The (less) strange case of the (non)competitor

In response to my post about the (non) competitor, I received a mail from Lynne in Canada. She's a member of the appeal board and they had a similar case. One that provides some insight in how to deal with this issue. I've asked and been given permission to publish it:

Racing Rules of Sailing
New Case - Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules
 

A submission from the Canadian Yachting Association

Purpose or Objective
To provide a Case clarifying when a boat is participating in a race.

Proposal
CASE XXX
Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 3, Acceptance of the Rules
Rule 4, Decision to Race
Part 2, Preamble
Rule 69, Allegations of Gross Misconduct
Rule 75, Entering a Race

A boat that meets the requirements for entry in a race, and sails in or near the racing area, and participates in a race is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes or retires from the race. The Racing Rules of Sailing apply to such boats. She does not have the option to claim that that the Racing Rules do not apply to her.
The boat’s sole responsibility to decide to participate in a race does not include the right to choose whether or not to be governed by the rules once she participates in the race.
By participating in a race, competitors are governed by the Racing Rules of Sailing, including action by a protest committee under Rule 69.
A boat that breaks the rules over a protracted period commits a gross breach of the rules and shows bad manners and bad sportsmanship.

Summary of the Facts:
During three sailing seasons at her yacht club’s weekly races, boat A entered the series, started and sailed in the races for a fleet of which she was not a member, rather than starting with her own fleet five minutes later. In the third season, two protests were filed against A under the Racing Rules of Sailing, Part 2. The protest committee found in both cases that A had been racing, and disqualified her for breaking rules of Part 2. Later that year, there was a further written complaint against A’s skipper alleging abusive behaviour during other races in which she sailed in the wrong fleet. The protest committee conducted a hearing under Rule 69 against A’s skipper, alleging that by his actions constituted a gross breach of the rules, good manners, and sportsmanship. It found that the competitor had committed a gross breach of the rules, and had also shown bad manners and bad sportsmanship, all over a protracted period. It upheld the allegations under rule 69. It imposed penalties to the competitor and to the boat, disqualifying the boat from the races in question and excluding the competitor from all competition for which the yacht club is the Organising Authority, for a period of two years.

The competitor appealed using Rule 70.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing. The competitor argued that A was observing the government right-of-way rules, as was his right. He further argued that he had informed the club that he was no longer racing at the club, and therefore, he had no undertaking to observe the Racing Rules of Sailing. Specifically, he was not obligated under, rule 3(a) to be governed by the rules or by 3(b) to accept the penalties imposed and any other action taken under the rules. He further objected to the jurisdiction of the protest committee that convened the Rule 69 hearing. He argued that they had ignored rule 4, which made the responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing hers alone. He appealed the findings of the Rule 69 hearing as outside of the Protest Committee’s jurisdiction, asking the Appeals Committee to find the decision to be null and void and ultra vires.

Decision
A’s actions directly contradict the assertion that she was not racing under the Racing Rules of Sailing. The boat took the decision under rule 4 to participate in the race, as evidenced by her own actions. Evidence of her participation under rule 3 is that she sailed in or near the racing area, she started races, often finished races, and claimed her rights under the racing rules when she met other boats competing in the races. A was racing from her preparatory signal until she finished or retired from each race. Her actions demonstrated that she was not a cruising yacht or a spectator boat who sailed into the racing area.

There is no contradiction between rule 4 which gives the responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race to the boat alone, and rule 3. The decision is observed through the boat’s actions. Participation in a race is evident by the boat’s actions, such as by starting races, sailing the course, rounding the marks, or finishing. Boats racing under the rules are entitled to proceed under the assumption that other boats that are participating in the race are also observing the Racing Rules of Sailing. The responsibility allotted in rule 4 is not a choice whether or not to observe the Racing Rules of Sailing.

The Racing Rules of Sailing did apply to Boat A.

Since the skipper of A had participated in the race under rule 3, he was a competitor in the sport of sailing. He was, therefore, governed by a body of rules that he was expected to follow and enforce under the Basic Principle, sportsmanship and the rules and Rule 69. The protest committee did have the authority to convene the hearing under rule 69. The competitor’s actions described in the written complaint did constitute a gross breach of good manners and sportsmanship. The competitor was properly found to be in breach of Rule 69. The competitor was subject to penalty under rule 69. Rule 3(b) did, therefore obligate the competitor to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal process which he used

The appeal is dismissed. The protest committee did have the authority under the Racing Rules of Sailing to convene this hearing and to impose an appropriate penalty on the competitor. The decision of the protest committee and the penalties imposed are upheld.

Current Position
None.

Reason
This Case provides a clear interpretation that a boat that participates in a race has agreed to be governed by the rules. The case clarifies that there is no contradiction between rules 4 and 3: A boat has made her sole decision to participate in a race once she does participate in the race. With that participation, she has agreed to be governed by the rules and accept any penalties imposed under the rules. A boat that participates in the race may not claim that she has decided not to participate, and that she is not governed by the rules. The case also confirms that the protest committee’s jurisdiction includes persons who participate in races but claim that they are not competitors under Sportsmanship and the Rules. They are subject to protest, to action under rule 69, and to any penalties imposed under the rules.

The appeals committee has submitted this particular appeal to ISAF for inclusion in the Casebook. It will be on the agenda in this year's November conference.

Betting and Anti-Corruption regulation is around the corner.

As a judge and umpire at events I’m privileged to hear a lot of information that is not (yet) readily available to the public. I must be aware of my limitations to blog about such information. I have made mistakes in that regard in the past.

That’s why I’m always on the look out for anything that is published or written by ISAF about this subject. In this years mid-year meeting a submission has been approved that has gone into effect on 05/04/2012: Betting and Anti-Corruption - New Appendix 5

Purpose or Objective of the submission: To establish rules on betting and anti-corruption. Proposal: To adopt the ASOIF Model rules on betting and anti-corruption as Appendix 5.
Notes: 1. The Constitution Committee to complete the relevant details. & 2. The Executive Committee to publish draft sanctions by the end of July 2012 for final consideration and ratification by Council in November 2012.

The approved text still has a lot of holes and still needs a lot of work before it is clear. But there are also paragraphs which raise more questions than answer them:

Lets have a look at ‘inside information’. This is defined as:

"Inside Information" means any information relating to any Competition or Event that a Participant possesses by virtue of his position within the sport. Such information includes, but is not limited to, factual information regarding the competitors, the conditions, tactical considerations or any other aspect of the Competition or Event, but does not include such information that is already published or a matter of public record, readily acquired by an interested member of the public or disclosed according to the rules and regulations governing the relevant Competition or Event;

Example: Racing has been postponed. But at one o’clock the jury is told racing will start at three. This is not yet announced on the noticeboard or anywhere else, in other words; it’s inside information.

Back to the text:

3. RULE VIOLATIONS
3.4 Inside Information
(a) Using Inside Information for Betting purposes or otherwise in relation to Betting.
(b) Disclosing Inside Information to any Person with or without Benefit where the Participant might reasonably be expected to know that its disclosure in such circumstances could be used in relation to Betting.
(c) Inducing, instructing, facilitating or encouraging a Participant to commit a Violation set out in this Rule 3.4.

I phone my brother, who’s watching the racing on the internet and tell him he can go and have lunch because racing will not start until three. Am I breaking rule 3.4(b)?
There are countries where they bet on anything. Is it reasonable for me to expect that they would bet on when racing starts?

Have a look at the document and tell me what your think.
Betting and Anti-Corruption - New Appendix 5

German Consequences (3); LTW Guest Post

By Thorsten Döbbeler

CHANGE OF DIRECTION?

In the current version of the case book, updated November 13, 2011, there is no case 78. Currently, case 78 reads:

"CASE 78
As a result of action taken by the ISAF Council on 12 November 2011, Case 78 has been withdrawn for revision."

The story behind that is that the Irish Sailing Association filed a submission to the ISAF annual meeting to change case 78.

Submission 259-11: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/25911RRSNewCase78-%5B11191%5D.pdf

You will notice that the wording of this submission is almost the wording of the new Q&A. The submission was accepted, but instead of directly replacing case 78, it was made a Q&A, while case 78 was "suspended".

The new Q&A A001 is replacing the old Q&A A001. Q&A Booklet:
http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/QA2011.022A001-%5B11686%5D.pdf

So, no case was amended or changed.
Case 78, which was binding, was replaced by a Q&A, which is a recommendation.
Still, we have a change of direction in my opinion.

 

BEFORE

The situation we had before the annual meeting was that we had case 78, referring to a "series" and we had the old Q&A A01 that clarified on the term "series".

The old Q&A states:

"... For the purpose of ISAF Case 78, a race or series is restricted to those races governed by a notice  of race as published by the organizing authority for the race under consideration. ..."

Last version of the Q&A booklet before the change: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/QAbookletNovember52010-%5B9631%5D.pdf

In my opinion case 78 and the old Q&A A01 meant that if you started "match racing" for your Olympic selection, could run you into problems easily.

 

AFTER

The situation we now have, is we only have the new Q&A A01, which goes in the other direction. This means we had not exactly a rules change, but a change of direction in which to go.

The German Sailing Federation (DSV) and the Olympic Sailing Council (OSA) agree that GER 21 did win the Olympic trials according to the RRS and according to the regulations of the German Olympic trials. Those regulations were written well in advance of the three events that counted for German Olympic trials (Sail for Gold in Weymouth, Kiel Week and Olympic Worlds in Perth) and it was agreed that those regulations were fair and transparent towards all competitors.
Those regulations did not prohibit "match racing" as in Q&A A01. Hence, GER 21 is recommended to the German Olympic Sports Association (DOSB) to be sent to London. RRS and regulations for the German Olympic trials are clear on this.

On the perception in the German sailing community: While the German newspaper that is quoted is a serious newspaper, the story they printed did not precisely reflect the way the German sailing community perceived what happened. The story he printed seems somewhat one sided. If you understand German, you might find the articles and comments on segelreporter.com interesting. Some 5 or 6 articles with tons of comments on that topic. To summarize in short, most people recognize that GER 21 acted according to the RRS.

MORAL?

However, the German sailing community does not seem to agree on the moral aspect. Some think that from a moral point of view, GER 21 should not be allowed to go to London. Others think that everything that is allowed under the RRS should be morally ok as well.

Both points of view were discussed in the comments very controversy.
Most moderate and realistic opinions were that while this way of winning the Olympic trials was not nice, it was according to the rules and nothing could (and should) be done about it. Next Olympic trials should take care of situations like this, though. GER 21 gave an interview in Perth saying that this is "no nice fight, but according to the rules, it is allowed".

GER 61 earned much sympathy for their good performance in their "free" races in Perth. They earned even more sympathy for the fact that, in the last race in Perth, they won the Olympic ticket for German 470 sailors (nation criteria), knowing that it most likely will be the ticket of GER 21.

As to the "lawyer case": Some people seem to think that taking this to court is basically the same as what GER 21 did - do everything possible within the rules and fight hard. Many others think that going to court is no option at all. GER 21 would waste the sympathies they earned - they should accept the decision that was made by the German Sailing Association (DSV), according to the rules.

These points of view are again discussed - I have the impression, though, that the "court is a no-go" opinion overweighs a little.

This is probably not a complete overview, it is only what I understood and noted.
What I posted above is my personal view and does probably not reflect the opinions of any majority or of the DSV, OSA or DOSB. Just trying to give some background here. ;)

TD

Is the Equipment Inspector part of the RC?

Yesterday evening we had a rules clinic in my club - as we do a couple of times each winter - this time with the tricky subject of the role of the equipment inspector slash measurer at an event.

In the discussion ISAF Q&A J 021 was presented:

Question 1
Is an equipment inspector or measurer at an event a member of the race committee for that event?
Answer 1
Not normally. Equipment inspectors or event measurers are responsible for checking that the boats or the personal equipment used by competitors comply with the class rules.
According to the Terminology in the Introduction to the Racing Rules of Sailing, ‘Race committee’ includes any person performing a race committee function. The race committee functions are stated in different rules in Part 7 (conduct races, publish written sailing instructions, score races, etc) and equipment inspection is not one of them.
If however the equipment inspectors or event measurers were appointed by the race committee to conduct such responsibilities on behalf of the race committee, then they are members of the race committee.

If you look at the wording in the answer there seems to be a contradiction. The first part states that equipment inspection is NOT one of the functions the Race Committee has to fullfill.
But if that same RC appoints a person to conduct those inspections, then it suddenly is the responsibility of the race committee..... because they are part of RC?

RSA and ERS

In the RRS an equipment inspector is not defined, but in the Equipment Rules of Sailing it is:

C.4.6 Equipment Inspector
A person appointed by a race committee to carry out equipment inspection.

We also have a submission that would make the equipment inspector or measurer a party in rule 62.1(a). That would suggest he is not part of the Race Committee - otherwise why the change?

Submission 270-11

Proposal
62.1 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 by

(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee, or organizing authority or an equipment inspector or measurer for an event, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;

I hope by the time I have the next measurement protest, I know the answer.....

Break's over

Right, break's over.

I've been hard at work at my new assignment - commenting on an upgraded App for Android and iPhone called You Tack! You can find a link in the sidebar. As soon as the new version becomes available I'll post about it more extensively. If there are any current users among readers of LTW - feel free to give me pointers on improvements.

I've also been studying the Match Race Call book because of my umpire test - next week. Trying to get in the right mind set. Tests are different than on-the-water umpiring.

To unwind a little, I've begun to have a look at all the submissions that are scheduled to be discussed at the ISAF November conference. There are several interesting improvements being submitted.This one for instance:

Reporting Committee – Racing Rules
Other Committee – Race Officials
Submission: 143-11
Racing Rules of Sailing
Rule 14

A submission from the Chairman of the Racing Rules Committee
Purpose or Objective: To remove the contradiction that a boat can break a rule and not be penalised.

Proposal:

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room 

(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and

(b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury.shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not cause damage or injury.

Current Position
As above.

Reasons
Replacing "shall not be penalised" with "shall be exonerated" simplifies the rule and makes it consistent with the principle that a boat breaking a rule shall be exonerated or penalised.
This submission was prepared by the ISAF Section C Working Party.

I agree with the proposed change in rule 14. It always was strange that you could break this rule as a right-of-way boat and still were not DSQ-ed. 

What is your opinion?

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.

Racing Rules Submissions 2010

ISAF has its conference scheduled for November.
The Racing Rules Committee will vote on the proposed changes in the Racing Rules of Sailing.

Here's a file with all the proposals: ISAF RACING RULES COMMITTEE SUBMISSIONS 2010
The document was prepared by Brass who also added a short explanation and a direct link to the actual submission. (Thanks & Well done)

Rule 20 is one who's most changed....

I've talked to people in that committee and was told nothing will change the first of January.
There are no submissions that are categorized as an "emergency"
All these will - when approved - have an impact on the RRS 2013-2016

I'll try to go over them asap and give you my opinion.

Committee-meetings in Busan | part 2

News about the submissions. One of the committee members send me an update about how the RO and RR-committee voted. They still have to be approved by the council. For the list of submissions go to this post: Committee-meetings in Busan 

Below is his message, thanks Jon!

Jos,
I was reading your blog today and thought you might be interested (for your readers) to know the some of the recommendations made by Committees at ISAF Conference. They are only recommendations to Council, which can still decide otherwise. These come from the recommendation papers produced by each Committee following their meetings which are public documents.

Events Committee (I didn't see their paper but heard about this)

Voted to abolish redress in the medal race apart from giving help.

Race Officials Committee

010-09 was withdrawn

All the tracking submissions were recommended for rejection or deferral

Voted to abolish redress in the medal race apart from giving outside help

Identified the need to develop documents for education on conflicts of interest and a general code of conduct for ISAF Race Officials. ROC will host an ISAF Race Officials Conference to develop and deliver such documents.

Recommended that a rule 42 web library be developed and implemented

Recommended that measurers and equipment inspectors at high level events by appointed/approved by ISAF

Recommended increase in seminar and clinics in 2010

Racing Rules Committee

146-08 - Approve with amendment to the wording

147-08 - Defer

151-08 - Reject

004-09 - Approve with amendment

011-09 - Approve - the Executive has withdrawn all of the proposal except clause 20.6.5 on bibs

012-09 - Approve with amendment

013-09 - Reject

015-09 - Withdrawn

019-09 to 026-09 - Approve

131-09 - Withdrawn by US SAILING

132-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010

133-09 - Reject

134-09 - Reject - RRC commented "This issue needs clarification but this submission is not the right answer as it introduces further uncertainties"

135-09 - Reject

136-09 - Reject

137-09 - Reject

138-09 - Reject

139-09 - Approve with amendment

140-09 - Approve

141-09 - Reject

142-09 - Reject

143-09 - Reject

144-09 - Approve with amendment

145-09 - Reject

146-09 - Defer - RRC comments "Agree the principle. Requires further discussion between RRC and ROC"

147-09 - Approve

148-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010

150-09 - Approve

151-09 - Reject

152-09 - Approve with amendment

153-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010

154-09- Approve with amendment

155-09 - Approve with amendment

156-09 - Reject

157-09 - Reject

158-09 - Reject

159-09 - Approve

160-09 - Reject

161-09 - Approve with amendment

162-09 - Reject

163-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010

164-09 - Approve with amendment to delete the words "protest committee" on second last line

165-09 - Defer

166-09 - Reject

167-09 - Defer

168-09 - Approve with amendments

169-09 - Reject

170-09 - Reject - RRC comments "Case 112 is a correct interpretation of the current rules"

171-09 - Approve with amendment

Then of the Calls - all were recommended for approval except:

177-09 - Defer - RRC comments "Agree the principle but diagrams and text need editing"

171-09, 178-09, 182-09, 184-09 and 188-09 - Approve with amendments

Hope that is of interest to your readers.

Best wishes,

Jon


I will do a couple of blogpost on the approved submissions with the recommendation of implementation on 1 Jan 2010 in coming weeks. Let's wait and see if the Council gives the green light, before I start giving you my input how this will change the rules.

Change in the Definition of Obstruction?

FROM :
Proposed-Change-in-the-Definition-of-Obstruction

By Rob Overton

The Section C Working Party, consisting of Ben Altman, Chris Atkins, Dick Rose, Richard Thompson and myself, have made two submissions to ISAF that deal with rules 18 and (indirectly) 19. One is an "emergency" change in the definition of Obstruction, to go into effect January 1, 2010, and the other is a proposed ISAF Case dealing with the meaning of Room.

Before we get into the submissions themselves, let's look at the perceived problem. There are a number of scenarios in which Rule 18, Mark-Room, and Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction, appear to conflict. Consider the following scenario, taken from a team-race call suggested by Matt Knowles. The boats are at a reach mark to be followed by a run:

Black is clear ahead of both Grey and White when she enters the zone, and Grey is inside White when they the zone. Grey and White are sailing faster than Black. Grey sails to pass to leeward of Black, and White elects to sail between Grey and Black. In doing so, White forces Black to luff up. Black protests White under rule 18.2(b) for not being given mark-room, and White protests Grey under rule 19 for not giving her room to pass to leeward of Black.



White's argument is that Black is an obstruction to both Grey and White because they both owe Black mark-room (see definition 'Obstruction'). So when Grey elects to go to leeward of Black, she must give White room to do so, too. By sailing up toward White between positions 1 and 2, Grey fails to give White room, causing White to sail too close to Black and thus forcing Black above her course to the mark. White admits she broke rule 18.2(b) with respect to Black but claims she was compelled to do so. She points out that when it became clear that Grey was not going to give her room under rule 19, she could not avoid both Black and Grey. So that means Grey should be disqualified, and White exonerated under rule 64.1(c) for her breach of rule 18.2(b).

Grey sees it a different way. White is required to give mark-room to both Grey and Black, and from positions 1 through 3 that means giving them room to sail to the mark. White could easily have seen that she would not be able to go between Black and Grey and still give mark-room to both of them, so she wasn't "compelled" to break rule 18.2(b). Therefore White should not be exonerated. Grey says she herself broke no rule; she was entitled to room under rule 18.2(b) and was simply taking the room to which she was entitled.

(Note that Grey can insure she is blameless by bearing off toward the wrong side of the mark to give White room to pass between her and Black, and protesting White. Now White has clearly broken rule 18.2(b) by not giving Grey room to sail to the mark, and Grey has given room as required by rule 19.)



This apparent conflict between rules 18 and 19 is caused at least in part by the fact that Black is an obstruction to both White and Grey. This is because the definition of Obstruction says a boat racing is an obstruction only if they both "required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her." If those words " give her room or mark-room" were removed, then White's case disappears. Black would only be an obstruction as long as both Grey and White are clear astern of her, and after that, Grey would be under no obligation to give White room to pass to leeward of Black.

This is the substance of the submission the Section C Working Party has put forward to ISAF. The definition Mark-Room would say "… However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. …"

But wait; think about the following scenario:

Under the current definition, PW is an obstruction to both PL and SW because, even though she has right of way over neither of them, they both owe her room to pass Yellow. This means that SW must give PL room to pass between her and PW. Under the proposed definition, neither PL nor PW would be obstructions to SW. SW would still be required to give PL and PW room to pass SL because SL has right of way over all those boats; but why should SW give PL room to avoid PW?

The answer is a basic principle, not explicitly stated in the Racing Rules of Sailing, but nonetheless clearly implied: It is not seamanlike to break the rules. Because SW owes PL room to pass between her and SL, and because PL cannot do that without giving room to PW, thus SW must give PL room to give PW room.

Because this is not explicit in the rules, nor in the ISAF Cases, the Section C Working Group has proposed a new ISAF Case that makes this principle explicit.

So how does this pair of submissions solve problems as in the first example above? Well, under the proposed new definition of Obstruction Black would not be an obstruction to either Grey or White, so rule 19 does not apply. End of problem.

Before making these submissions, the working group spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios where the change to the definition of Obstruction might cause problems. Despite our efforts, we could think of none. Can you think of any place on the racecourse where the words "give her room or mark-room" are necessary in the definition of Obstruction? If you can, please let me know by commenting on this blogsite or contacting any of the members of the Section C Working Party. E-mail addresses for Ben Altman, Dick Rose and I are on the US SAILING website, at http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Rules/Committee.htm.


I've copied the text from the doc in it's entirety. If you can answer Rob's question, don't hesitate to do so!

ISAF Submissions 2008 part 4 | Race Officials: COMMITTEE VOTES

The minutes of the meetings held at the Madrid conference are published on the ISAF website. In order to see what has become of the submissions, I had a look on how the committees voted and asked ISAF about the final Council decision. This is what I found:

I used these abbreviations:

IJSC = International Judges Sub-committee
IUSC = International Umpires Sub-committee
IMSC = International Measurers Sub-committee
RMSC = Race Management Sub-committee
ROC = Race Officials Committee
RRC = Racing Rules Committee

Reject = Rejected (or recommended to be rejected by the council)
Appr. = Approved (or recommended to be approved by the council)
Defer = Defer Submission
NS = Noted, No discussion
- = not considered

(All text in Italic are my comments or remarks)

Submission 022-08 to bring the fee for a deputy chief umpire in line with the (increased) responsibilities such as training a new chief umpire.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	APPR.	-	-	APPR.	-

(Fees after 18 November 2008: € 85,- for Umpires & €125,- for CU)

ISAF: This submission was merged with 055-08 and approved by council. CU, DCU and Ump fees are for racing days plus days of required attendance plus 2 days (travel days). We apply from 15 Nov 2009

Submission 024-08 about better representation of the MNA's in the Olympic Jury by restricting the number of times a Race Official can do an Olympic (two times) and asking for 30% new members.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
REJECT	REJECT	-	-	REJECT	REJECT

(Only one Committee noted the possible conflict of interest)

ISAF: Council decision: Rejected

Submission 055-08 to apply the fees for match race umpires to scheduled racing days, not practice days.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	APPR.	-	-	APPR.	-

ISAF: See 022, 055 was withdrawn.

Submission 131-08. This submission, if successful, would incorporate IFDS International Classifiers within the ISAF Race Officials Committee in line with Executive Committee discussions with the IFDS. The intention is that the International Classifiers Sub-Committee (ICSC) would be formed early in 2009 and that the first appointments of International Classifiers under the ISAF would be made in November 2009.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	-	-	-	DEFER	-

ISAF: Defer to Nov 09 to establish proper procedures how to implement

Submission 132-08 proposes that Race officials be recommended by their MNA not only for their first appointment, but also for renewals. Based on the argument that a appointed race official should contribute to their own MNA in sharing knowledge and help with education.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
REJECT	REJECT	REJECT	REJECT	REJECT	-

(No help for MNA's for wayward RO's, I'm afraid)

ISAF: Council Decision: Rejected

Submission 133-08 proposes to bring the deadline for umpire assessment into line with the other deadlines (seminars & written test). [On a personal note; this I could have used in 2007!]

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	APPR.	-	-	APPR.	-

(Practical instead of regulatory, without losing quality)

ISAF: Council decision: Approved, all under ISAF control is now 14 Oct

Submission 134-08 is about correcting an error in the regulations last year. Only umpires who send in their application for first appointment, need to hand in three IUSC Reference forms. Not umpires who apply for renewal.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	APPR.	NS	NS	APPR.	-

ISAF: Council decision: Approved

Submission 135-08 When a candidate for IU has failed the examination twice, this submission proposes that a third attempt may only be done after a positive decision from the chairman of the IUSC and that any subsequent attempt may not take place, within four years the failed third time. And only when all requirements of first application have been fulfilled. Three strikes you're out, but you can start again from scratch.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	APPR.	-	-	APPR.	-

(The period when you can start again will most likely be two instead of four years)

ISAF: Council decision: Approved with a change to 2 years (instead of 4)

Submission 136-08 about the criteria for International Measurer.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	-	APPR.	-	APPR.	-

ISAF: Council decision: Approved

Submission 137-08 proposes to bring the requirements for first appointment of a race officer in line with the other disciplines by requiring three reference forms.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	-	-	APPR.	APPR.	-

ISAF: Council decision: Approved

Submission 138-08 proposes to have a "recognized" race official who can function in all respects as an international race official, but does not have to meet the requirements in experience. This so that he/she can get that experience in a period of four years and then apply for IJ/IU/IRM - status.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
REJECT	REJECT	REJECT	APPR.	Withdrawn	-

(Most were concerned about the amount of 'paperwork' benefiting only a few, but suggested alternative support ideas)

ISAF: Submission was withdrawn due to lack of support.

Submission 139-08 to bring the hearing process in case of a negative report in line with regulation 51.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
APPR.	APPR.	APPR.	APPR.	APPR.	-

ISAF: Council decision: Approved

Submission 140-08 to inform the chairman of the relevant Sub-committee even in case of a "minor" negative report about a race official.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
APPR.	APPR.	APPR.	APPR.	APPR.	-

ISAF: Council decision: Approved

Submission 150-08 to give the authority to the Racing Rules Committee to deal with the introductory racing rules.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
NS	NS	-	APPR.	APPR.	APPR.

ISAF: Council decision: Approved

Submission D133-07 to rename International Race Officers into International Race Managers on the argument that Officers is to close to Officials.

IJSC	IUSC	IMSC	RMSC	ROC	RRC
-	-	-	REJECT	Withdrawn	-

(Once a name is in use....)

ISAF: Withdrawn by the ROC Chairman due to lack of support from RMSC

ISAF: Another submission of interest for umpires: 116-08, which was approved with very minor amendments.

I haven't had time to study this one. I'll get back to it when I can.

You can read the full minutes on the ISAF Website.

Oh, before I forget, Thanks HC! for your prompt answers.

.

ISAF Submissions 2008 part 3 | Call Books

Final part in this series about Submission for the ISAF November conference deals with calls for the Team - and Match Race call books:

1. Submission 155-08: Deletion of Team Race Calls: B5, D9, D10, E9 and J2. They are all no longer relevant under the new rules.
   
2. Submission 156-08: Deletion of Match Race Calls: Call MR 26 because it no longer has standing under the new rules.
   
3. Submission 157-08: New Team Race Call D9, to clarify the circumstances under which mark-room includes room to tack and how the new exoneration rule is to be applied in those situations.
   
4. Submission 158-08: New Team Race Call D10. The call is needed to clarify details around the new rules about obstructions, and to provide consistency in umpiring a situation that occurs in team racing.
   
5. Submission 159-08: New Team Race Call H5. When rule 18.2(b) applies between two boats and the boat entitled to mark-room is taking the mark-room to which she is entitled, she will be exonerated under rule 18.5 (b) for breaking rule 16 when she is rounding a mark on her proper course. When the change of course is not consistent with rounding the mark on her proper course, a breach of rule 16 will not be exonerated.
6. Submission 160-08: New Team Race Call M7; A new Call based on Rapid Response Team Racing Call 2008/002 about taking penalties.
   
7. Submission 161-08: New Team Race Call M8; A new Call based on Rapid Response Team Racing Call 2008/003 about penalties initiated by Umpires - Breach of Sportmanship
   
8. Submission 162-08: New Team Race Call J6; A new Call based on Rapid Response Team Racing Call 2008/004 edited to comply with the 2009-2012 Rules. About breaking an overlap near a leeward mark.
9. Submission 163-08: New Team Race Call L6; A new Call based on Rapid Response Team Racing Call 2008/005 about sailing back to a previous leg and rule 22.2

With maybe a few changes in wording, these Calls will all make it into the Call books.They are based on Rapid Response Calls and therefore went already trough a thorough "vetting" process.

ISAF Submissions 2008 part 2 | Rules & Calls

This is part two of the Submissions to be decided on at the ISAF Annual conference in November in Madrid, Spain. All submission this time are about the Racing Rules en Calls.

1. Submission 146-08 Pumping the Sails to clarify the rules regarding the number of times you may pull the sails and how
   
2. Submission 147-08 To clarify the interpretation in Rule 89.1 of a class association
   
3. Submission 148-08 Changing rule 50.4 to give a more practical distinction between a Headsail and a Spinnaker (Headsail Definition)
   
4. Submission 149-08 Windsurfing; Housekeeping changes in Appendix B and introduction of other courses
   
5. Submission 151-08 RRS, New Case; Discussion of the terms ‘original race’, ‘rescheduled race’, ‘restarted race’ and ‘resailed race’ , the application of rules 30.2, 30.3 and 36 to races that are restarted or resailed.
6. Submission 152-08 RRS, New Case; When a boat sails the wrong course, another boat may decide to protest her when the course error is made, or when she finishes or at any time in-between. She must then be informed of the intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity.
7. Submission 153-08 RRS, New Case; It is a proper action of the race committee to penalize a boat for breaking rule 30.2 or disqualify her for breaking rule 30.3, even if, before a starting sequence was begun, the race was postponed or if, during another attempted start of the same race, a postponement or abandonment was signaled before the starting signal.
   
8. Submission 154-08 RRS, Amendment to Case 78; When a boat is protested for positioning herself in a tactically controlling position over another boat and then slowing that boat’s progress so that other boats pass both of them, she must, to avoid being penalized for breaking rule 2, satisfy the protest committee that her controlling tactic had a reasonable chance of benefiting her series result. However, if she intentionally breaks a rule to increase the likelihood of the tactic succeeding, she also breaks rule 2.

The last submission is an amendment and adding to case 78. In 2005, Submission 154-05 was submitted proposing a substantial revision in Case 78. The Racing Rules Committee recommended to Council that the submission be deferred and that the Case Book Working Party resubmit it with revised wording, including an added statement to the effect that the protest committee must be satisfied that the tactics of a boat had a reasonable chance of benefiting her series score. Council accepted the committee’s recommendation. This submission is made in response to that recommendation. The case has been expanded to cover some of the issues covered in ISAF Q&A 07-008.

The Medal Races in Qingdao have put this case back on the front page. I hope it will not take another three years to get it in the Call book.

The final part in this series of posts about submission, will be about Match Race and Team Race calls. Scheduled posting is next Tuesday.

.