Alpari World Match Racing Tour Rules

I'm currently umpiring at the Alpari World Match Racing Tour in Marseille (France).

This event has been given permission by ISAF to 'tweak' the Match Racing rules (appendix C) to better fit the needs of the event. More close encounters, giving the trailing boat a fighting chance when she catches up, more consistency in umpire decisions, things like that.

It is a lot harder to tweak the rules as they are, than you think. I know everybody has his/or her specific ideas what should be changed (including me) but the consequences are not always directly apparent. You change one or two rules and think you have the situation well under 'control'. Two days later a situation pops up that isn't anticipated and there's a problem. The changes at the AWMRT have been well thought out and seem to work so far.

We have a changed penalty system. One that has been tried out years and years ago, but seems to make a comeback;

Changes to Rule C7.2 All Penalties
Add new C7.2(a) and change current C7.2(d) then renumber all points.
C7.2(a) After being signalled under rule C5.2 or C5.3 and within the limitations of rule C7.3, a penalized boat may elect to take the penalty immediately by crossing behind the stern of the other boat.

In order to take this penalty a boat must cross behind the stern of the other boat:
the hull of the boat taking a penalty must cross completely from one side of the centreline to the opposite side of the centreline of the other boat in the match.

To clarify this, a AWMRT Call has been published. Have a look: AWMRT 2012 CALL 002.pdf


Having done the Round Robin with 66 matches in 17 flights I would have expected to have seen this happen a couple of time. Alas, in the matches I've umpired, none. Nevertheless I think this is worth to keep in. It keeps the boats together and most penalties in match racing are not for big crashes. 'The punishment to fit the crime' as they say.

Because when 'the crime' is more serious, we have another tweak:

C6.5(b) The red-flag penalty in rule C5.3 shall be used when a boat has gained a controlling position as a result of breaking a rule.

In order to be consistent this needs a new definition:

C2.21 Add the definition Control
A boat has control of another boat in her match when she is in a position to be able to impede, affect or change the actions of that boat.

This one is a harder to implement. Sometimes boats can affect each other. For example take a standard windward/leeward situation after the start. Leeward can luff and affect Windward, but cannot pass head to wind without risking not keeping clear. And so Windward can prevent Leeward from going to the other side. Boats affect each other. It also depends on where the boats are on the leg. Windward's control is greater when nearing the lay-line to the top mark…. There's a balance of control. Sometimes all to one boat and sometimes a little more to one but not zero to the other.

With this definition umpires look at the control issue and decide if a boat has gained enough control - the balance is tipped enough to their side - to warrant a red flag penalty. A penalty they have to take immediately. Which might be a crossing penalty.

I'm still trying to get my head round this new definition, but at least we are now consistently thinking about the control balance.



I'll talk about the changes to rule 16 and 17 another time.
J.

(PS: The download link of the AWMRT CALL is on Data Host File; not on the webspace of my provider. So you need to download the file instead of getting it directly. Sorry about that, but I've used up all my space and am looking for additional room..... Do any of you have suggestions?)

Ultimate trapeze?!?

A picture send in by Stevie Kouris I think you shouldn't miss:

He had the following questions:

Then I went to the IJreport website to read the report from the regatta and there was a protest against that boat but the protest was dismissed because no rule was broken. Thinking it over and over and reading the Rule book it seems that actually they don't break any Rule, but the following question (more like a curiosity) came to my mind.

Is the helmsman considered to be on board? If yes, what does being on board mean? Is he considered to be on board only because he is not in the water? If a crew member is in the water holding himself onto a sheet is he considered to be on board?

Stevie is referring to rule 47.2 which states: No person on board shall intentionally leave, except when ill or injured, or to help a person or vessel in danger, or to swim. A person leaving the boat by accident or to swim shall be back on board before the boat continues in the race.

One thing is for sure. These guys will have a hell of a climb to make when they tack.....

Penalty Done?

At an event this summer I was involved in a protest where a boat claimed she was interfered with, by another boat which was taking a penalty.

These are the facts found:
In race 4 on Tuesday close to the finish line, three Centaurs were involved in an incident
Boat A (Blue) on starboard approached the line on a close hauled course. Boat B (Purple) was on a collision course, also close hauled, but sailing on port tack. Boat B thought she could pass boat A in front. Boat A bore off behind Boat B and hailed protest and put up a red flag. She continued saying "You have to do a turn". The incident was observed by boat C (Red) approaching the finish also.

Boat B bore off, gybed and tacked almost immediately, ending up sailing close hauled on port again. Boat C (Red), also sailing on port tack, established an overlap while boat B was finishing her tack.

Both boats sailed a boat length in overlap and then Boat B started luffing to fetch the finish mark. Boat C hailed protest and put up a flag. She luffed also and the distance between the boats remained the same throughout the incident, approximately 2 meters. Both boats luffed to head to wind and crossed the finish line. After passing the mark boat B bore off and sailed clear, shortly followed by boat C.

Boat C handed in a protest form claiming an infringement of rule 21.2
And the diagram the PC made based on these facts:

What should the PC decide?

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

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

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

A submission from the Canadian Yachting Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Racing Rules of Sailing did apply to Boat A.

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

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

Current Position
None.

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

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

LTW Readers Q&A (62): Backwards

From BerkCan in Greece:

Yesterday while training we had a situation during pre-start and we had doubts about it so I thought best thing to do is to ask you.

Here is the situation:

 

During pre-start two boats wait head to wind, one is slightly ahead and overlapped. Then the one which is slightly ahead (Yellow) starts to go backward by backing her sails and the other boat (Blue) bears away in order to pass ahead of the backing up boat.  

Our question is: What if Blue decides to bear away more and goes on to Yellow boat? What should Yellow do in that case? 

If she continues to back up her sails and go backward she could be interpreted as continuing her maneuver and doing nothing to avoid Blue. But on the other hand the best thing Yellow could do to avoid Blue is to continue going backward.

Regards,

BerkCan

The strange case of the (non)competitor

During a multi-class event locally, the PC came across a very strange case. I've changed names, numbers and classes, but left the facts as found. This kind of case is probably unique, but if you've run across anything similar, leave a comment.

A protest was delivered to the Race Office by a young sailor. Her Optimist was involved in an incident at a leeward mark where she capsized and lost several places. The PC scheduled and heard the protest in absence of the other party. It was a boat in a different class - a Contender.
Long story short; the Contender had broken rule 12, 18.2(b) and 14 and was disqualified.

After half an hour, between other hearings, the RC-person responsible for scoring, came into the protest room and told the panel that the Contender in the protest was not on her finish list nor on the starting list.As far a she was concerned, it hadn't competed!

After verifying the boat had entered the event - which was the case - the panel started to doubt if the Optimist perhaps had noted the wrong sail number?

After some deliberations a phone call was made to the Contender sailor and he confirmed that he was involved in the incident at the leeward mark. He was currently on his way home because the rest of the event he didn't have time to sail.

How come he wasn't on the starting- nor on the finish list?

The sailor answered that he had some problems with his boat after having sailed to the starting area and had returned ashore to do some repairs. He then sailed into the course following the rest and starting rounding marks. He however did not finish because he wanted to get his boat out before the rest came ashore.

The panel now faced the following question(s):

• Was the Contender a competitor subject to the rules? 
• Was the Contender racing ?
• What penalty - if any - would be appropriate?

Continued after the break;

(pillow)Case of the week (30/12) - 2

(This is an installment 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 2

Rule 12, On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 18.2(a), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room

If the first of two boats to reach the zone is clear astern when she reaches it and if later the boats are overlapped when the other boat reaches the zone, rule 18.2(a), and not rule 18.2(b), applies. Rule 18.2(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.

Summary of the Facts

A and B were both on port tack, reaching to a mark to be left to starboard. The wind was light. At position 1, when A came abreast of the mark she was clear ahead of B but four-and-a-half hull lengths from the mark. B, who had just reached the zone, was three lengths from the mark. Between positions 1 and 2 A gybed and headed to the mark, becoming overlapped outside B. Between positions 2 and 3, after B had gybed and turned towards the next mark, she became clear ahead of A. When B first became clear ahead of A there was about one-half of a hull length of open water between the boats. A few seconds after B became clear ahead, A, who was moving faster, struck B on the transom. There was no damage or injury. A protested B under rule 18.2(b). B protested A under rule 12. A was disqualified and she appealed.  

Decision

A apparently believed that the second sentence of rule 18.2(b) applied when the two boats were at position 1 and that B, then being clear astern, was obliged to give A mark-room. As that sentence states, it applies only if a boat was clear ahead when she reached the zone. At position 1, B had reached the zone, but A was well outside it. Moreover, the first sentence of rule 18.2(b) never applied because the boats were not overlapped when B, the first of them to reach the zone, did so. However, while the boats were overlapped, rule 18.2(a) did apply, and it required A to give mark-room to B. During that time B had to keep clear of A, first under rule 10 and later (after she gybed) under rule 11.

After B gybed she pulled clear ahead of A. At that moment rules 18.2(a) and 11 ceased to apply and rules 12 and 15 began to apply. Rule 15 required B initially to give A room to keep clear, and B did so because it would have been easy for A to keep clear by promptly bearing off slightly to avoid B’s transom after B became clear ahead. When A hit B’s transom, she obviously was not keeping clear of B, and so it was proper to disqualify A for breaking rule 12. A also broke rule 14 because it was
possible for her to bear off slightly and avoid the contact with B.

After it became clear that A was not going to keep clear of B, it was probably not possible for B to avoid the contact. However, even if B could have avoided the contact, she could not have been penalized under rule 14 because she was the right-of-way boat and the contact did not cause damage or injury.

The appeal is dismissed, the protest committee’s decision is upheld, and A remains disqualified for breaking rules 12 and 14.

USSA 1962/87

 

I must confess that this Case is something that I have learned myself only recently. I never had a case involving the clear ahead boat not reaching the zone first before. Only after reading the sentences of rule 18 in the book again and again, I came to the same conclusion.

It is easy to overlook these first cases in the book as being too obvious. This one however is pretty important, although it might be some time before you come across a similar situation in the protest room.

We are almost at the 'end' of our series... One more to go.

Umpire Call; Returning?

Both Blue and Yellow are over early. Due to not enough people on the starting vessel the RC is a little late in calling them back. Yellow and Blue sail back to the starting line to start. This is what happens:

In position 3 the Blue boat on Port, forces Yellow on Starboard to gybe. The boats have no contact but it is very close. Blue protests in position 4.
You are the Umpire in the green rib. (and you are alone). What is your decision?

(pillow)Case of the week (29/12) - 03

(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 3

Rule 19.2(a), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A leeward port-tack boat, hailing for room to tack when faced with an oncoming starboard-tack boat, an obstruction, is not required to anticipate that the windward boat will fail to comply with her obligation to tack promptly or otherwise provide room.

Summary of the Facts

S hailed PL as the two dinghies approached each other on collision courses. PL then twice hailed ‘Room to tack’, but PW did not respond. PL, now unable to keep clear of S, hailed a third time, and PW then began to tack. At that moment, S, which was then within three feet (1 m) of PL, had to bear away sharply to avoid a collision. PW retired and S protested PL under rule 10. The protest committee disqualified PL observing that, not having had a timely response from PW, she should have used her right to luff and forced PW to tack.

PL appealed, claiming that:

1. she had no right to force PW onto the opposite tack;
2. even with both of them head to wind, S would still have had to change course to avoid a collision; and
3. she had foreseen the development and had hailed PW in ample time.

Decision

PL’s appeal is upheld. PL is to be reinstated. Because S was an obstruction to PL and PW, PL was entitled to choose between tacking and bearing away (see rule 19.2(a)). Having decided to tack and having hailed for room to do so three times, PL was entitled by rule 20.1 to expect that PW would respond and give her room to tack. She was not obliged to anticipate PW’s failure to comply with rule 20.1. PL broke rule 10, but she is exonerated as the innocent victim of another boat’s breach of a rule, under the provisions of rule 64.1(c).

RYA 1962/37

We are almost at the ‘beginning’ of our Casebook. The Cases there, are all dealing with the most fundamental principles. In this particular case the right of the right-of-way boat to choose, and – if the keep clear boat does not do what it is suppose to do – the exoneration for breaking a rule.

But there’s another principle here;

Although most experienced regatta sailors know beforehand what is most likely going to happen, the rules don’t have any provisions or obligations that you have to anticipate. The rules deal in facts, not in intentions. In almost all incidents a boat has to act on the factual rights and obligations.
Am I keep clear boat?
Am I right of way boat?
And from the answers to those questions you know what you can or cannot do.

The trouble is that in any given situation the facts can change very quickly by what the boats do. That leads to ‘getting ahead’ of what the facts will become and with that to rights and obligations that are not (yet) established.

A port tacking boat will become a starboard right of way boat. But until it has completed its tack, it is still a keep clear boat. And until that time any (not tacking) boat does not have to respond, although its crew already knows that moment will come. If the tacking boat already acts as if she’s right of way boat, because that will happen in a second or two, it most likely will break rule 13.

The right-of-way boat in Case 3 does not have to anticipate that the keep clear boat will not act according to the rules – when she’s hailed three times.

Sneekweek 2012; Invitation to sailors II

In a previous post I mentioned the Sneekweek: Invitation Sneekweek for Sailors
The Organizing Authority has organized a couple of packages for International Sailors to make it easier (and cheaper) to come; From the leaflets:

Invitation
Some time ago the Royal Yacht Club Sneek sent you an invitation to join us for Sneekweek. We
understand that it may not be easy for you to arrange accommodation and the like, and that is
why we have done it for you. Below please find information on the gold and silver packages put
together especially for Sneekweek.

Special offer!
The Royal Yacht Club Sneek cordially invites you to take part in Sneekweek. To make participation
even more attractive, you are given the choice between two special offers: the Gold and Silver
packages.

The Royal Yacht Club Sneek (KWS) has organized this special event for the past 77 years. It takes
place in the north of the Netherlands, in the province of Friesland. This year, the event will be
held from 4 through 9 August. The Sneekweek is Europe’s largest inshore sailing regatta. The most
important thing for many people, however, is the fun and hugely enjoyable atmosphere for which we
are famous!
Sailors compete in 40 different classes. Vaurien, Yngling, Optimist, Finn, 2.4mR, Laser and Splash among others offer loyal fleets that keep coming back for more. Sneekweek easily compares to Travemünder Woche or Kiel Week, except it is much more personal.

More information:
Invitation Sneekweek 2012 & Leaflet Sneekweek 2012