AC 33 | Rules and explanations – part 5

When AC 33 match two was postponed again and again last Sunday, everybody was dreading the moment that the PRO Harold Bennett would have to pull the plug and send the boats back in. Fortunately the wind filled in and just before the cut-off time of 16:30 he was able to start the match. But it took some doing!

For those of you who haven't heard about the difficulties he faced and what happened, here are some excerpts from different sources:


Later in the evening Scuttlebutt came out with an extra edition with some astonishing news:

SCUTTLEBUTT EXTRA 3 - Sunday, February 14, 2010 (An update to supplement Scuttlebutt 3028 (and Extra 1 and 2)
SCUTTLEBUTT EXCLUSIVE - BENNETT RISES ABOVE RIFF

By Cory E. Friedman, America’s Cup analyst
Valencia, Spain (February 14, 2010) - By now many ‘Buttheads know that challenger USA 17 crushed defender Alinghi 5 in both races to win the 33rd America’s Cup. However, reliable sources tell Scuttlebutt that even when you thought it could not get any worse - it did. The defense club – Société Nautique De Genève’s (SNG) - had their Race Committee actually go on strike and refuse to start Sunday’s race ordered by ISAF approved PRO Harold Bennett. To begin the second race of the Match, Bennett was forced to draft Golden Gate Yacht Club (GGYC) observer Tom Ehman and a Guardia Civil cop on board the RC boat and ordered them to run the flags as Bennett counted down himself.

 FROM SCUTTLEBUTT 3029

* From Thomas C. Price, Annapolis, MD:
I'm sorry but if what your Scuttlebutt Extra says is true, (SNG tried to manipulate the RC to their advantage) that calls for sanction by ISAF against Mr Bertarelli. This absolutely cannot be allowed to pass without resolution and it's clear that it's he ISAF who must resolve it! If true, no Alinghi team should ever sail a sanctioned event again! What a shame. After the awkward "Cumbaya" moment at the press conference, where the parties shook hands, this news is reprehensible.

* From George Morris, Inverness, Scotland, UK:
If the SNG race committee really did behave as described then this will surely require a Rule 69 referral to ISAF. If the RC members who refused to raise the flags are members of SNG then that club would surely be banned from holding any more yacht races and if they were acting on instructions from Alinghi then surely that team would be banned from all future competition. AC events are not quite the same thing as ordinary sailing club regattas but there is a point at which the two sports touch each other, and that is on the racecourse. If Alinghi attempted to fix the result by buying the race committee, then they have disqualified themselves from future competition. Tell me it isn't true.

From an interview with Harold Bennett in Sailingworld: The 33rd Americas Cup Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Harold, what happened on the boat when you tried to start Race 2? Is it true that the SNG members on the boat refused to perform their jobs?
We had a bit of a mutiny. I don't think SNG wanted to go, so they decided they weren't going to do flags. So Tom [Ehman, BMW Oracle Racing's head of external affairs] took the AP down and my boat driver, who's also an international umpire, he shot up forward and did the rest of the signals.

Does this stray into Rule 69 territory. Would you normal write a report for ISAF?
Yes I do have to and obviously that's going to be included in any report. That's what you do, you've got outline what's going on on the boat, whether it's good or bad.

What could've been their motivation? The wind was as light as it could get and still be stable.
We had a perfect breeze the way I saw it. I had good weather information from the Alinghi weather team. It was perfect, everything lined up, 8, 9 knots up the course. And it was like, well, let's do it.

Have you heard of a race committee at any regatta deciding they want to prevent the race being run?
No. Well I've certainly never experienced it. No. I've never heard of that before.

It has been a week since the match and some lively discussions have begun on the sailing forums. In this post I'll give you some of my personal notes and thoughts on this subject:
Lets have a look at the rules.

There's rule 85; Governing Rules

"The organizing authority, race committee and protest committee shall be governed by the rules in the conduct and judging of races"

And if you look at the definition of rules, they include: (g) any other document that govern the event.
Any, in the NoR, SI or other relevant document, regulated boundaries for wave and wind, become therefore rules according to the definition.


And rule 90.1;  Race Committee

"The race committee shall conduct races as directed by the organizing authority and as required by the rules."

There are no individual Race Committee members in the rules. The RC may consist of many people, doing different things, but in the rules they are all considered part on one ‘entity’, which is called the Race Committee.

The PRO/RO is responsible for everything his team does. If the mark boat has not recorded the rounding correctly – the RO gets the blame. If a flag setter on the committee boat doesn’t want to put up the flag, the PRO is the only one who can ‘fire’ him and find someone else to do the job.

The wave and wind limitations are part of the rules and should be discussed on the RC-boat. But in the end, only one person takes the decision - simply because it is his responsibility, and that is the RO.

If an individual RC-member does something that has an influence on the race – positive or negative - you cannot protest that individual. In fact, you cannot protest the RC at all. If you disagree with something that has happened because of the RC, the only thing you can do is request redress. And we all know that getting redress is not only depending on "The RC made a mistake or did not do something they should have done". There are other 'demands' before redress can be granted.

But if anything outside the rules in the RRS or the instructions in the NoR & SI is done by an individual RC-member, that has significantly influenced the results/score in a race or series, your only recourse is to request for redress. The Jury might find that you are indeed disadvantaged without any fault of your own and grant redress, but it cannot punish the RC as a whole nor the individual in question.

There is no provision in the rules to start an individual hearing against any member of the RC. You cannot disqualify a member of the RC. You cannot hold a rule 69 hearing against that person.

It becomes complicated if a connection between a competing boat and a RC-committee member can be found as fact. Then the Jury of that event can start a investigation and if appropriate start a rule 69 hearing, but only against the boat or persons competing, not against the RC-member.
An International Jury must be absolutely sure of the facts before it can decide in a rule 69 hearing against the competitor. And again, if appropriate, the Jury can only penalize the competitor, not the RC-member.

What about Interested Party?

The definition of Interested Party is only about a person who may gain or lose as a result of a protest committee's decision, or who has a close personal interest in the decision. The definition does not include someone on the race committee boat who has ties with a team or competitor.

Only when an actions or non actions influences the score in a significant way, and without any fault of the boat, that boat can request redress and get 'compensated' if necessary.

Since the match was sailed and the 'other' boat won, there's no redress possible.

That leaves only one rule.
That is rule 69.2; Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF

When someone - RC-member, coach, parent, or anybody who has anything to do with the event - does something that could be a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or might have conducted him/herself in such a manner that it brings the sport into disrepute, rule 69.2 gives the possibility to write a report and send it to the National Authority or to ISAF.

The MNA and/or ISAF can start an investigation and, when appropriate, conduct a hearing. It may then take any disciplinary action they think is appropriate against that person(s), team, or club.

Like Harold Bennett stated in the interview, a report will be send and the conduct of RC-members will be included. It is now up to the MNA or ISAF to decide what to do with that report.
Rule 69.2 gives them a choice. They may or they may not conduct an investigation and take this matter further.....

"¿Dónde están mis fresas?"

J.

Zeilraad Archieven on-line op Watersport website

De uitspraken van de Zeilraad zijn door Henk Botterweg opnieuw gerubriceerd en geactualiseerd, en vanaf heden staan ze de site van het Watersportverbond. 

Vanaf het jaar 2000 zijn ze per jaar gebundeld, bovenaan staan de samenvattingen gevolgd door de volledige uitspraak.
De actuele stand van zaken van de hoger beroepen die in behandeling zijn kunt u vinden in de rubriek "Samenvattingen 2009". Bovendien staat in rubriek "Uitsprakenregister" een lijst met hoger beroepen en de daarbij behorende regels uit de Regels voor Wedstrijdzeilen.

De hoger beroepen staan als PDF op de site waardoor ze eenvoudig te raadplegen zijn en gemakkelijk te printen. U vindt de uitspraken van de Zeilraad via deze link.
Hieronder vindt u per jaar de samenvattingen van de hogerberoepen.

• Uitsprakenbundel 2000  (Appeal decisions 2000)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2001  (Appeal decisions 2001)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2002  (Appeal decisions 2002)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2003  (Appeal decisions 2003)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2004  (Appeal decisions 2004)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2005  (Appeal decisions 2005)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2006  (Appeal decisions 2006)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2007  (Appeal decisions 2007)
• Uitsprakenbundel 2008  (Appeal decisions 2008)
• Samenvattingen 2009   (Summaries 2009)
• (uitsprakenregister)  (Appeal decisions register)

Binnenkort kunt u de uitspraken overzichtelijk terugvinden op www.watersportverbond.nl/wedstrijdzeilen. Op die nieuwe website zal dan ook de rubriek "Schorsingen" te vinden zijn, hierin staan de personen vermeld die op dit moment door de zeilraad voor een bepaalde periode zijn geschorst.

Voor nadere inlichtingen of vragen kunt u contact opnemen met de secretaris van de Zeilraad Henk Plaatje.

The above posted text is about the Dutch National Appeal Committee: "de Zeilraad". They've reorganized and published their decisions in a pdf-archive going back to 2000.
With internet translation possibilities you should be able to translate the general gist of the 'verdicts'. If you come across a case you need clarification about, you can either ask Henk Plaatje (mail address above) or send me an Email.

Spam, Spam, Spam, Eggs, Bacon and Spam

Like all who do some blogging or run a website my spamfilters are set fairly high. My provider has that possibility for my mailboxes. The rest is captured in my mail program and put into a secluded folder.
Because of this, sometimes a 'genuine' message gets labelled as SPAM.


We couldn't use E-mail any more if those preventive measures weren't available. Even our rulebook has a SPAM-rule! (Rule 41(d))

Yesterday I received an Email and I need some help from you as reader of LTW.
This is the message:

__________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Boat Ramps - iPhone Application
Boat Ramps is a database-driven application that provides the fastest way to locate boat ramp and launching facilities. Boat Ramps provides an easy to use interface that places a database of over 45,000 ramps at your fingertips.
With ease Boat Ramps will provide a list of ramps in proximity to your current location. The proximity and number of results can be configured to fine tune the results of your search.
Boating away from your current location? No problem. Simply enter the desired location's zip code or select a city and Boat Ramps will provide you a list of possible ramps to launch your vessel.
How to get there? Once a ramp of interest is located its location can be fed to the built-in Maps application to obtain directions. Currently Boat Ramps provides boat ramp / launch locations for the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Ramp / launch locations for additional countries may be added at a later date. Boat Ramps requires the iPhone OS 3.0 to run.
Latest Update:
    * Added the Ability for Users to Added Ramps to Database.
    * Added the Ability to Map All Ramp & Marina Results on the Map Simultaneously.
    * Added the Ability Search by Ramp, Marina, or Both.
    * Added Icons to Results to Identify Ramps, Marinas and Marinas with Ramps.
    * Added Phone Numbers to Marina Entries When Available.
    * Added Ability to Toggle Between a Standard, Satellite or Hybrid Maps.
Website Link:
http://www.derektrauger.com/Products/BoatRamps.aspx

iTunes Store Link
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=333176419&mt=8

Contact: Derek Trauger dtrauger@derektrauger.com  Ph: 386-801-4634
_______________________________________________________


Should I consider this as SPAM and trow it out with the rest as garbage?
Or are you interested to read about this and other similar 'press'-releases on LTW?

AC 33 | Rules and explanations – part 4

There have been a lot of comments on the match winning move of USA-17 in the second match. The tactician on the boat (John Kostecki) called a perfect lay-line according to helmsman (James Spithill) and that, together with his skill as match racer, cumulated in USA being able to round the mark first. Lets have a look at the rules involved in this situation and what SUI could have done. Or could she?

In the drawings SUI is the yellow boat and USA the blue boat. I regret I cannot draw a trimaran, but as both boats are almost the same dimension, it should be more or less to scale, nevertheless.

This is what happened (as far as I can reconstruct from videos):

Picture: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross.png
GIF- Animation: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross.gif
Boat Scenario file: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross.xbs

Position one
SUI to windward and a little in front; USA to leeward approaching on the lay-line.
SUI is keep clear boat either under rule 12 or 11

Position two to three
USA tacks from Starboard to Port a couple of boat lengths above the lay line. SUI continues.
USA is now keep clear boat under rule 10


Position three to four
Boats are four or five lengths apart. SUI is crossing USA.
USA bears away slightly to gain speed and to discourage SUI to go for a dial-down.
USA is still keep clear boat but SUI must give her room to do this IF she changes course, which she does not.

Position four
SUI has crossed in front of USA and starts to luff to go into a tack above the lay-line
USA has full speed and keeps clear.


Position five
While SUI is slowing in her tack, USA passes to leeward of her and luffs to her higher course to fetch the mark.USA becomes right of way boat initially by SUI tacking (rule 13) then as leeward boat (rule 11) en then as clear ahead boat (rule 12)

Position six, seven to eight (a little later)
SUI has completed her tack and is gaining speed. She's slightly to windward but clear astern of USA
USA gained five or six boat lengths in the stretch to the mark and enters the (4 hull-lengths) zone clear ahead of SUI. She's now not only right of way boat but also entitled to mark-room



What could SUI have done to prevent USA from gaining the upper hand?

Put yourself on the big Alinghi 5 Catamaran and convince Brad Butterworth and Ernesto Bertarelli what to do:

Option 1:
Between position two and three you could have gone for a dail-down. A risky move, because by changing course you are subject to rule 16 and have to give USA room to keep clear, but perhaps it can be done.
You have to set this up, knowing boat-speed and manoeuvrability of the other boat as well as your own. Since this was only the second time these boats raced (against each-other), I would not blame you if you have serious doubts about having that knowledge.
Best outcome of this move would be, to be able to force USA back into a tack. Then you would be able to sail on to a position where you wanted and tack first to go to the mark.

But even if the second best thing happened - that is USA being able to bear away quickly enough to keep clear of you - there would have been a big chance that USA could no longer fetch the mark. As soon as the cross was done, go into a tack and gain the upper windward position (making sure you fetch the mark yourself.). If USA must tack again (and again) to round the mark you will be long gone and in front.
If USA is able to fetch the mark, you are no worse off. You needed to give him mark-room and now you will have to do that also. At least you are still close by.

Picture: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Dial down.png
GIF- Animation: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Dial down.gif
Boat Scenario file: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Dail down.xbs


Option 2:
Tack below USA.
You want to try to get a lee-bow position. There are two drawbacks: Tacking that low would mean that you do it barely on the lay-line, perhaps you are even not yet on the lay-line. With that shifty wind and still 2 miles to go, you might not fetch the mark. And secondly there's a big chance that USA - with her superior speed - simply would pass to windward and roll you.

Picture: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Lee-bow.png
GIF- Animation: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Lee-bow.gif
Boat Scenario file: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Lee-bow.xbs



Option 3:
To tack in front of USA. Now this move is even more riskier. The distance between the boats and the fact that - like in all cats - tacking takes an eFFing long time, would make it highly likely that while your are tacking (and are keep clear boat under rule 13) USA would have to take avoiding action. And even if you manage to complete your tack - i.e. turn your catamaran on a new close hauled course - then rule 15 would kick in and you would have to give USA initially room to keep clear. No doubt a Yankee flag from USA would follow and for you a great risk of getting penalized. That would make this a match-losing move. Another penalty on top of the one you already had, equals loosing the match (bar acts of God)

Picture: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Front tack.png
GIF- Animation: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Front tack.gif
Boat Scenario file: AC33 SUI-USA M2 Layline Cross Front tack.xbs


You can be sure that all these three options have been anticipated by USA-17. JS&TK will take advantage of every possibility that you open up for them.

You choose, there's no more time.
USA is luffing to tack.....


Next time in AC 33 | Rules and explanations, reflections on the rules for Race Committees, Organizing Authority and Interested Parties. Or was it about the Bounty?

Stay tuned.
.

FTBD (27)

If you don't know what the title means - I suggest you do some research.

Been fiddling around with the layout a little bit, last couple of weeks, but still am not completely happy with the results. I think I'll do some spring cleaning next. Getting rid of the side-clutter to the fixed pages in the top horizontal bar, some more. That will reduce loading time, which has gone up again, since I last checked. Suggestions are welcome.

The AC posts - still running - have generated an increase in traffic with an new LTW record of 1855 visits on a single day last Tuesday. And total visits have passed the 100.000 mark. To keep the average of one post a day before my next year-day, I'll have to post 1.623 posts/day. Well, this month it looks like that will succeed.

Please keep sending in your Sunday rules - snaps. The crew hanging outside the lifelines was a hit!

The list of ten highest referring sites to LTW:   

1	http://blogger.com
2	http://sailingscuttlebutt.com
3	http://propercourse.blogspot.com
4	http://destinationonedesign.com
5	http://forums.sailinganarchy.com
6	http://google.com
7	http://wayfarer-international.org
8	http://ukhalsey.com
9	http://draft.blogger.com
10	http://tss.peronneau.net

My thanks to you all, but particularly to "Lord T' who celebrated his fifth B'day only yesterday! Congrats with that, indeed!

Google ranks LTW as fourth with "Racing Rules of Sailing" as search, after ISAF, US Sailing and Wikipedia. I can live with that.

We've  had a couple of months winter here, with lots of ice and snow - on and off. And it doesn't look like it is going to let up anytime soon. So, no winter sailing, alas. Maybe in April.



Cheers,
J.

AC 33 | Rules and explanations – part 3

The third post in this series is about the red flag on SUI and the penalty they received in the prestart.
To explain the latter I will have to show you a diagram of the start area.  But first a few words on Match Racing.

Because of the special nature of a match race – being one on one – its is not important to finish as fast as possible, as in a fleet race, it is only important to finish first. Finish first is key, however long that may take!
Match race is about control. If you control your opponent, you can win. A controlling position is therefore paramount. In the AC 33 dogfight we see little of this because the boats are all about speed. But – yes – if you are ahead far enough, you control the race. And in Match 1 USA managed to control SUI for a couple of minutes in the prestart.
To get that control you need to engage your opponent. And that engagement begins well before the start. Now if we do anything like a conventional start as in fleet racing, the two boats in a match race will never know when to begin looking for each other to gain that control.

Therefore in match racing there’s a special procedure in the rules which allows a controlled beginning of the pre start manoeuvres. We have a sort of ‘start’ before the actual start line crossing.
To get there, each boats is assigned to a side. The Yellow side next to the RC-boat and a Blue side next to the pin end of the start line

Picture from a presentation by Henk Plaatje; http://www.plaatje.info/

 In the AC33 Match 2, SUI was assigned the Yellow boat and USA the Blue boat.

From the Rulebook:

At her preparatory signal (five minutes in AC33) each boat shall be outside the line that is at a 90 degrees angle to the starting line through the starting mark at her assigned end. …. (C4.1)

Within the two minute period following her preparatory signal, a boat shall cross and clear the starting line, the first time from the course side to the pre-start side. (C4.2)

To check that precise line the umpire boat and the wing boat each place themselves on that line, one below and one above the starting line. If a boat is anywhere else then in its “box” when the preparatory signal is given, she gets a penalty. Be it still sailing to get there or be it sailing too soon over the line to get to the other boat. Outside your box equals penalty.

In match 2 of AC 33, SUI was still sailing below the starting line towards her assigned end, when the five minute preparatory signal was given. That is the reason SUI was given a penalty. The wing boat signalled this to the umpire boat and they switched on the yellow light.

Why, you might ask? Why was SUI not there?

Remember the red flag SUI tied to a back stay halfway up the beat? Brad Butterworth declared in the subsequent press-conference, that SUI felt that there where too many spectator boats in that area. They felt that they could not safely navigate and therefore where outside. A red flag for a request for redress.

Looking at the videos specifically, you can see some spectator boats on that side, but they are at least a couple of hundred meters away from the committee boat. Plenty of room to sail there. Might it be that they were not fully prepared to race so late in the afternoon? With a start only five minutes before the official cut-off time? I can only speculate.


Fact is that earning that penalty was unnecessary. SUI should have been in her yellow box. An unforced error, which most match racers make only once. Unfortunately AC33 does not give you second chances……

If SUI had felt that a crucial factor in loosing this match was because of the penalty in the pre-start, I’m sure she would have gone trough with her request for redress. As it was, the difference in boat speed between her and USA was so big, that it was not a deciding factor. Besides, getting redress would be next to impossible.

To conclude this post I have a question for the rules-nerds among you: (Don’t blame me, blame Tillerman for introducing this wording into the AC33, I would not have dared to use it otherwise.)

WHAT IF there were too many spectator boats in Yellow box and SUI could not safely navigate there? How would you decide in the subsequent request for redress?

Next time in AC 33 | Rules en explanations: the Cross on the Port lay-line.

Stay tuned.
.

ISAF Q&A 2010 – 007, 008 & 009

Again a triplet from the ISAF Racing Rules Q&A panel.
For one thing you can’t say they are not active. With the publication of the new rules cycle 2009-2012 in total now 41 + 9 = 50 Q&A’s have been published, on top of the 20 from previous years.
The smart thing to do is to download the most recent Racing Rules Q&A booklet (20100215). That way you have all the pertinent information in one place.
The new Q&A’s published on the Website are:
ISAF Racing Rules Q&A 2010 – 007 about national prescriptions not complying with rule 86.1(a) and therefore does not validly deny the right of appeal.
This Q&A makes it clear that it is not so easy to deny appeal rights to competitors. The OA or even an MNA might want to do this for the sake of simplicity or for any other reason, but they better make doubly sure they do it the correct way. A sentence in a national rules book as prescription does not comply. The only sure way is to get an International Jury to the event.
ISAF Racing Rules Q&A 2010 – 008 is about redress when boats get entangled with marks. From the answer:

For a boat that gets entangled in a mark’s ground tackle to be entitled to redress under rule 62.1(a), there must first be an improper action or omission by the race committee. This will be so only if there is a risk of entanglement that boats could not reasonably be expected to anticipate and the race committee could clearly have done something different that would have avoided or substantially reduced this risk.

ISAF Racing Rules Q&A 2010 – 009 about the finishing mark and rules 18.2 and 18.5.
In short; a finishing mark is not different from any other mark with regards to rules 18.2 & 18.5. You have mark-room depending how the zone is entered and you’ll be exonerated for breaking a rule in Section A. The fact that you can sail another course to also reach the finish line, does not in itself switch rules 18.2 or 18.5 off.

About the Q&A’s: Unlike the ISAF Cases, which are authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules, these answers are solely to assist Race Officials in applying the rules consistently.
International Race Officials who would like to submit a question to the Q&A Service should do so via email to the ISAF
.

AC 33 | Rules and explanations – part 2

This is the second post in our series explaining some of the rules-issues in the America’s Cup 33.
Go back to the first post  - AC 33 | Rules and explanations – part 1 – if you want to be reminded.
Before I can start to explain our first issue – the additional five minutes delta SUI earned in the first match - I’ll have to go into the rulebook a little bit. Specifically the definition of finish and the change to that definition that has been done in the Match Racing rules (App. C rule 2.1 & 7.2(d))
According to the changed definition, SUI could take that penalty anytime provided she did so before finishing. The wording in the rulebook says she could only finish after completing any penalties. (Unless that penalty is cancelled under rule C7.2(d). I.e. the other boat is also been given a penalty just before or after the boat crosses the line.)

In Match 1 SUI trailed USA, still carrying a penalty (from the prestart dail-up).
According to the video’s and virtual eye recordings I’ve seen, SUI crossed the line the first time – about ten minutes after USA - without having taken that penalty, but started to do so just after her bows crossed the line. SUI luffed below the line and turned up straight away into a tack.
A penalty on a downwind leg, as defined in the rulebook states:

(2) When on a leg of course to a leeward mark or the finishing line, she shall tack and, as soon as reasonable possible, bear away to a course that is more than ninety degrees from true wind.

The penalty starts! when the boat passes head to wind and ends! when the boat has turned downwind. (More then ninety degrees from true wind).
Just after her tack SUI turned downwind and thereby completed her penalty. That was signaled by the umpires by blowing a whistle and turning of the yellow flicker-light. BUT – and this is crucial for the explanation, SUI did so while the boat was still – perhaps completely, but at least partly - below the line.
Going back to rule C7.2(d):

A penalized boat shall not be recorded as having finished until she takes her penalty and sails completely to the course side of the line and then finishes, unless the penalty is canceled before or after she crosses the finishing line.

So the penalty was completed, but the boat had not returned completely to the course side of the line. I can understand that with a boat of that magnitude you make a mistake in judging if you are over or not-over the finishing line. But not heading the signal of the RC indicating that you have finished? Or taking that kind of risk in trailing position by doing your penalty turn on the line?
I can only explain this maneuver by guessing that SUI wanted to make the delta as small as possible. That is: crossing the line immediately after having turned more then ninety degrees from true wind. Match Racers do this often, by using one of the finishing marks as a turning point. With that mark they can at least be sure they return to the course side of the line!
But SUI sailed downwind without having any doubt of having finished. Only a radio-communication from the RC made them aware that in fact SUI was still not finished!
After that SUI sailed back upwind, passed the line and then crossed the line according to the rules to finish. This was the mistake that cost them an additional five minute delta in the first match. Instead of 9 minutes 56 second or about, the delta became 15 minutes and 25 seconds!
Before you start about the communication from the RC over the radio, that part of rule 41 was changed in the NoR/SI – and it is a moot point whether that is meant to cover information pertinent to one boat only…….
In our next installment of AC 33 | Rules and explanations we will have a look at the second match. Specifically about the prestart penalty and the red flag on SUI.
Stay tuned.
.

AC 33 | Rules and explanations - part 1

The AC33 has been sailed and USA-17 managed to win both matches.
Congratulations to the whole BMW Oracle Racing - team.

In a couple of posts in the coming week, I want to take you back to several rules issues in those two matches. I already posted about the first penalty in the first match in this post Rules picture of the year?, so we'll leave that one. But in both matches there were other - be it less deciding - issues.

I'll try to explain the following subjects:

• SUI lost the first match with a delta of over 15 minutes, although she crossed the finish line within 10 minutes of USA-17. How is that possible?
• In the second match SUI again received a penalty in the pre-start. This time not because of a boat to boat incident, but because of an 'unforced' error on her part. Or was it really 'unforced'?
• Although SUI managed to lead for most of the windward beat to mark 1 and crossed USA in front in the second match, she did not round the first mark as the leading boat. The rules play a big part in why that happened.
• Half way up the beat in the second match SUI tied a red protest-flag in one of her back-stays. What was that all about? Could she have influenced the outcome had the hearing been held?
• And finally a very difficult issue. A major conflict between OA and RC - both represented in the committee boat on the water. With that we drift into a subject the ISAF is also working on: Interested Party.

If you have other issues you want to have explained about the rules, drop me an Email and I'll endeavour to find an answer.

.

(pillow)Case of the Week (7) -109

CASE 109

Part 2 Preamble
Rule 48, Fog Signals and Lights
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

The IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules apply between boats that are racing only if the sailing instructions say so, and in that case all of the Part 2 rules are replaced. An IRPCAS or government rule may be made to apply by including it in the sailing instructions or in another document governing the event.

Question 1
What are the ‘government rules’ to which the preamble to Part 2 and rule
48 refer? How do those rules differ from the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS)?


Answer 1
The IRPCAS apply only ‘upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels’ (IRPCAS Rule 1(a)). On a country’s harbours, rivers, lakes and other inland waters, governments and other government authorities may establish other rules. Those other rules are the ‘government rules’ to which the Part 2 preamble and rule 48 refer.
Such rules, which may apply nationally on all inland waters or only on specific inland waters, may restate, replace, change or add to the IRPCAS (IRPCAS Rules 1(b) and 1(c)). 

Question 2
When the notice of race, sailing instructions and other documents that govern an event do not mention the IRPCAS or government rules, do any rules of the IRPCAS or government rules apply to a boat racing under The Racing Rules of Sailing? 
Answer 2
Yes. When safety requires, a boat racing shall sound fog signals and show lights as required by the IRPCAS or applicable government rules (rule 48). Also, when a boat sailing under the Part 2 rules meets a vessel that is not, the IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules apply between them (Part2 preamble).

Question 3
May the notice of race, sailing instructions or another document that governs the event make the IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules or other rules of the IRPCAS or government rules applicable? 
Answer 3
Yes, in three ways:

1. The sailing instructions may state that the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or government rules replace all of the rules of Part 2 (Part 2 preamble and rule J2.2(2)). This is often done for oceanic races and also for racing at night.
2. The sailing instructions may state that a particular rule from the IRPCAS or government rules (other than a right-of-way rule) will apply to the event and include the text of that rule (rule J2.2(38)).
3. The definition Rule includes ‘(g) any other document governing the event.’ Such a document may include the text of a particular rule or rules from the IRPCAS or government rules (other than a right-of-way rule) that will apply to the event. Rules for crossing shipping lanes are often made available in such a document. To govern an event, a document must be listed in the notice of race (rule J1.1(3)), stating where or how it may be seen, and in the sailing instructions (rule J2.1(2)).

A boat that breaks a rule of the IRPCAS or a government rule can always be prosecuted by an authority responsible for its enforcement, but a protest may be made under such a rule only when the rule concerned ‘governs the event’. 

Question 4
If the sailing instructions state that the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS replace the rules of Part 2, which rules of Part 2 are replaced by which rules of the IRPCAS? 
Answer 4
All the rules of Part 2 are replaced. Part B of the IRPCAS contains the IRPCAS ‘Steering and Sailing Rules’, which are, in effect, ‘right-of-way rules’. However, Part B of the IRPCAS must be read in conjunction with the whole of the IRPCAS, particularly Part A. For example, many terms used in Part B are defined in Part A.

Question 5
Is it possible to provide for a wider or narrower range of replacements of right-of-way rules that apply between competing boats? 
Answer 5
A sailing instruction may only replace all the rules of Part 2 with all the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or government rules. Rule 86.1 states that the sailing instructions shall not change Part 2, which includes its preamble. Therefore, a wider or narrower range of replacements of right-of-way rules that apply between competing boats is not permitted. 

RYA 2005/1


All or nothing.
Because the rules depend on each other to get a level playing field you can't use parts of one and parts of the other at the same time.
.