Wednesday 25 November 2009

Changes in the RRS effective 01/01/2010

Because my evenings seem to be filled with meetings and preparations, I don’t have much time to write about the changes in the rules which are effective next January.

I promise to get back to these. For now, I’ve shamelessly copied the text from the ISAF Website: The Racing Rules of Sailing 2009-2012 Amendments Effective 1 January 2010

The Racing Rules of Sailing front cover

The International Sailing Federation has published amendments to The Racing Rules of Sailing for 2009-2012 (RRS) following the adoption by Council of recommendations made by the Racing Rules Committee during the Annual Conference in Korea. The amendments are effective from:

1 January 2010.

The Changes are shown in detail below and can be downloaded from the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing page.

Words deleted from a rule are shown struck through and new words added are shown in bold and underlined.

Rule 18.2(c):

(c) When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if either boat passes head to wind or if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Rule 18.2(c) will be changed to prohibit a newly discovered and potentially dangerous tactic that was an unintended consequence of the current wording of this rule. The revised rule will no longer permit a boat to tack just before she reaches a mark and, as a result of her tack, become entitled to mark-room from boats that had been clear ahead of her when they reached the zone. A parallel change in rule B3.1(c) outlaws a similar tactic in a sailboard race.

Definition Obstruction:

Obstruction An object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it. An object that can be safely passed on only one side and an area so designated by the sailing instructions are also obstructions. However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.

The definition "Obstruction" will be changed so that a boat racing will no longer be an obstruction to other boats that are required to give her room or mark-room. This change will simplify the analysis of some situations near a mark in which both rules 18 and 19 apply, and it will not otherwise change the ‘game’.

Definition Party:

Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

Additions will be made to the definition Party to correct unintended omissions. The revised definition will mean that, whenever redress is requested for a boat by the race committee or considered for a boat by the protest committee, that boat will be a party to the resulting hearing. Also, a race committee that requests redress for a boat will also become a party when its request is heard.

Appendix B, Rule B3.1(c):

Rule 18.2(c) is changed to:
When a board is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if either board the board entitled to mark-room passes head to wind, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Appendix C, Rule C2.12 (a new rule):

C2.12 Rule 18.2(e) is changed to ‘If a boat obtained an inside overlap and from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.’

A new rule, rule C2.12, will be added to the Match Racing Rules. It will prohibit a tactic at the windward mark that the match racing community does not wish to allow.

Advertising Code and Appendices J, K and L:

After the 2009-2012 rulebook was printed, ISAF revised its Advertising Code and, in so doing, eliminated all references to Category A advertising. References to the Advertising Code in Appendices J, K and L will be changed to make them consistent with the revised Code. (more)

The RRS is available to view on the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing page at Marginal markings indicate important changes to the rules in Parts 1–7 and the Definitions. You can also order your hardcopy of the RRS 2009-2012 direct from ISAF at
The ISAF Racing Rules Committee is tasked with formulating, revising and publishing the RRS, with any changes ultimately subject to the approval of the ISAF Council, the final decision-making body of the International Sailing Federation.


When you cannot wait for my posts on the effect these changes will have, you can visit the Sailgroove website. Matt Knowles has published a couple of videos explaining the rule changes: 2010 Rule Changes

If you want to make sure your rulebook is up to date, you can download this file and copy and paste (with glue) the new clean text on the pages in your book.

Tuesday 24 November 2009

How instantaneous is Mark-room?

During an iShares Cup event I had a discussion about mark-room. Particularly about how fast an outside boat has to act when she has the obligation to give mark-room.

Here’s how see this.
One of the basic changes in this rules cycle is the deletion of ‘about to round the mark’ principle. Rule 18 now has a very sharp on/off switch.
Provided they are approaching a mark they are required to leave on the same side, rule 18 is applicable if one of the boats is in the zone. The moment the hull of one of them passes the three-lengths circle, rule 18 is on. You can compare it with passing head to wind. As soon as a boat is one degree passed head to wind, rule 13 is on. She is tacking boat and must keep clear. No ifs, buts or maybees. No ‘beginning to keep clear’ or ‘must start acting to keep clear’. Instantaneous.
If you pass head to wind and a row boat must change course, you’ve broken rule 13. Even if – for instance in a dail-up in a match race – a gust of wind makes you pass head to wind involuntary.
The same is true for rule 18.
Imagine two catamarans approaching a mark at a reaching angle on different tacks. Yellow wants to force the other passed the mark. Rule 18.4 is not applicable – it’s a gate mark – and Yellow can sail as far as she wants.

Yellow misjudges the angle and one of her hulls enters the zone. She’s still reaching and it takes her a couple of seconds to realize she’s too close and to bear away to give the other boat room to sail to the mark – as she is now required to do.
From the moment rule 18 is on she is required to give mark-room. From that moment the inside boat must be able to sail TO the mark.

Like you can see yourself, in position three and four Blue cannot sail to the mark. Because of Yellow, Blue is not able to point its bow toward the mark until position six.
For all what it is worth, Yellow has done everything seamanlike to give mark-room from the moment she realized she was in the zone. She reacted reasonably prompt and kept well clear once she’d gybed.
Nevertheless she broke rule 18.2(b) in my opinion. Like with passing head to wind – there is no ‘grace period’. From the moment her port hull entered the zone she was required to give mark room – and she did not do that. Blue could not sail to the mark, but had to wait until Yellow was pointing away.
This is one rule were Yellow needs to anticipate the situation and act accordingly. Stay well clear of the zone if you want to luff another boat or be prepared to take a penalty for breaking rule 18.2(b).

I’ve heard different opinions, but up until now no arguments why I should change my mind.
Perhaps you can?

Wednesday 18 November 2009

Flog the Blog Day (24) | 2 years

Two years. I’ve started posting two years ago, on November 18th 2007.

For the number crunchers among you, Google Analytics reports the following results: 90,945 Visits from 38,132 Absolute Unique Visitors, who did 193,805 Pageviews with 2.13 Average Pageviews per visitor. Spending 00:02:49 Time on Site, with a 63.10% Bounce Rate, that means they left after one page (I think). Of those 41.83% were New Visits. The visitors came from 148 countries, of which the USA with 35,747 was the main source, followed by the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Australia.
Feedburner is tracking 590 subscribers of which 357 by Email. (Yes, Big B is watching YOU)
Main referring sites are,, and But there are many more (1114 to be exact). Thank you all for linking!
The most important keywords – something SEO and all those crawling robots seem to like – are ‘look to windward’, my name and ‘racing rules of sailing’.
Google ranks this blog as fourth when that last phrase is searched. After ISAF, USSailing and Wikipedia.
All this after 674 posts, which comes to an average of 0.923 posts per day…
My lapse in posting earlier this year caused the drop below one… I’m afraid.
Nevertheless I’m satisfied by the results. Although I’m only reaching a fraction of people who race, I’m pretty sure more then half of the people who officiate at racing have visited one time or another.
For those of you who’ve never come across Flog the Blog Day before, let me repeat it’s purpose. Once a month I invite all visitors to comment on anything about the blog. Things I should improve, things I should blog about, things I’m actually doing wrong. Don’t like the black background? Should I get rid of the sidebar clutter? Now’s your chance to comment.
If you want to read previous Flog the Blog Day posts, click on the FTBD label
You can, of course, also suggest new subjects. If you prefer to keep it private, you can always use email. Find and use the address in the sidebar or contact button below the header.
For this anniversary I also need to thank all of you who’ve encouraged me, to keep going. And sometimes I get a very nice email thanking me for my efforts. It is very much appreciated!
Shall I keep batting for a (hundred) thousand?

Tuesday 17 November 2009

LTW Readers Q&A | 034; Tacking /\2

A good number of LTW-Readers are racing in a virtual world using simulators. I’ve been tracking some of what they’re doing on several forums. Apart from never have to deal with injury, I guess the rules play out pretty much the same.

In this readers-Q&A, one of those virtual wizards is asking a question about a situation at the windward mark. He even included a Boats Scenario gif to illustrate. Thanks for sending this in, Thorsten, I hope I haven’t kept you waiting too long.


Hi Jos,

While playing virtual skipper (an online regatta simulator), the following situation at the windward mark arose in a fleet race.

Since I had similar situations with H-Boats from time to time on our lake at home, I think the situation would also be possible in real life. I wondered what rules apply here, given the fact that both boats are head to wind simultaneously in position 3 and both overturn about 5 or 10 degrees.

(I can’t seem to get the animation running at the moment, so here’s the jpg)

In position 1 and 2 rules 11 and 18.2(a) apply, ok. But what rules apply in position 3, 4 and 5? Both boats are under rule 13 in position 3 and 4, yellow being obliged to keep clear.

Rule 18.3 does not seem to apply, since the boats are not on opposite tacks and there is no boat under rule 13 while the other one can fetch the mark. Since no other rule switches off rule 18.2, to me it seems that rule 18.2(a) is still on. After overturning 5 to 10 degrees, both boats are now on port tack, though not on a close-hauled course. Yellow would be entitled to mark-room including room to tack. In position 5, Blue ignores Yellow, turns to round the mark and pushes Yellow onto the mark.

Without Blues maneuver and the contact, Yellow would have been able to round the mark. Slowly, but still.

So it seems to me that Blue breaks rules 16.1 and 18.2(a).

I searched the RRS, the case book and the Q&A Service for similar cases,
but that was to no avail. I’m wondering if my conclusion is correct, especially the interpretation of rule 18.2(a) and 18.3.

Maybe you can help me out?

Thanks in advance and best regards from Germany,


Well Thorsten, after discussing this with some others and having a look at the casebook myself, I’m coming to the conclusion that you are pretty much ‘on the ball’. I think you got it right, almost. I differ only in some or the applicable rules.

In position one rule 11 applies, so Blue is keep clear boat.

In position two rule 11 still applies, but now in addition to having to keep clear, Blue also has to give mark-room to Yellow, according to rule 18.2(b).
They enter the zone overlapped on the same tack, with Yellow as inside boat.

In position three Yellow luffs in order to get to the mark and even if he should have established a leeward overlap from clear astern and was under a rule 17 restriction, he may do so. For Yellow ‘shooting the mark’ is her proper course. She would also do this if Blue wasn’t there.

Rule 18.2(c) states that rule 18.2(b) is switched off, when either of the boats passes head to wind. They both do that, just before position 4. So rule 18.2(b) is off, rule 11 is off and rule 13 switches on. Both are tacking boats and rule 13 states that in that case Blue is right of way boat.

They are now both also on port tack and still overlapped. They are in the zone and rule 18.2(b) no longer applies. None of the exceptions in rule 18.1 are applicable. That means rule 18.2(a) is the rule to follow.

In position four Blue still has to give mark-room and that mark-room indeed includes room for her to tack. In position four Yellow is overlapped to windward and on the inside of Blue who has to give mark-room. The fact that that happens while tacking, does not alter that.

In position five Yellow breaks rule 13 by not keeping clear of Blue, but she’s exonerated because Blue fails to give her mark-room (RRS 18.5(b)). She also breaks rule 31, but is again exonerated, now under 64.1(c). Because Blue forced her to break that rule by breaking rule 18.2(a) and yes, also rule 16.1. Blue is NOT the boat with mark-room, so she has to change course, as right of way boat, within the restrictions of rule 16.1.

Now, where are the critical point(s)?

In position three Yellow is entitled to mark-room, but that mark-room does not include room to tack. She’s not overlapped to windward but overlapped to leeward. If Yellow tacks first, forcing Blue to tack as well, she breaks rule 13 and will not be exonerated.

If Blue tacks first, Yellow can follow instantly and is ‘protected’ by the rules mentioned above. A PC handling a protest will need to find as fact which boat tacked first. In case they do it simultaneously, I would give Yellow the benefit of the doubt.

At first I dismissed rule 18.3, like you. Neither of the boats is fetching the mark. But upon looking at you diagram, I started to think. If you take away Yellow, Blue might be able to fetch the mark, she might be able to shoot the mark without ever passing head to wind….

The definition of fetching however, does not have the “absence of the other boats referred to in the rule” - clause. Like in the definition of ‘Proper Course’. In order to fetch the mark, Blue must be in a position to do so, INCLUDING Yellow. That is not the case, so on that grounds 18.3 is not applicable.

What if is was. What if Blue COULD fetch the mark? Would that make rule 18.3 applicable?

The rule begins by stating another provision; Boats must be approaching the mark on opposite tacks. They do not, they approach on the same tack. In position three, four and five they are no longer approaching. They are already in the zone. Because of that rule 18.3 never is applicable, even if Blue could fetch the mark, in my opinion.



Leave a comment if you have an (different) opinion

Friday 13 November 2009

Committee-meetings in Busan | part 2

News about the submissions. One of the committee members send me an update about how the RO and RR-committee voted. They still have to be approved by the council. For the list of submissions go to this post: Committee-meetings in Busan 

Below is his message, thanks Jon!

I was reading your blog today and thought you might be interested (for your readers) to know the some of the recommendations made by Committees at ISAF Conference. They are only recommendations to Council, which can still decide otherwise. These come from the recommendation papers produced by each Committee following their meetings which are public documents.

Events Committee (I didn't see their paper but heard about this)

Voted to abolish redress in the medal race apart from giving help.

Race Officials Committee

010-09 was withdrawn
All the tracking submissions were recommended for rejection or deferral
Voted to abolish redress in the medal race apart from giving outside help
Identified the need to develop documents for education on conflicts of interest and a general code of conduct for ISAF Race Officials. ROC will host an ISAF Race Officials Conference to develop and deliver such documents.
Recommended that a rule 42 web library be developed and implemented
Recommended that measurers and equipment inspectors at high level events by appointed/approved by ISAF
Recommended increase in seminar and clinics in 2010

Racing Rules Committee

146-08 - Approve with amendment to the wording
147-08 - Defer
151-08 - Reject
004-09 - Approve with amendment
011-09 - Approve - the Executive has withdrawn all of the proposal except clause 20.6.5 on bibs
012-09 - Approve with amendment
013-09 - Reject
015-09 - Withdrawn
019-09 to 026-09 - Approve

131-09 - Withdrawn by US SAILING
132-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
133-09 - Reject
134-09 - Reject - RRC commented "This issue needs clarification but this submission is not the right answer as it introduces further uncertainties"
135-09 - Reject
136-09 - Reject
137-09 - Reject
138-09 - Reject
139-09 - Approve with amendment
140-09 - Approve
141-09 - Reject
142-09 - Reject
143-09 - Reject
144-09 - Approve with amendment
145-09 - Reject
146-09 - Defer - RRC comments "Agree the principle. Requires further discussion between RRC and ROC"
147-09 - Approve
148-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
150-09 - Approve
151-09 - Reject
152-09 - Approve with amendment
153-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
154-09- Approve with amendment
155-09 - Approve with amendment
156-09 - Reject
157-09 - Reject
158-09 - Reject
159-09 - Approve
160-09 - Reject
161-09 - Approve with amendment
162-09 - Reject
163-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
164-09 - Approve with amendment to delete the words "protest committee" on second last line
165-09 - Defer
166-09 - Reject
167-09 - Defer
168-09 - Approve with amendments
169-09 - Reject
170-09 - Reject - RRC comments "Case 112 is a correct interpretation of the current rules"
171-09 - Approve with amendment

Then of the Calls - all were recommended for approval except:
177-09 - Defer - RRC comments "Agree the principle but diagrams and text need editing"
171-09, 178-09, 182-09, 184-09 and 188-09 - Approve with amendments

Hope that is of interest to your readers.
Best wishes,

I will do a couple of blogpost on the approved submissions with the recommendation of implementation on 1 Jan 2010 in coming weeks. Let's wait and see if the Council gives the green light, before I start giving you my input how this will change the rules.

Thursday 12 November 2009


The list of Race Officials successfully approved for ISAF International Race Official status in November 2009 has been published on the ISAF Race Officials microsite:
ISAF International Race Official Renewals And New Appointments For 2009

I had to re-applied for IJ this year and I'm happy to read that I was approved. You will have to bear with me for another four years. My group from the same first year (2005) started with 17 International Judges. Three Two have not re-applied or were not approved. That leaves 14 15 still hanging on. Keep it up!

In this post I also want to congratulate specially all those who were approved as an IJ, IU, IRO or IM for the first time this year. And of course to Chris, Adrian, Luigi, Angelo, Vic, Johannes, Jana, Angeline, Alan and Douglas; well done! Instead of worrying about tests and seminars, you can now start worrying about grouping and ISAF-appointments (Evil Grin)


Recently I blogged about a rapid response match racing call in which the row boat slowed down. This action created an overlap with a trailing boat, but that boat was still breaking rule 15 when the leading ( now windward) boat changed course. (Rapid Response Match Race Call 2009-010)

The call stated that slowing down in this situation is a ‘non action’ within the meaning of rule 15. Even when that action shifts ‘right of way’, it is not regarded an action for which rule 15 comes in effect.

Almost the same happens in a situation with a clear ahead boat and a clear astern, when the leading boat suddenly slows down. Now, this action does not change the right of way situation, so rule 15 is not applicable. But slowing down in front of another boat is NOT regarded as a course change, so rule 16.1 has NOT been broken. The trailing boat is breaking rule 12 by not keeping clear and should take a two turn penalty. Slowing down can by considered a ‘non-action’ as far as rule 16.1 is involved.

But for all of you who think this is not ‘fair’ here is still rule 14!

In rule 14 all other rules are ‘disregarded’ and only a basic question has to be answered for both boats. Was it reasonably possible to avoid the contact?

The trailing boat had probably no change to avoid it. When a leading boat suddenly slows down, there is a good change you cannot slow down or change course quickly enough to avoid a collision. This action is fairly unusual in fleet racing but it is used in team and match racing. If you sail behind someone who’s done this in the past, better keep some extra space in between.

But we can find as fact that in this situation the leading (clear ahead) boat does break rule 14. He could reasonably avoid the contact by not slowing down so suddenly. Because he is row-boat, he will seldom be disqualified. That depends namely on if there is damage or not. And in most cases there’s no damage.

In rule 11 there’s another ‘non-action’ possible. In circumstances that boats heel (more or less) and a windward boat wants to pass to windward, the leeward boat can also suddenly ease its sheets. That boat will then come more upright and perhaps masts will touch.

If that happens, like before, the windward boat broke a right of way rule – in this incident rule 11 – but it is another ‘non-action’ as far as rule 16.1 is concerned. No protection there. Only rule 14 gives some possibilities. With masts and rigging touching, contact is usually also damage. Leeward might end up with a DSQ as well.

If the contact only happened because leeward came upright because of the wind shadow, then the question from rule 14 must be answered with:
Leeward had no reasonable way to avoid contact. No rule infringement – no penalty.

As a general practise out of all this, I can only advise sailors to keep well clear. So well, that the other boat cannot surprise you, with a sudden decrees in speed.

Tillerman, the answer to your question is: YES.

Wednesday 11 November 2009

LTW Readers Q&A | 033; String theory

From Stephan Zeyn out of Hamburg. A question I had to think about… He presented the following situation in Match Racing:

blogcolorstripeThe leading boat had an outstanding penalty, slowed down on the way to outside of the finishing line at the committee boat and tried to do the usual move, giving a penalty to the trailing boat.

But - the trailing boat passed outside the finishing line to leeward and then crossed the finishing line to back to windward. The boat then turned and crossed from the direction of last mark the finish line again. The race officer scored this boat as first, while the other was still taking his penalty.

Later on we had a heated discussion about this incident. There is case 90 showing similar story at the start and there is the string rule from RRS 28.1.
I did not find any case or call regarding finish specifically dealing with this issue.

The more we discussed, the more it became unclear what the meaning of the word ‘until’ in rule 28.1 entailed. Does it include the procedure of finish, or does it lead to the finish, but not include the finishing procedure itself?

Basically the string rule is a tool to describe how to round the marks on a course. But it is only a tool. Our sport is SAILING, not STRING LAYING.

Believing that the string rule is valid until (including) finish, there is a good chance to get rid of a penalty for a leading boat. Believing it means until (excluding) finish, it would lead to a bigger chance for the trailing boat to finish before the other boat took his penalty turn.

Knowing that you are very much involved in the details of rules, I would be very much interested in your opinion.


Well Stephan, there are always new situations the rule makers haven’t thought about. This is a situation I never have seen before.

First I looked at the word until in the dictionary. Until is described as:

  1. up to the time that or when; till: He read until his guests arrived.
  2. before (usually used in negative constructions): They did not come until the meeting was half over.
  3. onward to or till (a specified time or occurrence): She worked until 6 p.m.

We can draw the conclusion that Rule 28.1 is in effect before the boat ‘finishes’. Everything before that must comply with the ‘string rule’.

If you consider sailing around the finish mark to the other side and then returning over the line to cross from the course side, part of ‘finishing’, your second premise would be true.

But ‘finishing’ is defined. The RRS describes exactly what it is. And in this particular situation the boat does NOT finish until she crosses the line from the correct side. Only then she has finished according to the definition and I agree that the RO should record her as such. But her whole maneuver to go to the outside is something she does before finishing.

So now we come to RRS 28.1. When we draw the string taut, it does not touch the finish mark on the correct side. By going around below the finish mark first, the string touches the outside, and not – as required by RRS 28.1 – the inside.

In order to change the outcome of this match race is to protest the boat for breaking rule 28.1. Either by the RC or by the other boat. And in my opinion the boat should then be disqualified by the PC for not complying with rule 28.1

Scoring the other boat as winner without a protest, is however not correct. She has ‘finished’ before the other boat has completed her penalty and – hopefully – finished also. Was there a red flag by the other boat?


If you have another opinion, don’t hesitate to comment.


Tuesday 10 November 2009

Committee-meetings in Busan

On the ISAF Website a couple of articles have appeared about the meetings in Busan:

The article on the ROC outlines the goals of the committee to be more pro-active in educating race officials in 'underserved' areas, by attaching seminars to significant events.
Have a look at: Charley Cook On ISAF Race Officials.

With all respect for the work that can be done at a hands-on seminar - the ISAF should look into a more interactive solution on the web - giving potential new international officials a place where they can interact with race official from all over the world. A forum? A meeting place?

Also meeting in Korea yesterday was the Racing Rules Committee. Besides the strategy issues highlighted in this article on the website: The Racing Rules Committee, the RRC also has a multitude of submissions to go trough.

I've compiled a file with the submission regarding the RRS: RRS Submissions 2009
In the last weeks I've been going trough them, to give my opinion to the Dutch representative in the RRC. Now the committee has met, I'll share a few with you. I don't know yet what the outcome is - expect to learn that, when LPS returns.

How many people do you recognize?

Submission 147-09 wants to change the definition of how you finish in a match race; You finish when the boat's hull crosses the finish line. Not any other part of the boat or equipment - in normal or not normal position. I think that's a good idea, but... please do it for all disciplines! Also in fleet and teamracing. Let's not introduce another exception.

Submission 134-09; Agreed in principle; but then we need a definition or interpretation of "leaves the mark". When has a boat left the mark? Even with the mark clear astern of the perpendicular line trough her most aft part, she can still be "at" the mark.
PC's need a guideline if they are to establish if a boat has left the mark as a fact.

Submission 166-09; I'm not sure about this one. Basicly it states that the keep clear boat ALWAYS must choose the better option, in this case to tack instead of bearing away. While I agree in this particular case, I don't believe that this is necessary always true. I don't think the ROW boat did enough to avoid the contact and collision. Even when the port had luffed and started tacking, there would have been a contact. Therefore SB did not do enough and broke rule 14. She might then been exonerated because there might have been no damage. But you can also make a case stating that she broke rule 14 while returning to start and at that moment she was keep clear boat.

Do you have a submission(s) favourite? Let me know and I'll ask LPS about the outcome.

Wednesday 4 November 2009

Ladies Only 2009 Hamburg, Final part

Back home I’ve sorted out the photo’s and uploaded them to Flickr.

You can find them here: Ladies Only 2009

I’ve also made a video! My apologies beforehand for the shaking and un-sharp parts. I’ve used my camera to see if I could get any kind of usable result. You be the judge. The video is of the prize-giving ceremony, particular of the winning team: Silke Hahlbrock, Maren Hahlbrock, Julie Wolf & Marion Rommel

Again, my congratulations!

Second and third teams are in the pictures… Winning has it’s rewards…

I enjoyed this event very much. I’ve been going to Hamburg for several years and the club is very hospitable and takes good care of it’s guests. Teams and Umpires alike.

Match Racing on lake Alster is great and I can recommend it to all!

Tuesday 3 November 2009



The quiz is open to all RYA members. The decision of the judges is final – preference will be given to answers from non-race officials. For our “international” audience, we will name the best international entry as well.
Please email all answers to Jacqui Roberts at jacqui.roberts ed by 30 November 2009.

Question 1

An Optimist (length 2.3m) and a B14 (waterline length 4.3m, overall length with bowsprit 6.1m) are approaching a leeward mark. The B14 is flying her gennaker. The Optimist is clear ahead of the B14. The foremost point of the B14’s bowsprit is 11 m from the mark. The bow of the Optimist is 3 m from the mark.
What is the size of the zone?

  • (a) 6.9 m
  • (b) 13.2 m
  • (c) 18.3 m

Question 2

On the start line in the 49ers, the wind is 18 knots and there is a moderate swell. A and B are approaching the starting line on starboard tack shortly before the starting signal. A is clear ahead of B.
A loses control, slows and capsizes to leeward. In order to avoid a collision, B luffs hard and crosses the starting line by half a length. The starting signal is sounded, followed by a second signal and the display of flag X. B sails on and does not return to the pre-course side of the starting line.
At the end of the race, B is scored OCS and requests redress, saying she only crossed the line early because of the actions of A and to comply with rules 14 and 22.

What should the Protest Committee do, and why?

  • (a) Grant redress and reinstate her to her finishing position
  • (b) Grant redress by reinstating her and the addition of an appropriate points penalty for crossing the line early
  • (c) Refuse redress
  • (d) Disqualify A, grant redress to B and reinstate her

The judges have awarded the prize for August to Douglas Maxwell from London.


A pity the answers for August were not included… And that the judges didn’t name the best international answer as of yet, either… Nevertheless, we can use all the practice we can lay our hands on. So, send in your answers!

Sunday 1 November 2009

Rapid Response Match Race Call 2009-010

In case I'm not able to finish my report on the last day of the Ladies Only Grade 2 Match Race event, this post will appear on the blog before E-mail subscriptions are send out Monday morning.

Have a look at the latest Rapid Response Match Race call, number 2009-010, as published on the ISAF -website

Reduction in speed is NOT in itself an 'action' within the meaning of rule 15!. This might have far-reaching consequences. I'll start thinking about if there are more 'non actions'. Perhaps you can help? Leave a comment if you find one.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...