Yachting Australia statement; RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie

Media Release: Yachting Australia statement regarding Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship incident

Yachting Australia agrees any action on Ben Ainslie's incident that occurred at the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships is a matter for ISAF.

Thursday 16 February 2012
On 10 December 2011 Yachting Australia received a report from the Chairman of the International Jury at the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships. This report was provided under RRS 69.1(c) and related to an incident involving Ben Ainslie (GBR) at the event.

The matter was reported to the Royal Yachting Association (RYA), as the competitors’ Member National Authority (MNA), ISAF and Yachting Australia, as the MNA in whose jurisdiction the event was held.

Yachting Australia has considered the matter. It is the view of Yachting Australia that, given the incident occurred at an ISAF event and that the matter has been formally reported to ISAF, any further penalty should now be considered and determined by ISAF.

"Yachting Australia does not consider that this a matter for us to deal with," explained Phil Jones, Yachting Australia CEO. "This was an international event that happens to have been held in Australia and involved a competitor from another country. Whilst under the Racing Rules of Sailing we have the authority to investigate and conduct a hearing, it would clearly inappropriate."

Accordingly Yachting Australia will not be taking any further action in relation to the matter.

Craig Heydon
Yachting Australia

Now there is only one left: ISAF

ISAF Q&A 2012 - 001 F12: Scoring and OCS

The first Q&A in 2012!

Is about BFD, rule 28.1 and the obligation by the RC to score a race if a boat finishes within the time limit.
Have a look at: ISAF Q&A 2012-001 F12


As per usual, there's also an updated Q&A Booklet: V12-02-12

My question to you:
Suppose besides a time limit for the first mark and the race, there's also a time limit for the finish in the SI - say 20 minutes. I quote the SI:

10.4 Boats failing to finish within the time stated in the Finish time limit after the first boat sails the course and finishes will be scored Did Not Finish. This changes RRS 35, A4 and A5.

Does the clock start with the finish of boat A, boat B or boat C?

Whereas boat A and B are the boats as described in this Q&A, and boat C is a boat that has started correctly, was not OCS and finished third.

(pillow)Case of the week (07/12) – 23

(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 23

Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction
Definitions, Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap
Definitions, Obstruction

On a run, rule 19 does not apply to a starboard-tack boat that passes between two port-tack boats ahead of her. Rule 10 requires both port-tack boats to keep clear.

Summary of the Facts

Three boats, one on starboard tack and two on port, were running. S overtook PL and PW and passed between them as shown in the diagram.

The three boats continued on slightly converging courses, as shown, until S touched first PW and then PL. PW protested S, alleging that she had broken rule 19.2(c) because PL as leeward boat constituted an obstruction to PW as windward boat, and S had no right to come between them. The protest committee disqualified both PL and PW under rule 10, and PW appealed.

Decision

While the boats sailed from position 1 to position 4, rule 10 required both PW and PL to keep clear of S. Because all three boats were sailing more than 90 degrees from the true wind, S and PL were overlapped from position 1 to position 4, and S and PW were overlapped from shortly after position 2 to position 4 (see the definition Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap).

Rule 19 did not apply because during that time there was no obstruction that any two of the boats passed on the same side. The penultimate sentence of the definition Obstruction means that PW was not an obstruction to either S or PL because neither of them was required to keep clear of PW. Similarly, PL was not an obstruction to either S or PW because S was not required to keep clear of PL. Because both PL and PW were required by rule 10 to keep clear of S, the penultimate sentence of the definition means that S was an obstruction to both PL and PW. However, rule 19 did not apply because at no time did both PL and PW pass S on the same side.

Also, rule 19.2(c), which was cited by PW in her protest, applies only while boats are passing a continuing obstruction, and, as the last sentence of the definition Obstruction implies, a boat racing that is under way is never a continuing obstruction.

There was contact between S and PW and between S and PL. However, because S became trapped between PW and PL as their courses converged, it was not ‘reasonably possible’ for S to avoid contact after it became clear that PW and PL were not keeping clear. Therefore, S did not break rule 14.

Under rule 10, S held right of way over both port-tack boats, PL and PW, neither of which kept clear of her. The protest committee’s decision to disqualify both boats under rule 10 is upheld and PW’s appeal is dismissed.

RYA 1970/1

Knowledge is power.
It is as important to know the definitions as it is to know the rules…..

Score 03/02 in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

As per usual the scoring for last weeks challenge. You can find the my remarks with the individual entries in the comments in post: LTW 2012 Winter Challenge - Episode 03/02

I've measured the entries against my own Facts Found, Conclusion and Decision:

Facts found:
TUR delivered the protest after time limit because of a cue at the desk.
DEN was on starboard close hauled course on the first beat, toward mark 1 in race 5.
TUR on port close hauled, overlapped with BRA who was 2 meter to leeward and 3/4 BL forward, both on a collision course with DEN.
BRA bore away to go behind DEN and left approx. 0,5 meters of room between her and the transom of DEN.
TUR slowed down and passed very close astern of DEN. BRA luffed to close hauled.
There was collision between TUR’s bow and BRA’s port aft quarter.
No damage to any boat. Neither took a Penalty

Conclusion:
PC extended the time limit, because there was a good reason to do so.
TUR to windward, failed to keep clear of BRA to leeward, but was forced to break rule 11 because BRA as outside boat did not give enough room to pass an obstruction (DEN on starboard) to TUR on the inside, while she was able to. BRA broke rule 19.2(b) and TUR is exonerated under rule 64.1(c).
BRA broke rule 14, because she could reasonably avoid the contact, TUR could not. BRA is not penalized for rule 14 because there was no damage or injury.
Rule(s) applicable:
RRS 10, 11, 14, 16.1, 19.2(b), 61.3, 64.1(c)

Decision:
Protest Upheld
BRA DSQ in race number 5

(232 words)

Deadline for first question in Episode 02/10 is 23:59 tonight.

RYA Tribunal Decision: RRS 69.2(a) Ainslie

Press release:

RYA Tribunal proceedings relating to Ben Ainslie conclude:


The RYA Tribunal met on 9 February 2012 to consider a report dated 14 December 2011 received pursuant to the Racing Rules of Sailing Rule 69.1(c) from the International Jury at the ISAF Sailing World Championships held in Perth in December 2011.

The Tribunal agreed with the decision of the International Jury that the behaviour of Mr Ben Ainslie amounted to a gross breach of good manners and conduct that brought the sport into disrepute.

Having considered all the evidence put before it, the Tribunal was satisfied that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to impose a penalty over and above that imposed by the International Jury at the event.

In reaching its decision the Tribunal acknowledged that the effect of the penalty imposed by the International Jury was to deny Mr Ainslie the possibility of taking part in the medal race for the event.  
The Tribunal also recognised that there was an apparent lack of active management of media boats at this and previous events leading to repeated infringements of the provisions of the event media boat guidelines. In addition, formal rights of redress against official boats were not available to competitors.

The Tribunal noted that it had had an opportunity to view evidence that was not available to the International Jury during the hearing at the event.

The RYA, as the ISAF Member National Authority for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has jurisdiction under Rule 69.2 to take action in response to reports made to it under Rule 69.1 relating to British sailors and the Council of the RYA has delegated its authority in such matters to the RYA Tribunal. 

Article Published: February 10, 2012 15:01

It is now up to ISAF (and Yachting Australia) to decide if they want to pursue this matter. It is remarkably hard to find any jurisprudence in rule 69 matters. Most MNA's and ISAF do not publish records on these [sensitive] issues.

LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 02/10: Questions

This episode of our Friday LTW 2012 Winter Challenge series is all about questions.

Two stories
Two parties, one witness
Five questions, each worth one point.
FF, C&D also worth five points.

I'm giving you two stories from two parties. Your challenge is to come up with good questions to get to what really happened. You are allowed one question a day, each with a deadline (midnight) . They will be answered the next morning. If you don't ask a question, your turn is forfeited for that day.

On Tuesday there's is a extra story by a witness, who then also can be asked questions. But again only one question per day per challenger. Don't rush in with five questions; sometimes the answers to your fellow challengers questions can help you. Think about what you want to know! At the end you have to write down Facts Found, Conclusion and Decision, like always. The shorter, the better.



This time there's only ONE solution. Better make those questions count!

Deadlines:
Question 1 Sunday 23:59
Question 2 Monday 23:59
Question 3 Tuesday 23:59
Question 4 Wednesday 23:59
Question 5 Thursday 23:59
Facts Found, Conclusion & Decision Friday 23:59

On the protest-form: End of Protest time 18:00 hours, Protest delivered (by Red) at 17:44 hours. Protestor Tornado Red - Protestee Tornado Purple - Witness Tornado Grey. Incident in Race 3, halfway up the second beat to Mark 1, at appr. 15:05 hours. Rule(s) infringed: 10.

Red's story:
On the beat to the second windward mark I was on starboard. Purple came on port and wanted to pass in front of me. My crew saw them coming and shouted "Starboard", but they continued. When they were halfway passed my starboard bow, I eased my sheet and bore away to go behind them.

Purple's story:
I agree with everything he said, only he didn't have to bear away. We would have passed in front easily. He didn't have to change course at all. We would have cleared with room to spare. We crossed twice already in that beat and both times we were in front.

Good luck!


J.
NB: Scoring Episode 02/03 will probably be on Sunday again.


UPDATE 14-02-12; Witness Grey boat:

I was on starboard to windward and in front of Red. I saw that RED bore off to pass astern of Purple. Then Purple passed behind me. Nobody did a penalty.

Speed & Smarts Newsletter 118

I've been subscribing to Speed & Smarts for a couple of years and always have a copy on my 'coffee table'.
David Dellenbaugh always finds new ways to tell sailors how to improve there racing abilities. I don't race that much myself any more - being to busy with judging and umpiring - but nevertheless it helps me understand how and why sailors do things. And that is something I do need, when judging what parties are telling me in a hearing.

I've snapped a picture from issue 118 to illustrate.

You can subscribe to this bi-monthly newsletter by going to http://www.speedandsmarts.com/Newsletter/SpeedAndSmarts. And even if you don't want to straight away - have a look at the website. There's lots of useful information there.

Finns at the Gate; LTW Readers Q&A (60)

Or should that be "Danes at the Gate"?

Hans from Denmark emailed me a rather complicated problem with 6 Finns rounding a gate. The problem was subject of discussion in a seminar in Denmark last year. The first problem we have is that the gate-marks are only about 5 Boat-lengths apart. With 6 boats all wanting to pass between the gate marks at the same time this creates an 'impossible' situation. Do the rules have a clear answer?

From Hans I got these questions and remarks
(I've changed some of his text for clarity)


The question is;
- which boat(s) break which rule(s)?
- which boats are penalized (NB: There is contact between Blue and Yellow - damage on Blue making her to retire - Yellow continues to finish and does no penalty turns)
- what redress (if any) should be given?

Most arguments were in favour of penalizing Yellow - RRS 10 - and no redress.
The situation turned out to be from a real situation in a regatta with an International jury and the decision was to penalize Yellow for breaking RRS 10, but we might not have all the facts available, so attached diagram should be the basis for our discussion.

I tend to argue that;
What about RRS 18?:
a) RRS 18.2(b) applies to Blue and Yellow at both marks.
b) Both boats will be exonerated for breaking a right of way rule under RRS 18.5(b)
- Blue for breaking RRS 16.1 by giving room to Green and Red
- Yellow for breaking RRS 10 by giving mark-room to Grey and Orange.
Neither boat to be penalized for breaking RRS 18.2(b).

What about RRS 19?:
c) Green and Red are not obstructions to Blue. Blue is the right of way boat - but must give mark-room.
d) Orange and Grey are obstructions to Yellow - RRS 10 (as per definition "obstruction").
e) Blue  having overlap as they approach the obstruction, chooses to pass the obstruction (Grey and Orange) to windward of them, and must give Yellow room to keep clear RRS 19.2(b).
- Was Blue able to give room when the overlap began? Yes, she was the right of way boat over Red and Green, but chooses not to use this right.
Penalize Blue for breaking RRS 19.2(b).

What about RRS 10?:
f) Yellow breaks RRS 10, but only because Blue breaks RRS 19.2(b). Yellow is exonerated by RRS 64.1(c). No boat is penalized for breaking RRS 10.

What about RRS 14?:
g) Yellow breaks RRS 14, but only because Blue breaks RRS 19.2(b). Yellow is exonerated by RRS 64.1(c) and could only avoid contact by making contact with Grey and thereby violating RRS 10.
h) Blue breaks RRS 14. There is (serious) damage (Blue retires). Blue could have avoided contact by claiming room for obstruction from Red and Green RRS 19.2 and room as right of way boat RRS 10.
As Blue changes course instead of claiming right as right of way boat she is not exonerated by RRS 64.1(c).
Penalize Blue for breaking RRS 14

What about redress;
i) As Blue is penalized for breaking RRS 14 the criteria of "by no fault of her own" is not met.
Redress is not given.

Where did I go wrong in the argumentation above - or did I?
(and why did Yellow not tack to starboard!)

Some problem Hans!

I agree on your application of rule 18. Yellow has mark-room from Blue and visa versa.
I do not agree on your application of rule 19; The Orange and Grey boats are not an obstruction for Blue, she is keep clear (windward) boat.

Yellow (on port) is keep clear boat of Blue (on starboard)  but is exonerated under rule 18.5
Blue, as right of way boat, is exonerated for any course change (16.1) because she has mark-room and is at the mark. But even if she wasn't AT the mark, her mark-room includes room to give mark-room to Red and Green.

Both Yellow and Blue have mark-room and can wait until it is clear the other will not give room before they have to act under rule 14. By that time it is no longer reasonable possible to avoid contact. In my opinion neither breaks rule 14.

Therefore - although there has been contact and damage - no penalty, and no redress.

Please, tell me I'm wrong......

(pillow)Case of the week (06/12) – 24

(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 24

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 12, On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way

When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the other boat must act promptly to keep clear. When she cannot do so in a seamanlike way, she has not been given sufficient room. If she takes unnecessary action that causes contact, she fails to keep clear as required.

Assumed Facts
Two boats, A and B, are on a broad reach on starboard tack in a light breeze on their proper courses for the next mark some distance away. Initially, B is clear astern of and directly behind A but is travelling slightly faster and becomes overlapped close to leeward of A’s stern.
Questions

1. When are B’s obligations under rule 12 replaced by her rights as leeward boat under rule 11?
2. What are B’s obligations under rule 15?
3. What are A’s obligations under rule 11?

Answers As soon as B becomes overlapped, rule 12 ceases to apply. A becomes bound by rule 11, and B by rule 15, which embodies the principle in the rules that when the right of way suddenly shifts from one boat to another, the boat with the newly acquired right of way must give the other boat space and time for response and thus a fair opportunity to keep clear.

B’s obligation under rule 15 is not a continuing one; it protects A only temporarily, and only if she responds promptly after the overlap begins.

Rule 11 requires A to keep clear and, if this requires her to luff, she must do so promptly. If A does so in a seamanlike way but some part of her hull, crew or equipment touches any part of B’s hull, crew or equipment, B has broken rule 15 by not giving A enough room to keep clear. However, if A luffs higher than is necessary to keep clear of B and, as a result, causes contact with B, A breaks rule 11.

Although B obtains right of way under rule 11 as soon as the overlap begins, her right of way is limited during the time that rule 15 applies.

RYA 1970/2



In these low number cases we get back to the basics. The rules have been set up to clearly define the right-of-way boat and the keep clear boat, by giving four BASIC row rules.
If those four were the only ones sailors had to apply, the game would drastically change. The right-of-way boat would be master in all things, could change course as she pleased and the keep clear boat would be forced to anticipate and stay far away.

If we would not have a couple of LIMITATIONS on the right-of-way boat, the situation described in this case would quickly become very ‘unfair’ to the keep clear boat. As soon as B gets the overlap A would break rule 11. Anticipating this and trying to luff to create more space wouldn’t help much, because B would simply chase and head up as well.

This is the reason we have those LIMITATION rules; RRS 15, 16 and 17. To give the keep clear boat a fair opportunity to fulfil it’s obligation. These rules do not negate (switch off) the basic row rules, they only limit them. The keep clear boat must respond quickly and in a seamanlike manner. If she does that, but still fails to keep clear, it is usually because the right-of-way boat didn’t apply one of the limitation rules.

If the argument in the hearing between two boats hinges on the balance between 11 and 15, you can ask the helmsman of the keep clear boat where he was looking, at the moment the boat started to change course. If the answer is: “at the bow of the leeward boat” that might be a good indication it must have been very close. If the helmsman was looking ahead, that usually indicates he felt comfortable changing course without immediately hitting the leeward boat.

Score 27/01 in LTW 2012 Winter Challenge

Episode 27/01 has been scored. There are a couple of late entries added.

This was an interesting exercise.
I will not post my view, because the challenge was not to find out what happened, but to see how consistent the challengers wrote. The readers of LTW can pick the one they think most came near what actually happened. As long as they are aware that finding facts out of a 43 second video is very tricky without any statements from sailors involved. That is more than obvious, after you’ve read the different facts found, the challengers came up with.

Instead of publishing the specific entries in the comments after the LTW 2012 Winter Challenge 27/01: Rolex Miami OCR 49er Crash post, I’ve copied them all in this post and commented on them as well.
That way I can add the pictures that were send in by some of the challengers.
(There are a couple of comments in the original post, but those are from non contestants and published after the deadline)

So in order to read what the Challengers send in for this episode: