Is the definition finish done?

The 2013-2016 RRS has new wording for the definition: finish

A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment in normal position, crosses the finishing line from the course side. However, she has not finished if after crossing the finishing line she
(a) takes a penalty under rule 44.2,
(b) corrects an error under rule 28.2 made at the line, or
(c) continues to sail the course.

And in the new RRS, the time you have to inform a boat that makes an error in sailing the course, is now specified:

61.1 Informing the Protestee
(a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area that she was involved in or saw, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,

(1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;
(2) if the hull length of the protesting boat is less than 6 metres, she need not display a red flag;
(3) if the incident was an error by the other boat in sailing the course, she need not hail or display a red flag but she shall inform the other boat before that boat finishes or at the first reasonable opportunity after she finishes;

Let's have a look if we 'combine' these two. First of all, the informing part is mandatory; it says:"...but she SHALL inform…..". You must make a genuine effort to inform the other boat - but when? 

Now imagine this scenario:
A boat (call her CLEAVER) sails through the finish line, you are 20 meters behind. As soon as you also have finished, you manage to get closer to the first boat and tell her that she has missed the last mark before the finish. You don't need to hail protest or show a red flag, but you do anyway, to make sure you are seen 'informing' the other. After that you continue to shore, go to the race-office and fill in the protest form.

CLEAVER is scored in fifth position (you became third).

In the subsequent hearing you explain to the panel what you saw and did.

The representative of CLEAVER however, contents that she hadn't finished the first time. Because after you informed her she went back to the racing area, rounded the last mark and crossed the line again. And according to the definition, she only finished the second time crossing the line because she continued to sail the course. Whatever distances or where she sailed in between the second to last mark and the last mark before the finish, didn't matter. She sailed the course and should be scored.

What should the panel decide?
Can a boat still go back in this new definition?

J.

Why Holland isn't the Netherlands

For everybody who was sick of me talking about Holland, The Netherlands and Dutch:





The next time I'll open my lap top and show you the video, okay?

Have a good Christmas!
Jos

Changes in Rule 69; part Two

The second change in rule 69 is about the 'standard of proof' that should be used on the evidence:

Rule 69.2(b):
……. If it is established to the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that the competitor has broken rule 69.1(a), it shall either…...

I have had a very hard time finding out what 'comfortable satisfaction' means. The Casebook working party is preparing a Case to explain to protest committees what the “comfortable satisfaction” standard means and how they should apply it. But that will take - according to my sources - several more weeks, before that is finalized.

Search results

A search on the Internet spewed out several doping cases where this 'standard of proof ' is discussed;

A couple of quotes from an article by Daniel Dawer, with the title: Leveling the Playing Field: Why the USADA Must Adopt a Criminal Burden of Proof in Anti-Doping Proceedings

Article 3.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, states that such a standard "is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.“

Accordingly, the WADA established a burden of proof “greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”: namely, prosecutors must establish an athlete’s guilt “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body.” The standard’s ambiguity emerges from a failure to define “comfortable satisfaction.” Is it closer to preponderance of evidence—the evidentiary standard in civil proceedings—or closer to beyond reasonable doubt?

And from an article by Angel R. Puerta: Uncomfortable Satisfaction

Athletes need no longer be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in doping cases - a near impossibility in many instances - but rather they must be proven guilty "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the panels hearing their cases.

The new standard brings common sense into the pursuit of a level playing field. Obvious cheaters can no longer hide beyond a "we have never tested positive" gimmick that is built upon clever drugs and astute event and training schedules.

From an article on Velo News: Dick Pound talks Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong and the system

“Absolutely,” Pound said. “You can do a lot more with a confession like that and allegations and information that they can provide than you can ever do with results that come from the odd guy who pees in a bottle. In principle, I am very comfortable with it.”

In criminal trials, he said, “you can hang people even without bloodstained clothes. It’s a matter of having the kind of panels and the people on those panels who are in a position to weigh the evidence and arrive at the level of proof — to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel — that CAS has adopted as the standard of proof.”

Pound added that the more rigorous “comfortable satisfaction” standard is applied to anti-doping authorities when presenting their evidence “but the athlete must only meet a ‘balance of probabilities’ standard (when submitting evidence in their defense). It really is all well calibrated.”

Citing a hypothetical example of someone charged with distribution of 300 syringes of Aranesp, Pound said: “You don’t need the actual syringes to make the case. Eyewitness testimony of a delivery, credit card receipts … all of that is admissible and it’s up to the panel to weigh that evidence.”

The legal standards of proof can be found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
I've compiled a table and placed 'comfortable satisfaction' where I think it should be, which is level 8

Changes in RRS 69; part One

In the new RRS 2013-2016, Rule 69 has been extensively rewritten.

The main differences are:

1. It is now written in the rule that competitor may not commit gross misconduct - and for the purpose of this rule - what a competitor is.
2. The standard of proof in rule 69 hearings has been changed - in line with the doping rules and the practices of the CAS.
3. National Authorities have no longer a choice, they must start an investigation if they receive a report involving a rule 69 case.

Let's start with the first difference:
The change in wording makes it clear that committing gross misconduct breaks a rule in the RRS - something that was previously implied - but not actually written in so many words. And since 'breaking a rule in the RRS equals a penalty' is well established in other rules, the rule is now more consistent with the rest of the book.
 

It is now also made clear what is meant by 'competitor' in the rule 69:

Throughout rule 69, ‘competitor’ means a member of the crew, or the owner, of a boat.

There seems to be a typo in this sentence? Should it read 'or a boat'? Or perhaps the comma is misplaced and the sentence should read: 'or the owner of a boat'. I'll leave that one up to the rule makers…..

Several people, to whom I've had contact about this rule, expressed their disappointment that this last change is not nearly far (or good) enough.
Originally in the submission this sentence was:

For the purposes of rule 69, a competitor includes a person in charge, a boat owner and any other person who has agreed to be governed by the rules.

Let me put it this way, in asking this question:

If a parent of a sailor misbehaves, or a coach does something that is absolutely considered misconduct, can the PC or Jury start a rule 69 hearing? 

Does Rule 17 apply?

During a Medal Race at the Delta Lloyd Regatta a three boat situation near the finish developed involving rule 17. Let me start by the 'classic' situation where the middle boat has a rule 17 limitation and the leeward boat has not.

Two boats overlapped with red as leeward boat encounter a third (grey) boat. Purple establishes an overlap to leeward of Grey within two boat lengths and has a rule 17 limitation. Red however does not have the same limitation. She has an overlap with Grey (because Purple in the middle has an overlap with both), but not within two boat lengths, so Red does not have a rule 17 limitation.
Grey must keep clear as windward boat, but Purple may not sail above her proper course. Because Purple has to keep clear of Red her proper course is to luff when Red luffs. She does not sail above her proper course, because she would have done the same, if Grey wasn't there and she must keep clear of Red.

With me so far?

Now almost the same situation.

In this the overlap was long standing on the downwind, without a rule 17 limitation. Red is within two boat lengths of Grey. Grey manages to get clear ahead and breaks the overlap. A few seconds later the overlap is re-establish.

My question to you: does Red have to Gybe immediately? In other words, does rule 17 now apply for Red?

And what if we added a fourth boat overlapped to leeward of Red?

J.

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

(pillow)Case of the week (21/12) - 12

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 12

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 18.1, Mark-Room: When Rule 18 Applies
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.5(b), Mark-Room: Exoneration
Definitions, Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap

In determining the right of an inside boat to mark-room under rule 18.2(b), it is irrelevant that boats are on widely differing courses, provided that an overlap exists when the first of them reaches the zone.

Summary of the Facts
OL and IW were approaching a mark to be left to starboard. The wind was light and there was a 2-knot current in the same direction as the wind. IW, which had sailed high on the course to the mark to offset the effect of the current, approached it with the current, almost on a run. OL, on the other hand, had been set to leeward and, at position 1, about three hull lengths from the mark, was sailing close-hauled slowly against the current. IW twice hailed for water, and OL twice replied ‘You can’t come in here.’ At the last moment, shortly after position 4 in the diagram, as IW luffed to begin her passing manoeuvre OL tried to give her room but the two dinghies made
contact. There was no damage or injury.

OL protested under rule 11 but was herself disqualified under rule 18.2(b). She appealed, asserting that it was illogical and beyond the intention of the definition Overlap and of rule 18 to consider as overlapped two boats whose headings differed by 90 degrees. She also asserted that the purpose of rule 18 was to protect a boat in danger of hitting the mark that was unable to go astern of the outside boat. She further argued that throughout IW’s approach to the mark until she finally luffed, she was easily able to pass astern of OL, and that IW was not an ‘inside’ boat until a moment before contact.

Decision
OL’s appeal is dismissed and her disqualification is confirmed.
The boats were required to leave the mark on the same side and were on the same tack, and so rule 18 applied after position 1 when OL reached the zone. The boats were overlapped from that time until contact occurred, and therefore the first sentence of rule 18.2(b) applied, limiting OL’s rights under rule 11 by requiring her to give IW mark-room. OL did not give IW mark-room, and so is disqualified under rule 18.2(b). It should be noted that OL also broke rule 14, as she could have avoided contact, but, because OL was the right-of-way boat and the contact caused neither damage nor injury, she could not have been penalized had rule 14 been the only rule she broke. As a result of OL’s failing to give IW mark-room to which IW was entitled,
IW broke rule 11 while trying to take that mark-room, and therefore is exonerated under rule 18.5(b). IW also broke rule 14, as she too could have avoided contact, but is not to be penalized, because she was a boat entitled to mark-room and the contact caused neither damage nor injury.

RYA 1964/19

Many sailors have a hard time understanding that they can be overlapped with a boat far away on a hugely different angle. This case makes it clear once and for all and has been doing it since 1964!

The most common example is not with two boats, but with multiple boats who stack up behind each other to go round the mark and are surprized by a later incoming boat who claims mark room.

When the pink boat enters as fourth boat, the light blue is overlapped on the inside. Before we had the three length zone, this was even more seen as unfair.
J.

(pillow)Case of the week (15/12) – 13

(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 13

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 17, On the Same Tack; Proper Course
Definitions, Proper Course

Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.

 

Summary of the Facts

As the two 14-foot dinghies manoeuvred before the starting signal, they crossed the starting line. While bearing away to return to the pre-start side, L, initially the windward boat, assumed a leeward position by sailing under W’s stern. Immediately after position 4, L luffed to close-hauled and sailed straight for the port end of the line. W meanwhile, with sheets eased, sailed along the line more slowly. At position 5, there was contact, W’s boom touching L’s windward shroud. L protested W under rule 11; W counter-protested under rules 12 and 15.

The protest committee found that L had right of way under rule 11 from the time she assumed a steady course until contact. W had room to keep clear, although she would have had to cross the starting line prematurely to do so. Therefore, it dismissed W’s protest and upheld the protest by L. W appealed, this time citing rule 16.1.

Decision

W’s appeal is dismissed. Between positions 2 and 3 L became overlapped to leeward of W, acquiring right of way under rule 11 but limited by rule 15’s requirement to initially give room to W to keep clear. L met that requirement because L gave W room to keep clear. Just after position 4, when L luffed to a close-hauled course, she was required by rule 16.1 to give W room to keep clear, and she did so. L had been clear astern of W and was within two of her hull lengths of W when she became overlapped
to leeward of W. Therefore, she was required by rule 17 to sail no higher than her proper course. However, she had no proper course before the starting signal (see the definition Proper Course) and the starting signal was not made until after the incident. Therefore, L’s luff did not break rule 17 and she was in fact entitled to luff higher than she did, even as high as head to wind, as long as while so doing she complied with rule 16.1.

After L became overlapped to leeward of W, W was required by rule 11 to keep clear of L. She did not do so and accordingly her disqualification under rule 11 is upheld. In addition, W broke rule 14 because she could have avoided the contact with L. L also broke rule 14 because it would have been easy for her to bear off slightly and avoid the contact. However, she is not penalized because there was no damage or injury.

RYA 1965/10

Again a classic case. One that has survived the changes in the rules since 1965!
(Must be important, don’t you think?)

Although many an issue revolves around the limitations of the right of way boat (15, 16 and 17) the one thing that should clearly stand out in all these cases: Rules of Section A are to be followed!
The first and only obligation of the keep-clear boat is: TO KEEP CLEAR.

Only after you’ve done that – within a reasonable effort, and promptly – you can start to look at the limitations on the ROW-boat. She is after all the boat with right of way. She must be able to sail her course – whatever that may be – without having to feel the need to take avoiding action.

There are those that want the rules to be much more black and white. No limitations, no restrictions on course. With very few exceptions, the ROW boat should be able to do as she pleases. change course as hard as she wants, sail as high as she wants, etc., etc.
That would make PC work much easier, but it would not benefit the sailing. The keep clear boat would have to stay away at a much greater distance and really dedicate considerable attention to ROW-boats all of the time.
Be very happy that limitations exist!.
But it does not mean the keep clear boat can claim a greater part of the pie;
She still must KEEP CLEAR.

Final Score in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

WE HAVE A WINNER!

Scoring this final episode of our LTW 2012 Winter Challenge brought one contestant over the 100 points, and therefore he's declared as the winner. Congratulations Grey Bear, well done!
Your coveted prize will be banged in the post asap….

As to our final Episode, most of you did arrive at the 'correct' answer. Tiger was within the rules to try to improve her series score by making sure Hamilton Eleven finished after other boat(s).

The fact that the score of another boat was improved is more or less the point. If you sail someone to the back of the fleet - early in the race - a lot of boats benefit. The fact that is was only one, makes you think it was done for another reason. It's prudent to investigate the relation between the two boats benefiting from this manoeuvre, but even - like in our case - you can find such a connection, actual team racing is very very hard to prove.

You have to investigate all rules in the incident, because although the protest is about rule 2 and or 69, rule 2 can be infringed if you break a rule of part 2 using this tactic of improving your score. Tiger broke no rules, she was entitled to sail to the mark (18.2(b)), she was right of way boat (11) and Hamilton Eleven had to keep clear, therefore it was no rule 2 infringement nor a rule 69 issue.

Hamilton Eleven should have crossed astern as soon as Tiger luffed and defended her position instead of trying to pass to windward…. But that is hindsight.

Everybody who used Case 78 was deducted one point, it has been withdrawn from the book (well spotted Zaphod). But if you used Q&A 2011-022 you got a bonus point.

Scoring was based on the following criteria:
Adequate facts found? 2 points;
Rule 18 & rule 11 mentioned? 1 point;
Improved scoring (series) for Tiger? 1 point;
No rules broken by Tiger? 1 point;
No rules broken by Banks? 1 point;
Conclusion about rule 2 and 69? 2 points;
Dismissal of the protest? 2 points

Bonus or Malus points
Using Case 78? -1 point
Using Q&A 2011-022? +1 point
(redress 62.1(d)) only for Goomer two +1 point

Which gives us the final result:

I also have to congratulate Zaphod on his (almost) catching up and second place. And Dauphine who - despite not having entered in this last episode - managed to hang on to third place. (I did check the spam box!)

There will be an Epilogue to this series. I'm cooking it, but time is scarce, so it will take (at least) another week before it's ready.

(pillow)Case of the week (14/12) – 14

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 14

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 17, On the Same Tack; Proper Course
Definitions, Proper Course

When, owing to a difference of opinion about a leeward boat’s proper course, two boats on the same tack converge, the windward boat must keep clear. Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have different proper courses.

Summary of the Facts

After rounding the windward mark in light wind the fleet divided, some boats sailing towards shore to get out of the tide and others remaining offshore in hopes of a better wind. L had established an overlap to leeward of W from clear astern and they rounded the mark overlapped. W chose to remain offshore, while L began to luff slowly and informed W of her intention to go inshore. W replied ‘You have no right to luff.’ L replied that she was sailing her proper course and W was required to keep clear. The discussion took some time. L continued to gradually change course, and at no time did W state that she was unable to keep clear. The boats touched and both protested. The protest committee disqualified L under rule 17 for sailing above her proper course, and she appealed.

 

Decision

When, owing to a difference of opinion on the proper course to be sailed,two boats on the same tack converge, W is bound by rule 11 to keep clear and by rule 14 to avoid contact.

This case illustrates the fact that two boats on the same leg sailing very near to one another can have different proper courses. Which of two different courses is the faster one to the next mark can not be determined in advance and is not necessarily proven by one boat or the other reaching the next mark ahead.

The basis for W’s protest was that L sailed above her proper course while subject to rule 17. L’s defence and counter-protest were that she had decided that the inshore course out of the tide would result in her finishing sooner and that, therefore, the course she was sailing was her proper course. In addition, L argued that W had broken rules 11 and 14.

The facts found do not show that L sailed above her proper course; therefore she did not break rule 17. When L luffed slowly between positions 1 and 2, W had room to keep clear, so L did not break rule 16.1. L could have avoided contact with W. By not doing so, she broke rule 14, but is not penalized because the contact caused no damage or injury. By failing to keep clear of L, W broke rule 11.
W could have avoided the contact, and by not doing so she too broke rule 14, but is not exempt
from penalization. L’s appeal is upheld. L is reinstated, and W is disqualified for breaking rules 11 and 14.

RYA 1966/3

Like with passing an obstruction, it is the right-of-way boat who decides. If that boat feels that going inshore is a proper course, the windward boat must keep clear and go up as well

The definition of proper course allows for multiple courses and beforehand it is not always clear which . But even if the windward boat can show that the leeward boat is sailing well above its proper course, she still must keep clear. No boat is forcing her to break rule 11 – so she cannot be exonerated. She has but one option: Keep clear and protest. If she doesn’t and the leeward boat is found to have been sailing above her proper course, they both will be disqualified.

Although we are now getting into the first cases in the book and therefore well into the ‘oldest’, many sailors still get confused and make this – basic – mistake.

Score 03/09 LTW Winter Challenge

First of all I must apologies for not getting scoring and commenting sooner

It's tax-time in the Netherlands and I had an appointment with my bookkeeper today going over the results of my first year. That took all my time preparing. Luckily I had some post pre- prepared to go on the blog. But the LTW 2012 Winter Challenge got the short end of the stick. I'm satisfied with the comments of my bookkeeper and can do the changes in coming days, so this evening I'm catching up.

The case with the crew in the water was send to me by Jason, who told me it has really happened. Thanks Jason!

There are three rules to consider in this situation. In numerical order 42, 47.2 and 49.2

Most of the contestants went for 47.2, which is the obvious rule.  There is however one consideration to make. What is 'on board'? That is not defined in the rules. Can a person be on board while hanging onto it?
It is standard practice that if you need a definition of something that is not defined in the RRS, you go to the standard use/definition in the (nautical) dictionary.

Webster: On shipboard; in a ship or a boat; on board of; as, I came on board early; to be on board ship.

To me that means, the person should be at least 'out of the water'….
So the boat continues to race with a crew member not on board, therefore breaking rule 47.2 > DSQ.

There is also a breach of rule 42! The wording in the rule states: ......using only wind and water to increase, maintain or DECREASE her speed. Sticking an arm or a leg in the water to slow down for the start is breaking rule 42! Let alone a person.

Finally rule 49.2
You found out in the questions the boat has stanchions…. Logically that would mean that she also had lifelines, and one of you specifically asked this. In order to consider 49.2 you need to know this.
There is a case to be made that a person hanging onto the boat is positioning his body outside the lifelines, and certainly not performing a necessary task. But because of the other two infringed rules, you can also not use this at all.

Some of you also used rule 2. The skipper, by sailing on without recovering his crew, was deliberately breaking rule 47.2.

Hmm, I'm reluctant to go there. I think the skipper just didn't realise he was doing this. He should have, perhaps. But to find this a rule 2 issue I need to be sure. It must be clearly established, like the rule says. I don't blame anyone from bringing it up in the room, but my vote would be no.

I've scored the entries accordingly and commented individually.

The leader and runner up have only 1 point between them. It could be over in three episodes......
J

(pillow)Case of the week (12/12) – 17

(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.)

(This weeks case is number 17, because Case 18 is deleted in the Casebook)

CASE 17

Rule 13, While Tacking

A boat is no longer subject to rule 13 when she is on a close-hauled course, regardless of her movement through the water or the sheeting of her sails.

Question

Rule 13 applies until the tacking boat ‘is on a close-hauled course.’ However, the rule does not say whether the boat must be moving when she assumes a close-hauled course. Is it intended that, at the moment rule 13 ceases to apply, the boat must actually be moving through the water on a close-hauled course and not merely be on such a course?

Answer

A boat is no longer subject to rule 13 when she is on a close-hauled course, regardless of her movement through the water or the sheeting of her sails.

RYA 1967/8

Which makes it harder to see, sometimes. But that’s the way the rule is written and HAS to be used.
I always tell sailors who have a hard time recognizing if a boat has turned from head to wind enough, to use their own boat as reference. As most racing is done in one design classes, that should give them enough to work with.

In the Netherlands we race with ‘traditional’ boats who are equipped with leeboards. Those have a very big angle towards the wind, when sailing close hauled. Nevertheless the moment rule 13 switches off comes sooner than most sailors think. Err on the side of caution is a prudent strategy.

Retro Wednesday 1: Zoning Laws revisited

On a suggestion from one of my long standing readers and member of the original 'Look to Windward' -study group back in '04, I'm going to revisit some old posts. He quit rightly pointed out that the number of readers has increased (somewhat) and that most of you don't have the time to go back trough the thousand plus posts I've published, to sort out the diamonds in the fluff. Thanks H!

Subject: Zoning Laws.
First posted 22 March 2009

I don't know how many of you participate in multi-class events, but this situation can only happen there. Two boats - with distinctive different hull lengths - approach a leeward mark to be left to port.

The zone in the RRS is defined as:

The area around a mark within a distance of three hull lengths of the boat nearer to it. A boat is in the zone  when any part of her hull is in the zone.

In the animation I've drawn two circles, the bigger one is representing the area within three hull lengths using the Grey boat and the dotted circle is the same area but using the Red (smaller) boat's length.

In position 1 Red is closest to the mark, so neither of the two boats has reached the zone.

In position 2 Grey gets an inside overlap, but neither has reached the zone, yet

Just before position 3 Grey's bow has passed the bow of Red and she is now the boat closest to the mark. The zone therefore is now represented by the bigger circle, which means that both boats are completely in the zone.

In position 4 Red bears away - sailing by the lee - and Grey sails to the mark and rounds it. As does Red.

Is Grey entitled to do this, in other words does Red have to give mark-room?
If possible. give me your analysis with the relevant rules

If you can't wait and want to peak to find the answer, read the comments after the original post: Zoning Laws

J.


PS: Although the Poll has not yet run its total number of days, the predictions indicate a overwhelming majority of readers want the 'Full Monty' in their mail-box or feedreader. So as of yesterday I've changed the settings accordingly.

(pillow)Case of the week (09/12) – 21

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 21

Definitions, Mark-Room
Definitions, Proper Course
Definitions, Room

The amount of space that a right-of-way boat obligated to give mark-room to an inside overlapped boat must give at the mark depends on the inside boat’s proper course in the existing conditions.

Question

When a right-of-way boat is obligated to give mark-room to an inside boat that overlaps her, what is the maximum amount of space that she must give? What is the minimum amount of space that she must give?

Answer

As the definition Mark-Room states, while the inside boat is at the mark the outside boat must give her room to sail her proper course. If the overlapped boats are on the same tack, mark-room includes room to tack. According to its definition, ‘room’ in this case is the space needed by an inside boat, which in the existing conditions is handled in a seamanlike way, to sail her proper course while at the mark.

The inside boat’s proper course is the course she would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the outside boat. This may entitle the inside boat to more space than she needs for a seamanlike rounding. For example, her proper course may be a track that takes her farther from the mark as she rounds than a seamanlike rounding would so that her speed is not reduced by the tightness of her turn. Note that, according to the definition Mark-Room, an inside overlapped boat that is required to keep clear of the outside boat is not entitled to sail her proper course while sailing to the mark; she is only entitled to sail her proper course after she is at the mark.

The term ‘existing conditions’ deserves some consideration. For example, the inside one of two dinghies approaching a mark on a placid lake in light air will need relatively little space beyond that required for her hull and properly trimmed sails. At the other extreme, when two keel boats, on open water with steep seas, are approaching a mark that is being tossed about widely and unpredictably, the inside boat may need a full hull length of space or even more to ensure safety. The phrase ‘in a seamanlike way’ applies to both boats.

First, it addresses the outside boat, saying that she must provide enough space so that the inside boat need not make extraordinary or abnormal manoeuvres to sail her proper course while at the mark.
It also addresses the inside boat. She is not entitled to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while sailing her proper course.

ISAF 1969/1

You might also want to read Q&A 2009-022 B005.

And from Rapid Response Match Racing Call 2010/001

Question 2
When does a boat sailing ‘to the mark’ become ‘at the mark’?

Answer 2
A boat that is sailing ‘to the mark’ will be ‘at the mark’ when one or more of the following conditions apply:

• (a) She is no longer able to alter course, in a seamanlike way, towards the mark and pass it on the wrong side.
• (b) Any part of her hull overlaps the mark and she is closer than half of her hull length to the mark.
• (c) She reaches a position where she would usually alter course to round or pass the mark on the required side in order to start sailing the next leg of the course.

Score 02/10 LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

Phew, that were a lot of questions.
Some good, some not so, but because of different perspectives, everybody could experience that a fellow judges question may trigger a thought in your brain. Not so good questions, got 'bad answers', so I'll only count and not value the content... But in a next round I might.. (>.<)

As most of you discovered, this episode was about Case 50. The Port tack boat must convince the PC that their was not a reasonable apprehension of collision by Starboard. Read (pillow)Case of the Week (08) - 50, if you want to brush up.

This was the picture/animation I made when writing the Episode. In it you see the Red boat bearing away in position 3, just short of a boat length from Purple. There's also a Pink boat. It is only to show what would have happened if Red hadn't changed course.

Individual; remarks about FF, Conclusions and Decision are - per usual - in the comments in the original Episode Post: LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 02/10; Questions


The Score:
I've counted the number of questions + 5 points for a perfect and correct answer. Anybody mentioning Case 50 got a bonus point. There were a some challengers who asked questions but didn't send in an answer.....

We are almost halfway towards the hundred points, dear challengers, keep it up!

Score 27/01 in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

Episode 27/01 has been scored. There are a couple of late entries added.

This was an interesting exercise.
I will not post my view, because the challenge was not to find out what happened, but to see how consistent the challengers wrote. The readers of LTW can pick the one they think most came near what actually happened. As long as they are aware that finding facts out of a 43 second video is very tricky without any statements from sailors involved. That is more than obvious, after you’ve read the different facts found, the challengers came up with.

Instead of publishing the specific entries in the comments after the LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 27/01: Rolex Miami OCR 49er Crash post, I’ve copied them all in this post and commented on them as well.
That way I can add the pictures that were send in by some of the challengers.
(There are a couple of comments in the original post, but those are from non contestants and published after the deadline)

So in order to read what the Challengers send in for this episode:

ISAF Q&A 2011 - 027 M014: Eats, shoots and leaves

This Q&A reminded me of the Book of the Year 2004:
Eats, Shoots & Leaves -  The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
by Lynne Truss.

From the back cover:

Maybe the title of this Q&A should be: Mark to round; to pass or to leave?



ISAF Q&A 2011 - 027 M014

Question 4
What are the fundaments of the difference between rules 18.5 (a) and 18.5 (b) with regard to rules 15 and 16?

Answer 4
When a boat entitled to mark-room is sailing to the mark, she must comply with rules 15 and 16. However, sometimes complying with these rules means that the boat entitled to mark-room will not be able to actually round the mark. This is why rule 18.5(b), contrary to rule 18.5(a), provides for exoneration for a boat entitled to mark-room that breaks either of those rules while rounding the mark on her proper course.

I thought the best way to illustrate this was by a couple of examples:
Example 1: rule 16

Two boats, Red and Green approach a windward mark to left to port. Red is inside boat, entitled to mark-room, has trouble getting to the mark. She luffs hard when she is at the mark and there's contact between the boats. Red is right-of-way boat, Green is keeping clear, and if Red wouldn't have changed course so rapidly, there would not have been contact. Green left enough room for a 'normal' luff.

Red breaks rule 16.1 by not giving enough room to Green to keep clear. Nevertheless she is exonerated under rule 18.5(b) because she was AT the mark when doing so. Had she done the same, just after position 1, she would not have been exonerated.

Example 2: rule 15

There are big waves on the course. Two boats, Blue and Purple sail toward the leeward mark to be left to starboard. Entering the 3BL zone Blue is clear ahead and gets mark-room.
While sailing toward the mark Purple becomes right-of-way boat under rule 11. Blue is not changing course but gybes between positions 2 and three. Blue becomes right-of-way starboard tack boat. Normally she would be penalized for breaking rule 15, because she does not initially give room to Purple to keep clear. But because she's AT the mark, she gets exoneration under 18.5(b). Had she done the same between position 1 and 2 she would have not been exonerated.


Ooh, before I sign off, if you ever have to change to pick up a copy of Lynne's book, please do. It will change your world forever.
And the panda will be grateful.
J.

Score 13/01 in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

The score for the first episode:

And - as promised - my answer.

Conclusions

• (Blue complies with rule 10 by keeping clear as Port tack boat from Green as Starboard tack boat; Greens luff does not break 16.2 as Blue does not have to immediately change course to keep clear)
• (Green is keeping clear as tacking boat under rule 13, and then under 11 as windward boat; Blue does not have to give Green room under rule 15 as long as she maintains a straight course, because it was Green’s actions (her tack) that gave her right-of-way)
• (In position 3 Blue establishes a leeward overlap while Green as windward boat is still required to keep clear under rule 13, therefore rule 17 is not turned on)
• When Blue, as right-of-way boat, changed course between positions 3 & 4, she did not give Green enough room to keep clear, and broke rule 16.1.
• Green broke rule 11 by not keeping clear as windward boat from Blue, but was compelled to break this rule because of Blue change of course and subsequent infringement of rule 16.1 and is therefore exonerated under rule 64.1(c).
• Green did not break rule 14, because she was entitled to room from Blue (changing course) and by the time it was clear that Blue would not give that room, Green could not reasonably avoid the contact anymore.
• Blue could reasonably have avoided the contact even after it became clear that Green was not going to keep clear and broke rule 14. There was damage so as right-of-way boat she can be penalized. However Blue took the applicable penalty (rule 44.1(a)) and therefore rule 64.1(a) does not apply. Blue is exonerated under rule 64.1(b).

Decision
Both protests are dismissed

J.

LTW Readers Q&A (56) - Barging

From Loius Fernandez - Ardois on the other side of the world, I received an Email about barging I thought to share with you;

Recently I came across a fellow who was arguing the position that “Barging” on the Start line as we know it (or as I know it) doesn’t exist. He argued that the boat or boats that are barging at the start are entitled to “Buoy Room” because they are the inside boats.
He also argued that the committee boat becomes an obstruction and that the other boats that are close hauled going towards the starting line must give the “barging” boat room to clear the obstruction (in this case the Committee Boat even if it is surrounded by navigable water).
In my years of racing I have never heard of such interpretation.

I linked to this site from a link on your Racing Rules of Sailing blog that perfectly explains “Barging” on the Start line as I have known it. "Barging" on the Start line

Please help me clear up this situation.
Thanks,

Luis Fernandez-Ardois
Tinglar Racing Team
Fajardo, Puerto Rico

PS. Tinglar is the Spanish name for the Leatherback turtle the largest of all sea turtles.

The article by Greg & Paul on the Yachting Victoria Website is a good explanation about barging and what to do about it. And completely correct. The only emphasis I might want to add, in light of your experience, is in rule 18.1(a).

The whole issue on whether rule 18 applies at the committee boat or not, hinges on what the boats are doing at that moment. Specifically: Are the boats approaching the start line to start?

If they do, rule 18 is off and "barging" is prohibited;
If they don't approach to start, the committee boat becomes a 'normal' obstruction and rule 19 dictates what boats can or cannot do. In case the leeward right-of-way boat decides to pass to leeward, she has to give room to the windward boat to do the same. And the windward boat has to keep clear and if the leeward boat does not pass to leeward, she is not entitled to force her way - she must keep clear.

So WHEN are boats "approaching" the start line to start?

Alas, there is no fixed answer to this question. I'm sorry to have to give the judges standard answer: "It depends".

It depends greatly on the circumstances, the type of boat, the practise in the class and other factors.
The shorter the time before the start signal, the more likely it is that boats are approaching the line to start. In some classes that is from 2 minutes before the signal, in others as late as 10 seconds. I suggest you err on the side of caution, and assume a boat is approaching, unless you are sure she is not.
The angle in which a boat is pointing, is also a good indication if she approaching or not. Sailing fairly close- hauled, with slack in the sheets, not much speed.... pointing at the end of the committee.... You can more or less be certain she's approaching.
The crew of the boat will tell you that they are approaching. Then I would be inclined to believe them, wouldn't you?

Ooh, in light of your question: The whole barging issue is also depending on whether the committee-boat is a MARK of the the starting line or not. Some RC use a separate starting mark, a couple of boat lengths away. Then the RC-vessel is always an obstruction.

Luis, I hope this gives you enough "ammunition" to counter your fellow sailor?

J.

(pillow)Case of the week (49/11) – 32

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All Cases are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The cases are copied from the Casebook, only the comments are written by me.)

CASE 32

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

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

Summary of the Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decision

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

RYA 1975/3

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

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

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