Spelenderwijs de wedstrijdzeilregels toetsen

Nieuw:

watersporttest.nl nu interactief

Om te kunnen winnen moet elke wedstrijd- zeiler de regels van het wedstrijdzeilen kennen. En ook Het Regelschrift, al vele jaren het onmisbare naslagwerk bij alle kwesties en vragen over het reglement.

De maker, Henk Plaatje, international judge en jaren secretaris van de Zeilraad, heeft zijn Regelschrift interactief gemaakt. De naam van de site: watersporttest.nl. Hij omvat drie cursussen, oplopend in moeilijkheidsgraad.

De eerste cursus staat inmiddels live. Hij omvat 8 lessen/testen met ruim 180 multiple choice vragen. De meeste zijn voorzien van afbeeldingen en animaties. Als je een vraag hebt beantwoord, krijg je onmiddellijk de uitslag met feedback. Er is geen betere manier om spelenderwijs met beelden de regels te toetsen en jouw kennis te vergroten.

Zie zelf wat het voor jou kan betekenen. Ga naar watersporttest.nl en log in als gast om de demo te zien. Bevalt het? Maak dan een account aan en betaal via iDeal € 15,-- om een jaar lang ongestoord en intensief gebruik te kunnen maken van de vele informatie die je op de site vindt.

Het resultaat zie je terug in de uitslag van de wedstrijden die je zeilt. De uitgekiende beslssingen die je in de race hebt genomen, hebben je het zelfvertrouwen gegeven om te kunnen winnen!

De testen zijn bovendien heel goed te gebruiken door trainers en instructeur, al dan niet in groepsverband, bij het opleiden en trainen van beginnende en gevorderde wedstrijdzeilers. En natuurlijk kun je ook samen met bemanning of familie oefenen.




Het Watersportverbond ondersteunt daadkrachtig de nieuwe interactieve site. Een heldere aanbeveling! Wil je er alles van weten, neem dan contact op met Henk Plaatje zelf.

Back to the Basics (Part 3): Sweet Seventeen

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 weeks issue is about rule 17.
Why is rule 17 so difficult for many sailors? Or  - a better analysis - why is "Hé you, so and so [insert appropriate swearword], sail your proper course" so frequently heard on the racecourse, when it is, even without the swearword, completely inappropriate?

First of all, ask yourself, do I understand what "Proper Course" actually is?
If yes, skip one and go to two. If you're not sure, start with one.

ONE
Proper Course is defined in the rulebook.

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. A boat has no proper course before her starting signal

"A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible...."?

We all know that when you are racing you want to finish as soon as possible - no wait, that's not correct - you want to finish before the other boats do! That means you sometimes want to sail a course that benefits that last goal, but is not the fastest way to finish. If you are the right-of-way boat, you will be able to sail any course you want - provided you don't break a rule. Well, nowhere in the whole rulebook is any rule that states you MUST sail your proper course. So, even when most times, most boats do sail to finish as fast as possible, there's no obligation to do so.

And to make things even more complicated, there might be more than one course that lets you get to the finish faster. Sometimes it is just choosing what you think is best.
There's a patch of wind 50 meters to the left; luff up, go there, and you might gain enough to compensate (and more) for the extra distance you sailed. Than that IS a proper course. As long there is a reasonable assumption that the course you are sailing, might get you to the finish faster, it is - by definition - a proper course.

".....in absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using that term" ?
Let us have a look at which rules are using the term:
Definition Mark-Room:  The other boat is the boat that must give you that Mark-Room
Rule 17: The other boat is the boat to windward you are making an overlap with.
Rule 18.1(b): The other boat is the boat on the opposite tack.
Rule 18.2(c)(2): The other boat is in fact your boat.
Rule 18.4: The other boats are any other boats. The rule actually has no other boat(s)
Rule 24.2: The other boat is the boat taking a penalty or sailing on another leg.
(there are a couple more in the appendixes, but those you can figure out yourself)

If you encounter a situation with multiple boats, the definition does NOT "take away" all those other boats to determine what the course would have been to finish as soon as possible, only the boats that I indicated in the list with rules.

Lets do an example:

Grey has a rule 17 limitation; Is she sailing above her proper course?

Green is taken out (of the picture). What is the answer now?

Two boats sailing on a beam reach encounter a third who luffs. Grey has a rule 17 limitation. She's shall not sail above her proper course. But because she has to keep clear of Blue, she has to luff and forces Green to go up with her. Now Grey is surely sailing above her proper course! Or is she?
The "other boat" referred to in rule 17 is Green. So take away Green.
Then you are left with Grey and Blue, and in absence of Green, Grey would also have luffed to keep clear. In order to finish as fast as possible (without breaking a rule) she must go up. Therefore she is still sailing her proper course. cah-PEESH?

"... A boat has no proper course before her starting signal"

That, as they say, is more or less self-explanatory. You can't sail a course to finish before the starting signal. Or, any course is good. Even head-to-wind.

So, finally we arrive at

TWO

Because most boats want to get to the finish as soon as possible, thinking that that is the whole ballgame - which it is, most of the time, but not always - they assume every other boats must do the same. So when they are held up, usually by a boat that luffs them, or sails a course they don't think is faster to the finish, they get frustrated and start yelling about "proper course".

It is only ever useful, when that other boat has a rule 17 limitation. If that other boat has not, she can sail any course she wants and boats that have to keep clear of her, must keep clear, Regardless if that forces them on a course away from the finish.....
Only a right-of-way boat can HAVE a rule 17 limitation. A keep clear boat never has. And that limitation under rule 17 can only happen to a right-of-way boat, when a set of four conditions are fulfilled. ALL of them. Not one, not two or three, all of them.
Those conditions are:

• The boats are on the same tack
• The boat comes from clear astern
• She makes the overlap to leeward of the other boat
• The distance between the boats is less than two hull lengths (with two different size boats, the hull length of the leeward boat)

If one of these conditions does not apply, or no longer applies, rule 17 does not apply, or no longer applies. The limitation is lifted, when a boat gybes. It is lifted when the distance becomes more than two hull lengths. It never applies when the overlap is to windward. It never applies when the boat is tacking into that leeward position.... etc. Remember? All of them.

THREE

I'm skipping three, four, five all the way to sixteen, so we finally can get to:

(SWEET) SEVENTEEN

Under a rule 17 limitation a right-of-way boat SHALL not sail above her proper course.
(we used to have a rule restricting sailing below a proper course, but those days are over, forget that)

'Above her proper course'.... hmmm....
The keep-clear boat might have another idea about what a proper course is..... well, tough, she's not the one choosing. The right-of-way boat has that privilege.
The keep-clear boat might think the right-of-way boat IS sailing above her proper course. Again, tough luck, it does not mean she no longer has to keep clear.

I'm doing an animation again. In most rule-talks that seems to work best:

Course to the next mark (Finish) is downwind after the mark.

Two boats, approach a windward mark to be left to port, before going downwind toward the finish.

In position 1, Purple on starboard-tack, establishes an overlap from clear astern, with Grey on the same tack. The distance is less than two hull lengths, therefore from that moment on, Purple has a rule 17 limitation. Purple shall not sail above her proper course.

In position 4 Purple luffs head-to-wind. Is she sailing above her proper course?
According to the definition we first must take away the "other boat" mentioned in the rule. That is Grey in this case. Would Purple have headed up, to finish as soon as possible, in the absence of Grey?
Answer is yes, Purple would have done the same. Shooting the mark takes her to the finish sooner.
In position 4 Purple is NOT sailing above her proper course.

Now we look at positions 5 and 6. Is the rule 17 limitation lifted? Or, does one of the conditions no longer apply? Answer is no. She still has a rule 17 limitation.
Next, take away Grey. Would Purple sail the same course, to finish as soon as possible, if Grey was not there? Answer is NO!
Purple would have gone down toward the finish. So in positions 5 and 6 she IS sailing above her proper course and breaks rule 17. Note: Grey is keeping-clear. If she wouldn't, she also would break a rule (rule 11)

Sweet enough for you?

TWO HUNDRED  SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND TEN.
I'm leaving you with some "homework":
Please tell me what Purple has to do, in the same animation, so she can sail this course without breaking rule 17?

J.


Next week: Barging


Previous episodes in this series:
Back to the Basics (Part 2): Where's the referee?

Back to the Basics (Part 1): Keeping Clear

Basic Principle & the 35th America's Cup

Going trough the last America's Cup Racing Rules I noticed that the Basic Principle as printed in the RRS was not used. I asked some people connected to the AC and was told that because of rule 2, rule 69 in the RRSAC and art. 60 in the Protocol (code of conduct), the basic principle was not needed.

(The protocol can be found here: The Protocol Governing the 34th America's Cup

And article 60 is in one of the amendments:  Protocol Amendment No.11

And the latest RRSAC (v1.20) are here: ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing AC Edition v 1.20 )

For the most part I can agree with this. Rule 2 covers good sportsmanship and fair play, rule 69 covers more serious breaches and misconduct. And article 60 in the protocol more than covers anything that is done or said or written (negatively) about the AC.

But the Basic Principles in the RRS does one thing more, in my opinion. 

I quote:

"BASIC PRINCIPLE
SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire."

Nowhere else in the rules it is written that competitors are expected to 'enforce' the rules. All rules involving protest all have the word "may" which is permissive, not mandatory (shall).
A boat may protest another boat, but there is no obligation in rule 60.1


The only place there is any expectation that boats should do anything, against another boat that is breaking a rule, is in the basic principles.

Please don't misunderstand, even with the basic principle this obligation is in practice, pretty weak, but in the 34th AC even that was missing.

I would like to hear your opinion. Should the Basic Principle; Sportsmanship and the Rules be included in the next America's Cup or not?
Rules - 35th America's Cup?

J.

I wrote this some time ago, but in light of Monday's blogpost thought it would fit...

Back to the Basics (Part 2): Where's the referee?

A blog post in a series: Racing Rules for Novices*

(*I'm going to try to do one of these on Mondays)

Where's the referee? 
Or, why is there never anybody around to see all those infringements?


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 organisations, during the winter season.

To answer this week's questions, we will have to go into the rules that make the sport of sailing pretty much unique. Sailing is one of the few sports - perhaps only Golf  is the other one - that is mostly done without someone "refereeing". We don't have a couple of persons, dressed in black and white, zipping around in little rubber boats, blowing whistles and penalizing boats. Or do we?





Look at what is written in one of the BASIC PRINCIPLES:

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

Right in the middle, as if it wants to hide, is the word "enforce".
Competitors are expected to ENFORCE the rules. In other words, you yourselves are the referees when racing, you are the ones with the whistle. You do not need to get a black shirt, you don't need an actual whistle (shouting "Protest" is good enough) but you are still the ones who control which infringements are called out.

My analogy is a little overstated, I know, but that is how you should approach it. When you are agrieved by the actions of another boat, you must decide what you want to do. Either put up with it, and not complain that somebody should do something, or, as the basic principle is stating, enforce the rules and protest. Put up or shut up - that's the phrase, isn't it?

This self-regulation in sailing is deeply woven into all rules. For example, even when there are "umpires" on the water - like in match racing or team racing - they seldom penalize on their own. First a boat must protest another, by showing the protest flag, only then the umpires respond by assigning blame and giving out a penalty. (There are exceptions, but they almost all have to do with deliberately breaking a rule, or when no other boat is around to protest).
Even in the protest hearing this principle is upheld. All parties are expected to present "their" case in the best possible way as to convince the Jury that their facts are what has happened.

Back to the race course. You "blow your whistle" whenever you are involved or see a boat breaking a rule. And you are expected to do this as soon as reasonable possible. You wouldn't accept a football referee blowing a whistle half a minute after a tackle when the game has already progressed because of the foul... (excuse me, soccer referee).
By shouting "protest" the other boat becomes aware - if she doesn't already know - that they might have broken a rule. They have a choice then too. That boat can either take a penalty, usually a Two-Turns Penalty or, well, not.
If not, the ball is again in your court. If you feel strongly enough about the issue, you then can lodge a written protest with the Jury or Protest Committee. But that's again, up to you. You are expected to enforce, but it's your decision. Nobody will penalize you for not doing it, but you must then also accept the outcome.

Once the protest has been handed in, the PC will schedule a hearing and invite all parties to come to tell their stories about what happened. Parties can bring witnesses to help with their side. But the whole process starts on equal footing. The PC does not give the protester more "weight" because they brought the issue. The incident is decided on "a balance of probability", as close to the truth as they can get.

If you think that the PC will sort out the problem for you, you are in error. Even then YOU enforce the rules, so you better get all your ducks in row and be convincing.

Oh, on a final note, being a referee is not always the most thankful job. Usually nobody likes the person who's telling them that they are doing something wrong. It is a little mitigated in the rules, in that protest are "against" boats, not against a person. But I admit that that maybe only semantics....

J.

Next week: Sweet seventeen

Previous episodes in this series:
Back to the Basics (Part1): Keeping Clear

Rule 61.1(a) Informing the Protestee

A must read!

A well written post by Brass on the Sailing Anarchy forum about hailing and displaying the red flag.
Go and have a look: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=136023

I'm off to Kiel tomorrow for a week of Judging and protest at the Kieler Woche:
http://www.kieler-woche.de/

Rule 18.5 and exoneration

I’ve been thinking about the intricacies of rule 18.5 and exoneration for breaking rule 16 by the right-of-way boat AT the mark.

Picture this situation:

Red and Purple approach a leeward mark to be left to port. Purple enters the 3BL Zone first and Red must give markroom. Purple sails a course not directly to the mark but a boat length beside it, to be able to luff and come out ‘high’ next to the mark. She leaves a gab.

Red close astern sees that gab and uses it, to get inside, all the time keeping clear until position 5. Purple luffs very hard in position 5 (breaking rule 16.1) up to head to wind. There’s contact but no damage.

Both boats protest. (with hail and red flag). The PC declares both protest valid.
Red claims that Purple broke rule 16.1 by luffing very hard at the mark and should NOT be exonerated under 18.5(b) because she was not sailing her proper course. It was too soon to tack round the mark.

Purple claims she was prevented from sailing her proper course – already in position 5 – because Red came inside without having markroom and she wanted to “shut the door” .

Have a look at Case 63 (http://rrsstudy.blogspot.nl/2010/12/pillowcase-of-week-49-63.html)

Please give me your opinion.

J.

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.

Kitesurf Rules! Appendix BB explained

For kiteboarding there is a separate appendix, just like for surfing, match racing and team racing. Since kiteboarding has been developing pretty rapidly in the last years, the rules also have been updated and brought into line with the 'normal'  racing rules of sailing.

The current Appendix BB has been changed on January 4th 2012. That is the version we are using here at the Worldcup in Scheveningen.

To determine 'Clear Ahead, Clear Astern and Overlap' the kite does count!

 The picture suggests that boards have to avoid the kite, but the distance between rider and kite is about 33 meters. And kiteboarders can control the height above the water pretty accurately, so usually one is just going over or under the other.

In order to get more speed the riders want to keep the kite lower rather then higher. Flying over an opponent is quite normal. And bringing your kite up to prevent the windward kite from passing is not changing direction and therefor not limited by rule 16! You can effectually prevent someone of passing you.

Oooh, in case you are wondering, looping is done when you are sailing downwind. In order to get more power the kite is turned clockwise or counterclockwise fast. That generates more flow and thus more power.

Download the complete rules on the ISAF Website:
Appendix BB Experimental Kiteboarding Competition Rules

YOU-TACK version 1.3

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

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

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

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


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

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

Check it out in the AppStore or Android Market

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

(pillow)Case of the week (08/12) – 22

(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 22

Rule 61.2(c), Protest Requirements: Protest Contents
Rule 63.5, Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress
Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

It is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of a protest that the protest committee thinks the rule cited in the protest as having been broken will very likely not be the applicable rule.

Summary of the Facts

After a collision near a mark, S protested P, citing rule 18 on her protest form as required by rule 61.2(c). The protest committee declared the protest invalid and refused to proceed with the hearing, because it said the protest should have cited rule 10 rather than rule 18. Had the hearing gone ahead and the parties been questioned, the protest committee said, the protest might have been upheld. S appealed.

Decision

Rule 61.2(c) requires the protest to identify any rule the protestor believes was broken. There is no requirement that the rule or rules identified must be the rule or rules that are later determined to have been broken, and it is irrelevant for deciding on the validity of the protest that the protestor cited a rule that will very likely not be the applicable rule.

It is the protest committee, after finding the facts, that determines the applicable rule. Rule 64.1(a) states that a disqualification or other penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest. It is unimportant that the protestor made a mistake in citing the rule.

The appeal is upheld to the extent that the protest committee is instructed to hold a new hearing.

FIV 1967/4 촀⩚늂

Everybody gets a ‘freebie’ as far as citing the correct rule is concerned. This practice probably came about after some protests were thrown out because of using the wrong rule. And to be denied justice, because one forgot that port-starboard was rule 10 and not 11, was most likely perceived as very unfair. Can’t argue with that, can you?

In practise this means however, that whatever the protestee puts in the box gets ignored. And the general side effect is that sailors don’t even look-up the correct rule anymore.

”I am right and the other one is wrong and the PC can sort it out…..

In my opinion this ‘freebie’ has contributed to the general decline in rules knowledge. Let alone skill in the room. The phrase “He hasn’t won on the water” comes to mind. Wining a protest is somehow a little ‘dirty’.

As long as there are no referees on the water – judging every incident and acting independently – our sailing sport will be a self-policing sport. Competitors are expected not only to follow but to enforce the rules.

And that starts with knowing the rules. Including which rule number!
They are on your bloody phone as an APP, are they not?
It takes five seconds to look it up….

Get rid of the ‘freebies’, bring knowledge back!

Get Up, Stand Up, Fight for your Rights!

Racing Rules of Sailing - Live Slow, Sail Fast!: The origins of basic road rules

Racing Rules of Sailing - Live Slow, Sail Fast!: The origins of basic road rules

The sailing- judging community has been joined by a new blogger, an enthusiast young judge from Hungary who started with a rulesblog called "Live Slow - Sail Fast!"

I've been reading his posts - by using the English translation button. The syntax gets a little garbled but I can follow most of it. But even if I couldn't, it is still a good initiative - to provide some background for Hungarian judges, officials and sailors.

He posted an interesting story about the reasons behind the Right of Way rules. The basic rules in the book, rules 10, 11 and 12. Here is the gist of it:

All these basic rules give right of way to the least manoeuvrable boat. Look at rule 11, windward - leeward. Boats are overlapping so the boat to leeward is in the wind shadow of the windward boat - has less wind, so is less manoeuvrable. Don't picture modern racing yachts, but square riggers. That's when they came up with these rules.

Same goes for rule 12; Clear Ahead - Clear astern. When running downwind, the boat behind catches all the wind and can more easily manoeuvre. So the boat Clear Ahead gets right of way.

With Port and Starboard we have to go back a little more. Perhaps you remember those Viking-longboats longships*? They had an oar sticking out in the water on the right side end of the boat. That oar functioned as a rudder.

The other side became Port because if you want to park the boat alongside a shore, you don't use the steering side.... So a longboat was always tied to the dock with the port-side.

When sailing on starboard tack the boat would heel to port. And visa versa. When sailing on port tack the starboard side of the boat would dig in. On the first tack the oar would be sticking out of the water a little more. Making the boat a bit less 'steerable' than on port tack. So the boat on starboard-tack became right of way. Port tack could more easily get out of the way.

I don't know if his story is accurate, but the explanation seems very plausible to me.
What about you? What do you think?


* From an LTW readers Email: Longboats: A longboat is a small rowing boat kept on the deck of a larger ship for the purpose of getting ashore. A longship is a warship/troop transport of the Viking period.

(pillow)Case of the week (03/12) – 27

(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 27

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way

A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule. When a boat acquires right of way as a result of her own actions, the other boat is entitled to room to keep clear.

Summary of the Facts

AS was clear ahead of BP when she reached the zone. Between position 1 and 2, AS, a hull length to leeward and a hull length ahead of BP, tacked as soon as she reached the starboard-tack lay line. Almost immediately she was hit and damaged by BP travelling at about ten knots. The protest committee disqualified AS for breaking rule 15. It also disqualified BP under rule 2, pointing out that she knew AS was going to tack but did nothing to avoid a collision. BP appealed, asserting that she was not obligated to anticipate an illegal tack.


Decision

BP’s appeal is upheld. She is to be reinstated.
After AS reached the zone, BP was required to keep clear of AS and give her mark-room under rule 18.2(b). Both these obligations ended when AS passed head to wind because the boats were then on opposite tacks and on a beat to windward. When AS passed through head to wind, BP became the right-of-way boat under rule 13 and held right of way until AS assumed a close-hauled course on starboard tack. At that moment AS, having just acquired right of way under rule 10, was required by rule 15 to give BP room to keep clear. BP took no action to avoid a collision, but what could she have done? Given her speed and the distance involved, she had perhaps one to two seconds to decide what to do and then do it.


It is a long-established principle of the right-of-way rules, as stated in rule 15, that a boat that becomes obligated to keep clear by an action of another boat is entitled to sufficient time for response. Also, while it was obvious that AS would have to tack to round the mark, BP was under no obligation to anticipate that AS would break rule 15, or indeed any other rule. BP broke neither rule 2 nor rule 14.



 USSA 1971/140




There are many cases in the casebook that are ‘important’. But, in my opinion, together with Case 50, this case is about a fundamental principle.

The rules don’t demand anticipation. You don’t have to think about what another boat is going to do. You only have to react to what a boat is actually doing. (There’s an exception in rule 18, but I’m going into that, at this moment)

In his Case boat BP had only a few seconds to avoid AS, after AS completed her tack. Although it was obvious that AS wanted to tack to round the mark, she had to, besides judging the room she needed to complete her tack, also to take in consideration the time and space BP would need to keep clear, once she was on starboard. Rule 15 is written to point to that fundamental principle.

One boat length to leeward and one boat length ahead is not enough distance to tack in front. In Match Racing the Umpires would conclude that there was not enough room to tack and therefore BP was in a controlling position.

ESS Act 8; Almeria - All done

Act 8 has finished yesterday. We did some good races out of and inside the harbour in front of a good crowd. Visit the Extreme Sailing Series website to see the results
The wind cooperated and stayed with us, so we had fair racing for all. Except for Emirates Team New Zealand, because the damage from the crash the day before was such, that it couldn't be repaired overnight. They will sail in Act 9 in Singapore in December. For all races not sailed in Act 8 they were given redress - average points out of all sailed races.

For Singapore we will have some issues to consider:
The rule 14 penalty - which we discussed in earlier posts, needs adjustment. The latest we have come up with, is to let the penalized boat sail, including start, but to restrict the use of the gennaker until the last boat has past the windward mark.

The pink flag - in use for situations were we are unable to find sufficient facts to make a judgement.

A windward gate - perhaps with some rulechanges.

Also in this event rule 49.1 came up. The use of non working sheets or other equipment to hike. A support rib/coach had taken some photo's of crew positions that he considered illegal. This rule is not subject to an umpire initiated penalty for the moment, only to a red flag protest, but perhaps that should change. The Class rules and SI have changed RRS 42. Perhaps they also need to address RRS 49.1. I must admit that I did not notice these illegal crew hiking at all - too busy concentrating on Part 2 rules.

Today I'm travelling back home, with a fairly late flight. I'm planning to concentrate on Match Racing for a couple of days - since I have a Grade 3 MR event in Greece next weekend. And do some work on You Tack Pro.

Rules History - Part 1

Sometimes the Google Search kicks up an interesting link. (But that is no news, right?)

This time it didn't point to news as much as it did to olds: rules history. How did we get the current rules?

I've been only doing this rules stuff since, oooh about ten years, but before that already most of the 'modern' day approach to racing rules had been established: Some excerpt from piece by Mark Russel:

1963:
Introduction of the two-boat length zone as the point at which an inside overlap had to be established to entitle a boat to water. (Yet another idea originally proposed by Vanderbilt, it is suggested that this incarnation came as a result of a discussion between Paul Elvstrom, on the way to his 4th Olympic gold medal, and Niels Benzon.
The member of a club in charge of the boat no longer had to be an amateur; this was now left to class associations and race organisers to specify.

1969
A new one minute “round the ends rule” to apply after a general recall. General recalls were already beginning to be a problem. (And still are: even with the much more brutal “black flag rule”, starting processes are a cause of serious debate to this day.
A new rule prohibiting advertising except for manufacturers labels.

1973
Individual recalls signalled by dipping the class flag with no requirement for a hail to the boat or display of a recall no: putting the onus on competitor rather than race committee.
The “heavy sweater” rule: prohibiting clothing worn for increasing weight, unless specified in class rules, and then limited to 20kg max. Over the years this maximum weight steadily reduced and is now zero).
Alternative penalties for breaking a right of way rule: a 720-degree turn, or a 20% penalty as specified in the SI’s. (A welcome liberalisation: packing up and going home for an unintentional foul always seemed over harsh, especially for recreational sailors)
If there is contact, one has to take a penalty, protest, or retire: the counterpart of the alternative penalty: “now that there is an alternative there is no excuse for not following the rules).

1977
An experimental rule (not allowed in major championships) to allow unlimited kinetics in certain conditions.

1981
The first relaxation of the advertising rule, to allow event sponsors.
The experimental kinetics rule disappears (but not for ever!) Instead there are clearer definitions of what and what is not allowed.

1989
720-degree turn (rather than re-rounding) for hitting a mark. (This later becomes less iniquitous 360-degree turn.)

 And completely overhauling the book, like was done for rule 18, is not new either. Something like that was done after 1993:

The experimental right of way rules were certainly shorter and simpler: just 9 in the 1994 and 11 in the 1995 (compared to 17 in the 1993 rule book). Definitions were clarified and simplified, and by simplifying the rules, some definitions that would not be required were dropped, for example there was no definition of tacking. As well as simplification of structure some basic principles were changed: some (but not all) of these new principles made it into the new rules, and some were changed several more times in development before finding their current form.

Though this extreme level of simplicity did not make it in its entirety through to the current rule book, there are now only 13 right of way rules compared with the previous 17. The language has certainly been simplified, there are far fewer sub-clauses and special exceptions, and once the sailors began to get used to a completely new set of rule numbers, (the revision extended to the whole rule book not just the right of way rules) the changes met with fairly universal approval.

I found a very small booklet with these Experimental Right-Of-Way Rules and Definitions from 1993 in my bookcase. It's probably on of the first books about the rules I ever owned.

You can read Mark's whole article here: The history of the rules

Mark is one of the UK’s leading sailing coaches, a freelance yachting journalist and a talented, highly successful dinghy and keelboat sailor in his own right.
Mark’s career has spanned more than 20 years in the British marine industry, with in depth experience of boat development, spar production, sailmaking and marine retailing. He has been winning championships since 1975 and, throughout his career, Mark has always helped others to win races.

Racing Rules Correlator (1972)

Looking for an appropriate picture for Sunday, I inadvertently clicked on the wrong button in Google and was linked to a Patent Search with the words "Racing Rules of Sailing".

Low and behold, there was one!
The Racing Rules Correlator, invented by Greg A Field and patented in 1972!

In the illustrated embodiment, the present invention consists of a simple and rugged construction and in one series of settings depicts the apparent relative situation between two racing yachts and additionally gives in short form the particular rule applicable to the existing situation.

More particularly, the invention employs two flat circular discs made of metal, wood, plastic, cardboard or other suitable rigid sheet material. The discs have preselected nautical data recorded on both faces thereof. On one face, the data relates to yachts sailing on the same tack, and on the other, for both discs, data relating to yachts sailing on opposite tacks and miscellaneous racing situations. The two discs are mounted in a frame of like material defined by spaced panels housing the discs with the discs mounted for rotation within the frame: the axis of rotation for one disc being laterally offset with respect to the other allowing the discs to rotate within the frame in overlapped position. With the two discs mounted in overlapping fashion, the frame covering the same is provided with a viewing window cut in each side and preferably aligned with the frame are further provided selector marks on the periphery of upper edge portions which are curved and which correspond in general to the periphery of the discs carried thereby. The diameter of the disc is such that a peripheral marginal portion of each disc extends beyond respective curved portions of the frame panel. In the preferred embodiment, nautical data relating to the various situations of each yacht allows the disc to

be rotated so that the particular yacht situation is set at or between the frame marks. Preferably, the various yacht situation data is carried by first disc sector portions, in this case on the uncovered margin of both discs, allowing initial setup of one disc for the operator and another for that of the competing yacht. Upon setting of both discs, the operator readily reads through one of the windows a specific rule governing the instant situation between the yachts.

 

I wonder if it actually ever got made?

If so, I would very much like to get in touch with someone who still has one or, even better, who has used one in a regatta... Its already 40 years ago that this patent was granted, but that at least is still valid.

Read all about it on:

USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database  or

Google Patents

In today's world this would be an made into an APP on our iPhone :-)....

ESS 2011; Act 4: Boston, Race day 3

Today a guest post by one of my fellow umpires here in Boston, none other than: Match Race Greg !

Every morning during the Extreme Sailing Series the competitors and umpires meet for an informal debrief called "coffee with umpires."  This morning a situation was presented to the umpire team that focuses on the application of RRS 20 while approaching the course limits on a beat to windward.

In this situation three starboard tack boats are overlapped in close proximity to the course limit.  The leeward boat (yellow) hails and makes the appropriate arm signals to hail for room to tack.   Immediately after this hail the middle boat (blue) hails and signals to the green boat for room to tack.  The windward boat (green) responds by hailing and tacking.

Once the three boats have completed their tacks onto port they find themselves approaching a starboard tack boat (red).  The competitors and umpires determine that there is neither room nor time to keep clear by tacking or by ducking.

The Red boat protest for rule 10. To avoid a collision he will have to tack if Green will not respond….
Which boat(s) should be penalized and under which rule(s) should they receive a penalty.

Leave your comments below, Greg has promised to follow the discussion closely and answer asap.

Rules simplification; Sometimes it happens - but not often

Mike Pallazo send me a question that he has been pondering for quite a while now, but just thought to ask:

Why'd ISAF get rid of 17.2?  Was it because nobody ever paid it much mind? 

17.2 Except on a beat to windward, while a boat is less than two of her hull lengths from a leeward boat or a boat clear astern steering a course to leeward of her, she shall not sail below her proper course unless she gybes.

I asked a friend - and member of the RRC - to find the submission back in 2007 that instigated this change.
It was Submission 183-07. (Thanks LP!)

As the reason for deletion this rule from the Racing Rules of Sailing, it states:

Rule 17.2 is redundant. It is also a rule that sailors break when approaching a gybe mark clear ahead of a boat astern and to leeward. In such a situation, the clear ahead boat will bear away to ensure the other boat does not get an inside overlap at the mark. The reason for this bear away is the other boat – it follows that this is not a proper course and the boat breaks rule 17.2. A rule that makes traditional manoeuvring prohibited should be deleted from the rule book.

The purpose of the rule was to ensure that there was at least one passing lane for a boat coming from astern. With the introduction of rule 16 some years ago, passing a boat to windward at some distance became less of a hazard, because when altering course the leeward boat had to give the windward boat room to keep clear, and if attempting to pass to leeward, the other boat would become windward and required to keep clear.

The deletion of rule 17.2 would make the racing rules of sailing simpler.

Don't say rules never are simplified - not often, I grant that - but it does happen.