Happy New Year 2012

For 2012, my future plans for LTW:

• A major change in layout and appearance. I still have to decide if I want to go to my own domain or stay on blogger. Both have disadvantages.... and advantages.
• Make time each day to answer questions and comments.
• Make time to write posts every day - I'm going to start some new series so as to be able to write ahead....
• Once I reach a sufficient subscription number (RRS and Email) I'll start a members site. At the moment the number stands around 930-940, I like it to reach around 1200.
• I'm also going to start a linked Rules for Beginners site, with emphasis on explanations and education.

For today I'm going to do some last minute shopping and than participate in the "Groenedijk Cup'. A race across a pond with self build boats. I'll report on the event one of the next days, but for now I'm showing you my entry:

Polynesian War Bird 'Polly I'

Have a good new years eve and,
Happy New Year!
J.

Protest 1 in Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race 2011

The line honour winner of the 2011 Sydney – Hobart Race was protested by the RC for a possible infringement of rule 41 and sailing instruction 49.1.

Up until now it is the only protest lodged in this years race – according to the website. The International Jury published there findings: RSHYR11_Protest_Decision_1.pdf.

To understand you might also want to have a look at the Sailing Instructions:
RSHYR11_SI.pdf

The case hinges on the questions asked by a crew member of the winning boat to a helicopter pilot not long after start of the race and if the answers could be considered “race information”. In other words, were the answers helping the asking boat in there their race, tactically or otherwise?


The International Jury concluded that there was a clear commercial and personal interest by the crew-member in asking these questions, and of no ‘help’ as provided in rule 41 to the boat.

But even if that question was answered with yes by the IJ, the penalty would have been at their discretion. (SI 49.3).

Lets assume, for the sake of discussion, that there was no personal interest. Then I would ask the following questions:

• Rule 41 clearly provides for unsolicited information, so asking information is already breaking that rule, is it not?.
• Also, is information about which sail a opponent is using to be considered “race information”?
• Does it help the boat tactically or otherwise and break SI 49.2?
• What kind of discretionary penalty would you impose, if you answered yes to the previous question?

This is NOT to seconds-guess any Jury decision. I completely agree with there findings. Its is just to get some feedback on the issue. An issue that might be before your PC-panel in the next regatta…….

Please, give me your opinion.

Feed me, Seymour!

Kaderpoule Watersportverbond

Vandaag in mijn mailbox:

 Herinnering: Meld u nu aan voor de online kaderpoule! 

Beste wedstrijdofficial, vorige week hebt u een mail ontvangen met een uitnodiging om deel te nemen aan de online kaderpoule van het Watersportverbond. Graag willen we dit nog een keer onder uw aandacht brengen. De eerste 50 personen die zich aanmelden krijgen een waterdichte tas van het Watersportverbond!
Lees verder

Ik heb me al aangemeld. Jij toch ook?
J.

Double standard?

Rule 19 deals with both “normal” obstructions and with continuing obstructions:

19.1 When Rule 19 Applies Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except when it is also a mark the boats are required to leave on the same side. However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.

First a static picture; I’ve designated the top as situation one and the bottom as situation two.



Below the animation of the two situations with three boats sailing along a continuing obstructions end up in exactly the same situation. In both animations the boat behind the yellow boats is in trouble – she has to dump speed to avoid contact. But in both situations she’s not keeping clear under rule 12.

Yellow protests in position 5: Who do you penalize in situation one and who in situation two?
My answers after the break.

(pillow)Case of the week (51/11) – 30

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 30

Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Definitions, Keep Clear

A boat clear astern that is required to keep clear but collides with the boat clear ahead breaks the right-of-way rule that was applicable before the collision occurred. A boat that loses right of way by unintentionally changing tack is nevertheless required to keep clear.

 

Summary of the Facts

Boats A and B were running on starboard tack close to the shore against a strong ebb tide in a Force 3 breeze. A was not more than half a hull length clear ahead of B. B blanketed A, causing A to gybe unintentionally. This was immediately followed by a collision, although without damage or injury, and B protested A under rule 10. The facts were agreed, and both boats were disqualified: B under rule 12 because she was too close to A to be keeping clear, and A under rule 10 for failing to keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.

A appealed on the grounds that she was compelled by B’s action to break rule 10. The protest committee, commenting on the appeal, stated that B caused both A’s gybe and the collision by not keeping clear when both boats were on the same tack.

Decision

The boats were passing close to the shoreline, which was an obstruction and also a continuing obstruction. Therefore, the conditions for rule 19 to apply were met. However, because the boats were not overlapped, neither of the two parts of rule 19 that place an obligation on a boat (rules 19.2(b) and 19.2(c)) applied. When B was clear astern of A she was required by rule 12 to keep clear but failed to do so. Her breach occurred before the collision, at the moment when A first needed ‘to take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear). When B collided with A she also broke rule 14.

However, at that time she held right of way under rule 10, so is not subject to penalty under rule 14 because there was no damage or injury. After gybing, A became the keep-clear boat under rule 10, even though she had not intended to gybe. She broke that rule, but only because B’s breach of rule 12 made it impossible for A to keep clear. A did not break rule 14 because it was not ‘reasonably possible’ for her to avoid contact.

Accordingly, B was properly disqualified by the protest committee under rule 12. However, A is exonerated under rule 64.1(c) for her breach of rule 10. A’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be reinstated.

RYA 1974/3

In this post rule 19 has no effect although it applies. I’ve drafted another post from one of the ESS acts where it does. Come back tomorrow and read about it.

The conclusion that A is to be exonerated can only be reached if you write down the facts found in chronological order. Then it becomes clear that the infringement of rule 12 by boat B already occurred before rule 10 came into play.

Nevertheless I can understand the PC that made this mistake. They could not use rule 15 because boat A gybed and therefore boat B acquired row because of the other boat’s actions.

Merry Christmas!

Dear LTW -reader,

The year is almost done, in two days it's Christmas again.
I've looked for an appropriate picture to wish you all a Merry Christmas and to thank all my readers for taking time to read my posts this last year.

I found a "School of Sunfish" on this blog: http://www.kevinmanningphotography.com/blog/ and decided that this perfectly illustrated the my sentiment....

Instead of boats racing with billowing full sails - like on my blog picture - these three boats are in rest, waiting for the wind to come....
Waiting for the new year, waiting for the people to go sailing....

Next year will be the year where I will find out if I can make it, being self employed....
I hope you all stick with me...

Merry Christmas,

J.

(pillow)Case of the week (50/11) – 31

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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.)

I’m catching up this week because I realized I’m out of sync with the actual week numbers…..

CASE 31

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 26, Starting Races
Rule 29.1, Recalls: Individual Recall
Rule 64.2, Decisions: Decisions on Redress
Race Signals, X

When the correct visual recall signal for individual recall is made but the required sound signal is not, and when a recalled boat in a position to hear a sound signal does not see the visual signal and does not return, she is entitled to redress. However, if she realizes she is over the line she must return and start correctly.

Summary of the Facts

At the start of a race the visual individual recall signal required by rule 29.1 was correctly made, but the required sound signal was not. One of the recalled boats, A, did not return and later requested redress on the grounds that she started simultaneously with the starting signal and heard no recall sound signal.

The protest committee found that A was not entirely on the pre-start side of the starting line at the starting signal. It gave A a finishing position as redress because of the absence of the sound signal. Another boat, B, then asked for redress, claiming that her finishing position was affected by what she believed to have been an improper decision to give a finishing position to A. B was not given redress, and she appealed on the grounds that rule 26 states: ‘the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded’.

Decision

B’s appeal is dismissed. The protest committee’s decision to give redress to A is upheld. The requirement in rule 29.1 and in Race Signals regarding the making of a sound signal when flag X is displayed is essential to call the attention of boats to the fact that one or more of them are being recalled.

When the sound signal is omitted from an individual recall, and a recalled boat in a position to hear a sound signal does not see the visual signal and does not return, she is entitled to redress. (If the redress given is to adjust the boat’s race score, it should reflect the fact that, generally, when a recalled boat returns to the pre-course side of the line after her starting signal, she usually starts some time after boats that were not recalled. An allowance for that time should be made.) However, a boat that realizes that she was over the line is not entitled to redress, and she must comply with rules 28.1 and, if it applies, rule 30.1. If she fails to do so, she breaks rule 2 and fails to comply with the Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules.

Concerning Boat B’s request, the provision of Rule 26 that ‘the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded’ applies only to the warning, preparatory, one-minute and starting signals. When the individual recall signal is made, both the visual and sound signals are required unless the sailing instructions state otherwise.

RYA 1974/7

To decide on a request for redress you need to answer a couple of essential questions. I’ve set up the following flow diagram to guide you:

In Case 31 the answer to the first question is YES; Boat A was scored OCS which is significantly worse than any place she had sailed.

The answer to the second question is also YES; She was not aware she was over the line. Had she been aware, this question would have to be answered NO; because then not returning would have been (partly) her own fault.

As to the cause in Case 31; not giving a sound signal is covered by 62.1(a); that was an omission by the Race Committee.

We arrive at the outcome: Redress granted

(pillow)Case of the week (49/11) – 32

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 32

Rule 90.2(c), Race Committee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing
Instructions

A competitor is entitled to look exclusively to written sailing instructions and to any written amendments for all details relating to sailing the course.

Summary of the Facts

The sailing instructions included, among other things, the following:

1. All races will be sailed under The Racing Rules of Sailing except as modified below.
2. A briefing will be held in the clubroom 60 minutes before the start of the first race each day.
3. Shortened Course will be signalled by two guns and raising of flag S and the class flag. Boats in that class will round the mark about to be rounded by the leading boat and go straight to the finishing line. This changes the meaning of flag S in the Race Signals.

At one of the briefings, the race officer attempted to clarify the phrase ‘go straight to the finishing line’ in item 3 by stating that when the course was shortened, all boats should cross the finishing line in a windward direction.

This would ensure that all classes, some of which might be finishing from different marks, would finish in the same direction even if that were not the direction of the course from the mark at which the course was shortened.

Subsequently, a race was shortened. Six boats, which had not attended the briefing, followed the written sailing instructions, were recorded as not finishing, and sought redress. The boats alleged that the race committee had improperly changed the definition Finish and had failed to follow the requirements of rule 90.2(c). The protest committee upheld their requests for redress on the grounds they had cited.

The race committee appealed to the national authority, asserting that the briefing sessions were a numbered part of the sailing instructions, all competitors should have attended, and the briefings constituted a procedure for giving oral instructions. Also, it argued that the sailing instructions were not changed but merely clarified by the race officer as to what the words ‘go straight to the finishing line’ meant.

Decision

Appeal dismissed. The remarks of the race officer amounted to more than mere clarification. This is borne out by the fact that the boats that did not attend the briefing acted as they did. Competitors are entitled to look exclusively to the sailing instructions and to any amendments for all particulars of the course. Rule 90.2(c) requires changes to the sailing instructions to be in writing. However, under no circumstance can sailing instructions change the definition Finish or the definition of any other term defined in Definitions (see rule 86).

RYA 1975/3

There’s only one ‘escape’ in giving verbal instructions: That is also in rule 90.2(c):

“Oral changes may be given only on the water, and only if the procedure is stated in the sailing instructions.”

Any change that is discussed verbally in a skippers briefing, regarding the SI or RRS MUST also be written on the notice board with time and date at an appropriate time. Anyway, changing a definition is not permitted anyway.

Is the Equipment Inspector part of the RC?

Yesterday evening we had a rules clinic in my club - as we do a couple of times each winter - this time with the tricky subject of the role of the equipment inspector slash measurer at an event.

In the discussion ISAF Q&A J 021 was presented:

Question 1
Is an equipment inspector or measurer at an event a member of the race committee for that event?
Answer 1
Not normally. Equipment inspectors or event measurers are responsible for checking that the boats or the personal equipment used by competitors comply with the class rules.
According to the Terminology in the Introduction to the Racing Rules of Sailing, ‘Race committee’ includes any person performing a race committee function. The race committee functions are stated in different rules in Part 7 (conduct races, publish written sailing instructions, score races, etc) and equipment inspection is not one of them.
If however the equipment inspectors or event measurers were appointed by the race committee to conduct such responsibilities on behalf of the race committee, then they are members of the race committee.

If you look at the wording in the answer there seems to be a contradiction. The first part states that equipment inspection is NOT one of the functions the Race Committee has to fullfill.
But if that same RC appoints a person to conduct those inspections, then it suddenly is the responsibility of the race committee..... because they are part of RC?

RSA and ERS

In the RRS an equipment inspector is not defined, but in the Equipment Rules of Sailing it is:

C.4.6 Equipment Inspector
A person appointed by a race committee to carry out equipment inspection.

We also have a submission that would make the equipment inspector or measurer a party in rule 62.1(a). That would suggest he is not part of the Race Committee - otherwise why the change?

Submission 270-11

Proposal
62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by

(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee, or organizing authority or an equipment inspector or measurer for an event, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;

I hope by the time I have the next measurement protest, I know the answer.....

PERTH 2011; Case 48; RRS 69.1 against Ainslie

From the Perth 2011 Jury Notice Board: Case 48.pdf:

DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL JURY IN CASE 48

Rule 69.1 Hearing based on report from Organizing Authority
Ben Ainslie (Finn GBR 3)

Facts Found

As the first two boats in Finn Race 9 rounded the gate for the second beat and headed towards the shore, a media boat followed close to leeward of the leader. This caused wash for GBR 3, who attempted to wave the media boat off.
When the leaders passed through the gate and headed towards the finishing line, the same media boat followed the leader to the finishing line leaving a large wake, which again affected GBR 3's race.

The media boat crossed the finishing line and then stopped in front of GBR 3 after GBR 3 finished. As GBR 3 came alongside, the skipper jumped aboard the media boat.

The skipper grabbed and shook the boat driver, shouting 'You have no respect!' He then walked towards another member of the media boat's crew, but made no contact with him. He then jumped into the water, swam to his boat and sailed away.

On coming ashore, the skipper of GBR 3 wrote a letter of apology and delivered it to the media boat driver. The media boat driver accepted that apology and apologised in a letter for disturbance during the race.

Conclusion

The action of jumping on a media boat with anger and grabbing the driver constitutes physical aggression. Such behaviour is never an acceptable response. Such behaviour not only constitutes a gross breach of good manners but also, coming from a top athlete at a world championship, brings the sport of sailing into disrepute.

However, the repeated nature of the media boats interference over multiple legs is a mitigating circumstance, as is the prompt and unsolicited written apology given to the boat driver.

Decision

GBR 3 is to be scored DGM (disqualification non-excludable for gross misconduct) for Races 9 and 10.

 

Decision given at 22:40 December 9, 2011
International Jury: Bernard Bonneau (Chairman), Jim Capron, Josje Hofland, Ana Sanchez, Marianne Middelthon

The matter has been dealt with at the event. Is it now over?

Reading Rule 69.1(c):

The protest committee shall promptly report a penalty, but not a warning, to the national authorities of the venue, of the competitor and of the boat owner. If the protest committee is an international jury appointed by the ISAF under rule 89.2(b), it shall send a copy of the report to the ISAF.

That means that four ‘higher’ authorities will be send a report. The Australian MNA: Yachting Australia (because the venue was Perth), the RYA (Ainslie is from GBR), the MNA of the boat-owner (if that is an MNA other than from Australia or Great Britain) and the ISAF.

In all likely hood Yachting Australia and the ISAF will defer from investigating and leave the matter in the hands of the RYA. They are now the first to respond. But if the decision of the RYA is not appropriate in the eyes of either YA or the ISAF, they can then start there own investigation and decide on whether an additional sanction is warranted.

(pillow)Case of the week (48/11) – 33

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

CASE 33

Rule 19.2(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 19.2(c), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 20.1(b), Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding
Rule 20.3, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: When not to Hail
Definitions, Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap

A boat that hails for room to tack before safety requires her to tack is entitled to receive room under rule 20.1(b), but by hailing at that time she breaks rule 20.3. An inside overlapped boat is entitled to room between the outside boat and an obstruction under rule 19.2(b) even though she has tacked into the inside overlapping position.

 

Assumed Facts for Question 1

There are breakwaters projecting from the shore at fairly regular intervals with a reasonable amount and depth of water between them. To be competitive when beating against a contrary current, it is advantageous to tack into and out of the area between adjacent breakwaters. SL and SW, small keel boats, enter one such area overlapped, close-hauled on starboard tack. In the absence of SW, SL would tack at a point where, on port tack and close-hauled, she would just clear the end of the farther breakwater.

Question 1

If SL were to hail for room to tack at position 2, would SW be required to respond as required by rule 20.1(b)?

Answer 1

Yes. However, because at position 2 SL is not yet in danger of running aground, she would break rule 20.3 if she hailed SW for room to tack at that time. To avoid breaking rule 20.3, she must not hail until safety requires her to tack.

Additional Assumed Facts for Question 2

SL does not hail for room to tack. However, SW tacks between positions 2 and 3 at a point where, after she completes her tack, her close-hauled course passes just to leeward of the end of the farther breakwater. Seeing SW tack, SL immediately tacks as well.

Question 2

After position 2, is PL (formerly SW), required to give PW (formerly SL) room between her and the breakwater?

Answer 2

Yes. When SW tacks, SL is able to tack without breaking a rule. When SW turns past head to wind, the overlap between her and SL ceases to exist, because they are then on opposite tacks and sailing at less than 90 degrees to the true wind (see the definition Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap). A new overlap begins when SL passes head to wind, at which time the boats are once again on the same tack. After the new overlap begins PL, by bearing off, can easily give PW room between her and the breakwater. Therefore, rule 19.2(b) applies and requires PL to give PW that room.

Although the breakwater is a continuous structure from the shore to its outer end, it does not qualify as a continuing obstruction because the boats pass close to it only briefly, near its outer end. Therefore, rule 19.2(c) does not apply.

RYA 1975/8

Rule 20 is a safety rule and when used by a boat the hailed boat has only two options: Either tack as soon as possible or answer: “You tack” and subsequently give the other boat room to tack and avoid her.

If the hail is inappropriate – like it would be in question 1 in case 33 – the hailed boat still has to respond correctly. But when is it inappropriate?

Please consider you answer in the following situations: Must the hailed boat respond according to rule 20.1(b) or not, when;

1. The hailing boat is sailing on a reach approaching an obstruction?
2. The hailing boat is sailing above close hauled (pinching) approaching the finish vessel, while the hailed boat can fetch the finish?
3. The hailing boat is approaching a rounding mark of the course?
4. The hailing boat is an floating object in the water that is not an obstruction?
5. The hailing boat is approaching the end of a pier that can be passed by luffing 15 degrees for three seconds?

Hint: The answers can be found in the wording of the rule……

 

 

ESS Act 9; Singapore; day3

Sailing yesterday in Marine Bay was intense. The shape of the scoreboard has been established and teams are beginning to jockey for position looking for their direct opponent.

We did six or seven flags in total, even a race with three penalized incidents.
Although we were sure about all of them, one mark-touch penalty may have been wrong in hindsight – when we talked to the crew.

The courses were mostly with port rounding's and then the most incidents are happening in the windward mark zone, between a port tacking boat and boats  on starboard tack.

Since we use the modified match race rule 18.3, we have to judge exactly when the tack is complete. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the change, here is the short of it:

NORMAL RRS 18.3

Normally a boat that tacks in the zone has – on top of the normal obligation to keep clear while tacking – a few extra restrictions. If the starboard fetching boat has to luff above close hauled to avoid the tacking boat – the latter breaks rule 18.3, even if that happens after the tack has completed. And secondly, if the starboard boat gets an inside overlap, the tacking boat must give mark-room. That is the ‘normal’ fleet racing version of rule 18.3.

MATCH RACE RRS 18.3

In these regatta’s however, we use the modified match race version: If the starboard boat is able to avoid the tacking boat by luffing (even above close hauled) AFTER the tack has been completed, she is obliged to do so. If she can’t luff and avoid, she’s entitled to mark-room, if she gets an inside overlap.

The situation in the animation above is legal in Match Racing and under the ESS version of the rules, but is illegal in ‘normal’ fleet racing.

This basically means that the port tack boat must make a judgement call when to tack. Too early will likely cause trouble in fetching the mark, too late will infringe rule 13 or 15, going trough might cause trouble in rule 10. Timing is critical. And the decision to ‘go for it’, has to be made well in advance.

Tomorrow we’ll have a morning session and an afternoon session….

ESS Act 9; Singapore; Managing the Class.

With not much wind and very shifty as well, we did only four races today in the ESS in Singapore. The 10 Extreme Forties circled Marina Bay to find the wind and get trough the courses. With four umpire boats we can cover almost all incidents as boats are not moving that fast.

Today I was on the water with Charlie Carter who is filling in for the eight umpire position. Charlie is the Extreme Forty Class Manager. He’s employed by OC Third Pole who in turn is hired to manage the Class for Extreme Sailing Series SA, the company that has the design rights to the class. It is not a class that is formed by the sailors who have a class boat- like most classes. Although those are asked for input on a regular bases (twice a year there’s an open forum organized), this class is company owned. Charlie is one of four people who manages the X40-class.

 

Charlie Carter has an engineering background and he’s responsible for technical management of the class. He has extensive experience in the marine industry and has managed various projects in the past, like the Oman Trimaran project and the Imoca open 60 project.

He’s looking after the future of the X40, liaisons with the teams about development and is first in line to make sure the boat is truly a one-design class. He manages the technical support, servicing of the equipment and a supply train for parts for new and existing boats. If any boat gets damaged he can facilitate repairs for teams that don’t have the capability to do this themselves. By being at each class event he can keep in contact with all sailors and owners and provide direct support.

The Extreme 40 was first used in the In-Port Races for the Volvo Ocean Race in 2005. Of those first five boats build, four are still sailing the Extreme Sailing Series. But since then the fleet has increased and now stands at 20 boats.

The X40 is still a very competitive boat that can achieve fantastic acceleration and speeds. Combined with a relatively simple montage and de-montage (two persons can rig (or de-rig) a boat in a day) because of the use of basic parts, the boat offers a fantastic value for money. Only four – though very hard working – crew are needed to sail this big cat, which leaves the fifth place for a guest. If you have 384.500 pound to spare, you can own a X40 kitted out with all parts, sails and even a container to put the complete boat into.

“How does he see the future development of the Class?” I asked Charlie in between races.
He answered: “More modular sections would be a good way to improve the speed in which a boat can be repaired. So sailing can be resumed very fast.
Instead of a composite repair, then only bolting-on an aft section would be needed to fix a sheered off transom – like Team New Zealand had in the previous edition.”

Charlie is also looking into a system to prevent inversion of the boat after a capsize. “The equivalent of 150 kg buoyancy at the top of the mast is needed to keep the boat from completely turning upside down” He hopes a system can be in place for next year – either by automatically inflation or a fixed buoyancy….

The ESS will be back next year – doing the full global circle with old and a couple of new venues. And Charlie will be there as well, count on it.

ESS Act 9; Singapore – practice day

You might have noticed yesterday’s post was only published a short time ago. This was because I was travelling to Singapore for the final act in the Extreme Sailing Series. My flight was long but uneventful. It’s nice and warm here in Singapore and the race village has been almost all build.

The TEN cats were sailing this afternoon to get some feel for the water. We are sailing in between two bridges in ‘modern’ Singapore. All kinds of new buildings and very advanced architecture.

http://www.extremesailingseries.com/

Besides rule 20 issues, we also will have to deal with a lot of small buoys scattered around. The are the floating end of an oxygen enrichment system, with underwater pipes and supposedly fragile enough that we had to write an amendment in the RSI. (see the second picture)

They count as an obstruction and boats are not allowed to touch them. Penalties are umpire initiated, but the RC can also protest.

In this final act of season 2011, I’ll try to find out some more about what next year is going to bring in this series.

(pillow)Case of the Week (47/11) - 34

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 34

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 62.1(d), Redress
Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest
Committee

Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule 2 and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 69.1.

Summary of the Facts

As the sixth and final race of a championship series began, A’s accumulated score was such that the only way she could lose the prize was for B to finish ahead of her and among the first three of the 48 competitors. A crossed the line early and was recalled by loud hailer.

About 70 to 100 metres beyond the starting line, she turned back, but she had sailed only some 20 to 30 metres towards the line when she met B, which had started correctly. Instead of continuing towards the pre-start side of the line A turned and began to hinder B by covering her closely. The race committee hailed A again that she was still above the line and received a wave of acknowledgement in return, but A continued to sail the course, hindering B throughout the windward leg. When A and B reached the windward mark, they were last but one and last respectively, whereupon A retired. B ultimately finished in 22nd place.

Since it was obvious to the race committee that A continued to race solely for the purpose of hindering B, it protested A under rule 2. A, which had been scored OCS, was then disqualified for breaking rule 2. She appealed, asserting that she believed she had returned and started correctly.

Decision

A’s appeal is dismissed. It is clear from the facts found that A knew she had not started as required by rule 28.1, and that she chose not to do so. Facts are not subject to appeal. The disqualification of A for breaking rule 2 was appropriate.

A would not have broken rule 2 if she had returned to the pre-start side of the starting line and started and, after having done so and without intentionally breaking any rule, she had managed to overtake and pass B and then closely covered her.

B could have requested redress and was entitled to receive it under rule 62.1(d). The facts show a gross breach of sportsmanship and, therefore, of rule 2.
Such a deliberate attempt to win by unfair means should be dealt with severely. The protest committee could also have called a hearing under rule 69.1, as a result of which it could have disqualified A from the entire series.

NSF 1975/1

The Case hinges on the deliberate rule infringement by boat A. This tactic, of slowing another boat to gain an advantage in the overall results, is perfectly legal as long as you do NOT break any rules. As soon as a boat does break a rule, it is also considered a breach of rule two – or in severe cases -  gross misconduct.

See also Case 78.

The reasons why a boat can use this tactics has been expanded recently. Case 78 will be rewritten and in the meantime a revised Q&A has been published to deal with this. ISAF Racing Rules Q&A-2011 022 A01.

(pillow)Case of the Week (46/11) - 35

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 35

Rule 20.1(b), Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding

When a boat is hailed for room to tack at an obstruction and replies ‘You tack’, and the hailing boat is then able to tack and avoid the hailed boat, the hailed boat has complied with rule 20.1(b).

Summary of the Facts

As two close-hauled boats approached a shore, L hailed W for room to tack. W replied ‘You tack’ and L then tacked immediately. After tacking, L bore away in a seamanlike way and passed under W’s stern, which she cleared by three feet (1 m) or more. L protested W under rule 20.1(b). The protest committee decided that W failed to give room as required by rule 20.1(b) and disqualified her. W appealed.

Decision

W’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be reinstated. L’s actions showed that she had room to tack and avoid W. W therefore met her obligation under rule 20.1(b).

USSA 1976/189

The exact wording in rule 20.1(b) is:

……. ,or by immediately replying ‘You tack’ and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her; …..

In Case 35 boat L made the mistake in thinking that after she was given the reply “You Tack” she was free to do as she pleased. That she was free to tack and go in front of W. But the obligation to keep clear under rule 13 and then under rule 11, is not switched off. The only thing she ‘gained’ is that W took the obligation to give her room to do so, and while L did everything to keep clear, to avoid her.

Right of way is NOT changed by this rule. The hailed boat only gets an additional obligation to give (more) room and make sure that she avoids L.

If L would not have been able to bear away – or only in an un-seamanlike way – then W would not have given her enough room and would have broken rule 20.1(b). The failure to keep clear by L in that case, would be exonerated under rule 20.2

Hiking and rule 49.2

By mail I received a comment on yesterday's Case from Bill Heintz:
He has done some research on the subject across the Internet:


Rule 49.2 is not enforced on any level racing except under extreme conditions.  If everyone is doing it, it is fair across the board right?  Apparently the purpose of the lower lifeline for hiking purposes and has nothing to do with safety.

Rune 49.2 . . . On boats equipped with upper and lower lifelines of wire, a competitor sitting on the deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline may have the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline.

Maybe "sitting" needs needs to be defined in the RRS as in regards to Rule 49.2.  According to one dictionary "position in which one's weight is supported by one's buttocks rather than one's feet and one's back is upright"  this does not seem to include "hanging by a wire across your belly like a sack of potatoes."

Photo 1?  http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2010/01/sunday-rules-snap.html
There did not seem to be consensus on whether this was legal in 49.2 (or people reading the rule)

Photo 2?  http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/38306-racing-question-anyone.html
According to this Forum this is legal - Rule 49.2 is open to on the spot interpretation.

Photo 3? http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=110190&st=125
Remember the old line "it's there to save your ass, not support it"? A life line failure is going to cause crew who are hiking that way to end up in the water. If half of a 6 person crew are swimming, how well is recovery going to go?

Photo 4? http://www.vsail.info/2011/08/25/rob-weiland-tp52-class-manager-talks-to-vsail-info/
Rob Weiland implies that this is legal under 49.2 as long as you "try to enforce by regular inspections."
ISAF ORC Special Regulation Cat 3 for Monohulls 3.14.6 Table 8 Lifeline Minimum Diameter wire rope diameter 3/16" wire - working load limit 940 lbs (4,700 lb breaking load) , 12 crew hiking on typical TP52 = each crew member can weight up to 78 lbs (even the Morning Light crew weighs more than that)

Comment? http://www.j24class.org/news/j24-hiking-position-2011-rule-changes-and-looking-forward/
"We were only slightly ahead of our times since the ISAF has a proposal before it (130-06) to delete the section of RRS 49.2 that allows hiking between the lifelines."

(pillow)Case of the Week (45/11) - 36

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 36

Rule 49.2, Crew Position

Positioning of crew members relative to lifelines.

Summary of the Facts
A boat in an offshore class, while close-hauled, had a crew member positioned, for several minutes on two occasions, next to the shrouds with his feet on the deck and his legs inside but touching the lifelines. While his torso was substantially upright, part of it was outboard of an imaginary line projected vertically from the top of the lifelines. The boat was disqualified under rule 49.2 and appealed.

Decision
The appeal is dismissed. To clarify the rule, the drawing shows possible crew positions.
Position 6 is the position of the appellant’s crew member.
Positions 1, 2 and 3 do not break the rule; positions 5 and 6 break it.
On boats equipped with one lifeline, position 4 breaks the rule.
On boats equipped with two wire lifelines, a crew member sitting on deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline and the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline, as shown in position 4, does not break the rule.

USSA 1976/194

  
Rule 49.2 is purely a safety issue. We don't want that crew members are compelled to take too much risk in projecting there weight outside to get a little more speed. There is a limit and this is it. Shouldn't be to hard to follow......

 
But if there are no lifelines - only rule 49.1 restricts the crew position....

(pillow)Case of the Week (44/11) - 37

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 37

Rule 32.1(d), Shortening or Abandoning After the Start
Rule 62.1(a), Redress

Each race of a regatta is a separate race; in a multi-class regatta, abandonment may be suitable for some classes, but not for all.

Summary of the Facts

In the third race of a regatta involving about 120 boats and 15 offshore classes, all classes sailed the same course on which a reaching mark was found to have moved almost a mile out of position. Various boats in several classes sought redress because of it. The mark moved out of position over an hour before any of the boats in the last two classes reached it. None of the boats in those two classes requested redress. The protest committee, however, abandoned the races for all classes. The boats in the last two classes then asked for redress, claiming that the abandonment of their races was improper. Redress was denied. They appealed.

Decision

The protest committee failed to distinguish between different procedures under which a race may be abandoned. The race committee could have abandoned the race under rule 32.1(d) because the mark was out of position. It did not do so, however, and appeared to have been satisfied to let the several races stand.

When several classes are racing at the same time, each class is competing in a separate race. If the protest committee had taken up the question on a class-by-class, race-by-race basis, it would have found that there was no requirement or need to abandon the race for the last two classes.

There may have been sufficient reason to abandon the races of some classes, but the protest committee erred when it abandoned the races for the classes in which no redress was requested. Its decision to do so was an ‘improper action’ within the meaning of rule 62.1(a).

The appeals are upheld, and all of the boats in the races of the two classes in question are reinstated in their finishing places.

USSA 1977/200

Abandonment should always be the last options, in my opinion. As long as there’s a fair race – equal for all boats – it is better to keep the results. If races are abandoned for other reasons than mentioned in rule 32.1, we end up on a slippery slope.

As it is, rule 32.1(e) is relatively ‘open’ enough to be used in circumstances where the fairness is in question.

But also remember the rule only states the the Race Committee may abandon. There is no obligation. And not abandoning is in itself not a mistake or omission subject to redress.

(pillow)Case of the Week (43/11) - 38

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 38

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) are intended to ensure the safety of vessels at sea by precluding situations that might lead to collisions. When the IRPCAS right-of-way rules replace the rules of Part 2, they effectively prohibit a right-of-way boat from changing course towards the boat obligated to keep clear when she is close to that boat.

Summary of the Facts
At about 0030, L and W were running on starboard tack on parallel courses about two hull lengths apart. W was to windward and clear astern of L and steadily closing up on her. The sailing instructions had, between sundown and sunrise, replaced the rules of Part 2 with the IRPCAS right-of-way rules.

L changed course to starboard, forcing W to respond in order to avoid a collision. W protested L on the grounds that ‘luffing was forbidden at night’. The protest committee upheld the protest under the IRPCAS, Part B, Section II, Rule 17. L appealed on the grounds that the protest committee had misapplied the relevant IRPCAS rules.

Decision
IRPCAS Rule 13(a) states that ‘any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken’, and Rule 13(b) states, ‘A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.’ In the above case W was the overtaking vessel. Rule 13(d) states, ‘Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not . . . relieve [the overtaking vessel] of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.’

The overtaken vessel, in this case L, has obligations towards the overtaking vessel. These are in Rule 17, which states in part, ‘Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.’ It is this rule that prohibits the racing manoeuvre known as ‘luffing’ while the boats are so close that L’s luff forces W to change course to avoid contact. Therefore, L’s appeal is dismissed and the protest committee’s decision to penalize her is upheld.

CYA 1976/32

The IRPCAS are not written for racing. Any situation involving two or more boats meeting, is to be solved by the safest way possible, to ensure no contact will occur.

It will feel ‘unnatural’ to most racing sailors, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have to follow the IRPCAS (or any other Government Right of Way rule) if that is stated in the Sailing Instructions. Then those rules become racing rules.

Do you know the IRPCAS good enough to give an interpretation sitting in a PC? I don’t. If any SI of an event I’m attending does have such a statement, I would have to bone up…..

Links to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions At Sea (IRPCAS):

The Bosun’s Mate
IRPCAS
Stormy Weather Software

(pillow)Case of the Week (42/11) - 39

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Casebook 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. 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 39

Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 60.2(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule 69 Action

Except when it receives a report of a breach of a class rule or of rule 43 from an equipment inspector or a measurer for an event, a race committee is not required to protest a boat. The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitor.

Summary of the Facts
Throughout a five-race series, A competed with a crew of three. After the last race, B and others jointly protested A, alleging that she had broken a class rule that limited the crew to two. This was the first protest relating to the matter. It was refused because the hulls of the protesting boats were all over 6 m long, but none of the boats displayed a red flag. This decision was appealed on the grounds that the race committee ought, on its own initiative, to have protested A in all the races.

Decision
As provided in rule 63.5, the protest was invalid because no red flag was displayed as required by rule 61.1(a). To uphold this appeal would amount to a conclusion that a race committee ought to know the class rules of each class, and that it then has an obligation to enforce them when members of the class themselves fail to do so. No such obligation is placed on a race committee. Furthermore, rule 60.2(a) is clearly discretionary, except when a race committee receives a report required by rule 43.1(c) or 78.3, which it had not. As stated in Sportsmanship and the Rules, ‘Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.’

The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules therefore rests with the competitors. The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the protest committee is upheld.

CYA 1977/35

What if a measurer or equipment inspector does not include breaches of class rules in his report or even doesn’t hand in a report?

If that becomes known during or after the event, there’s is a problem. At the moment neither is mentioned as a party in rule 62.1(a). No request for redress possible for an improper action or omission by the measurer or equipment inspector. You cannot blame the RC, they never got the information. It is prudent for the PRO to ask the Measurer or equipment inspector for his findings, but not obligatory.

There is however a submission for this November’s ISAF conference to include those in rule 62.1(a).

I’m not sure if that will go into effect the first of January 2012. Till it does, only the Sailing Instructions can change this, by for instance stating that the measurer or equipment inspector are part of the Race Committee.

J.