DAIL UP; USMRC | 02

I've send an Email to Kirk Brown asking him about the issue discussed in this post:
DAIL UP; USMRC Newsletter Vol2, Issue 1

It was about this situation:He has written back:

I have sent a RRC on this. I am aware that there are others as well. The proposed call I sent shows Blue closing the door and a collision. The question is: may Blue close the door?
I am coming to believe that the second sentence of rule 18.2b allows Blue to close the door and Yellow must continue to give Blue room to sail 'to' the mark, even though Yellow initially gave Blue room to do just that.

I spent the better part of a weekend last month setting this up on our Catalina 37s. The tactic I used as Yellow was to follow Blue, and when Blue gybed back to the RC boat, then continue on starboard over the top of Blue, falling off when Yellow can clear Blue's transom, or if Blue gybes underneath, then Yellow gybes and Blue will never be able to get to Yellow.

Yellow merely needs to follow Blue and not get trapped and the boats will drift across the finish line. The strategy for Yellow is to get inside the "H" by driving Blue to that point. Once Yellow does that, she cannot lose.

In conclusion, I think the RRC can leave the 'mark trap' in the game, but Yellow has a winning strategy as long as she doesn't get trapped and can drive Blue inside the "H".

But, we'll see.
Best, Kirk

iShares Cup 2009 Venice | 01

Tomorrow at this time I'm hoping to have arrived safely and drank a few cold ones on a terrace in Xtreme-40 city of the weekend: Venice!

I'm going to do some addendum Q umpiring for the first iShares-cup regatta there. I've never been to Venice and am looking forward to visiting. The race venue is very near San Marco Square and since in the morning we don't have many obligations, I'm planning to soak up that special city, first hand.

From the official press release:
" Venice to provide a dream backdrop to the opening event of the 2009 iShares Cup Extreme 40 Sailing Series to be staged between 15-17 May, during which 10 world-class international teams will battle it out in prime European venues. It's all coming together with less than two days to go to the official kick-off. Between 6-8 races will be held daily on the Bacino San Marco commencing at 14h30 local time. An unprecedented world-class line-up of 40 sailors across 10 Extreme 40 teams racing within meters of the shore with outstanding viewing from the Riva dei Setti. Visit the iShares Cup Venice event microsite at www.isharescup.com/venice - this 'one-stop' site contains all the latest event news at a glance, information for the pubic on timings and best viewing spots, latest photos and video."


Beside the official site you, as faithful LTW-readers, will get a first hand briefing on the rules issues and happenings in the umpire team. I'm loading my spare battery for the camera as I type this. There's Wifi at the venue and I'm taking my Lap-top, so stay tuned!

I've studied the SI, and plan to bone up on addendum Q on the plane. So far only rule 18.3, as changed in appendix C (match racing) has been added to this regatta. That's because - however large these cats may be - they still need a long time to tack… and doing that inside the zone while another is screaming up to you, might cause a couple of head to wind luffs.

Now, where did I keep that extra bottle of sunscreen?….
J.

LTW Readers Q&A | 025

Hi Jos,
I am a frequent reader of your RRS blog from Hong Kong. Yesterday, we held a friendly regatta with 4 races and a conflict arose in scoring as the race committee's intention differed from the Sailing Instruction. We are all amateur sailors and we hope you may give us some advise.
The intention of the race committee is to use the total scores from all 4 races to rank the competitors. Unfortunately, race committee made a mistake in writing the Sailing Instruction as the SI stated that low point system of Appendix A (RRS 2009-2012) will be used. Appendix A2 states that each boat's series score shall be the total of her race scores excluding her worst scorer, i.e. with 1 discard.
Prize giving was done on the same day right after the regatta and no one has requested for redress (RRS 62.1a) on this issue within the protest time limit (RRS 62.2)
This question was raised the next day and we are not sure whether the race committee shall re-calculate the score based on Appendix A2 or the score that have been worked out shall remain unchanged.
According to RRS 63.7, (the committee shall apply the rule that it believes will provide the fairest result for all boats affected), the race committee believes using scores of all 4 races is fairest to the competitors.
I hope you may shed us some light before we have a heated debate.
Best regards,
David Fan

Hello David,
I understand the dilemma, but in my opinion there’s actually only one solution. According to the RRS 85, the RC shall be governed by the rules in the conduct of the races.
That means that you will have to follow the SI and recalculate the result with one discard. I would suggest the RC does this regardless if there’s a request for redress or not. If this means that the prizes have to be re-awarded to others, so be it. The contract everybody agreed on to sail under i.e. the Sailing Instructions, state that A2 is applicable.
Rule 63.7 is only applicable if there’s a conflict between the NOR and the SI and only if that conflict has to be resolved before a request for redress can be decided. Did the NOR state that there would be no discard?
Intentions – however well regarded or perceived – are not rules. And if a RC would base decisions – which are dictated by a rule -  on intentions, there is no end in sight.
I would regard this as a valuable lesson for the future. The person or persons writing the SI, will never make this mistake again. But to leave the results as is would be far worse. Then sailors would need to ask the RC about their ‘intentions’ before trusting was was written in the SI……
I hope this is of some use to you,
Cheers,
Jos
Google produced this under Hong Kong Sailing: (note the date!)

Boats sail across Victoria Harbour during a regatta in Hong Kong, 12 May 2007

Mark-Room – Revisited

A guest post by Mike Butterfield

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

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

What is mark room?

Well it is a two sided advantage.

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

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

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

Time factor?

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

.

Sunday Rules Snap |3

Very close quarter Match Racing
Two pictures from Hedwich who umpired at a Match Race Event in Delft this Sunday.
You can see it's very narrow and small in "de Kolk" which no doubt has resulted in some mixing of rules 18, 19 and 20.

The event is organized by Broach

Team Race Training Lelystad

Been on the water today for a Team Race Training with "Regenbogen".
Team 'Friesland' against the rest of the World...

Nice breeze (a little slow at times) and good venue. With coaching by Roy Heiner for the team.
I was there with two other umpires. Explaining our point of view and answering questions and calls on and off the water.
But since Team racing is not at all that frequent over here, we needed the training as well. First get rid of the differences between team and match racing and then training to have eyes in the back of your head....

Now I have a question of my own, which we couldn't find an answer to:
Appendix D1.1(d) Add new rule 23.3: 'A boat that has finished shall not act to interfere with a boat that has not finished'

First of all, does this only apply to a boat after she's crossed the line, but before she's cleared the line and finishmarks? Or does this rule also apply to a boat after that? Or do we then go back to RRS 23.1?
If RRS D1.1(d) applies also after clearing the line - say for a boat going back to slow down a boat from the other team, what is the penalty?
Red flag penalty has no effect and it is clearly not a points penalty.
Do we penalize another boat of the same team?

.

Fact Finding Friday | 010 Ankara Absinthe v Vilnius Vodka and Washington Whiskey

By Brass from “The Room”

Introduction

The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence

You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses.

You have listed Facts Found and the protest committee members have agreed to endorse the attached diagram.

Orange: Ankara Absinthe; Yellow: Vilnius Vodka; Green: Washington Whiskey

Facts Found

1. Vilnius Vodka and Washington Whiskey were sailing on a downwind leg on starboard tack.
2. Vilnius Vodka became overlapped to windward of Washington Whiskey from clear astern and Washington Whiskey luffed to defend her position. Vilnius Vodka responded, with the result that both boats were sailing well above what would be their proper course to the next mark.
3. Vilnius Vodka's course was converging on Ankara Absinthe, which was sailing lower and slower.
4. Vilnius Vodka became overlapped on Ankara Absinthe from clear astern within two boat lengths.
5. Washington Whiskey did not come within two boat lengths of Ankara Absinthe until after position 3 in the diagram.
6. Ankara Absinthe changed course to windward to keep clear of Vilnius Vodka.
7. Ankara Absinthe protested Vilnius Vodka and Washington Whiskey for sailing above their proper course under rule 17, with timely flag and hail.

Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence

Your fellow protest committee members agree that Vilnius Vodka and Washington Whiskey, throughout, are sailing above a course that would enable them to reach the next mark as soon as possible in the absence of other boats, but that Vilnius Vodka did not sail higher than was necessary to keep clear of Washington Whiskey.

Problem

Write Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and the Decision for this protest. Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.

Apparant Wind: The RRS in 7 stages

A very incite full post on a fairly new sailing blog was posted yesterday, which I think every PC-member and Judge should read:


A short quote:
"Stage 5 "We need a team lawyer!
Our developing sailor has a decent grasp of the rules but now realizes that the facts according to the protestor are frequently different than the facts according to the protestee. Kids realize that they need to clearly explain themselves and present a coherent version of the incident. Being able to cite the appropriate rules also wins points in convincing a protest committee that one knows what he’s talking about. In the early part of this stage, the focus is on writing up the protest, which becomes a team effort with the best lawyer on the team helping the others. Toward the end of this stage a wonderful thing happens – the sailors start to clarify things with each other on the water! They talk about the overlap several boat lengths before the zone, and they negotiate luffing with statements like “you have to give me room to go up.”

Some of it I recognize straight away, some of it is something I will in future pay attention to.

You can read the whole post: Learning to Embrace the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS)
I've added Apparent Wind to my Bloglist.

Sunday Rules Snap |2

Two very different pictures this Sunday.

The first a little bleak - perfect for today (it's been windy, cold and raining here all day) - also signifying no sailing.

No wind - no sailing

Taken on the second day of the Tulip race 2009 (first weekend of April) by Hedwich

The second one send in by Manuel, who attended the IRO Seminar in the last weekend of April:
Enclosed I send to LTW a photo of a relax moment with LRF Laser RangeFinders. The seminar was organized by the RYA/ISAF in Southampton (GBR)

If you have a picture, please send it to rrs-study ed home dot nl and perhaps it will be posted in a next episode of Sunday Rules Snap....

.

Fact Finding Friday |009 Tokyo Topgun v Ulaanbaatar Underdog

By Brass from “The Room”

Introduction

The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.

Hearing and Evidence

You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses.

You have listed Facts Found and the protest committee members have agreed to endorse the attached diagram.

A Tokyo Topgun B Ulaanbaatar Underdog

Facts Found

1. Tokyo Topgun and Ulaanbaatar Underdog were running on starboard tack close to the shore against a strong ebb tide in a Force 3 breeze.
2. Tokyo Topgun was not more than half a hull length clear ahead of Ulaanbaatar Underdog.
3. Ulaanbaatar Underdog blanketed Tokyo Topgun, causing Tokyo Topgun to gybe unintentionally.
4. There was contact immediately after Tokyo Topgun gybed.
5. There was no injury or damage.
6. Ulaanbaatar Underdog protested Tokyo Topgun under rule 10, with timely flag and hail.

Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence

Your fellow protest committee members agree that Ulaanbaatar Underdog caused both Tokyo Topgun's gybe and the contact by not keeping clear when both boats were on the same tack

Problem

Write Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and the Decision for this protest.
Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.

.