor, or in a hearing to say 'You are alleged to have committed a breach of a rule, good manners, or sportsmanship, or maybe have brought the sport into disrepute: we don't know, or won't tell you which: now defend yourself'. Different evidence and facts will probably be required to prove each different sort of rule 69 breach.

At the Royal Snooty Nose, no sailing rule was broken and there was no effect on the competition, so it's not a breach of a rule or sportsmanship. The incident was wholly within the yacht club, and arguably is only noticeable because of the high standards of the yacht club, so it's unlikely to bring the sport into disrepute. If it's anything, it's a breach of good manners only.

Secondly, if it is a breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, that the breach was so 'gross' as to warrant rule 69 action. This may pose some difficulties. It is going to need some sort of examination of standards or norms.

To make a fair decision about 'good manners', I think we have to do just a bit more analysis:

• What does 'good manners' mean? I can find a dictionary definition of 'manners' which is The prevailing customs, social conduct, and norms of a specific group.
• What behavior is alleged to have breached good manners? Mike B, in the draft notice identified the following:
  • improper sexual advances to the Commodore's wife and daughter,
  • an assault on the Club’s doorman, and
  • remarks concerning international judges

I would be inclined to include 'getting falling down drunk' in there as well.

Maybe we could set this up in a table as follows. Fill in the blanks in the Norms columns, then you can test Brass Spiderman's behavior as established by the evidence against the norms. To establish the norms, consider the protest committees own experience and standards, and relevant evidence from, say the Commodore, and possibly other club officers, members, or staff.

Behavior	Norms - Generally	Norms - At RSNYC
Drinking
Interaction with persons of the opposite sex  asking for sexual favors
Interaction with persons of the opposite sex touching
Interactions with persons associated with authority Flag officers and their families
Interactions with persons associated with authority Yacht Club Staff
Interactions with persons associated with authority International Judges

This may seem over-elaborate, and in this case, you might be content with relying on your own opinion, but remember, in a more difficult case, you might be considering behavior that could earn a competitor a one or two year ban, or alternatively could be hotly contested on appeal or in a Court or an Arbitration.

Draft a notice to the competitor

Once you have clarified what the competitor is alleged to have done, you are in a position to write the notice informing the competitor of the alleged misconduct and the time and place of the hearing. Of course, you will schedule the hearing so that there is sufficient time for the competitor to prepare for the hearing after being given the notice.

Mike B has used the form provided in the RYA Misconduct Guidance Appendix J1.1. If you belong to the RYA, you should use this form. I have a concern that the form, in referring to Gross Misconduct, does not sufficiently specify whether the alleged breach is a breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, in a way that is fair to the competitor. I would suggest a somewhat shorter notice as follows

Dear Brass Spiderman,

NOTICE OF HEARING UNDER RULE 69.1

The protest committee of the Snooty Nose Cup Regatta believes that, while a competitor in the Regatta, you may have committed gross breaches of good manners and has decided to call a hearing under rule 69.1

The breaches of good manners alleged are that, between about 10:30pm and 11:00pm on 21 February 2009, at the Royal Snooty Nose Yacht Club you:

• Were drunk
• Used abusive language
• Made improper sexual advances to Madame Van Snoot
• Made improper sexual advances to Ms Van Snoot
• Were openly disrespectful of International Judges
• Sang out of tune

You are required to attend the hearing at TTT on DDD at PPPP.

The hearing is to decide if these allegations are true, and if so, what action to take. Possible action is specified in rule 69.1(b).

(Signed)
Protest Committee Chair

I could be persuaded to omit the last two dot points.

Conclusion

I hope that you have enjoyed this adventure of Brass Spiderman. Who knows there may be further adventures of Brass Spiderman, in America or at the Upper Kumbucta Sportsboat and Mud Wrestling Club.

Hopefully, you have exercised your mind about what to do if an unwelcome rule 69 situation comes your way.

Bad Manners at the Royal Snooty Nose; Simple Rule 69 Bad Manners Problem.

A guest post by Brass.

Introduction

Rule 69 has recently been debated quite hotly elsewhere on the web. There are a number of issues raised that should be of interest to judges. We might all unexpectedly become involved in a rule 69 situation at short notice. Here’s an opportunity to think about how we should deal with a simple situation.

Scenario

You are the chair of the PC for the annual Snooty Nose Cup regatta, run over three days at the Royal Snooty Nose Yacht Club (RSNYC).

E-mail from the Commodore

On the second day of the regatta you receive the following email from the Commodore of the RSNYC:

Dear Protest Committee Chair,

After racing last night Brass Spiderman, who is a competitor in the Snooty Nose Cup regatta, and who had been drinking heavily in the bar of the RSNYC and was quite drunk made unwelcome sexual advances to my wife on the dance floor. He embraced her tightly. He said ‘come to bed with me’. He patted her bottom, then went back to the bar. About twenty minutes later he made the same advances to my seventeen year old daughter.

He then fell down the stairs and wrestled with the RSNYC doorman. The police arrived and he was hauled off in a police van singing ‘All International Judges are bastards’ at the top of his voice.

I am outraged as this gross breach of good manners and abuse of the hospitality of the RSNYC. The matter has been considered by the RSNYC House Committee which has decided that Brass Spiderman will not be admitted to the RSNYC Clubhouse and recommended that action be taken to ensure that he does not attend any venues or event of the RSNYC from this time onwards.

I attach written statements from Billy Beer the barman and Danny Door the doorman.

I request that the PC takes strong action against Brass Spiderman so as to immediately exclude him from further participation in the Snooty Nose Cup regatta.

ATTACHMENT 1 – STATEMENT BY BILLY BEER THE BARMAN

I was the barman on duty at the RSNYC last night. About 6:00pm a man came up to me at the bar. He said ‘Hullo, I’m Brass Spiderman, and I’m competing in the Snooty Nose Cup regatta. May I have a beer please?’

I served him a beer.

Between 6:00pm and 10:30pm I served him beer and other drinks. About 10:40pm I saw Brass Spiderman take the Commodore’s wife onto the dance floor. I saw him embrace her tightly. As they danced past the bar hatch I heard him speak to her. He said ‘Come to bed with me.’ I saw him pat her on the bottom.

About 11:00pm I saw Brass Spiderman take the Commodore’s daughter onto the dance floor. I saw him embrace her tightly. As they danced past the bar hatch I heard him speak to her.

He said ‘You’re better looking than your mother, Come to bed with me.’ I saw him pat her on the bottom. I saw the Commodore come up to him and speak to him. I saw him walk towards the stairs then fall down the stairs.

I am prepared to give this evidence under oath should I be required.

ATTACHMENT 2 – STATEMENT BY DANNY DOOR THE DOORMAN

I was on duty as the doorman at the RSNYC last night.

About 11:05pm I saw a man fall down the club stairs from the bar and dancefloor into the lobby, apparently drunk. I called the police and asked them to attend and remove the drunk. I saw the man stagger to his feed.

He said ‘I’m Brass Spiderman and I hate International Judges’.

He then fell towards me, grasped me with his arms and dragged me to the floor. I wrestled to get away from him. The police arrived and took him away in a van. As they drove away I heard him singing ‘All International Judges are bastards’.

I am prepared to give this evidence under oath should I be required.

The Protest Committee

The PC consists of four members, one of whom is the son of the Commodore of the RSNYC.

You show the email and statements to the other members of the PC. One of the PC members, who is not the son of the Commodore says ‘I was in the RSNYC clubhouse last night about 11:00pm, sipping camomile tea and reading the ISAF Judges Manual, and I heard shouting and singing and looking up I saw the competitor Brass Spiderman falling down the stairs’.

You read carefully the RYA Guidance on Rule 69, or any material you have from your MNA or elsewhere. You recall that you have seen a helpful posting about What We Need to Prove on the Look to Windward Blog.

Question 1: What do you do next?

Question 2: Supposing the PC has decided to call a rule 69 hearing:

1. Analyze the allegations and rule 69.1 and list what will need to be proved if the PC is to penalize Brass Spiderman.
2. Draft the written information that the PC is required to give to Brass Spiderman under rule 69.1(a).

Just last week I received an Email from Jon Napier drawing my attention to a new paper from the RYA's Fair Sailing Team. You will have no time reading this when an actual case of misconduct presents itself, so I suggest you do it sometime before. Perhaps it will also help you answer this case?

Here is the link: RYA Misconduct Guidance.pdf

Most judges will - fortunately - seldom have to be involved in a Rule 69, but because of the serious and far reaching consequences it can have, some preparation would not be amiss.

.

Proper Course

A LTW-guest post by Brass

Proper Course in the Rules

There are only three rules where proper course is mentioned. These are:

• Rule 17: overtaking to leeward …
• Rule 18: Mark-Room
• Rule 23: Interfering with another boat.

Additionally, rule 14(b) relies on the definition of mark-room, which in turn relies on proper course.

If there is no alleged or apparent breach of one of these rules, then 'proper course' has no meaning. If a Protest Committee's conclusion and rules that apply in a protest does not refer to one of these rules then the term 'proper course' should not be used.

What is Proper Course - Proper Course and Best Course

Proper course is defined as 'A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term.'

Note that a boat can have more than one 'proper course', for example, either gybe may be equally favored for a boat on a downwind leg, but usually, in the context of a proper course rule there will be only one relevant proper course.

Let's see how the definition of proper course is made up.

Let's define Best Course as 'the course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible'. A boat's best course is the course the boat would sail to avoid obstructions, and not break any rules.

A boat's proper course then, is the boat's 'Best Course', but not allowing for rules-tactical or wind/water-strategical effects of other boats referred to in an applicable proper course rule.

Let's look at a few diagrams.

Figure 1. Boat reaching to a mark alone

This boat's best course will be on, above or below the direct course to the mark depending on wind, tide, characteristics of the boat and so on.

If the boat was alone, beating to windward, its best course would be close hauled: it could be a little pinched, or a little free, again depending on wind, tide, characteristics of the boat and so on.

Figure 2. Boat reaching past an obstruction

This boat's best course will be to sail round the obstruction, on one side or the other, depending on the wind, tide, characteristics of the boat, and wind shadow of the obstruction and extra distance to be sailed

Figure 3. Overtaking a slower boat

Racing boat Blue with poorly trimmed sails is sailing slower than Yellow. Yellow, clear astern must keep clear of Blue. Yellow's best course will be to sail to windward of blue, avoiding Blue's wind shadow.

No proper course rule applies here so the notion of proper course is of no use.

Figure 4. Overtaking at an obstruction where Rule 17 applies

Yellow, reaching faster clear astern becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths to leeward of Green, so rule 17 applies to oblige Yellow not to sail above her proper course.

Rule 17 which is a referring to proper course applies, so Yellow has a proper course.

Approaching Blue which is sailing slower, Yellow, clear astern must keep clear of Blue. Yellow's best course will be to sail to windward of Blue. This would be Yellow's best course whether or not Green was there; therefore Yellow's best course is also her proper course.

Although this will disadvantage Green, by forcing her to sail high, and make it easier for Yellow to break through Blue, as long as Yellow sails no higher than will get her past Blue fastest to the next mark, Yellow does not break rule 17.

Figure 5. Where Rule 17 applies without an obstruction

Yellow, reaching faster clear astern becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths to leeward of Green, so rule 17 applies to oblige Yellow not to sail above her proper course.

Rule 17, which is a referring to proper course, applies, so Yellow has a proper course.

Yellow wants to take advantage of her better boat speed to get further ahead of Green and gain good position for her mark-rounding. To do this Yellow's best course is to sail high, pushing Green further up to windward.

But sailing high to windward would not be Yellow's best course in the absence of Green. Thus Yellow's best course is not her proper course. If Yellow sails any higher than she would have to get to the mark as soon as possible, she breaks rule 17.

Of course, if a strong lift arrived, which Yellow wanted to follow up, or a right of way boat arrived that Yellow had to keep clear of, responding to these things by sailing high, would be Yellow's proper course.

Figure 6. Where rule 17 does not apply

Suppose Green has sailed high of the mark and found a wind gust and is sailing down on the gust.

At position 3 Green, the windward boat must keep clear of Yellow. Yellow's best course is to sail high to avoid being blanketed by Green.

No proper course rule applies here so the notion of proper course is of no use.

Right to Sail Proper Course or Obligation?

The only rule which gives a boat a right to room to sail its proper course is rule 18.2 Giving Mark-Room.

Other rules restrict a boat in respect of its proper course. When they apply:

• Rule 17 restricts the leeward boat from sailing above its proper course.
• Rule 18.4 restricts they right of way boat from sailing beyond her proper course without gybing.
• Rule 23 restricts a boat that may interfere with a boat taking a penalty or sailing another leg, to her proper course.

Except when rule 18.2 applies, no rule gives a boat an entitlement to sail her proper course. Any entitlement a boat has to sail her best course, comes from her having an entitlement to right of way or room under one of the other rules.

Protest Committee deciding what a boat's proper course is

It may be difficult for a Protest Committee to decide what a boat's proper course is. A boat's proper course will be affected by the factors discussed above.

There is no onus on any boat to prove facts in a protest, but a boat protesting another boat for breaking a proper course rule (rules 17, 18.4, or 23) or a boat protesting that she has not been given room to sail her proper course at a mark (rule 18.2), may be expected to provide relevant evidence and advance necessary arguments to support her contentions about proper course.

Whether or not a boat protesting another boat for breaking a proper course rule (rules 17, 18.4, or 23) observes that the course of the protestee is different from her own best course, or prevents her from sailing her best course does not decide the proper course of the protestee. If the boats are of the same or similar design, it may be indicative, but possibly different boat characteristics and the judgement of the skipper of the protestee must be taken into account.

Customarily Protest Committees give substantial latitude to a boat justifying her proper course. A possible standard for deciding proper course may be:

Given that there may be legitimate differences of opinion about what a boat’s proper course may be (Case 14), the standard to prove proper course requires a reasonable hypothesis explaining why the course sailed was the course the boat would have sailed to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term, that is consistent with the facts and not effectively undermined by counter argument.

.

What do we need to prove?

Guest post by Brass
When we begin hearing a protest, after (of course) carefully doing the rule M2 and M3.1 stuff, we often rush in to get to the ‘meat’ of the protest. This usually works OK on a simple Part 2 protest because the basic facts usually ‘fall out’ from the protest form and the party’s stories, and the basic facts necessary to reach the conclusions are few and simple: who was on port and starboard, windward or leeward, inside and outside and so on. We can get by on sort of unstructured instinct to ask the right questions to get all the necessary facts.
When we get to some of the more complex rules, however, it gets more complicated, and to get sufficient proof of the necessary facts requires some thought and planning before we are confronted with the parties and the witnesses.
At a recent judges seminar there was discussion about how to approach protests about complex rules. The following process was recommended:

1. Identify the rule or rules that might apply;
2. Examine each of these rules and list the elements or ‘ingredients’ that are required to constitute breaking the rule,
3. Consider the facts needed to establish each of the ‘ingredients’, and how those facts may be proved, for example evidence of witnesses, results sheets, measurement certificates and so on
4. Plan questions to witnesses to get them to provide the necessary facts. Plan and ask only those questions that are necessary.

Extracting the elements or ingredients from a complex rule is sometimes difficult but can be made easier by using a systematic process. We can go through the rule and highlight or underlining key words and phrases. We can then list out short sentences saying what has to be proved
Examples
Let us consider some examples.
Rule 31
While racing, a boat shall not touch a starting mark before starting, a mark that begins, bounds or ends the leg of the course on which she is sailing, or a finishing mark after finishing.
Rule 31 says that, while racing, a boat shall not touch

• A starting mark before starting; or
• A mark that begins, bounds, or ends the leg of the course on which she is sailing, which, of course, includes a starting mark which begins the first leg after a boat has started and cleared it, and a finish mark which ends the last leg until a boat has finished; or
• A finish mark after finishing.

To systematically prove that a boat broke rule 31, we must:

1. prove that the boat was racing, that is, looking at the definition of racing, that she was
• entered in the race, or intending to race in the race, AND
• after her preparatory signal, AND
• before she had finished and cleared the finish line and marks, AND
• not in general recall, postponement or abandonment; 
  
2. Choose which of the above alternatives applies (starting mark, finish mark, mark bounding a leg)
   AND THEN
3. prove that the mark the boat is alleged to have hit was that type of mark;
   AND
4. prove that the boat hit the mark.

Rule 49.2 is a somewhat more complex example.
Rule 49.2
When lifelines are required by the class rules or the sailing instructions they shall be taut, and competitors shall not position any part of their torsos outside them, except briefly to perform a necessary task. On boats equipped with upper and lower lifelines of wire, a competitor sitting on the deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline may have the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline.
Rule 49.2 says that:

1. to be subject to this rule the class rules or the sailing instructions must require lifelines; and
2. the lifelines shall be taut; and
3. competitors shall not position any part of their torsos outside them, except that
4. competitors may position part of their torsos outside lifelines briefly to perform a necessary task; and
5. where boats are equipped with upper and lower lifelines of wire, competitors may sit on the deck facing outboard with their waists inside the lower lifeline and their upper parts of their bodies outside the upper lifeline

To systematically prove that a boat broke the first part of rule 49.2, we must:
1. prove that the boat was racing, because rule 49.2 is a rule of Part 4 and the Preamble to Part 4 says that Part 4 Rules apply only to boats racing: to prove that a boat was racing we must prove, looking at the definition of racing, that she was

• entered in the race, or intending to race in the race, AND
• after her preparatory signal, AND
• before she had finished and cleared the finish line and marks, AND
• not in general recall, postponement or abandonment;

AND
2. prove that:

• the class rules applied and required lifelines, OR
• the sailing instructions required lifelines;

AND
3. prove that:

• lifelines were not fitted, OR
• ifelines that were fitted were not taut, OR
• a competitor positioned some part of his or her torso outside the lifelines, AND
• this was other than briefly to perform a necessary task, OR
• this was other than as permitted by the second part of rule 49.2, that is:
• there were upper and lower lifelines AND
• the lifelines were of wire AND
• the competitor was not sitting on the deck facing outboard with his or her waist inside the lower lifeline and the upper part of his or her body outside the upper lifeline

Exercise
As an exercise, analyze the elements or ingredients of rule 69.1(a) that must be proved before a Protest Committee may take the action described in rule 69.1(b)

.

Knowingly breaking a rule

or - When to apply the basic principle? -
Guest Post by Luis Leal de Faria

Here is a thought that I would like to share with you and your readers:

In the same report that you mention in your post "Informing the boat within the time limit?" (06 September 2008), there is another issue which for me, is of utmost importance: just at the first paragraph we can read "There was concern about the extent to which sailors; particularly in the 420 class were knowingly infringing rule 31.2, and part 2 rules without taking penalties".

One may say that society is no longer as it was, sailors behavior is no longer as it was and all that bla bla, but it is my opinion that we, judges, mainly international judges, share a great deal of responsibility in that situation.

the Basic Principle "Sportsmanship and the Rules"

From the very first time that I was a member of an International Jury, at that time only as a national judge, I was surprised to see how reluctant judges are in applying the appropriate rules and penalties to boats who, being aware of having broken a rule, did nothing about it. Formerly there was Fundamental Rule D, now we have the Basic Principle "Sportsmanship and the Rules" and rule 2. The result in infringing either former Fundamental Rule D or current rule 2 is the same: DNE (formerly DND).

However, very seldom I see these rules applied. Also very seldom I hear the question "why didn't you take a penalty or retire?" or "did you know that you broke a rule?". More surprisingly to me, also very seldom a penalty of DNE is applied, even after the Jury knows that the competitor was aware of having broken a rule. It is also very rare that I hear any mention of the Basic Principle, the very first rule in the rulebook. However, it is not so uncommon to hear judges complaining of this sort of behavior from sailors.

As a competitor, I once protested a boat for breaking a basic rule (then rule 36, now rule10) and, both in the protest form and at the hearing, I mentioned the infringement of Fundamental Rule D. The protestee acknowledged being aware of the infringement at the time of the incident and not having taken a penalty nor retired, but even though the protest committee did not apply Fundamental Rule D.

Apply rule 2 more often....

If Protest Committees and, mainly International Juries, who are supposed to apply and enforce the rules above everybody else in the sport, do not apply them, why would the sailors care to apply them? It is my strong belief that if we, judges, would apply rule 2 more often to competitors who, being aware of having broken a rule, did not take a penalty nor retired from the race, certainly that sort of attitude would be discouraged and much less common. Sailing would certainly benefit from that.

_________________________________________
Your comments are invited.

'Justice stranded on the Beach'

- Think twice when you "reopen" a hearing -
by Adriaan Pels

This time we were on Barbados. The event was a world championship Mistral. The jury was busy with the last day hearings. As usual only a few protests, but protests which could influence the total score and the places on the podium.

Only one party came to the hearing

In one hearing the protestee did not show up. The chairman postponed the hearing and scheduled it at the bottom of the list and asked the protestor to do everything that he could to bring the other party to the jury room. But no success. At last the jury decided the protest after only hearing the protestor and decided to disqualify the protestee.

Later that day, during the dinner and prize giving party on the beach, with a lot of rum and coca cola and steel band music, the protestee accosted the jury chairman and told him why he was not present at the hearing. The chairman, always ready to help the sailors, decided he was unavoidably absent and sitting in the sand with one other jury member he ‘reopened’ the hearing. Or whatever you call it. Anyhow, the duo listened to the story of the protestee and decided now that he was in the right, no doubt. He should not be disqualified.

Score change

What to do in this situation? Call all jury members? Find the protestor? Look for a jury room? Too complicated and at the end the chairman, sure about what happened on the water and wanting to do justice, informed the result Johnny’s and the score was changed.

Next day, after breakfast, while he was waiting for transport to the airport, the eyes half open because of little sleep and much rum, the jury chairman was almost attacked by the protestor. After the man had seen the changed scoring list (he was not informed) and was told by somebody what happened, he was furious. "What you did is not allowed, I had the right to be present" ,and so on he said, not very friendly. Poor chairman, despite his good intentions, he made a big mistake by not to following the correct procedure.

Decision: back to the original score. But where were the result boys? Not there anymore, the event was over, flags down, offices closed. “I’ll write a letter”, were his last words, before he hit the taxi.....

Adriaan Pels.

________________________________________________________________

This is the second guest post by Adriaan. His first one you can find here:
Leg counting or How many beats did you sail?

If you have a story you think is of interest and would like to share, please mail me and send it in.

Many meanings of 'Protest'

A guest post by Brass:
_____________________________________________________________
In an earlier post on Look To Windward Adriaan observed:

Take i.e. the silly word “protest” (even in the Oxford Dictionary you cannot find the meaning the rules book uses), has the inventor of that word ever thought what that people has in mind reading this word in different countries?

Firstly, all rules, in whatever language need to make common words in the language have special meanings by using definitions. I don't see how that is a problem, or how any problem there is, is a result of the rules being drafted in English.

The rules define 'protest' as 'an allegation made under rule 61.2 … that a boat has broken a rule'. The rules also use 'protest' in italics to mean:

• The written down form of the allegation; and
• All of the papers, other things, times, and processes which the rules require to be complied with for the protest committee to decide validity (rule 63.5), and
• The thing that a Protest Committee decides (rule 63.7)

The rules also use 'protest' in other than the defined way (without italics) with the following meanings:

• (verb) to make a protest (rule 43.1(c), 60.1,)
• (abstract noun) the making of a protest (rule 44.3(a))
• A word that must be hailed (rule 61.1(a))
• A label for a Committee involved with protests or requests for redress (rule 88.2(b), rule 90)
• A label for a hearing by a Protest Committee to consider a protest or request for redress (rule 63.1)

When I lay it out like this, it is obvious that the rules make the word 'protest' do a lot of different work, but does it cause any real problem?

Would the problem be solved by drafting the rule in any other language?

Significant advantage

This Friday a post from a mail from Robert Stewart. He has been hard at work to get up to speed for the IJ-Test:

_______________________________________________________________

Jos,

Must thank you for sharing questions and tests from around the world. I have used them to test and expand my writing skills for decisions.

At a recent event in dinghies, there was a protest associated with a mark rounding dealing with RRS 44.1 and that one boat, that broke a rule, took a penalty. The part of the rule that the protestor has issue about, was the part "or gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty shall be to retire".

In other words, the protestor didn't think that the two-turns penalty was enough of a penalty for the infringement

A decision was made and we were all in agreement.

Looking back at the protest, I am not having second thoughts, but to further expanding my understanding of the rules, I have the following question. Definition of "significant" used as an adjective means "fairly large". Well, what is fairly large? 10 places in a fleet of 20 boats? Maybe 10 places in a fleet of 100 boats? I could not find any case.

I have my notes on how the protest was written, but am interested in how others would have written the facts, conclusion and decision.

Last, are there others who are thinking about writing the ISAF IJ exam and are interested in forming a study group?

Thanks again,
Robert

________________________________________________________________

Robert,

Thank you for your mail and question. We all sometime need to make a judgement on what an adjective in the rules means. In requests for redress it is always a factor.

If I take your question and apply it to Match racing - where a red flag penalty is used to increase the "punishment" if someone gains control by breaking a rule - it is already significant when the infringing boat gains one place. Because in fleet racing there are many other factors which determine a finishing place, I don't think that an absolute number can be used - be it 50% or 10 %.

Normally between two boats in a fleet race where one takes a two-turns penalty, that boat will end up behind the infringed boat. As it should be, there's no advantage.
If the infringing boat was in front at the time of the incident and still is front after taking a two turns penalty, I will already start to look for other factors. There is an advantage. Results in the series, which race, last or first? Things like that, which determine the extent of that advantage.

The discussion in the panel should then be about if the advantage is significant or not. Again, something without an absolute value.

If there are more boats involved - say at a mark rounding - and one boat takes room inside infringing rule 18 ending up in front of the pack, doing a two turn penalty and is still in front of most of them, she has gained a significant advantage in my opinion.

In all cases the advantage must directly be related to the breach in the rules, not because later on she happened to choose the right side of the beat and gained five places.

 

If people are interested in contacting Robert for his study group - something I can recommend to prepare for the IJ-Test - please send me an email and I'll get you in touch with him.

Leg counting or How many beats did you sail?

- Just a story for learning and fun -
by Adriaan Pels

It happened during a Laser European championship. We were in Donaghadee, close to Bangor in Northern Ireland. It was in the days, many years ago, that one did not go to this area voluntary, not for fun. Unforeseeable attacks, bomb explosions, and so on made this Britain’s hotbed a dangerous and unpleasant place to be. But an airplane full of Laser sailors and us, RC and PC members, started on Heathrow with the goal to give the local Laser sailors their first international regatta in many years.

The first sign that we were going to a special place was a not planned landing on a small and unknown airport at the northwest coast of England. Extensive examinations by special security people (“who are you, where are you going and what are are you going to do there”) and visitations (“you can undress over there”) for hours, was not what we expected. Armed soldiers everywhere, sinister checkpoints, security men in every big shop examining bags, even in the clubhouse of the organizing yacht club, in short: a frightening area.

a three day hangover

The hotels were used as houses for seniors or closed as there were no visitors or tourists, so a lot of places to stay. But the welcome was great (do not take their local whiskey when you are not a well trained drinker else a three day hangover will be yours) as everybody; sailors, club people, citizens, appreciated our coming.

But now the case. One day the wind was very shifty, ‘beats’ became ‘reaches’ and vice versa and the PRO, who was very good, was adjusting the course all the time and had no problems. Until the moment that the sailor at the 7th place did not go to the last mark, but headed from the second last straight for the finish, followed by the rest of the fleet.

Panic on committee boat

Panic on committee and jury boat and after a while the PRO realized what was going on. While he was busy with moving marks, hoisting flags and giving signals, he miscalculated: one leg too many. That number 7 was right and finished first!

What to do now? Well, as I said, the PRO was very good and he made two quick decisions: note the boats as they finish; in the meantime also note the six boats sailing the extra leg. Comparing both lists and deducting the six from the finishing list and giving them there own scoring list, gave as a result for this race two scoring lists. One for the six boats which sailed the extra leg and one for the rest of the fleet. Result for the overall scoring: two firsts, two seconds and so on till seven.

Everybody happy except maybe the organizing yacht club, as they had to double the day prizes. But that was a minor problem.

a hot shot in ISAF

As the PRO was a man with a good sense for humor and as he likes to tell the story himself with no reservations, I feel free to mention his name: Jeff Martin. Nowadays a hot shot in ISAF and well respected for his visions and ideas.

__________________________________________
Adriaan is the first to write a guest post. He has been commenting regularly on my posts and will be trilled if you give him your comments on this story.

If you have a similar experience or something else you'd like to share, please send it by mail and I'll consider posting. I'm hoping to make this a more or less regular feature on Fridays