ISAF Submissions 2008 part 2 | Rules & Calls

This is part two of the Submissions to be decided on at the ISAF Annual conference in November in Madrid, Spain. All submission this time are about the Racing Rules en Calls.

1. Submission 146-08 Pumping the Sails to clarify the rules regarding the number of times you may pull the sails and how
   
2. Submission 147-08 To clarify the interpretation in Rule 89.1 of a class association
   
3. Submission 148-08 Changing rule 50.4 to give a more practical distinction between a Headsail and a Spinnaker (Headsail Definition)
   
4. Submission 149-08 Windsurfing; Housekeeping changes in Appendix B and introduction of other courses
   
5. Submission 151-08 RRS, New Case; Discussion of the terms ‘original race’, ‘rescheduled race’, ‘restarted race’ and ‘resailed race’ , the application of rules 30.2, 30.3 and 36 to races that are restarted or resailed.
6. Submission 152-08 RRS, New Case; When a boat sails the wrong course, another boat may decide to protest her when the course error is made, or when she finishes or at any time in-between. She must then be informed of the intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity.
7. Submission 153-08 RRS, New Case; It is a proper action of the race committee to penalize a boat for breaking rule 30.2 or disqualify her for breaking rule 30.3, even if, before a starting sequence was begun, the race was postponed or if, during another attempted start of the same race, a postponement or abandonment was signaled before the starting signal.
   
8. Submission 154-08 RRS, Amendment to Case 78; When a boat is protested for positioning herself in a tactically controlling position over another boat and then slowing that boat’s progress so that other boats pass both of them, she must, to avoid being penalized for breaking rule 2, satisfy the protest committee that her controlling tactic had a reasonable chance of benefiting her series result. However, if she intentionally breaks a rule to increase the likelihood of the tactic succeeding, she also breaks rule 2.

The last submission is an amendment and adding to case 78. In 2005, Submission 154-05 was submitted proposing a substantial revision in Case 78. The Racing Rules Committee recommended to Council that the submission be deferred and that the Case Book Working Party resubmit it with revised wording, including an added statement to the effect that the protest committee must be satisfied that the tactics of a boat had a reasonable chance of benefiting her series score. Council accepted the committee’s recommendation. This submission is made in response to that recommendation. The case has been expanded to cover some of the issues covered in ISAF Q&A 07-008.

The Medal Races in Qingdao have put this case back on the front page. I hope it will not take another three years to get it in the Call book.

The final part in this series of posts about submission, will be about Match Race and Team Race calls. Scheduled posting is next Tuesday.

.

Polish Match Race Tour 2008

Just returned home from umpired at a Polish Match Race event in Iława on 27 & 28 September 2008.

It was a very well organized event with proper attention to the sailors and to the sponsors alike. The organization had an eye for details, provided excellent meals and were very hospitable to all. The venue was well suited and the race area visible from all sides. It was a pity not more spectators came to see the racing between Polish best match racers.

If this tour learns to do a few more things in English, it could become a very good circuit, to build experience for crews from all over the globe. I would certainly like to come back!

RRS 18 ON and OFF in RRS 2009-2012

When rule 18 begins to apply

The old rule 18 began to apply when boats were “about to round or pass” That was sometimes at a different moment and place then at the moment when the lock-in/ lock-out provision of rule 18.2(b) and (c) began to apply. (when the closest boat reached the zone)
You could be outside the two length zone and were already busy with your spinnaker, still not sure if you were going to round the mark as inside boat or that the overlap would be broken before the zone was reached and you would need to keep clear, as clear astern boat.

That has been changed in the new rule 18. The moment you enter the zone rule 18 begins to apply and also the lock-in/lock-out provisions of the new rules 18.2(b) and (c) begin to apply.

The “about to round” provision in the old rule had one advantage. It could be argued that the rule began to apply further from the mark with for instance fast boats, strong wind or strong favourable current. You had protection within the context of that rule when you had already an inside overlap outside he zone. That is no longer the case. Rule 18 never ‘switches’ on outside the zone.

However, the obligation of an outside boat under the new rules 18.2(b) begins to apply at the moment one of the boats enters the zone. If before that, the boats had been overlapped for some time, the outside boat had better sail a course that will be in compliance with 18.2(b) the moment she reaches the zone. If after that, the inside boat is not able to sail to the mark in a seamanlike way, the outside boat risks breaking rule 18.2(b).

So, you do need to anticipate what rule 18 will say before you reach the zone. You can’t wait until you are in the zone and then begin to start complying. With he exact moment the rule takes effect now written in the rule, comes the responsibility to comply with that rule at that very moment.

When rule 18 ceases to apply

There is no longer a sentence in the rule which states when rule 18 ceases to apply. That was in the old rule when boats ‘have passed’ the mark. The principal obligation in the new rule is to give mark room until it is no longer needed.

Rule 18.2(c) does give two specific conditions under which rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply:
- if either boat passes head to wind or
- if the boat entitled to mark room leaves the zone.
Both conditions can happen before the need for mark room has ended.

Nie zapomnij zaglosowac!

Early morning rise, drive to the airport, unavoidable delay in boarding and an uneventful flight made me arrive in Warsaw at 11:15. This is my first visit to Poland so I've already been looking around. At first glance not that much difference. Perhaps a few more older buildings, but new projects all over the place as well. Commercials, billboards and traffic like any other city.
I'm here to do a Match Race Event in Ilawa, a town on the coast we will travel to this afternoon. I'll meet a few old friends again from this part of the world. I'll try to keep you informed. Due to the extra time I had, I did do a post on the new rule 18 which I will post directly.

I'm sitting in the office of Media Connect, where the people who picked me up from the airport work. They have provided me with an internet connection, a nice cup of coffee and a place to type.
I can do some work, away from work.....

TP52 Protest Writing Competition 3_G vs F

The most popular pair in the bunch. Four entries this time:
3_Hedwich Kuipers TP52 Protest GvsF
3_Luigi Bertini TP52 Protest GvsF
3_Mike Butterfield TP52 Protest GvsF
3_Sen Yamaoka TP52 Protest GvsF
You can leave comments on these four below this post and also on one (late) entry - out of contention - who asked to for comments nevertheless.
David Clinnin TP52 Protest GvsF (out of contention)
Don't forget to vote!


.

TP52 Protest Writing Competition 2_F vs E

Only one entry for this pair, so no voting in the first round necessary. But you can leave a comment for Luigi below nevertheless.

2_Luigi Bertini TP52 Protest FvsE

.

TP52 Protest Writing Competition 1_C vs D

This first pair is about boat C versus D. Two entries were received:
1_Luigi Bertini TP52 Protest CvsD
1_Norm Smit TP52 Protest CvsD

You can write comments on these protest using the comment button below.
And don't forget to vote!

.

TP 52 Protest Writing Competition; Voting Round 1

In total seven protest were send in for the competition. I've saved all the forms as pdf's and in three separate posts you can read or download them.
I've made three posts because I invite you to give comments on the style, consistency and completeness of each protest form. I've not changed the writing or style in any way.
At the top of the side bar two voting boxes have been made available, so you can cast your vote. Please consider the following 'objective' criteria when you decide which is best:

• enough facts found to draw a conclusion;
• no conclusions in the facts found;
• the conclusion fits the facts;
• decision is consistent with the conclusion.

This first round is to determine the best of each pair; after those have been decided, the final round will be between the three 'best' entries for each pair.
You can VOTE for one week in round one.

.

ISAF Submissions 2008 part 1 | Race Officials

I've had a look at the submissions for the ISAF November conference. In part one specially those effecting Race Officials. This is a summary list, I've linked each to the relevant text, so you can read the complete submission yourselves.

1. Submission 022-08 to bring the fee for a deputy chief umpire in line with the (increased) responsibilities such as training a new chief umpire.
2. Submission 024-08 about better representation of the MNA's in the Olympic Jury by restricting the number of times a Race Official can do an Olympic (two times) and asking for 30% new members.
3. Submission 055-08 to apply the fees for match race umpires to scheduled racing days, not practice days.
4. Submission 131-08. This submission, if successful, would incorporate IFDS International Classifiers within the ISAF Race Officials Committee in line with Executive Committee discussions with the IFDS. The intention is that the International Classifiers Sub-Committee (ICSC) would be formed early in 2009 and that the first appointments of International Classifiers under the ISAF would be made in November 2009.
5. Submission 132-08 proposes that Race officials be recommended by their MNA not only for their first appointment, but also for renewals. Based on the argument that a appointed race official should contribute to their own MNA in sharing knowledge and help with education.
6. Submission 133-08 proposes to bring the deadline for umpire assessment into line with the other deadlines (seminars & written test). [On a personal note; this I could have used in 2007!]
7. Submission 134-08 is about correcting an error in the regulations last year. Only umpires who send in their application for first appointment, need to hand in three IUSC Reference forms. Not umpires who apply for renewal.
8. Submission 135-08 International Umpire? Document is not available at this moment
   
9. Submission 136-08 about the criteria for International Measurer.
10. Submission 137-08 proposes to bring the requirements for first appointment of a race officer in line with the other disciplines by requiring three reference forms.
11. Submission 138-08 proposes to have a "recognized" race official who can function in all respects as an international race official, but does not have to meet the requirements in experience. This so that he/she can get that experience in a period of four years and then apply for IJ/IU/IRM - status.
    
12. Submission 139-08 to bring the hearing process in case of a negative report in line with regulation 51.
13. Submission 140-08 to inform the chairman of the relevant Sub-committee even in case of a "minor" negative report about a race official.
14. Submission 150-08 to give the authority to the Racing Rules Committee to deal with the introductory racing rules.
15. Submission D133-07 to rename International Race Officers into International Race Managers on the argument that Officers is to close to Officials.

On all these submissions the (sub)committees have to make a recommendation so that the council can decide. Not all will make it and most of them will be amended in one way or another.

Submission 138-08 is controversial in my opinion. How can you be an International Judge or Umpire if you lack the experience? On the other side, if accepted, it would make it a lot easier to get to a bigger event where you can learn. There's a restriction how many can be on a panel or umpire team, so the quality is not compromised.

I have to see what becomes of 024-08. If passed, a lot of long standing judges - who now serve on the Olympic jury - will have to make room for others. A lot of them are doing it already more then two times. Since they are also the ones who vote in committee, I don't think this submission has a chance, but you never know.

What do you think about these submissions?

UPDATE 24/09/08: 1220 hours; ISAF has fixed the link.
8. Submission 135-08 When a candidate for IU has failed the examination twice, this submission proposes that a third attempt may only be done after a positive decision from the chairman of the IUSC and that any subsequent attempt may not take place, within four years the failed third time. And only when all requirements of first application have been fulfilled. Three strikes you're out, but you can start again from scratch.

.

iShares Cup Amsterdam 2008 | 2

The first day at the iShares cup in Amsterdam brought a few rules issues, very close racing and lots of calls. To many to go into them all.

The iShares Extreme 40 at the iShares Cup finale in Amsterdam
� Vincent Curutchet/DPPI/OC Events

One of them involved a pile up at the gate with virtually all Extreme 40s. I'm afraid I did see the first part of that and decided to penalise one of the boats. In hindsight one of the other boats which piled in there, caused the penalised both to break the rules. It was to hard to see with a gate of six lengths and 8 or 9 boats. But that's in the game. Next time I'll concentrate not so much on who's doing what, but on the r.o.w./right to room boat. The one who "owns" the rounding.

Anyway, we did get to try out our decision to only use red flag penalties. By only using tack-penalties that is sometimes not much of a "punishment", for instance in the beat, so we penalized that same boat again, to make sure the position it ended up in, was behind the boats it infringed. Perhaps a pink flag penalty would make it more efficient? I'm not sure.

On Saturday we did use the pink flag when it was appropriate. Having to do a gybe in the beat is a huge disadvantage when there's not much wind to get you round. But on the other hand, only having to do a gybe on a reach can be done by a bear off and twice flicking the sail.
To define the leg of the course - as with match racing - and let the penalty depend on which leg a boat is on, does not work for this event. To close race-area and to much shifts from the buildings. Also on other venues sometimes a reaching course is laid out.

By using pink and red we can control the penalty, but take on the responsibility of deciding the severity. In a special event like the iShares Cup that is only possible if the umpire group can stay consistent.

On Sunday there was even less wind then the previous days, less spectacular for the sailors and public. But the rules-issues were not that complicated and could be followed with more ease.

Extreme 40 fleet on day 3 at Amsterdam
� Vincent Curutchet/DPPI/OC Events

We saw Alinghi win not only the Amsterdam event, but also the series. I contribute their win to looking and finding the wind every time. To very smooth helmsmanship - no braking helm movements at all- and staying out of trouble as keep clear boat very early. No risks in that regard. Hat off to Ed Baird and crew who learned a lot about sailing these extreme 40's, since I saw them capsize in Lugano.

.