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.