(pillow)Case of the Week (30) – 83;

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

Case 83

Rule 49.2, Crew Position

Repeated sail trimming with a competitor’s torso outside the lifelines is not permitted.

Assumed Facts

In a race for 24-foot sloops whose class rules require lifelines the wind is about 15 knots with gusts lasting about three seconds; a choppy sea is striking the boats on the beam. A’s spinnaker trimmer is standing on the windward side of the deck holding the sheet, which he is barely able to pull in. His posture changes to compensate for changes in the boat’s trim and the load on the sheet.
During some of the gusts he is seen to be leaning back with part of his torso outboard of the lifelines.

Questions

1. Is it correct to equate the words ‘position any part’ in rule 49.2 with a stationary position?
2. Is leaning against the load on a sheet ‘to perform a necessary task’, for
example trimming the sheet?
3. Is the duration of a gust ‘brief’ in these circumstances?

Answers

It is clear from diagram 6 of Case 36* that the position adopted by A’s crew member is capable of breaking rule 49.2. To ‘position the torso’ does not mean that the torso is stationary; it implies a deliberate act with some duration.
The phrase ‘to perform a necessary task’ contained within rule 49.2 means that the torso may be positioned outside the lifelines only to perform a task that could not reasonably be carried out from within the lifelines. The use of ‘briefly’ in the rule makes it clear that the torso must be moved inboard as soon as the task is completed.

The rule is clearly aimed at permitting an otherwise illegal action. Permission does not extend to normal sail trimming even when this would be more effectively achieved by positioning the torso outside the lifelines. Rule 49.2 is for the safety of the crew, and it is unavoidable that it inhibits the gains that might be obtained from optimizing weight distribution of the crew. The actions of A’s crew member in leaning outboard of the lifelines break rule 49.2.

RYA 1992/10

* NB: I’ve added the picture.
 

As the star said to the reporter: “I have no comments”.

(pillow)Case of the Week (29) – 85;

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

Case 85

Again, to all numerologist: Case 86 has been scrapped.

Rule 61.1, Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee
Rule 86.1(c), Changes to the Racing Rules
Definitions, Rule

If a racing rule is not one of the rules listed in rule 86.1(c), class rules are not permitted to change it. If a class rule attempts to change such a rule, that class rule is not valid and does not apply.

Summary of the Facts

Boats in the XYZ Class have hulls 8 m long. Rule 5 in the XYZ Class Rules states:
The requirement in racing rule 61.1 to display a red flag shall not apply to the XYZ Class unless specifically required in writing in the sailing instructions of a race or series of races.

In a race for XYZ Class boats, boat A protested boats B and C and noted on her protest form that she did not display a red flag because it was not required by her class rules. The protest committee, relying on class rule 5, decided the protest was valid and B objected to that decision on the grounds that class rule 5 was not valid. Despite B’s objection, the protest committee proceeded with the hearing and disqualified B and C. B appealed.

Decision

B’s appeal is upheld. Paragraph (d) of the definition Rule makes it clear that class rules apply to a race. Class rules may change racing rules, but only the rules listed in rule 86.1(c). Rule 61 is not listed there, and therefore class rule 5, which attempts to change rule 61.1, is not valid and can not apply. The sailing instructions might have changed rule 61.1 as permitted in rule 86.1(b), but did not do so. Therefore, A’s protest was invalid and should have been refused. Accordingly, the protest committee’s decisions are reversed, and the two boats are reinstated in their finishing places.

USSA 1994/299

This case illustrates clearly that even if the sailors have done what was expected of them and adhered to the rules as best as they could – as written in the sailing instructions and class rules in this case – the PC has NO option but to follow ALL the rules, including interpretations in the official Case-book.

That may be perceived as very unfair as I have experienced in a recent event.

I’m preparing a post about that, involving BFD and sailing in restarted race.

Watch this space….
J.

(pillow)Case of the Week (28) – 87;

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

Case 87

For those who are counting, Case 86 has been deleted in the Call book.

Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Definitions, Keep Clear

A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.

Summary of the Facts

The angle of the starting line made it only just possible for a close-hauled boat on starboard tack to cross the line, and most boats approached on port tack. However, S approached on starboard tack from the right-hand end, continually hailing ‘Starboard’ to port-tack boats as they approached. P1 and P2 bore off below S. P3, however, made no attempt to avoid S and struck her amidships at right angles, causing considerable damage.
The protest committee disqualified both boats, P3 under rule 10 and S under rule 14. S appealed.

Decision

Rule 10 required P3 to keep clear of S. Rule 14 required each boat to avoid contact with the other boat if reasonably possible. In P3’s case, rule 14’s requirement to avoid contact with S was consistent with the broader requirement of rule 10 that she allow S to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear). P3 broke both rule 10 and rule 14.

In S’s case, while rule 10 required P3 to keep clear of her, at the same time S was required by rule 14 to avoid contact if it was ‘reasonably possible’ to do so. However, the second sentence of rule 14 allowed S to sail her course in the expectation that P3 would keep clear as required, until such time as it became evident that P3 would not do so. In this case, the diagram shows that P3 could readily have borne off and avoided S from a position very close to S. For that reason, the time between the moment it became evident that P3 would not keep clear and the time of the collision was a very brief interval, so brief that it was impossible for S to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14. S’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be reinstated.

CYA 1994/105

In the last Sneekweek I asked the panels to pay (extra) attention to rule 14. To write a conclusion and a decision in every protest were there was contact between boats. The subsequent discussions on ‘reasonable possible’ and ‘until clear that the other is not keeping clear’ sometimes were heated, but nevertheless very useful.

How about you?
Did you consider rule 14 in your last protest with contact?

J.

(pillow)Case of the Week (27) – 88;

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

Case 88

Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Definitions, Keep Clear

A boat may avoid contact and yet fail to keep clear.

Summary of the Facts
 
S and P, two keelboats about 24 feet (7 m) in length, approached each other on a windward leg, sailing at approximately the same speed in 12 to 15 knots of wind and ‘minimal’ sea conditions. S was slightly ahead. When  approximately three hull lengths away, S hailed ‘Starboard’ and did so again at two hull lengths, but P did not respond or change course. At position 1 in the diagram both boats changed course at the same moment. S, fearing a collision, luffed sharply intending to tack and thereby minimize damage or injury, and P bore away sharply. As soon as she saw P bear away, S immediately bore away also. P, with her tiller turned as far to port as it would go, passed astern of S within two feet (0.6 m) of her. There was no contact. S protested under rule 10.

The protest committee decided that P did not break rule 10. It then considered whether S had broken rule 16.1 or 16.2 by luffing and then immediately bearing away. It concluded that she had not, after finding that
her course changes did not affect P, which was already making a severe course change that would have been necessary even in the absence of S’s actions. S’s protest was dismissed, and she appealed.