Olympic Protest | 3

With all due respect for the expertise of the International Jury at the Olympic event, I think an opportunity is missed.

On the web site a list of protest is published as it would appear on any notice board at any event. We get information about who is protesting whom, the time of the hearing, witnesses if any etc. etc. When the hearing is conducted a little more appears; a conclusion, the rules involved and a decision. Even the names of the judges in the panel. 

You can read the complete list at : Protest Decisions

So far we can glean a little about what is happening. But no information is published about why or about what. The actual facts found are not provided. We have to "speculate" about the situation.

As an example: Protest #30:
_____________________________________________________________

Event:  Finn - Open Race: 7
Protestor: CAN
Protestee: NOR
Protest details: RRS18.2(a)

Facts found:

Conclusion: NOR failed to give room as an outside boat and broke RRS 2
Rule(s) applicable: RRS 18.2(a), RRS 14, RRS 63.3(b), RRS 2
Decision: CAN protest upheld. NOR to be scored DNE in race number 7 (RRS 18.2(a), RRS 2)
Short decision: NOR DNE in race 7 (RRS 18.2(a) and 2)

Jury: Jan Stage – Chairman, Quanhai Li, Ana Maria Sanchez, John Doerr, Zofia Truchanowicz,
_______________________________________________________________
(from the ISAF Website)

"Rule 18.3(a)" & "Failed to give room as outside boat" means it is about a incident at a mark. RRS 63.3(b) means NOR or CAN did not come to the hearing and it was conducted in his absence. I'm guessing NOR.
But what about RRS 14? Nothing in the conclusion about 14. Did CAN break it, but was not punished because there was no damage? Or did he not?

And then there's rule 2. NOR broke RRS 2. How? Why? What happened?
He was penalized with a Disqualification (other than DGM) not excludable under rule 89.3(b)! What did he do?

All the more intriguing is the rule 69 hearing scheduled against NOR as Protest # 33, with CAN and IRL as witnesses. Separate incident or still tied to this mark rounding?

It would be very nice and also educational to learn a bit more about the Olympic protests. If the protest details from the protestor are published, or at least the facts found by the Jury we could better understand what is happening. Protest are an normal part of the sport of sailing as much as what happens on the water. Everybody writes about who does what on the water and we get video's and analysis from every news gatherer.

I think it is a missed opportunity that not the same free flow of information is applied to the protest and hearings in Qingdao.

What do you think?

Racing Rules of Sailing 2009-2012 | 8

Rule 19 is completely new and splits off obstructions from the "old"rule 18:

19 ROOM TO PASS AN OBSTRUCTION

19.1 When Rule 19 Applies

Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except when it is also a mark the boats are required to leave on the same side. However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.

19.2 Giving Room at an Obstruction

(a) A right-of-way boat may choose to pass an obstruction on
either side.

(b) When boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.

(c) While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, if a boat that was clear astern and required to keep clear becomes overlapped between the other boat and the obstruction and, at the moment the overlap begins, there is not room for her to pass between them, she is not entitled to room under rule 19.2(b). While the boats remain overlapped, she shall keep clear and rules 10 and 11 do not apply.

Subsequently all following rules have been renumbered:

20 ROOM TO TACK AT AN OBSTRUCTION

20.1 Hailing and Responding

When approaching an obstruction, a boat sailing close-hauled or above may hail for room to tack and avoid another boat on the same tack. However, she shall not hail unless safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction. Before tacking she shall give the hailed boat time to respond. The hailed boat shall respond by either After a boat hails,

(a) tacking as soon as possible, in which case the hailing boat shall also tack as soon as possible, or she shall give the hailed boat time to respond;

(b) immediately replying ‘You tack’, in which case the hailing boat shall tack as soon as possible and the hailed boat shall give room, and rules 10 and 13 do not apply. the hailed boat shall respond either by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying ‘You tack’ and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her; and

(c) when the hailed boat responds, the hailing boat shall tack as soon as possible.

20.2 Exoneration

When a boat is taking room to which she is entitled under rule 20.1(b), she shall be exonerated if she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16.

20.3 When Not to Hail

A boat shall not hail unless safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction. Also, she shall not hail if the obstruction is a mark that the hailed boat is fetching.

19.2 Rule 19.1 does not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them or at a mark that the hailed boat can fetch. When rule 19.1 applies, rule 18 does not.

The rewriting is again done to get a more logical sequence;
Obstructions: How the rules work when passing one, then the rule when you need to tack for one.

I've been thinking about the deletion of 19.2 especially the part about not applying at a starting mark when boats are approaching to start. That has not been rewritten in the new rules.
That means that a tiny part of what was not allowed in the old rules has been deleted: If you approach a starting mark on starboard, which is also an obstruction - say a pin-end Race Committee vessel - you can hail. But only if the hailed (windward) boat is NOT fetching the (committee boat)mark. You must give the windward boat time to respond - including time to hail other windward boats.

What if there's a three boat situation where the two leeward boats cannot fetch the pin-end committee boat, but the most windward boat can?

In my opinion the leeward boat cannot force the middle boat to tack, she can only luf head-to-wind. What do you think?

Olympic | 2

On the ISAF Olympic micro site under the requests for information section, an interesting issue was raised today by the Danish Laser sailor:

"A boat is approaching the start line on starboard tack 30 seconds before the start. An upwind current is carrying the boat toward the start line. She backs her sail still carrying the main on her port side and as a result of that she: 1) Is beyond doubt moving "backward" trough the water looking at her hull and rudder. 2) She is still moving "forward" over the ground physically approaching the start mark and beyond doubt decreasing the distance to the mark.

Is the boat "moving astern" with regard to RRS 20.3, yes or no?


Does this boat have to keep clear of other boats approaching from astern?
No answer has been provided as of yet and I started thinking how I would answer this.

In a body of water that is displaced because of current, all movement is influenced by that current if you look at relative position to the "ground". However, if you disregard that movement and go only with the speed/movement relative to the ground, no sailor will be able to accurately judge speed any more. All movement trough the water must be relevant in my opinion. So I would answer that this boat is "moving backward" by backing her sail and subject to rule 20.3.

What do you think?

Olympic Protests | 1

Jumping from a national to a (very) international event only takes one sentence on the computer. For the competitors and all the volunteers it has been a longer road. I wish them all the best! I hope they will have - as the Chinese saying goes- "an interesting time".


I've subscribed to the Olympic RSS feed and one of the first news items I received was the opening of a web page with all Olympic sailing information on official requests, on the water penalties and Olympic PROTESTS.

I visited the page and found already one protest lodged. Unfortunately only the decision is published, not the facts found. It involves a measurement issue with the weights on the RUS Yngling.

Normally this would only be something has to be corrected before the first race. Not something that is protestable before the boat has raced according to the definition. If you consider the practice race as such - then the measurer reports the non compliance to the class rules to the Race Committee, which then has to protest the boat. See RRS 78.3

This protest however, is something more. Protestor is the Jury and it is a protest under rule 69.1 Alligations of Gross Misconduct for a possible gross breach of good manners or sportsmanship.

Is this a bad omen? To start the protests in Qingdao with a rule 69 hearing? I do hope not. I'm at least happy to read that there was no breach of sportsmanship.
A little strange is the notice on the list. It states: No Penalty given. I would have thought that the decision would better be abbreviated with: Protest dismissed.

You can read the conclusion and decision in this page

Also interesting to read, are the many request made by the teams. I detect the hand of a certain coach of the China team in the long list of questions Go for it, Ewan!

Among the official notices is one about the new Tornado Spinnaker. I wonder if that will be the next protest, once that class has sailed?

Sneekweek 2008 | 4

A nice promotional video has been made about the Sneekweek. You can find the link here and also on you-tube (I haven't found the link yet, but will try later again)

It has been a very slow week on the number of protests. Normally the daily average is about 10 to 12, This week the average has gone down to 7 with 34 Protest/Request in five days.

I can't find any special reason why the number of protest has gone down this year.

I'm having a discussion with my team about a reopening. Because the conclusion doesn't fit the facts found as written on the form, I asked a couple of questions and we discovered that perhaps not all facts were found. So the panel may have made a significant error.

The panel has gone through the alternatives and has concluded that in all cases the boat has not correctly sailed the course. So calling a reopening will - in all likelihood - not change the verdict. The party effected is a young sailor and the discussion hinges around the fact if we need to call her in, go trough the whole process and come up with the same results.

Please give me your opinion.


I wrote this post yesterday, just before a thunderstorm hit our lake. Due to lightning strikes we switched of computers and waited. After the showers had passed, the internet connections were all down, so I couldn't post anything. There was no sailing all day, so it was a little frustrating not being able to work on the blog. Anyway, the Sneekweek has now ended - with a great party yesterday. But I will come back to this year's event in a couple of posts in coming weeks.

.

TACTICAL SAILING SITUATIONS update 2.5F

Version 2.5F is released

Main changes are:

• 'Flogging' spinnaker when luffing above close hauled
• First try to show basic rules that apply on each situation
• Corrections of 'Setup' bugs introduced by previous version

Go here for download link

I've downloaded the update and this version works!

Sneekweek 2008 | 3

In the sailing instructions of the Sneekweek we have designated the marked channel in the northern part as an obstruction. While racing it is not allowed to pass the bouys into the channel.

The channel is in use by fairly large freight-vessels and in a deal with the provence, we have agreed to keep sailors out as much as possible.

Yesterday we had a discussion when this rule in the Sailing Instructions comes into effect. Because it is speccifically stated that this rule applies during racing, it has no effect before the preparatory (four minute) signal. Only the rules in part 2 - the right-of-way rules have effect before this signal

This turned out to be a problem on Sunday afternoon, when the course chosen by the PRO started next to the channel. He should perhaps have taken a little more distance, but the sailors started waiting before there scheduled start, smack in the middle of the channel.

We cannot enforce the provincial regulation, stating that you have to have a stanby-engine ready when entering the channel. Or when you don't have a motor, you only may cross via the shortest possible route.

I'm currently looking for a way to extend the time that they are not allowed to enter the "forbidden" area, within the jurisdiction of the RRS.

Sneekweek 2008 | 2

From panel 2 yesterday in the Sneekweek:

Facts Found:

• Race 1, Course H in 3 Beaufort.
• Boat A, B and C are all noted on the starting list and start the race.
• Boat B and C sail the entire race in first and second position. Both have not seen boat A during the race
• At the finish the RC note the passing of boat A approximately 40 minutes before boat B finishes.
• Boat B and C sail the race in about two hours.

Conclusion and rules:
Boat A has not sailed the course and breaks rule 28.1

Decision:
Boat A DSQ for race 1

Sneekweek 2008 | 1

Today we start the PC of the Sneekweek. This annual event is organized by one of my clubs, the KWS, this year for the 73rd time. With 830 entries one of the largest in the Netherlands, as far as inland lakes is concerned.

For this year I have organized nine members for the PC. We will operate in two panels, and in case of overflow, go to three. Preparing for this event in the last week I realized this was my fifth year already.

Besides running a smooth schedule for protests, I want to emphasize writing facts this year. I will introduce some extra attention to this, in our first PC-meeting later today.

If there are any interesting cases to report, I'll keep you informed.
For those who can read Dutch go to Samenvattingen Protesten, where you can read summaries of the protests.

Significant advantage

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

_______________________________________________________________

Jos,

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

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

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

A decision was made and we were all in agreement.

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

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

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

Thanks again,
Robert

________________________________________________________________

Robert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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