New Rapid Response Calls for Match & Team Racing

New and in effect from Tuesday 4/2/10 two new Rapid Response Calls:
RR Match Racing Call 2010/001 about “When is a boat at a mark?” and
RR Team Racing Call 2010/AA about “Passing head to wind inside the zone”
RRMRCALL 2010/001
RAPID RESPONSE MATCH RACING CALL 2010/001
Definitions Mark-Room
Question 1
When is a boat entitled to mark-room sailing ‘to the mark’?
Answer 1
A boat entitled to mark-room is sailing ‘to the mark’ when she is sailing a course towards the mark, that will leave the mark on the required side, until she reaches a position where she becomes ‘at the mark’.
Question 2
When does a boat sailing ‘to the mark’ become ‘at the mark’?
Answer 2
A boat that is sailing ‘to the mark’ will be ‘at the mark’ when one or more of the following conditions apply:

• (a) She is no longer able to alter course, in a seamanlike way, towards the mark and pass it on the wrong side.
• (b) Any part of her hull overlaps the mark and she is closer than half of her hull length to the mark.
• (c) She reaches a position where she would usually alter course to round or pass the mark on the required side in order to start sailing the next leg of the course.

Published 3 February 2010        This call is valid until 1 January 2011

RRTRCALL 2010/AA
RAPID RESPONSE TEAM RACING CALL 2010/001
Rule 18.1(a) When Rule 18 Applies
Rule 18.2 Giving Mark-Room

Question:
A reaches the zone of a windward mark to be left to starboard clear ahead of X. Both boats are on starboard tack. A luffs slowly and nearly stops next to the mark. X luffs and passes head to wind, and then passes head to wind again back onto starboard tack. When X passes head to wind the second time, she is overlapped to windward of A. Is A now required to give X mark-room?
Answer:
No. X is required to give A mark-room. At position 1, A enters the zone clear ahead of X. Therefore rule 18 applies and X is required to give A mark-room under rule 18.2(b). When X passes head to wind onto port tack at position 2, rule 18 no longer applies because the boats are then on opposite tacks on a beat to windward; see rule 18.1(a). When X passes head to wind again at position 3, the boats are once again on the same tack, and rule 18 therefore applies.
Because A was clear ahead when she reached the zone at position 1, rule 18.2(b) requires the other boat thereafter to give her mark-room. This obligation remains in force provided that:

1. rule 18 applies, and
2. rule 18.2(b) is not turned off by any of the conditions in 18.2(c).

Thus, when the boats are again both on starboard tack and rule 18 reapplies, rule 18.2(b) still requires X to give mark-room to A.
Published February 4, 2010 This call is valid until 1 January 2011



Team racers of the team in boat A beware!
You’ll need to stay in that position – i.e. head to wind, until X has either tacked away or has passed astern and has established a leeward overlap BEFORE the mark room you are entitled to, includes room to tack!
If you pass head to wind before that has happened, one of the conditions in rule 18.2(c) is met and rule 18.2(b) is switched off. Making you the keep clear boat under RRS 13 WITHOUT mark-room!

Extreme 40 Racing in Muskat

I asked Ewan McEwan, the chief umpire for the Extreme 40-event in Muskat, to send me some remarks for LTW about how it is going. He wrote back:

Dear Jos,

Here is some text for you:
The closing speeds are horrendous!  Its very much like umpiring team racing; just when you think the race is settled all the boats concertina together at the marks and its all full-on again!  A couple of mark situations are unusual, we had one yesterday, Thursday; Yellow approaching a windward mark with starboard rounding on lay-line.  
Brown and Grey, overlapped, approaching on collision course on the port lay-line with Blue on the same course some four boat lengths astern.
Yellow crosses in front of Brown and Grey and tacks above them, completing on port tack in the zone.  Blue can easily avoid becoming overlapped inside except that then Yellow bears away to round the mark she creates the overlap on Blue who cannot avoid getting this overlap and is therefore entitled to mark-room under RRS 18.3 as modified by Addendum Q (similar to the change of RRS 18.3 using in match racing RRS Appendix C).
Of course this particular situation is unique to fleet racing, as opposed to match racing, as normally Yellow would tack in the face of Blue and in this case would have been well ahead as they bore-away.

http://www.extremesailingseriesasia.com/

Another fairly unique aspect of Extreme 40 umpiring is that often port tackers will slow down to wait for starboard tackers to pass and then 'pull-the-trigger' - accelerating very quickly from almost stopped to full speed.  We have found some interesting situations result if the waiting port tack boats  'pull-the-trigger' a little too early and cause the tacking (old starboard) boat problems as they complete ahead with RRS 15 - the multi-hulls take so long to tack, and the newly clear- astern boat is on top of them very quickly.
Today, Friday, the wind is very strong and the format of competition will likely be 'speed-sailing' in pairs.  I am sure this will create  another set of unusual aspects!

Hope this is of some interest?
Cheers, Ewan



According to this and the press-releases from the Event-series Website it is certainly going fast with these big Cats. Something we will no doubt also see with the (Even More) Extreme Americas Cup Yachts.
Extreme Sailing Series Asia Mediapage’

AC 33 Jury | 5

The decision of the AC 33 Jury in the first hearing is now also available:

Jury Decision AC 33/02

Although this hearing was the first on Tuesday, the publication and subsequent numbering makes this the second Jury decision in AC33.

It's about measurement and water ballast.
With a deep sigh I've read the paper. And again, and again....
I'm still not sure what to make of it. I do not have enough understanding of the boats and the influence of ballast on the LWL.

In short: The AC 33 Jury believes in the Measurer and leaves it up to him. Requests denied.

Both requests in this hearing strike me as not being requests for redress at all.
Like the ones I posted about yesterday, more like being "requests for interpretation".
But since we don't have such a 'horse' in the rules....

I have tried to get my hands on a copy of "The Rules of Procedure for the Jury" but no luck so far. That is a document that outlines how the Jury works, and is a governing document for the conduct of the Jury. Perhaps a special section on Pre-Race disputes should be incorporated (or is, for al I know) in that document.

AC 33 Jury | 4

The AC 33 Jury has given their decision on the request(s) for redress from USA 17. The eight page published document gives us some insight in their thinking.
For those of you who want to read it first: Jury Decision AC33/001
The first issue is the validity. How can a request for redress be considered before a race has been sailed? Before there’s any score – let alone made significantly worse.
I wrote about this in an earlier post on LTW: Redress about amended AC33-NoR and SI?
The AC 33 Jury found a solution. Quoting:

9. The Jury determines that the words ‘possibility that a boat’s score’ used in RRS 62.1 permit the Jury to consider a Request for Redress before the race.

A nice clean solution.
Or is it?
In my opinion it does change rule RRS 62.1!
Instead of a score that “…has been made…” significantly worse, this now also is a score that … could be made … significantly worse.
This means that when a Notice of Race is published and/or the Sailing Instructions, boats now can request redress before any races and the Protest Committee/International Jury will have to conduct a hearing. There’s no issue with any time limit, a request for redress can be delivered within the protest time or two hours after the incident, whichever is later.
As long as it is in writing, the PC/IJ will have to look at it.
In my experience most Jury’s do not convene until just before the event and most PC’s are only formed after racing. The OA, the RC and the Jury/PC will all have to think about a different approach accordingly.
The AC 33 Jury considered five requests. I’ve copy-pasted the title and the decision from the document and then commented. If you want to read all reasons go back to: Jury Decision AC33/001

REQUEST 01-1: INCORRECT RULES PRECEDENCE
19. The Request is upheld. The OA/RC are directed to issue an amendment deleting NoR 1.2 and SI 1.2, and replacing them with ‘The Deed of Gift shall prevail over any other conflicting rule’.

This was the expected result. By removing the NoR and SI from the list the Jury made sure that in case of conflict they at least have a chance to find a solution that provides the fairest result for all boats affected. As is already written in the RRS.

REQUEST 01-2: CHANGING THE RULES TO OUTLAW WIND DETECTION EQUIPMENT.

25. Consequently, the Jury has allowed the request to be withdrawn (RRS 63.1).

OA and USA reached an agreement. There was no longer a need for the RfR and USA requested withdrawal, which the AC 33 Jury allowed.

REQUEST 01-3: FAILURE TO MUTUALLY AGREE ON THE START TIME FOR RACES.
38. The Request is denied.

Someone has to pick a time, otherwise there would not be a race. If parties can’t agree, that is the OA/ RC. To bad that in this particular series the Defender is also the OA.

REQUEST 01-4: IMPOSING WIND AND WAVE LIMITS THAT DIRECTLY
FAVOUR SNG’S OWN YACHT.
52. Redress is granted. The OA is directed to issue an amendment deleting NoR 6.7.
53. The Jury recognizes that the RC has the obligation to comply with
appropriate safety and legal obligations when making a decision to start or continue a race.

This one is a little strange. I don’t understand why the AC 33 Jury used the word “granted” instead of upheld. As in 01-1, the OA is directed to change the NoR and there’s not any score awarded to any boat…

REQUEST 01-5: IMPOSING RULES REGARDING SKIN FRICTION
REDUCTION.
61. For the purpose of SI 24, ‘trash’ does not include substances released into the water from a boat that are not in breach of any laws or regulations.
62. SI 24 has not reinstated RRS 53 and therefore there is no improper action by the OA and the Request is therefore denied.

This issue would normally be handled by one of the parties asking a written question to the Jury and they then would answer with the decision as printed above. I.e. sentence 61. Not really a request for redress at all, in my opinion. But that can also be said about 01-2
This makes two request denied, two upheld and one withdrawn.
I’m sure the spin-doctors of the parties will count differently.
J.

Update for UK-Halsey Rules Quizzes program with a Racing Rules of Sailing -Test

From the UK-Halsey Newsletter:

Dear UK-Halsey Racing Rules Program Owner, In an effort to find better and better ways to teach the racing rules of sailing, the rules experts at UK-Halsey have come up with something new. We have developed a multiple choice test designed to help you apply the rules to common race-course scenarios. Instead of trying to "catch” you with tricky questions, we want you to learn the rules of common situations so that you will immediately know your rights and obligations when you get into similar situations on the race course. This test is a free addition to the Rules Program that you purchased. We purposely made the program a download instead of a physical CD so that we could provide no-cost upgrades this during the four-year rule cycle. This is a huge improvement to the program and we hope that you enjoy it. You'll find the test and the answers in the Lifted Tack section of the program. To get the test, just update your UK-Halsey Rules Quiz program. To do so, open the program while your computer is online. In the bottom right of the program's home page you will see in white letters, "Update Available”. Click there to start the process. You will not have to be online to take the test. You can take the test as many times as you want. To find out how your score ranks against the average score, e-mail your score to rules@ukhalsey.com. If you include your answers to all the questions, we will send you our International Code Flag decal, which helps decode race course signals. The easiest way to send your answers is to make a screen capture of your answer sheet. Please feel free show the program with its animated quizzes, the rules test, and the program's videos to your friends. The more people who learn the rules, the more fun racing will be for everyone. Finally, it is our plan to keep adding tests to the program. They will be shorter, themed tests that have to do with situations at sections of the race course, e.g., starting line rules, rules at the windward mark, etc. Stay tuned and keep watching for the "Update Available” prompt on the home page of the rules program.

 

I’ve done the test and came away with a score of 97%. Not perfect! I answered question 16 incorrectly. You’ll will have to take the test to see why.

A good tool to test your knowledge and understanding of the rules. With the correct answers, a comprehensive and clear explanation is provided. So you learn from your mistakes.

For those of you who are serious in learning the RRS, the UK-Halsey Rules Quiz program is very good tool. Like the newsletter says, no trickery or impossible scenarios. Basic situations you’ll come across in almost every race.

And wouldn’t it be great to be sure of what your rights and obligations are, in those situations?

J.

AC 33 Jury | 3.1

Jury Decision AC33/001

I haven't had time to study the document but will try to come up with some comments tomorrow.

AC 33 Jury | 3

From Scuttlebut Europe:
America's Cup Jury Denies BMW Oracle Request For Redress
The ISAF appointed international jury denied BMW Oracle's request for redress regarding measurement of the competing yachts
The ISAF International Jury for the America's Cup issued an interim decision late Tuesday night rejecting the challenger, BMW Oracle's latest complaint regarding the position and volume of the water ballast onboard the racing yachts during measurement.
"We are pleased that the jury upheld the New York Supreme Court and expert panel decision of November 2009. This is a positive step towards the America's Cup - we are glad that measurement can go ahead as scheduled and that the challenger's request for redress has been denied. With just a few days to go before the first race of the 33rd America's Cup, the team is fully focused on race training and preparations," said Grant Simmer, Alinghi design team coordinator.
* Summary Of Decision:
The Jury is satisfied that the Measurer has made a reasonable interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated November 19th 2009 in the published Measurement Procedures, and in the proposed implementation of those procedures as presented in the hearing. The procedures will include the Measurer being satisfied that the position and volume of water ballast on board when the boat is presented for measurement is consistent with that used for the purpose of enhancing racing performance.
The Jury interprets the term 'as much water ballast as might be used at any time during the race' to mean the maximum amount used for enhancing racing performance, at any time during any race.
Paragraph 20 of the Expert Panel's Opinion, adopted by the Supreme Court of the State of New York in its decision, applies only to multihulls and it is reasonable to conclude that this does not mean 'equally fore-and-aft' as that would also apply to monohulls.
The Jury therefore accepts as reasonable the interpretation used by the Measurer that 'distributed equally in the available ballast storage areas' is for the purpose of presenting the boat in an upright position, laterally, for measurement.
The Requests are therefore denied.
A full written decision will follow.

The International Jury is ready to hear Alinghi and BMW Oracle on the measurement issue.

Valencia, 2 February 2010. Photo copyright Pierre Orphanidis / Valencia Sailing

Other decisions reached by the AC 33 Jury:

• The (first) start time for races will be 10:06.
• Race Office Harold Bennett has been given the discretion to use his experience and judgement on what constitutes fair and safe conditions for racing.
  (this covers issues in wind speed as well as conditions (water, waves etc)
  
• GGYC’s yacht USA has also been cleared to use onboard wind-detection equipment.
• GGYC’s yacht USA has been cleared to use “fast and green” friction-reduction technologies.

.
See also: Statement GGYC 3 feb 2010

This leaves the issue about the order in the race documents and RRS....

AC 33 Jury | 2

Two statements regarding a decision of the AC 33 Jury appeared on the GGYC- and Alinghi website. They are about the use of water-ballast on board Alinghi.

"Competitors will be able to use water ballast in the coming 33rd America’s Cup commencing in Valencia on Monday, provided that the amount used to benefit performance is also in position when the boat is measured. "

This is to ensure that the maximum LWL (load water length) of 90 feet is not circumvented
Read more:
Statement by GGYC
Statement by Alinghi

As usual both parties have totally different approaches to the decision.
Hopefully the AC 33 Jury will publish the facts found, conclusion and decision soon, so we can have a look at their thinking. From the decision it is at least clear that all water-ballast that is to be used to enhanced performance, must be on board during measurement. It will be up to the measurer to make sure that it cannot be increased - and subsequently decreased - during racing.

Bring the wax and seal all pumps?

AC 33 Jury | 1

I had a hard time finding out which issues have to be decided by the AC33 Jury before the boats can go sailing next Monday. On the site from Yachting World, a series of posts is starting counting down the last seven days. According to today's post the following questions are before the Jury:

1. Skin friction issue - re-inserted Racing Rule 53 ('Skin Friction'). Alinghi/SNG obtained a New York Supreme Court ruling to delete it, BMW Oracle want this deletion to stay, especially now they have a super slippery surface on the underside of their tri.

2. Start time - Currently shown in Notice of Race at 10am. BMW Oracle/GGYC argue that Deed of Gift says the start time has to be by mutual consent. Alinghi claim that the start has be then in order to provide enough daylight time to run to the time limit of 7 hours.

3. Wind and wave limits - BMW Oracle/GGYC are unhappy that Alinghi/SNG has set wind limits to favour its own boat when no such wind limits exist in the Deed of Gift. Contrary to popular opinion, there were no fixed wind or wave limits in the last event. The decision to race came down to the race officer's discretion. New Zealand 2002/3 was the last time fixed wind limits were used and demonstrated that such limits were easier in theory than in practice.
There is nothing in the Deed of Gift about having stable winds, winds of more than a certain strength, or less than a certain strength.

4. Wind detection units - BMW Oracle/GGYC are unhappy that the Notice of Race now bans the use of certain wind detection units. The American team has a sophisticated laser wind spotter that the manufacturers claim can see gusts and shifts up to 1km ahead of the boat. Such equipment was permitted under earlier drafts of the NOR.

5. Notice of Race to overrule the Racing Rules of Sailing - Normally ISAF racing rules dictate proceedings, in America's Cup racing it's the Deed of Gift which states that the race will be conducted under the Defending yacht club's rules. The order in which various rules are and notices are applied has been re-arranged for this event. BMW Oracle/GGYC want to see the structure returned to normal with ISAF rules towards the top of the tree, just under the Deed of Gift.

On the Official 33rd America's Cup Website a page about the AC33 Jury has been published. Besides the names and short biography, no other official documents as of yet.

The Jury will be meeting today, hopefully some info will appear on the site as well.

UPDATE 01/02/10 - 23:26 h
A statement has been posted on the GGYC-website: STATEMENT 1 FEBRUARY 2010.pdf
Nothing on the Alinghi-Website nor the AC33-Jury page

(pillow)Case of the Week (5) -111

CASE 111

Rule 30.2, Starting Penalties: Z Flag Rule
Rule 30.3, Starting Penalties: Black Flag Rule

If a boat is penalized under rule 30.2 or rule 30.3 after a starting sequence that results in a general recall, it is a proper action of the race committee to penalize her even if the race had been postponed before that starting sequence or if, during a later starting sequence, a postponement was signaled before the starting signal.

Assumed Facts for Question 1
The fourth race of a series was scheduled to start at 10:00 a.m., but it was postponed for thirty minutes while the race committee waited for the wind to fill in. At the preparatory signal, the race committee displayed flag Z. Boat A was identified in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. After the starting signal the race committee signaled a general recall. The race committee then began a second starting sequence for that race and again displayed flag Z as the preparatory flag. After removing the preparatory flag, but before the starting signal, the race committee signaled a postponement. Later, the race committee began a third sequence of signals and was successful in starting the fourth race, and the race was completed.
Boat A was given a 20% Scoring Penalty, and she requested redress on the grounds that the race had been postponed – indeed, postponed twice – before its starting signal and, therefore, under rule 30.2’s third sentence, she should not have received the penalty.

Question 1
When the race committee imposed a 20% Scoring Penalty on Boat A, did
it act properly under rule 30.2?

Answer 1
Yes. The race committee acted properly under rule 30.2. The first three sentences of rule 30.2 refer to a single starting sequence. The starting sequence in which A was identified in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal was not postponed or abandoned before its starting signal.
Therefore, the race committee acted appropriately under rule 30.2 when it imposed a 20% Scoring Penalty on A. That action was not an improper action, and A was not entitled to redress. During the second starting sequence, if a boat had been identified in the triangle between the time that the preparatory flag was removed and the time that the postponement signal was made, then it would have been an improper action under rule 30.2 to give that boat a 20% Scoring Penalty.

Assumed Facts for Question 2
The assumed facts are the same as those in Question 1 except that the black flag was used as the preparatory flag for the first and second attempted starts, and A was disqualified without a hearing.

Question 2
When the race committee disqualified A without a hearing, did it act properly under rule 30.3?

Answer 2
Yes. The reasoning in Answer 1 also applies here. The race committee acted properly when it disqualified A without a hearing, and A was not entitled to redress. During the second starting sequence, if a boat had been identified in the triangle between the time that the preparatory flag was removed and the time that the postponement signal was made, then it would have been an improper action under rule 30.3 to disqualify that boat without a hearing.

(ISAF 2009)

Once boats have ‘started’ the penalties earned in the start-sequence are applicable and should be scored. If the postponement/or abandonment is done before the starting- signal, penalties are canceled.