Friday, 18 December 2009

FTBD (25)

I've been very unproductive this month. Not so much due to the fact that writing a post takes that much time, more to finding time to read on the www for a suitable subject. Coupled to the fact that it's winter in the Low Lands - and therefore almost no events - and a busy time for the holiday's at work, has resulted in a very low post count. I have a couple of day's off next two weeks, perhaps I can do better.

Flog the Blog Day 25 - two years plus one month. It will take another ten months to reach a thousand posts. I'll try to reach that before the third year is full.

If you have any comments, want to suggest a post (-series), have anything about the rules to contribute or just want to share a photo, don't hesitate to send an Email. I will get to them (eventually) all.

To satisfy your hunger for rules, here's the link to a new UK-Halsey rules-quiz:


This quiz (#28) is based on US Sailing Appeal 45 and deals with three rules:
  • Rule 13 While Tacking
  • Rule 14 Avoiding Contact
  • Rule 20.1 Room to Tack at an Obstruction
Click here to see the animated situation. For the answer, go to their website at www.ukhalsey.com and sign up.

Until next time.
J.

.

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Sail Melbourne Protests

This week the first of the new ISAF Sailing World Cup is held in Melbourne, Australia. It's high summer down under and - looking out the window at 25 centimeter of snow - I'm only a little bit green....

I've been looking at the website and found the link where information about the protest is published:
got to: http://www.yachting.org.au/sa/protest/default.aspx?ID=24420

Only seven protests so far, of which four by the RC and one by the Jury.
If you click on the links in the Protest Details column, additional information is displayed.
P3 is the most interesting one. SIN 2 failed to sail the course and was DSQed. But because the RC made an error by not correctly laying a mark, redress was granted and SIN was awarded 2nd place - I presume the place she actually sailed in that race.

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Another ISAF Q&A – 2009-041

Q&A 2009-041; Published: 16 December 2009
Question:

Will the Q&A Panel confirm or correct decisions made by international juries?

Answer:

No. The role of the Q&A Panel is to promote an understanding of the rules and the use of correct procedures. The Race Officials Committee and the Racing Rules Committee have both concluded that serving as the equivalent of an appeals committee to confirm or otherwise correct* a jury's decision is neither desirable nor appropriate and neither the ISAF Regulations nor the Racing Rules of Sailing provide for the Panel to carry out that function.

 

You could say this is in line with rule 70.4.

And, if the answer would have been yes, an international jury would no longer be non-appealable!

*NB: I added one word, presumed missing.

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Protest by the Protest Committee?

ISAF Q&A 2009-039 deals with a protest by the PC under rule 60.3(a)(2):

A protest committee may (a) protest a boat, (2) if during the hearing of a valid protest it learns that the boat, although not a party to the hearing, was involved in the incident and may have broken a rule;

What the Q&A is stating, is that although the PC may have not complied with all the validity requirements, its decision in the protest is still valid. As long as the PC does not change its decision, either by acting under rule 66, realising that it had made an error about the validity of the protest, or until the decision has been reversed or changed on appeal.

This is on of the reasons sometimes sailors get very frustrated. They feel that they have a legitimate claim that an error has been made, but still the PC will not 'budge'.

One of the reasons I think that it is very important to always at least listen to the sailor bringing the argument. PCees should not be afraid to use rule 66 and at the very minimum investigate that they may have made an error. It might be that the error is not something that changes the outcome and even after admitting that they made that error, the decision can stand. But if there's an error that has influenced the scoring, it should be corrected.

Rule 66 is very one sided: The PC MAY reopen a hearing.
Even if the mistake is obvious, the PC still has the power not to re-open. Then the sailor has no other recourse then to appeal. Something not everybody is willing to do.
Something to consider the next time a sailor asks you for a re-opening...

Three more Q&A's have been published on the ISAF Website:
ISAF Q&A 2009-037; Questions about rule 42 when rules 49 to 54 do not apply. This is for the AC33
ISAF Q&A 2009-038; Using a lead trapeze harness strap buckle (that is a dive weight) and rule 43.1(a).
ISAF Q&A 2009-040; About denial of appeal and national prescriptions.

Monday, 14 December 2009

Tactical Sailing Situations Update 2.6B

Henri has updated TSS. You can find the latest release here: Version 2.6B.

Latest additions (including from earlier releases in 2009):

  • Bug fix: Error while saving a diagram as a picture
  • Bug fix: Error while clicking on 'Cancel' on an empty commentges are:
  • Nicer drawings
  • Undo facilities
  • Gate area
  • Multiple diagrams can be opened simultaneously in one execution
  • A new installer (compatible Windows 64 bits)
  • Bug Fix: Error while deleting an object
  • Bug Fix: 'Access violation' popup when deleting a balloon or a comment
  • Bug fix: Wrong 'Rigth Of Way' boat when rule 13 applies
  • Default circle radius around marks and obstruction is 3 boat lengths
  • Support of PNG image format.
I've been busy with work and have not posted in a long time. Hope to improve. J.

Wednesday, 25 November 2009

Changes in the RRS effective 01/01/2010

Because my evenings seem to be filled with meetings and preparations, I don’t have much time to write about the changes in the rules which are effective next January.

I promise to get back to these. For now, I’ve shamelessly copied the text from the ISAF Website: The Racing Rules of Sailing 2009-2012 Amendments Effective 1 January 2010

The Racing Rules of Sailing front cover

The International Sailing Federation has published amendments to The Racing Rules of Sailing for 2009-2012 (RRS) following the adoption by Council of recommendations made by the Racing Rules Committee during the Annual Conference in Korea. The amendments are effective from:

1 January 2010.

The Changes are shown in detail below and can be downloaded from the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing page.

Words deleted from a rule are shown struck through and new words added are shown in bold and underlined.

Rule 18.2(c):

(c) When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if either boat passes head to wind or if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Rule 18.2(c) will be changed to prohibit a newly discovered and potentially dangerous tactic that was an unintended consequence of the current wording of this rule. The revised rule will no longer permit a boat to tack just before she reaches a mark and, as a result of her tack, become entitled to mark-room from boats that had been clear ahead of her when they reached the zone. A parallel change in rule B3.1(c) outlaws a similar tactic in a sailboard race.

Definition Obstruction:

Obstruction An object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it. An object that can be safely passed on only one side and an area so designated by the sailing instructions are also obstructions. However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.

The definition "Obstruction" will be changed so that a boat racing will no longer be an obstruction to other boats that are required to give her room or mark-room. This change will simplify the analysis of some situations near a mark in which both rules 18 and 19 apply, and it will not otherwise change the ‘game’.

Definition Party:

Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

Additions will be made to the definition Party to correct unintended omissions. The revised definition will mean that, whenever redress is requested for a boat by the race committee or considered for a boat by the protest committee, that boat will be a party to the resulting hearing. Also, a race committee that requests redress for a boat will also become a party when its request is heard.

Appendix B, Rule B3.1(c):

Rule 18.2(c) is changed to:
When a board is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if either board the board entitled to mark-room passes head to wind, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Appendix C, Rule C2.12 (a new rule):

C2.12 Rule 18.2(e) is changed to ‘If a boat obtained an inside overlap and from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.’

A new rule, rule C2.12, will be added to the Match Racing Rules. It will prohibit a tactic at the windward mark that the match racing community does not wish to allow.

Advertising Code and Appendices J, K and L:

After the 2009-2012 rulebook was printed, ISAF revised its Advertising Code and, in so doing, eliminated all references to Category A advertising. References to the Advertising Code in Appendices J, K and L will be changed to make them consistent with the revised Code. (more)


The RRS is available to view on the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing page at www.sailing.org/rrs. Marginal markings indicate important changes to the rules in Parts 1–7 and the Definitions. You can also order your hardcopy of the RRS 2009-2012 direct from ISAF at www.sailing.org/publications.
The ISAF Racing Rules Committee is tasked with formulating, revising and publishing the RRS, with any changes ultimately subject to the approval of the ISAF Council, the final decision-making body of the International Sailing Federation.

blogcolorstripe

When you cannot wait for my posts on the effect these changes will have, you can visit the Sailgroove website. Matt Knowles has published a couple of videos explaining the rule changes: 2010 Rule Changes

If you want to make sure your rulebook is up to date, you can download this file and copy and paste (with glue) the new clean text on the pages in your book.

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

How instantaneous is Mark-room?

During an iShares Cup event I had a discussion about mark-room. Particularly about how fast an outside boat has to act when she has the obligation to give mark-room.

Here’s how see this.
One of the basic changes in this rules cycle is the deletion of ‘about to round the mark’ principle. Rule 18 now has a very sharp on/off switch.
Provided they are approaching a mark they are required to leave on the same side, rule 18 is applicable if one of the boats is in the zone. The moment the hull of one of them passes the three-lengths circle, rule 18 is on. You can compare it with passing head to wind. As soon as a boat is one degree passed head to wind, rule 13 is on. She is tacking boat and must keep clear. No ifs, buts or maybees. No ‘beginning to keep clear’ or ‘must start acting to keep clear’. Instantaneous.
If you pass head to wind and a row boat must change course, you’ve broken rule 13. Even if – for instance in a dail-up in a match race – a gust of wind makes you pass head to wind involuntary.
The same is true for rule 18.
Imagine two catamarans approaching a mark at a reaching angle on different tacks. Yellow wants to force the other passed the mark. Rule 18.4 is not applicable – it’s a gate mark – and Yellow can sail as far as she wants.

Yellow misjudges the angle and one of her hulls enters the zone. She’s still reaching and it takes her a couple of seconds to realize she’s too close and to bear away to give the other boat room to sail to the mark – as she is now required to do.
From the moment rule 18 is on she is required to give mark-room. From that moment the inside boat must be able to sail TO the mark.

Like you can see yourself, in position three and four Blue cannot sail to the mark. Because of Yellow, Blue is not able to point its bow toward the mark until position six.
For all what it is worth, Yellow has done everything seamanlike to give mark-room from the moment she realized she was in the zone. She reacted reasonably prompt and kept well clear once she’d gybed.
Nevertheless she broke rule 18.2(b) in my opinion. Like with passing head to wind – there is no ‘grace period’. From the moment her port hull entered the zone she was required to give mark room – and she did not do that. Blue could not sail to the mark, but had to wait until Yellow was pointing away.
This is one rule were Yellow needs to anticipate the situation and act accordingly. Stay well clear of the zone if you want to luff another boat or be prepared to take a penalty for breaking rule 18.2(b).

I’ve heard different opinions, but up until now no arguments why I should change my mind.
Perhaps you can?

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Flog the Blog Day (24) | 2 years


Two years. I’ve started posting two years ago, on November 18th 2007.

For the number crunchers among you, Google Analytics reports the following results: 90,945 Visits from 38,132 Absolute Unique Visitors, who did 193,805 Pageviews with 2.13 Average Pageviews per visitor. Spending 00:02:49 Time on Site, with a 63.10% Bounce Rate, that means they left after one page (I think). Of those 41.83% were New Visits. The visitors came from 148 countries, of which the USA with 35,747 was the main source, followed by the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Australia.
Feedburner is tracking 590 subscribers of which 357 by Email. (Yes, Big B is watching YOU)
Main referring sites are sailingsscuttlebutt.com, propercourse.blogspot.com, destinationonedesign.com. forums.sailinganarchy.com and wayfarer-international.org. But there are many more (1114 to be exact). Thank you all for linking!
The most important keywords – something SEO and all those crawling robots seem to like – are ‘look to windward’, my name and ‘racing rules of sailing’.
Google ranks this blog as fourth when that last phrase is searched. After ISAF, USSailing and Wikipedia.
All this after 674 posts, which comes to an average of 0.923 posts per day…
My lapse in posting earlier this year caused the drop below one… I’m afraid.
Nevertheless I’m satisfied by the results. Although I’m only reaching a fraction of people who race, I’m pretty sure more then half of the people who officiate at racing have visited one time or another.
blogcolorstripe
For those of you who’ve never come across Flog the Blog Day before, let me repeat it’s purpose. Once a month I invite all visitors to comment on anything about the blog. Things I should improve, things I should blog about, things I’m actually doing wrong. Don’t like the black background? Should I get rid of the sidebar clutter? Now’s your chance to comment.
If you want to read previous Flog the Blog Day posts, click on the FTBD label
You can, of course, also suggest new subjects. If you prefer to keep it private, you can always use email. Find and use the address in the sidebar or contact button below the header.
For this anniversary I also need to thank all of you who’ve encouraged me, to keep going. And sometimes I get a very nice email thanking me for my efforts. It is very much appreciated!
Shall I keep batting for a (hundred) thousand?
J.

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

LTW Readers Q&A | 034; Tacking /\2

A good number of LTW-Readers are racing in a virtual world using simulators. I’ve been tracking some of what they’re doing on several forums. Apart from never have to deal with injury, I guess the rules play out pretty much the same.

In this readers-Q&A, one of those virtual wizards is asking a question about a situation at the windward mark. He even included a Boats Scenario gif to illustrate. Thanks for sending this in, Thorsten, I hope I haven’t kept you waiting too long.

blogcolorstripe

Hi Jos,

While playing virtual skipper (an online regatta simulator), the following situation at the windward mark arose in a fleet race.

Since I had similar situations with H-Boats from time to time on our lake at home, I think the situation would also be possible in real life. I wondered what rules apply here, given the fact that both boats are head to wind simultaneously in position 3 and both overturn about 5 or 10 degrees.

(I can’t seem to get the animation running at the moment, so here’s the jpg)

In position 1 and 2 rules 11 and 18.2(a) apply, ok. But what rules apply in position 3, 4 and 5? Both boats are under rule 13 in position 3 and 4, yellow being obliged to keep clear.

Rule 18.3 does not seem to apply, since the boats are not on opposite tacks and there is no boat under rule 13 while the other one can fetch the mark. Since no other rule switches off rule 18.2, to me it seems that rule 18.2(a) is still on. After overturning 5 to 10 degrees, both boats are now on port tack, though not on a close-hauled course. Yellow would be entitled to mark-room including room to tack. In position 5, Blue ignores Yellow, turns to round the mark and pushes Yellow onto the mark.

Without Blues maneuver and the contact, Yellow would have been able to round the mark. Slowly, but still.

So it seems to me that Blue breaks rules 16.1 and 18.2(a).

I searched the RRS, the case book and the Q&A Service for similar cases,
but that was to no avail. I’m wondering if my conclusion is correct, especially the interpretation of rule 18.2(a) and 18.3.

Maybe you can help me out?

Thanks in advance and best regards from Germany,
Thorsten

blogcolorstripe

Well Thorsten, after discussing this with some others and having a look at the casebook myself, I’m coming to the conclusion that you are pretty much ‘on the ball’. I think you got it right, almost. I differ only in some or the applicable rules.

In position one rule 11 applies, so Blue is keep clear boat.

In position two rule 11 still applies, but now in addition to having to keep clear, Blue also has to give mark-room to Yellow, according to rule 18.2(b).
They enter the zone overlapped on the same tack, with Yellow as inside boat.

In position three Yellow luffs in order to get to the mark and even if he should have established a leeward overlap from clear astern and was under a rule 17 restriction, he may do so. For Yellow ‘shooting the mark’ is her proper course. She would also do this if Blue wasn’t there.

Rule 18.2(c) states that rule 18.2(b) is switched off, when either of the boats passes head to wind. They both do that, just before position 4. So rule 18.2(b) is off, rule 11 is off and rule 13 switches on. Both are tacking boats and rule 13 states that in that case Blue is right of way boat.

They are now both also on port tack and still overlapped. They are in the zone and rule 18.2(b) no longer applies. None of the exceptions in rule 18.1 are applicable. That means rule 18.2(a) is the rule to follow.

In position four Blue still has to give mark-room and that mark-room indeed includes room for her to tack. In position four Yellow is overlapped to windward and on the inside of Blue who has to give mark-room. The fact that that happens while tacking, does not alter that.

In position five Yellow breaks rule 13 by not keeping clear of Blue, but she’s exonerated because Blue fails to give her mark-room (RRS 18.5(b)). She also breaks rule 31, but is again exonerated, now under 64.1(c). Because Blue forced her to break that rule by breaking rule 18.2(a) and yes, also rule 16.1. Blue is NOT the boat with mark-room, so she has to change course, as right of way boat, within the restrictions of rule 16.1.

Now, where are the critical point(s)?

In position three Yellow is entitled to mark-room, but that mark-room does not include room to tack. She’s not overlapped to windward but overlapped to leeward. If Yellow tacks first, forcing Blue to tack as well, she breaks rule 13 and will not be exonerated.

If Blue tacks first, Yellow can follow instantly and is ‘protected’ by the rules mentioned above. A PC handling a protest will need to find as fact which boat tacked first. In case they do it simultaneously, I would give Yellow the benefit of the doubt.

At first I dismissed rule 18.3, like you. Neither of the boats is fetching the mark. But upon looking at you diagram, I started to think. If you take away Yellow, Blue might be able to fetch the mark, she might be able to shoot the mark without ever passing head to wind….

The definition of fetching however, does not have the “absence of the other boats referred to in the rule” - clause. Like in the definition of ‘Proper Course’. In order to fetch the mark, Blue must be in a position to do so, INCLUDING Yellow. That is not the case, so on that grounds 18.3 is not applicable.

What if is was. What if Blue COULD fetch the mark? Would that make rule 18.3 applicable?

The rule begins by stating another provision; Boats must be approaching the mark on opposite tacks. They do not, they approach on the same tack. In position three, four and five they are no longer approaching. They are already in the zone. Because of that rule 18.3 never is applicable, even if Blue could fetch the mark, in my opinion.

Cheers,

J.

Leave a comment if you have an (different) opinion

Friday, 13 November 2009

Committee-meetings in Busan | part 2

News about the submissions. One of the committee members send me an update about how the RO and RR-committee voted. They still have to be approved by the council. For the list of submissions go to this post: Committee-meetings in Busan 

Below is his message, thanks Jon!

Jos,
I was reading your blog today and thought you might be interested (for your readers) to know the some of the recommendations made by Committees at ISAF Conference. They are only recommendations to Council, which can still decide otherwise. These come from the recommendation papers produced by each Committee following their meetings which are public documents.



Events Committee (I didn't see their paper but heard about this)


Voted to abolish redress in the medal race apart from giving help.


Race Officials Committee


010-09 was withdrawn
All the tracking submissions were recommended for rejection or deferral
Voted to abolish redress in the medal race apart from giving outside help
Identified the need to develop documents for education on conflicts of interest and a general code of conduct for ISAF Race Officials. ROC will host an ISAF Race Officials Conference to develop and deliver such documents.
Recommended that a rule 42 web library be developed and implemented
Recommended that measurers and equipment inspectors at high level events by appointed/approved by ISAF
Recommended increase in seminar and clinics in 2010


Racing Rules Committee


146-08 - Approve with amendment to the wording
147-08 - Defer
151-08 - Reject
004-09 - Approve with amendment
011-09 - Approve - the Executive has withdrawn all of the proposal except clause 20.6.5 on bibs
012-09 - Approve with amendment
013-09 - Reject
015-09 - Withdrawn
019-09 to 026-09 - Approve


131-09 - Withdrawn by US SAILING
132-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
133-09 - Reject
134-09 - Reject - RRC commented "This issue needs clarification but this submission is not the right answer as it introduces further uncertainties"
135-09 - Reject
136-09 - Reject
137-09 - Reject
138-09 - Reject
139-09 - Approve with amendment
140-09 - Approve
141-09 - Reject
142-09 - Reject
143-09 - Reject
144-09 - Approve with amendment
145-09 - Reject
146-09 - Defer - RRC comments "Agree the principle. Requires further discussion between RRC and ROC"
147-09 - Approve
148-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
150-09 - Approve
151-09 - Reject
152-09 - Approve with amendment
153-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
154-09- Approve with amendment
155-09 - Approve with amendment
156-09 - Reject
157-09 - Reject
158-09 - Reject
159-09 - Approve
160-09 - Reject
161-09 - Approve with amendment
162-09 - Reject
163-09 - Approve and approved by ISAF RRC for urgent implementation on 1 Jan 2010
164-09 - Approve with amendment to delete the words "protest committee" on second last line
165-09 - Defer
166-09 - Reject
167-09 - Defer
168-09 - Approve with amendments
169-09 - Reject
170-09 - Reject - RRC comments "Case 112 is a correct interpretation of the current rules"
171-09 - Approve with amendment


Then of the Calls - all were recommended for approval except:
177-09 - Defer - RRC comments "Agree the principle but diagrams and text need editing"
171-09, 178-09, 182-09, 184-09 and 188-09 - Approve with amendments


Hope that is of interest to your readers.
Best wishes,
Jon


I will do a couple of blogpost on the approved submissions with the recommendation of implementation on 1 Jan 2010 in coming weeks. Let's wait and see if the Council gives the green light, before I start giving you my input how this will change the rules.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...