Rival & Top Dog, Pam & Stan, Interloper & Steadfast, Ajay & Beth and of course Pedro & Stuart

You must have a look at the latest article on rule 18 by Dick Rose in Sailing World:
Luffing, Late Overlaps, Tacking and Jibing at Marks

As the chairman of the ISAF Racing Rules Committee Working Party he was instrumental in wording the new Mark and Obstruction rules. In this article he not only explains the changes and the effect it has, but also why they were changed - and how they were mend to fix the 'holes' in the old rules.

A short quote from the article:
"New Rule 18.2(e) only applies to overlaps established from clear astern. This condition was added so that a boat that tacked into an outside overlap could not deny mark-room to the inside boat, as in the following example. At a windward mark to be left to starboard, Stan is close-hauled on starboard tack in the zone. Pam tacks into a lee bow position very close to leeward of Stan, and then Rule 18.2(a) applies and entitles Stan to room to tack (see the definition Mark-Room). If we did not limit Rule 18.2(e)'s application to overlaps established from clear astern, then Pam could claim that from the time the overlap began (when she turned past head to wind) she was so close to Stan that she was unable to give him room to tack."

You can find the whole article by clicking on:
Luffing, Late Overlaps, Tacking and Jibing at Marks

.

MR at Delta Lloyd Regatta, & Kieler Woche & Skandia Sail for Gold

During my drive with an umpire from Hamburg to Middelfart, we speculated on the Grade one events for Olympic Classes and the new discipline: Woman's Match Racing.
It has not been easy for the organisers to get that on the programme. Melbourne did not have it, but Miami (OCR) did. Sofia has cancelled, as has Hyeres (SOF).
Today on two fronts it was announced that the final three World Cup events will have Match Racing. In Kiel wil be the debut of the new Elliot 6, thanks to cooperatione between MNA's from the Netherlands, Germany and Finland.

picture from http://www.elliott-marine.com/e6.html

The Elliott 6m will also be used for the final event of the 2008-2009 World Cup, the Skandia Sail for Gold Regatta held at the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition venue in Weymouth and Portland. The Delta Lloyd Regatta, held during May in The Netherlands, will use Yngling keelboat as match racing equipment this year, switching to the Elliott 6m from 2010.

Read more at:
Women's Match Racing Confirmed For Final Three Events Of ISAF Sailing World Cup.
New Olympic boat class celebrates premiere in Kiel. (link broken: red)

.

TMC Umpire Platoon

The Middelfart TMC Spring Cup 2009 Open/Woman Umpire group.... with emphasis on GROUP.. is a twelve person Umpire Group made up from 6 IU/IJ and 6 NU.

Probably the biggest "heaviest" umpire group at a Grade 3 event ever. Our chairman is applying to be entered in the Guinness Book of World Records 2009. She - yes the CU is the only woman among this 'platoon' - drives us like a lieutenant should; reveille at 07:00 hours - meetings before breakfast - new calls 15 minutes before we go out and on the water until 18:45, - double penalties, - testing the organisation, - testing the new rules, specially rule 19 for obstructions and asking for feedback on everything. TMC Middelfart will host the European Championship Match Racing later this year and they want to get it right.

I'm having a great time and am sorry it is only two days.

Here's the whole umpire platoon.

I'm typing from the notes I made the first afternoon at 13:43. The sun came out but it took the wind away. We were under AP waiting. With me is a Danish National Umpire who's been doing this for a long time. We've been discussing new wording and calls.

Although everybody is expecting that the changes in the RRS will have an effect on how we umpire, the actual fact is that most calls - if not all - are about the 'usual' row rules. And about rule 15 and/or 16. Mark rounding and obstructions don't seem to be that difficult any more. Inside or Clear ahead gets mark-room. No issue.
Rule 19 has simplified the pre-start manoeuvres round the starting vessel. If you get an overlap, the outside boat must be able to give room, otherwise she doesn't have to. No zone, umpires don't have to say when boats have passed and revert 'back' to row-rules. The row-rules stay in effect and therefore it is simpler and easier to follow.

Also, conditions at this event were very light, so that gave us all - sailors and umpires - a change to catch up with the changes.

On Sunday I ended up on the Woman's course. They were expected to finish earlier and would give us a time to leave a little earlier - the trip back home would take about 8 hours...

I have tried to video a pre-start as promised in a previous post. You can watch the result below:



You will hear us comment on the windward boat getting in between the starting vessel and the leeward boat. Expecting to double penalty her, we watched closely. But leeward never could reach windward! Windward pulled it off and wins the match. Bold, scary, almost breaking rule 11 but legal. As long as she is keeping clear, she can use the room that the leeward boat leaves her.

I want to thank everybody. Being able to participate in such an event, is one of the reasons why I love umpiring....

.

Links on Monday: Boats and VOR Request for Redress

Just to let you know I've returned from Denmark yesterday - were I attended Spring Cup 2009, a match race event in Middelfart - very late. I've tried to catch up with mails this evening and just have time to write a short blog post before looking for my pillow....

Thibaut send me a short mail and announced on his website developments with his diagram program "Boats": He writes: A small teaser so that you know what's cooking for next version of Boat Scenario. Next version already has:

• Tabbed view to have multiple scenarios open
• Trimmable sail angle
• optional laylines drawing
• Printing support including PDF generation of the formatted call
• Overlap lines
• and the Export of an Animated GIF

Looks very cool and the GIF is certainly very good for presentations.

Next: Tefefonica Blue seeks redress
From the official noticeboard:
Request for Redress
Boat Requesting Redress: Telefonica Azul ESP 12
Represented by: Bouwe Bekking

Telefonica Azul claims that the Race Committee and/or Organising Authority made an improper action or omission by locating the start line and 2nd passing mark of the course (mark d) in an area where at least 1 uncharted shallow area existed.
Telefonica Azul hit one such uncharted shallows that was 0.23 nm from the start mark (and 2nd passing mark) of the course, prior to the start of Leg 5. Furthermore, the Race Committee and/or Organising Authority failed to supply a port with adequate depth to allow Telefonica Azul back into the harbour. This resulted in a 3 hour delay in getting back to the marina to begin
repairs resulting from the grounding. Delays due to the grounding and the delay in returning to port resulted in Telefonica Azul starting leg 5 approximately 19 hours after the start signal.
This delay had direct impact on Telefonica Azul’s position at the New Zealand scoring gate and at the finish.
Signed: Bouwe Bekking, 29 March 2009

Remember rule 62.1? A request for redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that
- a boats score in a race has been made significantly worse,
- through NO fault of her own
- by an improper action or omission of the race committee or organizing authority

The jury will need to find answer to each of these conditions before it can award redress;
Was the 19 hours loss significantly to have influence in the scoring? Or were there perhaps other contributing factors?
If the shallow water was uncharted, how can the sailors expect that the RC could know about that? Is it the responsibility of the RC to send out a sounding-chart mapping boat of the start area? Is this an omission, for which the PC can be blamed?
Should the OA have provided harbour access with sufficient depth for returning boats ? Could that be seen as an omission?
Is hitting something under water something the sailors could have avoided? Was it close to shore and could logically be deducted that something might be there - even only a reasonable assumption?

If all these questions lead to a redress: what should that be?
For instance if the Jury award redress for 19 hours. The delta between Green Dragon (28/03/09 18:15:40) and Telefonica Blue (29/03/09 03:55:00) is 9 hours 39 minutes and 20 seconds. That would make TB 4th instead of 5th!

I'll keep you updated or you can look for news on the VOR-site.

Fact Finding Friday | 005 - Kingston Kitten v London Lion

From “the Room” by Brass.

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 as shown. Write Facts Found, 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.

Description of Incident – Kingston Kitten v London Lion

The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown.

Kingston Kitten is a semi-sports boat with asymmetrical spinnaker, about 10m LOA.
London Lion is a 30 Square Meter yacht, about 12m LOA.
(A 30 Square Meter yacht is a Scandinavian 'skerry-cruiser', similar in style to 'Meter' boats, but rated on Sail Area)

Wind conditions were 10kts, gusting 18kts. Sea conditions smooth.

The Hearing

Kingston Kitten's Description of the Incident

We were approaching the leeward mark on starboard tack. London Lion was approaching on port tack therefore she had no overlap.
I called for London Lion to keep clear as I was right of way boat. London Lion ignored my call and continued on port tack.
London Lion gybed at the mark, and I luffed up towards my new proper course as I was entitled to do.
London Lion hit Kingston Kitten about two meters from our stern.

Protest Committee's Questions to Kingston Kitten

Q. As you approached the leeward mark was London Lion clear astern of you at any stage?
A. No.

Q. Was there any damage?
A. No.

London Lion's Description of the Incident

I was steering London Lion. Both boats were coming into the leeward mark to be rounded to starboard, Kingston Kitten on starboard, London Lion on port.
London Lion had an inside overlap on Kingston Kitten.
Kingston Kitten hailed 'starboard'. I hailed 'room'.
I thought that Kingston Kitten was going to give me enough room to get round the mark.
Just as we completed our gybe and were rounding of the mark , Kingston Kitten hit London Lion on the after quarter.

Protest Committee Questions to London Lion

Q. How far apart were the boats when you gybed?
A. Two or three meters.

Q. Was there any damage?+
A. No.

Q. What action did you take to avoid contact?
A. When Kingston Kitten luffed towards me, there was no possible action I could take to avoid contact: 30 square meter yachts have long overhangs and if I had tried to luff clear of Kingston Kitten my stern would have swung into Kingston Kitten and made the situation worse.

Kingston Kitten Summing Up:

London Lion was on port and failed to keep clear of Kingston Kitten on starboard.

London Lion's Summing Up:

The definition of overlap says that boats can be overlapped when on opposite tacks downwind. Kingston Kitten and London Lion were overlapped approaching the leeward mark and when the first of us reached the zone, with London Lion inside Kingston Kitten. London Lion was entitled to mark-room. I sailed my proper course at the mark and Kingston Kitten changed course so as to deny me mark-room, and hit me.

Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence

Your fellow protest committee members note that the evidence of both parties seems generally consistent.

LTW Readers Q&A | 22

Joost Smit send me an Email and wrote: Please find attached animated GIF of a recent protest. I would like to see your opinion on the following case & questions:

Case:

• Observations on K are all made by Tactician (located at transom)
• M did not hail for Mark-room, did hail "Port-tack" though while still far out of reach of both K and the zone.
• K hailed ‘No overlap to M, Overlap to V
• K had to bear away to stay clear of M
• K stayed clear of M
• V did not keep clear of K and had a slight touch without significant damage
• K immediately showed red flag (tactician) and hailed protest to M, M didn't take penalty turns
• K hailed protest to V, V took 2 penalty turns
• M did not show up at protest hearing, and got DSQ by protest committee
• M asked for reopening of case a week later
• Protest committee confirmed reopening the case

At second hearing:

• M questioned validity of protest, not having heard hail and not having seen red flag
• M questioned "no overlap"
• Committee did not reach a verdict in second hearing, got postponed to later time.

Questions:

Q1: Is any evidence significant enough for reopening a case, even after no-show at first hearing?

Q2: Can validity of a protest be questioned at second hearing, even after now show at first hearing? In this case, would it make any difference whether V confirms having seen/heard the protest against M?

Q3: Even though the protest committee didn't give a new verdict in second hearing, how would you judge (facts found, rules applicable, judgment) the abovementioned situation in general, and in case:

• V declared having seen no overlap between K and M at moment of entering the zone
• V declared not being able to judge whether or not an overlap had been established.

Q4: Who are allowed "tactical" rounding's and who "seamanlike" rounding's in this case?

Looking forward to your reaction.

Kind regards, Joost Smit

Well Joost, I will try to answer your queries:

A1: Yes, there might be evidence significant enough to reopen. But first I would want to know why the party didn’t attend. If there’s no valid reason for his absence, his ‘new’ evidence would have to be something that was not available at the first meeting, if he had attended.

A2: For example, your second question about validity. I would not go into that, if there was no compelling reason why the party did not attend. He could have raised that issue at the original hearing. The rulebook states that once the protest is found valid the PC shouldn’t go back to that issue, unless there’s truly new evidence in that regard. Regardless if V had or had not heard the hail and seen the flag. Once the decision has been reached, don’t go back there.

If the party has significant new evidence I would also question him about his delay. Why after a week? A request for reopening should be within 24 hours after the decision has been published…..

All in all, the party needs to bring a couple of very compelling, heavy arguments before I would decide to reopen.

A3: From the picture is perhaps possible to precisely determine if there was an overlap at the zone between M and K. On the water it is not. As a PC I would have wanted to know the positions of the boats before they reached position 1.

There is sufficient doubt on whether or not overlap was established to use 18.2(d). If the overlap was long established and just before position 1 has been broken, rule 18.2(d) says that the PC (and the sailors) must assume that it was not broken. In that case M had an inside overlap and right of way. K failed to keep clear and give mark-room.

If there was no overlap the whole time before position 1, then rule 18.2(d) states that there isn’t an overlap at position 1. Then M is not entitled to Mark-room and shall be DSQ-ed. K is exonerated for breaking rule 10 while sailing her proper course at the mark.

A4: M is allowed a “tactical” rounding if she is entitled to mark-room, because she is also right of way boat.
(NB: You write she hailed “Port-tack” but she’s actually on Starboard tack. Remember? The rest of the world uses the windward side of the boat to name the ‘tack’.. i.e. ‘Bakboord = Starboard-tack & Stuurboord = Port-tack, and don’t blame me, they don’t know any better)

K is only allowed a ‘seamanlike’ rounding because she needs to keep clear of V. The corridor she has within mark-room is only a boat length or so wide.

Cheers, Jos.

UMPIRES at the microphone; Ssssssht, listen!

START: ROLL FILM<<< 22:07:00

Yellow UMP: “Starboard Right, Outside Overlap; Approaching Zone.”
Blue UMP: “Port Give; Keeping Clear, Inside Overlap”

Yellow UMP: “Zone, Outside overlap; Have to give Markroom. Starboard right”
Blue UMP: “Agreed; Inside overlap entitled to Markroom; Port Give; Keeping clear”

 

Yellow UMP: “Starboard right; giving Markroom”
Blue UMP: “Port Give, Keeping Clear; Not using Markroom”

 

Blue Ump; “Gybing, Astern Give, Keeping Clear; Still entitled to markroom”
Yellow UMP: “Agreed, Ahead Right, closing the gab to the mark”

Yellow UMP: “luffing, Not giving room, Not giving Markroom”
Blue UMP: “Windward give, not Keeping Clear. Taking Markroom”

Blue UMP: “Contact. Windward Give, Not Keeping clear; Hitting Mark”
Yellow UMP: “Agreed, I did not give you Markroom, Yellow broke 18.2(B)”
Blue UMP: “Agreed; I did not get Markroom. Exoneration for not keeping clear and hitting mark? “
Yellow UMP: “Agreed, I forced you”

Blue UMP: “Yankee on Blue, Penalty Yellow”
Yellow UMP: “Agreed; Penalty Yellow”

Blue UMP: “I’ll make a note; we will check for damages after this match.”
Yellow UMP: “Agreed, I did not avoid contact, did you?”
Blue UMP: “I don’t think I could have done more, I even hit the mark”
Yellow: “Agreed”

THE END. SWITCH OFF: 22:38:09

 

Credits; Author: Darryl Waskow, Production/Editing: LTW, Software: TSS. March 25th 2009 -

Actors Sought for International SAILING Program Productions

Please print out the Poster below and display at your local club

copy by Wolfgang Hofmann, translation by Erich Michel & LTW

Send your application to RRS-Study ed home dot nl.

Team Heiner Winter Matchracing 2009

Finals on 21/o3/2009:

View Full Album

 

Four teams: 4th Klaartje Zuiderbaan, 3rd Jurjen Feitsma, 2nd Jeroen den Boer, 1st Roy Heiner. Two Round Robins (save one match) Finals and Petit Finals (best of 3); 11+2+3 = 16 matches.

Forgot to bring a spare battery, so alas no video this time. I’ll try to do better next weekend in Denmark.

Flying a Kite according to the Rules

Did I say anything about the rules?
Yes, I did, didn’t I?

Well, anything it is…..

Google Alert kicked out a reference to Kitemovement. A blog with news and stories about Kitesurfing. On it a post about the new version of the rules for that discipline, including a couple of simplified versions.

I’ve followed the links and on the website of the International Kiteboarding Association found several to their rules:

ISAF Experimental Kiteboarding Competition Rulebook
International Kiteboarding Association Class Rules
Simplified General Rules
Simplified Course Racing Rules
World Ranking Point System

 Determining an overlap must be very difficult.

Seems like Henri and Thibaut need to update there program’s. The pictures shows how to draw a board with a flying kite…..